
'Nowhere to turn': Small businesses dependent on imports from China are feeling more desperate
Major orders canceled. Containers of products left stranded overseas. No roadmap for what comes next.
The Trump administration raised tariffs on goods from China to 145% in early April. Since then, small business owners who depend on imports from China to survive have become increasingly desperate as they eye dwindling inventory and skyrocketing invoices.
President Donald Trump seemed to back down somewhat last week when he said he expected the tariffs to come down 'substantially.' That helped set off a rally in the stock market. But for small businesses that operate on razor-thin margins, the back and forth is causing massive upheaval. Some say they could be just months from going out of business altogether.
The Massachusetts family-owned game company
Game makers are particularly susceptible to the tariffs since the majority of games and toys sold in the U.S. are made in China, according to The Toy Association.
WS Game Co., based in Manchester-by-the-Sea, Massachusetts, is a family-owned business that licenses Hasbro board games like Monopoly, Candy Land and Scrabble and creates deluxe versions of them. Its most popular line of games come in boxes that look like vintage books and sell for $40.
The company's games were featured in Oprah's Favorite Things list in 2024 and sold in 14,000 stores in North America, from big national chains to mom-and-pop stores, said owner Jonathan Silva, whose father founded the company in 2000.
All of WS Game's production is done in China. The tariffs have brought the past 25 years of healthy growth to a screeching halt.
Over the past three weeks, WS Game has had three containers of finished games, worth $500,000, stranded in China. It lost orders from three of the largest U.S. retailers totaling $16 million in business. And there's not much Silva can do about it.
'As a small business, we don't have the runway or the capabilities to move manufacturing on a whim,' said Silva, who has 22 employees. He said the tariffs have 'disrupted our business and put us on the verge of insolvency' and estimates he has about a four-month runway to stay afloat if nothing changes.
'We're really hoping that cooler heads prevail,' he said.
Artificial flowers in Kentucky
Jeremy Rice co-owns House, a home-décor shop in Lexington, Kentucky, that specializes in artificial flower arrangements for the home. About 90% of the flowers his business uses are made in China.
Rice uses dozens of vendors. The largest are absorbing some of the cost of the tariffs and passing on the rest. One vendor is raising prices by 20% and another 25%. But Rice is expecting smaller vendors to increase prices by much higher percentages.
House offers mid-range artificial flowers. A large hydrangea head will retail for $10 to $16, for example. China is the only place that manufacturers higher quality silk flowers. It would take a vendor years to open a factory in a different country or move production somewhere else, Rice said.
Rice ordered his holiday décor early this year. But even after stocking up ahead of the tariffs, he only has enough everyday floral inventory in to last two to three months.
'After that, I don't know what we're going to do,' he said.
Rice is concerned that the trade war will wipe out a bunch of mom-and-pop stores, similar to what happened in the Great Recession and the pandemic.
'There's nowhere to turn, there's nothing to do,' he said.
Tea in Michigan
A tea shop in a Michigan college town is also caught in the middle of the ongoing tariff fight.
'It's basically just put a big pit in my stomach,' said Lisa McDonald, owner of TeaHaus, located in Ann Arbor, home to the University of Michigan. McDonald has owned TeaHaus for nearly 18 years and sells tea to customers across the U.S.
Americans drank about 86 billion servings of tea in 2024, according to the Tea Association of the U.S.A.. Almost all of that is imported since tea isn't grown in the U.S. at scale, due to factors ranging from climate to cost.
McDonald imports loose-leaf tea from China, India, Kenya, Sri Lanka and other countries. She says her customer base is 'from all over the U.S. and the world." But she worries there is a limit to what they'll spend. Her premium teas can cost up to $33 for a 50-gram bag.
'I don't think I can charge $75 for a 50-gram bag of tea, no matter how amazing that tea is,' she said.
McDonald understands Trump's rationale for wanting to use tariffs to spur U.S. manufacturing but says it doesn't apply to the tea industry.
