Major US alcohol groups are begging Trump to slash tariffs before the holidays to keep them from losing $2 billion in sales
A group of 57 associations and guilds called the Toasts not Tariffs Coalition, said in a Wednesday letter to the White House that tariffs could result in a $2 billion sales loss in the holidays.
"We reiterate our urgent request that the U.S. and EU come to an agreement to secure fair and reciprocal trade on spirits and wine," the group wrote in the letter.
"As we approach the critical holiday season, a period that is essential to the success of our industries, we implore you to secure this important deal for the U.S. as soon as possible," it added.
The letter comes as Trump's new tariffs went into effect at midnight on Thursday, with the European Union being slammed with a 15% tariff rate on most goods. However, the EU said on Tuesday said it would pause retaliatory tariffs for six months.
Other countries, such as Switzerland and India, were hit much harder, with tariff rates of 39% and 50%, respectively. India's tariffs are set to go into effect later in August.
In March, Trump also threatened to impose a 200% tariff on wine and other alcohol from the EU.
The coalition said it estimated that a 15% tariff on EU wine and spirits could result in more than 25,000 American job losses and nearly $2 billion in lost sales. Per data from the US Distilled Spirits Council, the US exported $2.4 billion worth of spirits in 2024.
Groups in the Toasts not Tariffs coalition represent US liquor heavyweights like Beam Suntory, the parent of Jim Beam, and Jack Daniel's owner Brown-Forman. The coalition also includes non-liquor bodies like the National Retail Federation and the National Restaurant Association.
The Wednesday letter was the group's second appeal to the White House. It sent a similar letter in January, urging Trump to exclude wine and spirits from his coming tariffs and convince the US's trading partners not to apply retaliatory tariffs on their products.
Kentucky's bourbon makers also appealed to the White House to ease up on tariffs after Canada's boycott of US alcohol in March.
The Kentucky Distillers' Association said in a March statement on X that retaliatory tariffs would have " far-reaching consequences across Kentucky, home to 95% of the world's bourbon."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Shareholders in Spirax Group (LON:SPX) are in the red if they invested three years ago
Explore Spirax Group's Fair Values from the Community and select yours For many investors, the main point of stock picking is to generate higher returns than the overall market. But the risk of stock picking is that you will likely buy under-performing companies. Unfortunately, that's been the case for longer term Spirax Group plc (LON:SPX) shareholders, since the share price is down 46% in the last three years, falling well short of the market return of around 62%. Now let's have a look at the company's fundamentals, and see if the long term shareholder return has matched the performance of the underlying business. Trump has pledged to "unleash" American oil and gas and these 15 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit. There is no denying that markets are sometimes efficient, but prices do not always reflect underlying business performance. One imperfect but simple way to consider how the market perception of a company has shifted is to compare the change in the earnings per share (EPS) with the share price movement. Spirax Group saw its EPS decline at a compound rate of 6.6% per year, over the last three years. The share price decline of 19% is actually steeper than the EPS slippage. So it's likely that the EPS decline has disappointed the market, leaving investors hesitant to buy. The image below shows how EPS has tracked over time (if you click on the image you can see greater detail). We like that insiders have been buying shares in the last twelve months. Having said that, most people consider earnings and revenue growth trends to be a more meaningful guide to the business. Dive deeper into the earnings by checking this interactive graph of Spirax Group's earnings, revenue and cash flow. What About Dividends? As well as measuring the share price return, investors should also consider the total shareholder return (TSR). The TSR incorporates the value of any spin-offs or discounted capital raisings, along with any dividends, based on the assumption that the dividends are reinvested. It's fair to say that the TSR gives a more complete picture for stocks that pay a dividend. We note that for Spirax Group the TSR over the last 3 years was -43%, which is better than the share price return mentioned above. And there's no prize for guessing that the dividend payments largely explain the divergence! A Different Perspective While the broader market gained around 22% in the last year, Spirax Group shareholders lost 18% (even including dividends). Even the share prices of good stocks drop sometimes, but we want to see improvements in the fundamental metrics of a business, before getting too interested. Unfortunately, last year's performance may indicate unresolved challenges, given that it was worse than the annualised loss of 7% over the last half decade. Generally speaking long term share price weakness can be a bad sign, though contrarian investors might want to research the stock in hope of a turnaround. I find it very interesting to look at share price over the long term as a proxy for business performance. But to truly gain insight, we need to consider other information, too. Take risks, for example - Spirax Group has 1 warning sign we think you should be aware of. Spirax Group is not the only stock insiders are buying. So take a peek at this free list of small cap companies at attractive valuations which insiders have been buying. Please note, the market returns quoted in this article reflect the market weighted average returns of stocks that currently trade on British exchanges. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned.
