Fallout from tariff fight looms for Washington
Dust rising from combine during barley harvest in Reardan, Washington. (Getty Images)
Industries across the state continue to brace for fallout from the implementation of U.S. tariffs on international goods, and retaliatory tariffs from Canada, China and Mexico.
At the Washington Department of Commerce, Director Joe Nguyen said the state is already feeling the impact of the tariff fight.
'We know that there is a change in behavior in Canadian consumers,' he said. 'We know that our border communities have seen less traffic when it comes to tourists from Canada. And we also know that there are goods that historically have been consumed by our Canadian friends that are seeing a drop as well.
Nguyen argued the tariffs are unnecessary as they are being used by the Trump administration, as they ultimately do more harm than good.
'If the long term goal is to harden our infrastructure, have our energy independence, things like that – there are better ways to do it than using wholesale tariffs randomly on countries on goods that are not related to those things,' he said.
Nguyen said his team has been working to shore up international partnerships as trade conflicts threaten them. On the domestic front, the Commerce Department has been helping businesses diversify, finding them other trade opportunities to invest in other places.
'But make no mistake, it's gonna be higher prices for most things in Washington state because of these tariffs,' he said. 'In the meantime, we're trying to provide resiliency for our businesses, diversification of their goods. and then also just helping them navigate what this quagmire might look like.'
Nguyen said at least $296 million in the state's agricultural exports to Canada will be targeted by the country's retaliatory tariffs, with agricultural communities likely being the most impacted.
According to the Washington Grain Commission, 90% of all Washington wheat is exported overseas. The group said farmers are not only concerned about international consumers being dissuaded by higher prices for their products, but tariffs raising costs on things like fertilizer and farm equipment coming into the country from Canada and China.
Commission CEO Casey Chumrau said because grain is part of a commodity market, farmers cannot increase prices to address increased production costs.
'So we're kind of getting squeezed on both ends if the production costs are going up, and if we're not able to sell for a higher price on the other side,' she said.
Chumrau said the impacts of tariffs on farmers are not fully known as the situation is constantly evolving.
And while tariffs could bring economic benefits in the long term, they could do real harm in the near term. She said tariffs do not help as the farm economy has struggled in recent years due to inflation, increasing production costs and decreasing sale prices.
'Our concern is, with kind of that fragile state of the farm economy, will those farmers be able to kind of bridge that short and medium term with the consequences that they might face, in order to realize those long-term benefits?' she said.
Chumrau said the commission is 'not critical of the tariffs' and will work with them as the group communicates to federal lawmakers the impacts they could have. She added the commission is hopeful productive negotiations can lead to exceptions or lower tariff rates, and they are doing what they can to support farmers as they try to navigate all the uncertainty ahead.
This article was produced as part of the Murrow News Fellowship program, a collaborative effort between news outlets statewide and Washington State University.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Beyond the backlash: What evidence shows about the economic impact of DEI
Nora Carol Photography via Getty Images Few issues in the U.S. today are as controversial as diversity, equity and inclusion – commonly referred to as DEI. Although the term didn't come into common usage until the 21st century, DEI is best understood as the latest stage in a long American project. Its egalitarian principles are seen in America's founding documents, and its roots lie in landmark 20th-century efforts such as the 1964 Civil Rights Act and affirmative action policies, as well as movements for racial justice, gender equity, disability rights, veterans and immigrants. These movements sought to expand who gets to participate in economic, educational and civic life. DEI programs, in many ways, are their legacy. Critics argue that DEI is antidemocratic, that it fosters ideological conformity and that it leads to discriminatory initiatives, which they say disadvantage white people and undermine meritocracy. Those defending DEI argue just the opposite: that it encourages critical thinking and promotes democracy − and that attacks on DEI amount to a retreat from long-standing civil rights law. Yet missing from much of the debate is a crucial question: What are the tangible costs and benefits of DEI? Who benefits, who doesn't, and what are the broader effects on society and the economy? As a sociologist, I believe any productive conversation about DEI should be rooted in evidence, not ideology. So let's look at the research. Who gains from DEI? In the corporate world, DEI initiatives are intended to promote diversity, and research consistently shows that diversity is good for business. Companies with more diverse teams tend to perform better across several key metrics, including revenue, profitability and worker satisfaction. Businesses with diverse workforces also have an edge in innovation, recruitment and competitiveness, research shows. The general trend holds for many types of diversity, including age, race and ethnicity, and gender. A focus on diversity can also offer