'We can't grow tea in the U.S. to the extent that we need. We can't just flip the industry and 'make tea great again' in America. It just can't happen,' she said.
Car accessories in Oklahoma
Jim Umlauf's business, 4Knines, based in Oklahoma City, makes vehicle seat covers and cargo liners for dog owners and others. To do so, he needs raw materials such as fabric, coatings and components from China.
Umlauf has explored manufacturing in countries other than China since 2018, when Trump first instituted a 25% tariff on goods from China, but has run into complications. In the meantime, 4Knines absorbs the extra cost, which Umlauf says has limited its growth and squeezed its margins.
Now, the new tariffs make it nearly impossible to do business. The demand is there, but the company can't afford to bring over more products.
'We only have a limited amount of inventory left, and without some relief, we'll run out soon,' Umlauf said.
As a small business owner who has worked hard to develop a high-quality brand, create jobs and contribute to the community, Umlauf is frustrated. He has tried to contact the White House and other decision-makers to ask for small business support. But he's gotten zero response.
'It's time for policymakers to consider the full impact of trade policies not just on stock prices or global competitiveness, but on the real people running small businesses,' he said.
___
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Herald Scotland
17 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Trump says ex-pal Elon Musk can keep his golden White House key
Trump and Musk had a public falling out this week after the billionaire, who worked part-time for the federal government until last month, waged a war on the president's tax bill over it's projected $2.5 trillion price tag. The fight spiraled as the pair traded attacks, and the two men stopped speaking. Trump told reporters on June 6 that he was not interested in reconciling with Musk. Elon Musk hits back after Trump threatens contracts. SpaceX's government ties, explained In social media posts on June 5, the president said he asked Musk to leave his post spearheading the DOGE initiative and threatened to cancel billions of dollars of the SpaceX founder's federal contracts. Trump said the following day that he was serious about ending the government contracts --and would do so if he thought it was in the financial interest of the country. "We'll take look at everything. I look at everything. He's got a lot of money. He gets a lot of subsidy," Trump told reporters on June 6. "Only if it's to be fair for him and for the country, I would certainly think about it." Musk responded by saying he would decommission SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft immediately. He said in another post that without his help, Republicans would have lost the House and Senate and Trump would not currently be the president. A Washington Post analysis found that Musk's companies have received at least $38 billion in government contracts, loans, subsidies and tax credits over the years. SpaceX has about $22 billion in government contracts alone, Reuters reported. Trump says he's 'not thinking' about ex-pal Musk While the country might be twittering about his breakup with Musk, the president said on June 6 that his focus was squarely on a cache of complex international issues. "Honestly, I've been so busy working on China, working on Russia, working on Iran ... I'm not thinking about Elon Musk," Trump told reporters riding with him on Air Force One to his New Jersey golf club. He also claimed he had not thought about whether or not he would keep his new Tesla. SpaceX works closely with the Department of Defense and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. But the president told reporters the federal government can survive without its partnerships with Musk's companies. "The U.S. can survive without almost anybody," Trump said. "Except me." Contributing: Joey Garrison of USA TODAY.