Boston Globe
8 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
A brief history of Trump pretending not to know things
Less than a week after the Justice Department took the highly unusual step of sending Todd Blanche, deputy attorney general and Trump's former personal lawyer, to interview Maxwell for more than nine hours over two days, she was quietly moved from a federal minimum-security prison in Florida to a less-restrictive facility in Texas. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up But according to Trump, that decision was news to him. Advertisement Perhaps the president really has no clue as to what's happening in his administration. But Trump's pleas of ignorance are an escape hatch he has deployed for years. Here's a brief history of notable moments in Trump's performative ignorance. The David Duke endorsement (2016): After Trump launched his first presidential campaign by excoriating Mexican immigrants and later promising to enact a Advertisement James Comey's firing (2017): Months into his first term, Trump dumped James Comey as FBI director. At the time, White House officials claimed that Trump fired Comey solely on the recommendation of deputy attorney general Hush money paid to Stormy Daniels (2018): Trump Advertisement Project 2025 (2024): At a Heritage Foundation event in 2022, Trump said the conservative group 'would lay the groundwork and detail plans for exactly what our movement will do and what your movement will do when the American people give us a colossal mandate to save America.' Two years later, Trump Trump seems to treat ignorance — saying 'I don't know' or 'I didn't know'— as evidence of his innocence. He's testing that theory again as his self-inflicted Epstein scandal refuses to go away. But whether this tactic will allow him to dodge accountability this time, no one knows. Advertisement Renée Graham is a Globe columnist. She can be reached at
NBC News
9 minutes ago
- NBC News
Why U.S. politicians are up in arms about new internet rules in Britain
A growing number of U.S. politicians are condemning a new British law that requires some websites and apps — including some based in the United States — to check the ages of users across the pond. A bipartisan group of members of Congress visited London recently to meet counterparts and air their concerns about the U.K.'s Online Safety Act, which went into effect July 25. Vice President JD Vance has been criticizing the law for months, as have privacy advocates who argue that the law infringes on free expression and disproportionately hurts vulnerable groups. Vance criticized the U.K. again on Friday, this time in person at the start of a visit to the country. Sitting alongside British Foreign Secretary David Lammy and speaking to reporters, Vance warned the U.K. against going down a 'very dark path' of online 'censorship' that he said was trod earlier by the Biden administration. The U.K. Online Safety Act is aimed at preventing children from accessing potentially harmful material online, and internet companies are now asking British users to verify their ages in a variety of ways, including with photos of their IDs, through a credit card provider or with selfies analyzed via age-check software. But the sweeping nature of the law has caught some Britons by surprise. They're being asked to prove their age not only for pornography websites but also before they can listen to songs with explicit lyrics or access message boards to discuss sensitive subjects. Reddit, for example, is restricting access to various pages including r/stopsmoking, r/STD and r/aljazeera. Reddit said in a post about its enforcement of the law that for people in the U.K., it was now verifying ages before they can 'view certain mature content.' A spokesperson for the company said r/STD — a message board focused on questions of sexual health — is restricted because of explicit images. They said r/stopsmoking is restricted because it deals with harmful substances and that r/aljazeera — which is not affiliated with the news organization of the same name but deals with similar topics — is restricted because it depicts serious injury or violence. To get around the new law, the use of virtual private network software that can mask a person's location, also known as VPNs, has surged in the U.K. The primary argument of U.S. politicians who oppose the law is that they don't want American tech companies to have to comply, even if they're serving British customers. House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, said he raised his objections with U.K. government officials during meetings in London at the end of July. In a statement after his return, he said the law and other European regulations 'create a serious chilling effect on free expression and threaten the First Amendment rights of American citizens and companies.' 'We absolutely need to protect children and keep harmful, illegal content off these platforms — but when governments or bureaucracies suppress speech in the name of safety or regulation, it sets a dangerous precedent that threatens the core of Western democratic values,' Jordan said. The issue may come to a head in a couple of different venues. That could be the courts if any tech companies file lawsuits over the law, or it could come up in trade negotiations if President Donald Trump decides to press the issue with British politicians, although they say it's not open to debate in trade talks. Marc Andreessen, a venture capitalist and Meta board member with close ties to the Trump administration, recently called U.K. leaders to complain about the law, the Financial Times reported Friday. A spokesperson for Andreessen said the report was not true. The U.K.'s Online Safety Act is one of the most comprehensive