profit opportunities for businesses seeking new markets. Two-thirds of American consumers consider diversity when making their shopping choices, a 2021 survey found. So-called 'inclusive consumers' tend to be female, younger and more ethnically and racially diverse. Ignoring their values can be costly: When Target backed away from its DEI efforts, the resulting backlash contributed to a sales decline. But DEI goes beyond corporate policy. At its core, it's about expanding access to opportunities for groups historically excluded from full participation in American life. From this broader perspective, many 20th-century reforms can be seen as part of the DEI arc. Consider higher education. Many elite U.S. universities refused to admit women until well into the 1960s and 1970s. Columbia, the last Ivy League university to go co-ed, started admitting women in 1982. Since the advent of affirmative action, women haven't just closed the gender gap in higher education – they outpace men in college completion across all racial groups. DEI policies have particularly benefited women, especially white women, by expanding workforce access. Similarly, the push to desegregate American universities was followed by an explosion in the number of Black college students – a number that has increased by 125% since the 1970s, twice the national rate. With college gates open to more people than ever, overall enrollment at U.S. colleges has quadrupled since 1965. While there are many reasons for this, expanding opportunity no doubt plays a role. And a better-educated population has had significant implications for productivity and economic growth. The 1965 Immigration Act also exemplifies DEI's impact. It abolished racial and national quotas, enabling the immigration of more diverse populations, including from Asia, Africa, southern and eastern Europe and Latin America. Many of these immigrants were highly educated, and their presence has boosted U.S. productivity and innovation. Ultimately, the U.S. economy is more profitable and productive as a result of immigrants. What does DEI cost? While DEI generates returns for many businesses and institutions, it does come with costs. In 2020, corporate America spent an estimated US$7.5 billion on DEI programs. And in 2023, the federal government spent more than $100 million on DEI, including $38.7 million by the Department of Health and Human Services and another $86.5 million by the Department of Defense. The government will no doubt be spending less on DEI in 2025. One of President Donald Trump's first acts in his second term was to sign an executive order banning DEI practices in federal agencies – one of several anti-DEI executive orders currently facing legal challenges. More than 30 states have also introduced or enacted bills to limit or entirely restrict DEI in recent years. Central to many of these policies is the belief that diversity lowers standards, replacing meritocracy with mediocrity. But a large body of research disputes this claim. For example, a 2023 McKinsey & Company report found that companies with higher levels of gender and ethnic diversity will likely financially outperform those with the least diversity by at least 39%. Similarly, concerns that DEI in science and technology education leads to lowering standards aren't backed up by scholarship. Instead, scholars are increasingly pointing out that disparities in performance are linked to built-in biases in courses themselves. That said, legal concerns about DEI are rising. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Department of Justice have recently warned employers that some DEI programs may violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Anecdotal evidence suggests that reverse discrimination claims, particularly from white men, are increasing, and legal experts expect the Supreme Court to lower the burden of proof needed by complainants for such cases. The issue remains legally unsettled. But while the cases work their way through the courts, women and people of color will continue to shoulder much of the unpaid volunteer work that powers corporate DEI initiatives. This pattern raises important equity concerns within DEI itself. What lies ahead for DEI? People's fears of DEI are partly rooted in demographic anxiety. Since the U.S. Census Bureau projected in 2008 that non-Hispanic white people would become a minority in the U.S by the year 2042, nationwide news coverage has amplified white fears of displacement. Research indicates many white men experience this change as a crisis of identity and masculinity, particularly amid economic shifts such as the decline of blue-collar work. This perception aligns with research showing that white Americans are more likely to believe DEI policies disadvantage white men than white women. At the same time, in spite of DEI initiatives, women and people of color are most likely to be underemployed and living in poverty regardless of how much education they attain. The gender wage gap remains stark: In 2023, women working full time earned a median weekly salary of $1,005 compared with $1,202 for men − just 83.6% of what men earned. Over a 40-year career, that adds up to hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost earnings. For Black and Latina women, the disparities are even worse, with one source estimating lifetime losses at $976,800 and $1.2 million, respectively. Racism, too, carries an economic toll. A 2020 analysis from Citi found that systemic racism has cost the U.S. economy $16 trillion since 2000. The same analysis found that addressing these disparities could have boosted Black wages by $2.7 trillion, added up to $113 billion in lifetime earnings through higher college enrollment, and generated $13 trillion in business revenue, creating 6.1 million jobs annually. In a moment of backlash and uncertainty, I believe DEI remains a vital if imperfect tool in the American experiment of inclusion. Rather than abandon it, the challenge now, from my perspective, is how to refine it: grounding efforts not in slogans or fear, but in fairness and evidence. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hamilton Spectator
