Spike in steel tariffs could imperil Trump promise of lower grocery prices
NEW YORK (AP) — President Donald Trump's doubling of tariffs on foreign steel and aluminum could hit Americans in an unexpected place: grocery aisles.
The staggering 50% levies on those imports took effect Wednesday, stoking fear that big-ticket purchases from cars to washing machines to houses could see major price increases. But those metals are so ubiquitous in packaging, they're likely to pack a punch across consumer products from soup to nuts.
'Rising grocery prices would be part of the ripple effects,' says Usha Haley, an expert on trade and professor at Wichita State University, who added that the tariffs could raise costs across industries and further strain ties with allies 'without aiding a long-term U.S. manufacturing revival.'
Trump's return to the White House has come with an unrivaled barrage of tariffs, with levies threatened, added and often taken away, in such a whiplash-inducing frenzy it's hard to keep up. He insisted the latest tariff hike was necessary to 'even further secure the steel industry in the U.S.'
That promise, though, could be at odds with his pledge to reduce food costs.
Rising grocery prices, Trump has said, were among the biggest reasons voters swung his way. A look around a supermarket makes clear how many products could be impacted by new taxes on steel and aluminum, from beer and soda to dog food to can after can of beans, fruit, tomato paste and more.
'It plays into the hands of China and other foreign canned food producers, which are more than happy to undercut American farmers and food producers,' insists Can Manufacturers Institute president Robert Budway. 'Doubling the steel tariff will further increase the cost of canned goods at the grocery store.'
Budway says production by domestic tin mill steel producers, whose products are used in cans, have dramatically decreased in recent years, making manufacturers reliant on imported materials. When those prices go up, he says, 'the cost is levied upon millions of American families.'
Food companies were already warily assessing the administration's tariffs before the latest hike. The Campbell Co., whose soup cans are a staple for millions of Americans, has said it was working to mitigate the impact of tariffs but may be forced to raise prices. ConAgra Brands, which puts everything from cans of Reddi-Whip to cooking sprays like Pam on supermarket shelves, likewise has pointed to the impact steel and aluminum tariffs have.
'We can't get all of our materials from the US because there's no supply,' ConAgra CFO David Marberger said at a recent Goldman Sachs conference on global staples.
Beyond the obvious products — canned foods like tuna, chicken broth and cranberry sauce — economists warn of a spillover effect that tariffs can have on a gamut of items. If the cost to build a store or buy a truck to haul food rise, the prices of products may follow.
Most Americans will never buy a tractor, but Babak Hafezi, who runs a global consulting firm and teaches international business at American University, says a price spike in such a big-ticket item vital to food production will spill down to all sorts of other items.
'If a John Deere tractor costs 25% more, consumers pay the price for that,' Hafezi says. 'This trickles down the economy and impacts every aspect of the economy. Some of the trickling is immediate and others are slower to manifest themselves. But yes, prices will increase and choices will decrease.'
Trump appeared before a crowd of cheering steelworkers to unveil the new tariffs at a rally outside Pittsburgh on Friday. In a statement, David McCall, president of the United Steelworkers International union, called tariffs 'a valuable tool in balancing the scales' but 'wider reforms of our global trading system' are needed.
It may be harder to gauge the weight of tariffs on, say, a can of chickpeas versus that of a new car, but consumers are likely to see myriad indirect costs from the levies, says Andreas Waldkirch, an economics professor at Colby College who teaches a class on international trade.
'Anybody who's directly connected to the steel industry, they're going to benefit. It's just coming at a very high cost,' Waldkirch says. 'You may get a few more steel jobs. But all these indirect costs mean you then destroy jobs elsewhere. If you were to add that all in, you come up with a pretty large negative loss.'
___
Matt Sedensky can be reached at msedensky@ap.org and https://x.com/sedensky
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
36 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Americans are questioning the value of a college degree. Trump is joining the debate.