national laws that any democracy has ever passed to try to curtail potentially harmful content online in the name of children. Parliament passed the law in 2023, and the government went through two years of writing detailed rules before putting the law into effect last month. The law is notable for a combination of reasons: the variety of content it applies to, the potential fines and the possible international reach. A wide array of content is at issue. While the 'primary' focus of the law is online material such as pornography and suicide, it also requires websites to age-gate content with bullying, serious violence, 'dangerous stunts' and 'exposure to harmful substances.' That has covered relatively mainstream services such as Spotify and Microsoft's Xbox gaming system. Companies that don't comply face potential fines of up to 10% of their global revenue, which for the biggest companies could be billions of dollars. The British regulator Ofcom, short for Office of Communications, says companies must use ' highly effective age assurance ' to restrict the riskiest types of content. And the U.K. has not been adamant that it won't allow international borders to stymie enforcement. Ofcom says it plans to apply the law to services with 'a significant number' of U.K. users, services where U.K. users 'are a target market' and services that are 'capable of being accessed' by U.K. users with a 'material risk of significant harm' to such users. The law appears to retain strong support among the British public. About 69% said they supported the new rules in a YouGov poll taken after implementation began, and 46% said they supported it 'strongly.' But 52% said they do not think the law will be very effective at preventing minors from accessing pornography. The law was passed during a previous, Conservative-led government and took effect under the current, Labour-led government. But the far-right party Reform U.K. is pushing for a repeal of the law. Party leader Nigel Farage, a former member of Parliament, has called it 'state suppression of genuine free speech,' and his party is running high in polls. 'Millions of people have noticed that what they're getting on their feeds is different to what it was,' Farage said at a recent news conference. Farage also met with visiting members of Congress last week, and the talks turned heated with Farage and Democrats exchanging insults, according to Politico, although the dispute appeared to be more about Trump's free speech restrictions than about the U.K. law. Most U.S.-based tech companies say they are complying with the new law. Microsoft said in a blog post that Xbox users in the U.K. would begin seeing notifications 'encouraging them to verify their age' as a 'one-time process,' with actual enforcement starting next year. If users don't comply, Microsoft warned, they'll lose access to social features of Xbox but will still be able to play games. Discord said it was implementing new default settings for all U.K. users, in effect treating everyone like a minor with heavy content filtering unless they verify that they're adults. Discord says users can choose to verify their age either with a face scan or an ID upload. Elon Musk's X has also restricted posts, including information about the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, according to the BBC. X and Musk did not respond to requests for comment. But a few services are not complying. The far-right social media site Gab, which allows white supremacist views and other extremist content, said in a notice on its website that it had received notices from Ofcom and, rather than comply, decided to block the entire U.K. from accessing its site. The company said in the notice: 'We refuse to comply with this tyranny.' Preston Byrne, a U.S. lawyer who specializes in technology issues, has said on X that he plans to file a lawsuit soon on behalf of an unnamed client seeking to quash possible enforcement of the British law within the United States. The subject has been simmering for months ahead of the law's implementation, and it came up in February when British Prime Minister Keir Starmer visited the White House. In an Oval Office meeting, a reporter asked Trump what he thought of the U.K. approach to free speech, and Trump tossed the question to Vance, who expressed concern. 'We do have, of course, a special relationship with our friends in the U.K. and also with some of our European allies. But we also know that there have been infringements on free speech that actually affect not just the British — of course, what the British do in their own country is up to them — but also affect American technology companies and, by extension, American citizens,' he said. Starmer defended his government's approach. 'We've had free speech for a very, very long time in the United Kingdom, and it will last for a very, very long time. Certainly, we wouldn't want to reach across U.S. systems and we don't, and that's absolutely right,' he said. British Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy later said the U.K. would not make any changes to the Online Safety Act as part of trade negotiations with the Trump administration. American privacy advocates are watching the debate play out with alarm, concerned that similar age verification laws — like new state laws targeting the Apple and Google app stores — would upend the internet closer to home. 'Young people should be able to access information, speak to each other and to the world, play games, and express themselves online without the government making decisions about what speech is permissible,' wrote Paige Collings, a senior speech and privacy activist at the San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation, in a blog post Tuesday.
