MS auto group braces for tariffs on imported vehicles, parts
MEMPHIS, Tenn. — A Southaven auto group is preparing for tariffs on imported vehicles and automotive parts that could go into effect on April 3.
The Trump administration announced tariffs affecting imported vehicles and automotive parts could go into effect at the beginning of April.
A tariff is a tax imposed by a government on imported goods and services.
Trump places 25% tariff on imported autos, expecting to raise $100 billion in tax revenues
In response to the possible tax, an auto group is taking immediate action to protect its customers from unexpected costs.
'Well, my first reaction was dismay and my follow-up reaction was uncertainty,' said Kent Ritchey, owner of Landers Auto Group.
Ritchey has been in the auto business for more than 50 years, and when he heard about the tariffs for foreign cars and parts, it reminded him of COVID-19.
MATA deputy CEO fired after investigation into spending
'It was a mad scramble. It's kinda like the days that COVID hit. You don't know what's going to happen and you don't know how you are going to face it,' said Ritchey.
He said that he is staying focused on being proactive rather than reactive by ordering extra car parts over the last 30 days.
The company said in a press release they are also in line to get additional vehicles without any added cost with a promise to offer pre-tariff pricing on anything already in stock or on order.
'Calm employees down, calm customers down that's a normal reaction in any industry right now,' said Ritchey. 'We are positively optimistic.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
9 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Bankrupt retail chain closing over 200 more stores
The drugstore retail sector has struggled since the Covid-19 pandemic, with fierce competition among brick-and-mortar retailers who compete against each other, as well as online pharmaceutical providers for the prescription dollar. Major pharmacy chains, including CVS, Walgreens, and Rite Aid, compete directly with larger big-box pharmaceutical providers, such as Walmart, Target, and Costco, as well as major online players like Amazon and Mark Cuban CostPlus Drug Company, which offers discount prescriptions. Don't miss the move: Subscribe to TheStreet's free daily newsletter The drugstore chains have also faced economic issues that all retailers have encountered, including rising costs of labor and products, driven by inflation and increased interest rates on debt obligations. CVS, Walgreens, and Rite Aid have closed hundreds of store locations over the last four years to eliminate those that do not make economic sense. Related: Bankrupt retail chain closing dozens more store locations Huge drugstore chain CVS in 2021 revealed it would close 900 of its nearly 9,900 stores to reduce costs and cut losses, closing 300 locations each year in 2022, 2023, and 2024. Walgreens, which operates about 8,600 stores with 6,000 profitable locations, evaluated 2,000 stores for potential closure and identified 1,200 locations to shutter, with 500 set to close in fiscal year 2025. The company took community needs into consideration, such as maintaining access to pharmacy services, local market dynamics, population shifts, a community's store density, and ensuring there are other geographic access points to meet the needs of the community. Walgreens, which in March agreed to be sold to private equity firm Sycamore Partners, said it will close locations with negative cash flows, underperforming stores where it owns locations, and ones with lease expirations coming due in the next few years to reduce the impact of dark rent. The drugstore chain might close even more stores, possibly one-quarter of its locations, a recent report said Rite Aid filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy for the first time on Oct. 15, 2023, and closed about 800 of its 2,100 stores at the time. The drugstore chain filed for Chapter 11 protection a second time on May 5, 2025, as New Rite Aid LLC, and has begun a process of closing hundreds of stores. Rite Aid has filed fifth and sixth notices of additional store closing locations with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey, seeking approval to close 232 additional stores and liquidate their assets, adding to previously designated locations for closing, for a total of 704 stores. Related: Bankrupt drugstore chain closing over 150 stores; here's where The debtor's sixth additional closing notice, filed on June 6, includes 207 store closures in California (70), Pennsylvania (36), New York (21), Washington (17), Delaware (14), New