2 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
New U.S. travel ban is ‘cruel,' Myanmar community association says
TORONTO - The head of an association for the Myanmar community in Ontario says a new travel ban announced by U.S. President Donald Trump is 'cruel' to the people of his country. Napas Thein, president of the Burma Canadian Association of Ontario, says the people of Myanmar are already facing difficulties in their own country with a military coup and new law mandating military service, and the ban will make it harder to move to a safer place. He says members of his community in Canada will not be allowed into the United States to study or visit due to the new ban, which takes effect Monday. Thein says he and others from the Myanmar diaspora who are Canadian citizens feel uneasy about crossing the border and some have already started cancelling plans to attend conferences or visit their families in the United States. Trump announced Wednesday that citizens of 12 countries — Myanmar, Afghanistan, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen — would be banned from visiting the United States. Seven more countries — Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela — face heightened travel restrictions. Some of the 12 countries on the banned list were targeted by a similar measure Trump enacted in his first term. Dawit Demoz, vice-president of the Eritrean Canadian Community Centre in Toronto, says his organization is 'deeply concerned' about the implications of the new travel ban for the Eritrean diaspora. He says many families in the Eritrean community south of the border remain separated due to the ongoing political and humanitarian crisis in their home country, and the new ban further complicates their efforts to reunite. '(The ban) creates additional fear and uncertainty for those seeking safety and connection across borders,' he said. 'For our community, policies like this do not just impact travel but they deepen isolation, delay reunification and compound the emotional toll experienced by displaced individuals.' —- With files from The Associated Press. This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 6, 2025.
Hamilton Spectator
2 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Speech from OPEC head to kick off Global Energy Show in Calgary
CALGARY - More than 30,000 people from 100 countries are expected to descend on the white-collar heart of Canada's oilpatch next week for the Global Energy Show, which is to kick off with a keynote address from the head of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries. OPEC secretary-general Haitham al-Ghais is set to deliver remarks on Tuesday morning, as recent output increases from his group's members and other producers have put pressure on global crude prices. Among the other speakers are 20 chief executives from major Canadian and international energy companies and several political leaders, including Alberta Premier Danielle Smith. Energy show organizers say Calgary is expecting a 30 per cent increase in hotel bookings for the conference and trade show, and that exhibition space has been increased by one fifth year-over year. Nick Samain, senior vice-president at DMG Events, said as of two weeks before the event, pre-registrations were 78 per cent higher than last year. He says the show is seeing a big turnaround since the oil bust of 2015 and the COVID-19 pandemic. 'There's a sense of optimism that the show really hasn't had in a long time,' Samain said in an interview. 'Operationally, we've been going crazy to make sure we've got enough room for everybody.' The exhibition hall in the newly refurbished BMO Centre on the Calgary Stampede grounds is to feature a record 11 country pavilions and 500 company booths. The event was called the Global Petroleum Show until 2020, when it was rebranded to highlight the growing number of non-oil-and-gas participants in the energy space, such as nuclear and renewables firms. Samain said at the trade show, oil and gas makes up about 70 per cent of exhibitors, with other forms of energy making up the rest. The conference comes as U.S. President Donald Trump's tariff war throws global trade into disarray, raising the prospect of a global downturn that could dampen energy demand. The trade strife has driven calls for Canada to diversify its export markets for its energy products beyond its biggest customer, the United States, and remove some of the logjams that have prevented infrastructure from being built over the past several years. Prime Minister Mark Carney has promised to speed up and simplify the regulatory process for projects deemed in the national interest. Samain said the show is an opportunity for people to hash out competing views about Canada's energy future. 'We're just big proponents of people meeting face to face,' he said. 'We find when people get together at an event like this, it really does (give) the opportunity for people maybe to see a different perspective.' A week after the Global Energy Show, another major event drawing dignitaries from abroad is to take place in a popular recreation area in the Rocky Mountains an hour west of Calgary. Canada is to host leaders from the United States, France, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, Italy and the European Union at the G7 summit from June 15 to 17 in Kananaskis. This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 6, 2025.