The Herald Scotland
17 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
The post-fight fallout from Trump-Musk tiff could get even uglier
Neither man can convincingly declare himself a winner in the dissolution of a partnership so mutually beneficial that it helped propel one to the White House and the other to even more ungodly amounts of wealth in the form of government contracts and regulatory relief. The fight began over Musk's public criticism of Trump's "Big Beautiful" budget bill and the projected $2.5 trillion increase it would cause to the federal deficit. But it devolved into a mudslinging spectacle that included Musk publicly accusing Trump of blocking the release of the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking files held by the Justice Department because he's implicated in them. But who will lose most when the proverbial dust from the dustup finally settles? "I don't think anybody knows," said veteran Republican political strategist Doug Heye. "Clearly, what we've seen just in the past few months is that if Trump views you as an enemy, he's going to try and use levers of government against you," said Heye, a senior official since 1990 who served in the George W. Bush White House, the House and Senate and on the Republican National Committee. "And it may be that some of his supporters, or a lot of his supporters, want that. We'll have to see." What does Musk stand to lose? The White House said June 6 that Trump was considering selling the Tesla Model S he purportedly purchased from the CEO of the electric car company when its stock was tanking as a result of Americans opposed to Musk's tactics as head of the cost-cutting Department of Government Efficiency. More: 'Elon is going to get decimated:' How Trump's feud with the world's richest man might end Within hours of the Trump-Musk fight going public on June 5, Tesla shares dropped 15%, wiping over $100 billion from the company's $1 trillion market value. More broadly, Musk's various companies have benefited from at least $38 billion in government contracts, loans, subsidies and tax credits over the past two decades, often at critical moments. Most have come from contracts between his SpaceX satellite firm and the Department of Defense and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). And while Musk's myriad businesses are deeply intertwined with the U.S. government in the form of multi-year contracts, his feud with Trump jeopardizes those, too. Also at risk: Musk's burgeoning projects like self-driving cars and trucks, protections from tariffs and other proposed alliances with the government. Musk has also used his Trump connections to sell his Starlink satellite communications services to various U.S. agencies and foreign governments, as well as his The Boring Company tunneling firm, his xAI artificial intelligence firm and other products. More: President Trump threatens Elon Musk's billions in government contracts as alliance craters Without Trump's support, those current and proposed government contracts could dwindle or disappear, though the latter likely would result in protracted litigation. Trump could also, conceivably, sign an executive order to seize SpaceX under the Defense Production Act and even deport Musk for immigration violations, two nuclear options proposed Thursday by former Trump advisor Steve Bannon. What does Trump stand to lose? While Trump controls the levers of government, Musk has at least one ace in the hole - his control over X, which he claims not only handed Trump his November election victory but also Republican control of the House and possibly Senate. Musk is already using X - and his 220.8 million followers on it - to try to turn public opinion against Trump after trashing Trump's deficit-hiking budget bill. Musk said this week he would pull SpaceX's support of its Dragon spaceship that ferries astronauts and supplies to the International Space Station. He's predicted that Trump's tariffs would cause a recession this year. The tech billionaire has also conducted one of his rhetorically slanted polls on X to see how many people want a third political party "that actually represents the 80% in the middle" between the Republican and Democratic parties. Its results, pinned to the top of Musk's X profile, were predictably in favor of it, 80.4% to 19.6%. Those kinds of broadsides could be a particularly powerful cudgel against Trump just five months into his second term. Musk could also wield a political tactic he's used to help Trump in the past, but this time, financing opponents of his political candidates in the upcoming mid-term elections. A win-win for both Trump and Musk? Heye said that despite all the incendiary rhetoric, there's still room for reconciliation or even a public recoupling. Heye, the veteran GOP official, cited the case of Reince Priebus, Trump's former White House Chief of Staff, who found out Trump fired him on a rainy airport Tarmac in 2017 after traveling with the President on Air Force One. Priebus was forced to find his own way home, Heye said, but soon found himself back in Trump's good graces. "A relationship with Donald Trump going south is not something new in this political world," Heye said. "But Donald Trump always allows people to come back if they say the right things." Already, Musk has appeared to back down from his threat of taking his Dragon spacecraft out of operation, after an X poster told him, "This is a shame this back and forth. You are both better than this. Cool off and take a step back for a couple days." In response, Musk replied late Thursday, "Good advice. Ok, we won't decommission Dragon."