President Donald Trump wants to tweak a traditionalfeature of the American dream: a college degree. Trump has continued to escalate his battle with Harvard University, threatening to cut off the Ivy League school from federal funding if it does not meet the administration's demands, which include eliminating diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives and cracking down on campus activism. The latest threat against Harvard, however, floated shifting funding to trade schools, an alternative path to a four-year college degree. "I am considering taking Three Billion Dollars of Grant Money away from a very antisemitic Harvard, and giving it to TRADE SCHOOLS all across our land," Trump wrote in a May 26 post on Truth Social. "What a great investment that would be for the USA, and so badly needed!!!" The White House's press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, added onto the president's comments in an interview with Fox News: "Apprenticeships, electricians, plumbers, we need more of those in our country, and less LGBTQ graduate majors from Harvard University. And that's what this administration's position is." Over the past few years, a growing number of Americans have started to question the value of a college degree due to high costs and a tough labor market, making trade schools and apprenticeships a favorable alternative. It marks a shift in the standard American dream, in which a four-year college degree had been viewed as a step to middle-class success. However, Jon Fansmith, assistant vice president of government relations at the American Council on Education, told Business Insider that taking funding away from Harvard and other research institutions isn't the answer to boosting investment in trade schools. "The money that he is talking about withholding from Harvard is money that Congress provided to research agencies to perform advanced scientific and biomedical research," Fansmith said, adding that Harvard earned grant money because "they had the best researchers, the best laboratory facilities, the best understanding of how to advance that science," he continued. "You can't simply take that money and use it for another purpose." Madi Biedermann, deputy assistant secretary for communications at the Department of Education, told BI that "American universities that are committed to their academic mission, protect students on campus, and follow all federal laws will have no problem accessing generous taxpayer support for their programs." 'Two very separate stories' Higher education doesn't have the same draw that it once did. Some Gen Zers previously told BI that despite being taught that college was the primary path to success, they felt they could make a living by directly entering the workforce or going to trade school. Please help BI improve our Business, Tech, and Innovation coverage by sharing a bit about your role — it will help us tailor content that matters most to people like you. What is your job title? (1 of 2) Entry level position Project manager Management Senior management Executive management Student Self-employed Retired Other Continue By providing this information, you agree that Business Insider may use this data to improve your site experience and for targeted advertising. By continuing you agree that you accept the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy . That's why Trump's push to invest more in trade schools is important, Fansmith said — they help Americans get a stable career to support themselves and their families, and the federal government can help support those schools by asking Congress to approve more funding, not redirecting the funding unilaterally. "There are two stories here. One is this administration's attack on Harvard, and the other is, what is the role of trade schools, and is there a need for more support for trade schools? And as much as the president's trying to conflate the two, those are two very separate stories," Fansmith said. While Trump's big spending bill proposes some provisions to expand Pell grant eligibility to short-term programs, it does not detail a significant funding increase for trade schools. The Trump administration's rhetorical focus on trade schools isn't new. Before he won the 2024 election, Linda McMahon, now Trump's education secretary, wrote an opinion piece in The Hill advocating for the expansion of Pell Grant eligibility to workforce training programs. "Our educational system must offer clear and viable pathways to the American Dream aside from four-year degrees," she wrote. Trump also signed an executive order on April 23 to strengthen and expand workforce development and apprenticeships programs, which McMahon called a "significant step in ensuring every American can live their American Dream." Congress' role in rethinking education For years, Democratic lawmakers have been pushing for greater access to postsecondary education options, like free community college, and there has been bipartisan agreement on the need to boost apprenticeships and workforce programs without redirecting funding from higher education institutions. Amid the heightened focus on alternatives to a four-year college degree, the New York Federal Reserve said in a recent report that college still pays off; the median worker with a college degree earns about $80,000 a year, compared to $47,000 for a worker with just a high school diploma. Trump hasn't yet implemented his idea to redirect Harvard's federal funding to trade schools, and it's unclear how, or if, he will attempt to follow through. While he has already withheld billions of dollars from Harvard and other schools across the country for failing to meet his administration's political demands, the moves have been met with lawsuits, and Fansmith said it's likely more legal action would ensue should Trump attempt to move around funding without congressional approval. "We're talking about spending money that Congress said would go to support really critically needed research into things like cancer and Alzheimer's and diabetes, and other things that impact everyday Americans' lives, and give it to trade schools," Fansmith said. "Trade schools are great schools. They have lots of benefits. They deserve a lot of federal support, but not just to make a political point at the expense of Harvard." Jason Altmire, president and CEO of Career Education Colleges and Universities — a group that represents for-profit colleges — said in a statement that Trump's focus on trade schools "is an investment in America's workforce." "The best way to support trade schools is to reduce the regulatory burden facing private career schools while increasing funding that allows students interested in the trades to choose the highest quality school," Altmire said.