Jersey (14), New Hampshire (12), Oregon (8), Virginia (8), Maryland (3), Massachusetts (2), Connecticut (1), and Idaho (1). The bankrupt drugstore chain filed a fifth additional closing notice one day earlier on June 5, which included 25 stores in California (13), Washington (7), Oregon (4), and Ohio (1). More bankruptcy: Iconic auto repair chain franchise files Chapter 11 bankruptcyPopular beer brand closes down and files Chapter 7 bankruptcyPopular vodka and gin brand files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy Rite Aid already filed notices of store closing locations with the original notice and an additional closing notice on May 9, a second additional closing notice on May 15, a third additional closing notice on May 23, and a fourth additional notice on May 30. The first five groups of store closings listed locations in 13 states, including Pennsylvania (178), California (98), New York (76), Washington (24), Oregon (20), New Jersey (17), Virginia (16), , New Hampshire (14), Maryland (10), Delaware (7), Connecticut (5), Idaho (4), and Massachusetts (1). Rite Aid is expected to file several additional store closing notices before its bankruptcy case closes, as it plans to close all of its stores, estimated at about 1,240. Judge Michael B. Kaplan signed an interim order on May 9 approving initial and additional location closings. Objections to the interim location closing order and any of the proposed store closings must be filed with the court and received by the debtor and their counsel no later than June 16, according to court papers. Related: Bankrupt retail chain closing hundreds of store locations The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.
Miami Herald
10 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Trump Aides Urge Court to Spare Tariffs as They Dismiss Worries in Public
EDITORS NOTE: EDS: SUBS graf "A group of small businesses ..." to clarify the U.S. Court of International Trade; ONLY change.); (ART ADV: With photo.); (With: U.S.-CHINA-TRADE, CHINA-MINERAL-DEPENDENCE, TRADE-DEALS WASHINGTON -- Shortly after a federal trade court declared many of President Donald Trump's tariffs to be illegal, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick took to television to brush aside the setback. "It cost us a week, maybe," Lutnick said this month on Fox News, noting that other countries remained eager to strike new deals despite tariffs being in legal jeopardy. "Everybody came right back to the table," he added. With the fate of the president's tariffs hanging in the balance, the Trump administration has tried to project dueling narratives on trade. Top aides have insisted publicly that their negotiations remain unharmed, even as some of those same officials have pleaded with the court to spare Trump from reputational damage on the global stage. Their strategy faced two crucial tests Monday. Lutnick and other top advisers huddled with their Chinese counterparts in London in the hopes of hammering out a new trade truce. Hours later, lawyers for the Trump administration urged a federal appeals court to allow the president's tariffs to remain in place as a fight over their legality continues. In an 18-page filing, the government warned that any disruption could severely undermine Trump's trade policy by threatening to deal a significant blow to "sensitive trade negotiations" in a way that could "catastrophically harm our economy." In doing so, federal officials signaled that, if necessary, they would take the matter to the Supreme Court -- a suggestion that they had made before. As it evaluates the case, the appeals court could weigh "any sort of public statements the administration makes" on tariffs, said Ted Murphy, a co-leader of the trade practice at the law firm Sidley Austin. While Murphy said it remained to be seen how judges would view the government's recent bullishness, he added that a decision that invalidated the president's tariffs could "weaken the U.S. position" abroad. Trump's top aides have long maintained that they possess a range of authorities they can use to issue tariffs and reorient global trade. But they have also tried to impress on federal judges that any limitation to those powers could severely undercut the president. "Allies and adversaries alike monitor U.S. courts for signs of constraints on presidential power," Lutnick warned in a sworn filing with a lower court in late May. Jamieson Greer, the U.S. trade representative, put it more bluntly. A decision that halted tariffs, he said in the same filing, "would create a foreign policy disaster scenario." One week later, Greer projected a more confident tone