NBC News
a day ago
- NBC News
U.S. judge approves $2.8 billion settlement, paving way for colleges to pay athletes millions
A federal judge signed off on arguably the biggest change in the history of college sports Friday, clearing the way for schools to begin paying their athletes millions of dollars as soon as next month as the multibillion-dollar industry shreds the last vestiges of the amateur model that defined it for more than a century. Nearly five years after Arizona State swimmer Grant House sued the NCAA and its five biggest conferences to lift restrictions on revenue sharing, U.S. Judge Claudia Wilken approved the final proposal that had been hung up on roster limits, just one of many changes ahead amid concerns that thousands of walk-on athletes will lose their chance to play college sports. The sweeping terms of the so-called House settlement include approval for each school to share up to $20.5 million with athletes over the next year and $2.7 billion that will be paid over the next decade to thousands of former players who were barred from that revenue for years. The agreement brings a seismic shift to hundreds of schools that were forced to reckon with the reality that their players are the ones producing the billions in TV and other revenue, mostly through football and basketball, that keep this machine humming. The scope of the changes — some have already begun — is difficult to overstate. The professionalization of college athletics will be seen in the high-stakes and expensive recruitment of stars on their way to the NFL and NBA, and they will be felt by athletes whose schools have decided to pare their programs. The agreement will resonate in nearly every one of the NCAA's 1,100 member schools boasting nearly 500,000 athletes. The road to a settlement Wilken's ruling comes 11 years after she dealt the first significant blow to the NCAA ideal of amateurism when she ruled in favor of former UCLA basketball player Ed O'Bannon and others who were seeking a way to earn money from the use of their name, image and likeness (NIL) — a term that is now as common in college sports as 'March Madness' or 'Roll Tide.' It was just four years ago that the NCAA cleared the way for NIL money to start flowing, but the changes coming are even bigger. Wilken granted preliminary approval to the settlement last October. That sent colleges scurrying to determine not only how they were going to afford the payments, but how to regulate an industry that also allows players to cut deals with third parties so long as they are deemed compliant by a newly formed enforcement group that will be run by auditors at Deloitte. The agreement takes a big chunk of oversight away from the NCAA and puts it in the hands of the four biggest conferences. The ACC, Big Ten, Big 12 and SEC hold most of the power and decision-making heft, especially when it comes to the College Football Playoff, which is the most significant financial driver in the industry and is not under the NCAA umbrella like the March Madness tournaments are. Roster limits held things up The deal looked ready to go since last fall, but Wilken put a halt to it after listening to a number of players who had lost their spots because of newly imposed roster limits being placed on teams. The limits were part of a trade-off that allowed the schools to offer scholarships to everyone on the roster, instead of only a fraction, as has been the case for decades. Schools started cutting walk-ons in anticipation of the deal being approved. Wilken asked for a solution and, after weeks, the parties decided to let anyone cut from a roster — now termed a 'Designated Student-Athlete' — return to their old school or play for a new one without counting against the new limit. Wilken ultimately agreed, going point-by-point through the objectors' arguments to explain why they didn't hold up. 'The modifications provide Designated Student-Athletes with what they had prior to the roster limits provisions being implemented, which was the opportunity to be on a roster at the discretion of a Division I school,' Wilken wrote Winners and losers The list of winners and losers is long and, in some cases, hard to tease out. A rough guide of winners would include football and basketball stars at the biggest schools, which will devote much of their bankroll to signing and retaining them. For instance, Michigan quarterback Bryce Underwood's NIL deal is reportedly worth between $10.5 million and $12 million. Losers, despite Wilken's ruling, figure to be at least some of the walk-ons and partial scholarship athletes whose spots are gone. Also in limbo are Olympic sports many of those athletes play and that serve as the main pipeline for a U.S. team that has won the most medals at every Olympics since the downfall of the Soviet Union. All this is a price worth paying, according to the attorneys who crafted the settlement and argue they delivered exactly what they were asked for: an attempt to put more money in the pockets of the players whose sweat and toil keep people watching from the start of football season through March Madness and the College World Series in June. What the settlement does not solve is the threat of further litigation. Though this deal brings some uniformity to the rules, states still have separate laws regarding how NIL can be doled out, which could lead to legal challenges. NCAA President Charlie Baker has been consistent in pushing for federal legislation that would put college sports under one rulebook and, if he has his way, provide some form of antitrust protection to prevent the new model from being disrupted again.