Bloomberg
41 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Trump's Patience With Putin Leaves Senate Sanctions Push on Hold
President Donald Trump's suggestion that he may let Russia and Ukraine keep fighting has left US lawmakers in an awkward spot over their plan to force a ceasefire with 'bone-crushing' sanctions against Moscow. The Senate bill has more than 80 co-sponsors, an all-but-unheard-of level of bipartisan support. Yet although that kind of veto-proof backing is enough for the Senate to press ahead without White House backing, supporters show no sign they're ready to challenge the president.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
The only ‘Made in America' smartphone maker has a message for Apple about manufacturing in the Trump tariff era
Todd Weaver has an important message for Apple as it faces growing demands by President Donald Trump to reshore some of its smartphone production: Don't listen to the conventional wisdom. Experts have long said that manufacturing iPhones in the U.S., rather than Asia, as Apple does, would be logistically impossible and ridiculously expensive. But Weaver argues companies can indeed do it successfully, and at a similar or only slightly higher cost—if given several years to navigate the inevitable complications. Weaver should know: His startup, Purism, is among the few, if not the only business, that assembles smartphones in the U.S. In fact, the U.S. pedigree is the main selling point of his company's Made in America device, the Liberty Phone. 'It is challenging to do this in the U.S.,' Weaver acknowledges. 'It's probably the reason I'm the only one.' And yet, he says his company has managed to make it work and has been profitable for the last two years—a real world example of what's possible on a hot-button topic in which political talking points and vested interests often dominate the debate. President Donald Trump recently put U.S. smartphone production in the spotlight as part of his global trade war. On May 23, he used social network Truth Social to publicly attack Apple for importing iPhones into the U.S., rather than making them domestically, and then threatened the company with a 25% tariff if it continued to do so. Whether any of the import taxes will become permanent is unclear given Trump's whiplash decision-making and court challenges by third parties. Still, Apple has long assembled its iPhones overseas, mainly in China, and has resisted relocating any of that production to the U.S. In April, when Trump announced his tariffs, Apple went so far as to shift the sourcing of most U.S.-bound iPhones to India, which faced lower import taxes. U.S. assembly was never publicly mentioned as a possibility. In the past, Apple CEO Cook explained the reluctance by saying the abundance of skilled labor and top-notch suppliers overseas would be difficult to reproduce at home. Weaver's company, of course, is no Apple, which has sold more than 2 billion iPhones globally since introducing the first models in 2007. The devices unleashed a new era in the tech industry in which mobile devices became the prime focus. Purism, in contrast, has sold just tens of thousands of phones since debuting its first model in 2018, according to Weaver. And the company is barely-known outside the world of tech nerds. Its Liberty Phone, manufactured near San Diego, comes with U.S.-made electronics installed on a metal chassis from China. It retails for $1,999. Another phone, the Librem 5, is mostly the same design, except it's made in China with Chinese parts, and costs $799. The company also produces tablet computers, laptops, and servers. Purism pitches its Made in America device as more secure and privacy friendly than those from major manufactures like Apple. Because all the critical parts and assembly are domestic, it's easy to verify that they haven't been tampered with by a foreign adversary that wants to snoop or stuff them with explosives. The phones also run on a Linux-based open source operating system. Anyone with technical know-how who is worried about the security can review the code—unlike with more popular phones, which come with operating systems that can't be easily inspected. Additionally, Purism's phones come with three kill switches that lets users physically disconnect their device from cell service, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth, along with its microphone and camera. When turned on, the switches sever the electrical circuit to the features they control and make it impossible for them to be accessed by hackers, Weaver