on CNBC. "All the other countries I'm dealing with in negotiations are treating this as just kind of a bump in the road rather than any fundamental change," he said. Spokespeople for the White House, the Commerce Department and the U.S. trade representative did not respond to requests for comment. The legal wrangling carries great stakes for Trump, who has waged his global trade war in an effort to increase domestic manufacturing, raise trillions of dollars in new revenue and force other countries to strike beneficial trade agreements with the United States. To issue those duties swiftly, and without limit, the president has relied extensively on a 1970s law known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which is primarily used to institute embargoes and sanctions. Trump said a number of crises -- such as the nation's trade deficit and the flow of fentanyl into the United States -- justified his novel application of the statute, which does not mention the word tariff explicitly. A group of small businesses and a coalition of states each sued over the tariffs in April at the U.S. Court of International Trade, which rejected the Trump administration's interpretation of the law one month later. The panel of judges found that Trump did not have "unbounded authority" to issue such expansive tariffs under the emergency law, and it ordered Trump to unwind the duties. The government quickly appealed. The next day, an appeals court issued a temporary stay that left the tariffs intact while the court begins to consider the government's request for a longer-term pause, as well as the fuller merits of the case. The legal challenge still threatened to upend Trump's efforts to strike what his aides once promised would be 90 deals in 90 days. For now, the president plans to reinstate his expansive "reciprocal" tariffs targeting every major U.S. trading partner in July. The United States has managed to ink only one deal, with Britain, while other agreements remain elusive. On Monday, Lutnick and Greer were part of a negotiating team holding fresh talks with their Chinese counterparts after diplomatic and trade tensions between the countries worsened in recent weeks as a temporary truce they brokered last month appeared to be falling part. In multiple courtrooms, the administration has repeatedly emphasized the precarious nature of its many trade talks, as the government tries to persuade judges to keep the tariffs in place. But federal officials continue to do so while simultaneously trying to project an air of strength. Last month, Kevin Hassett, the director of the White House National Economic Council, described the court battle as one of a few "little hiccups here or there." Peter Navarro, a senior adviser to the president on trade, said that same day he had continued to field phone calls from foreign leaders who acknowledged "that court decision is not going to stop you." And Lutnick joined other aides in insisting that Trump could deftly navigate any legal setbacks, tapping "another or another or another" presidential authority to issue tariffs. But the administration has said those powers are more limited, and time consuming, than the emergency economic law Trump had wielded originally. Still, Dan Rayfield, the attorney general of Oregon, which is leading the group of states suing over tariffs, said the views of administration officials had contradicted their argument that they "need this stay because it's going to cause us irreparable harm." Lawyers for the government sharply contested that claim on Monday, arguing that the states had wrongly presented "selective quotes from public officials' media appearances." "The irreparable harm from this sweeping injunction does not disappear just because the president has other tariff authorities that might support pieces of the challenged tariffs," the Trump administration told the court. The states' lawsuit has been consolidated with a related case filed by a set of small businesses. Jeffrey Schwab, the interim director of litigation at the Liberty Justice Center, which is representing those plaintiffs, said some of the government's public statements threatened to undercut legal arguments. "One of the things they've got to show to get a stay is that there is some harm to them," he said. "If they're publicly saying we don't need this specific power because we have other alternatives, then that indicates they're not really harmed." This article originally appeared in The New York Times. Copyright 2025
Miami Herald
10 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
The White House wants 90 trade deals in 90 days. So far, it may have 1.
President Donald Trump has announced wave after wave of tariffs since taking office in January, part of a sweeping effort that he has argued would secure better trade terms with other countries. 'It's called negotiation,' he recently said. In April, administration officials vowed to sign trade deals with as many as 90 countries in 90 days. The ambitious target came after Trump announced, and then rolled back a portion of, steep tariffs that in some cases meant import taxes cost more than the wholesale price of a good itself. The 90-day goal, however, is one-tenth of the time it usually takes to reach a trade deal, according to a New York Times analysis of major agreements with the United States currently in effect, raising questions about how realistic the administration's target may be. It typically takes 917 days, or roughly 2 1/2 years, for a trade deal to go from initial talks to the president's desk for signature, the analysis shows. Roughly 60 days into the current process, Trump has so far announced only one deal: a pact with Britain, which is not one of America's biggest trading partners. He has also suggested that negotiations with China have been rocky. 'I like President XI of China, always have, and always will, but he is VERY TOUGH, AND EXTREMELY HARD TO MAKE A DEAL WITH!!!' Trump wrote on Truth Social on June 4. China and the United States agreed last month to temporarily slash tariffs on each other's imports in a gesture of goodwill to continue talks. Part of what the president can accomplish boils down to what you can call a deal. The pact with Britain is less of a deal than it is a framework for talking about a deal, said Wendy Cutler, the vice president of the Asia Society Policy Institute and a former U.S. trade negotiator. What was officially released by the two nations more closely resembled talking points for 'what you were going to negotiate versus the actual commitment,' she said. During his first term, Trump secured two major trade agreements, both signed in January 2020. One was the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, which was a reworking of the North American free trade treaty from the 1990s that had helped transform the economies of the three nations. USMCA is an all-encompassing, legally binding agreement that resulted from a lengthy and formal process, according to trade analysts. Such deals are supposed to cover all aspects of trade between the respective nations and are negotiated under specific guidelines for congressional consultation. Closing the deal involves both negotiation and ratification -- modifying or making laws in each partner country. The deals are signed by trade negotiators before the president signs the legislation that puts the deals into effect for the United States. Trump's other major agreement in his first term was with China, in an echo of the current trade war. The pact, unlike previous deals, came about after Trump threatened tariffs on certain Chinese imports. This 'tariff first, talk later' approach, said Inu Manak, a trade policy fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, is part of the same playbook the administration is currently using. The result was a nonbinding agreement between the two countries, known as 'Phase One,' that did not require approval from Congress and that could be ended by either party at any time. Still, it took almost one year and nine months to complete. China ultimately fell far short of the commitments it made to purchase American goods under the agreement. A comparison of the two first-term Trump deals shows the drawn-out and sometimes winding path each took to completion. Fragile truces (including ones made for 90 days) were formed, only for talks to break down later, all while rounds of tariffs injected uncertainty into the diplomatic relations between countries. The Times analysis used the date from the start of negotiations to the date when the president signed to determine the length of deal-making for each major agreement dating back to 1985 that's currently in effect. The median time it took to get to the president's signature was just over 900 days. (A separate analysis published in 2016 by the Peterson Institute for International Economics used the date of signature by country representatives as the completion moment and found that the median deal took more than 570 days.) With roughly one month before the administration's self-imposed deadline, Trump's ability to forge deals has been thrust into sudden doubt. Last week, a U.S. trade court ruled he had overstepped his authority in imposing the April tariffs. For now, the tariffs remain in place, following a temporary stay from a federal appeals court. But in arguing its case, the federal government initially said that the ruling could upset negotiations with other nations and undercut the president's leverage. In a statement on June 4, Kush Desai, a White House spokesperson, said that trade negotiators were working to secure 'custom-made trade deals at lightning speed that level the playing field for American industries and workers.' But in other recent public statements, White House officials have significantly pared back their ambitions for the deals. In April, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent hedged the number of agreements they might reach, suggesting that the United States would talk to somewhere between 50 and 70 countries. Last month, he said the United States was negotiating with 17 'very important trading relationships,' not including China. 'I think when the administration first started, they thought they could actually do these binding and enforceable deals within 90 days and then quickly realized that they bit off more than they could chew,' Cutler said. The administration told its negotiating partners to submit offers of trade concessions they were willing to make by June 4, in an effort to strike trade deals in the coming weeks. The deadline was earlier reported by Reuters. The current approach to deal making may be strategic, Manak said. One of the benefits of not doing a comprehensive deal like USMCA is that the administration can declare small 'victories' on a much faster timeline, she said. 'It means that trade agreements simply are just not what they used to be,' she added. 'And you can't really guarantee that whatever the U.S. promises is actually going to be upheld in the long run.' This article originally appeared in The New York Times. Copyright 2025