said. Toggling on Airplane Mode, as users often do on more mainstream phones, is less secure, he said, because it's a purely software feature that doesn't cut power to the device's chips. Customers who are especially security conscious can pay extra to have their devices shipped with 'tamper evident tape' on the packaging, among other options, to flag any monkey business during transit. Purism's biggest customers are government agencies, many of which require high security, and individual consumers. The company's clients, Weaver said, include the FBI and the House Select Committee on Intelligence. Weaver said the cost of manufacturing the Purism's two phones is largely the same, despite one being made overseas and the other domestically. The phone that's made in China costs around $600 for parts, manufacturing, and assembly while the U.S.-made one comes in at $650. 'Producing goods in China vs. the U.S. is the same plus or minus 10%,' said Weaver, based mostly on automation. The difference between what Purism charges customers for its two phones is partly due to the higher profit margin the company collects for its U.S.-made device. People who want stronger security are often willing to pay extra for it, Weaver said. It also covers the extra overhead from some customers wanting to verify that Purism's supply chain is secure and the small additional cost of U.S. manufacturing. Purism's assembly line is in Carlsbad, Calif., where up to a dozen workers put together devices. The area is home to a pool of skilled labor thanks to the local defense industry and manufacturing for other mobile carriers. That relatively modest assembly line is a major contrast to the factories that make iPhones, operated by contract manufacturers, mostly in China. Those facilities can be the size of several football fields and employ over 100,000 people who work around-the-clock shifts. Weaver said the U.S. is at a huge disadvantage to China when it comes to skilled workers, who make up a significant part of the workforce in smartphone factories. The only way to reverse the shortage and lay the groundwork for companies to reshore their production is to encourage more people to learn skills that are useful in the manufacturing process, he said. 'If you go over to China you can find buildings and buildings of thousands of electronics engineers. If you look here, you can find maybe five total,' Weaver said. Apple, for example, would risk a catastrophe if it suddenly, in 2026, needed to ramp up staffing in the U.S. to produce millions of iPhones, he said. Training enough people for such a massive undertaking would take years. Weaver said Purism, founded in 2014, took several years to develop its domestic supply chain. The company's small size means it only needs limited quantities of components, which makes it impossible to achieve the economies of scale that come from producing huge numbers of devices. Manufacturing in the U.S. also comes with higher labor costs than in China. But with the help of automation, those extra costs can be kept to a minimum by reserving human labor for tasks performed after production is complete, such as soldering, assembly, repairs, and testing. Apple, on the other hand, would need vast amounts of components to keep its assembly line humming. While the company would likely be able to cut deals with domestic suppliers for most iPhone parts, some, such as high-quality cameras, may be impossible to quickly source in the U.S. and it would therefore have to import them, Weaver said. One analyst has said iPhones could end up costing $3,500 if made in the U.S., to account for the extra costs and hassles. Weaver agrees that it would cost Apple substantially more to produce iPhones in the U.S., if it had to move production quickly. But given enough time, Apple could substantially reduce the cost after developing a new supply chain, finding enough workers, and by relying on extensive automation. For Apple, opening a domestic manufacturing plant would therefore need to be a years' long process, Weaver said. That's why he criticized Trump's tariffs for taking effect almost immediately. Yes, many of those tariffs have since been delayed. But the takeaway for businesses is that they can't plan ahead. And yet, that's exactly what's required for something as complex as shifting manufacturing to the U.S. Trump's tariffs would be far more effective if phased in over many years, Weaver said. In that scenario, companies would have a clear and increasing incentive to reshore production—without being punished right off the bat. Weaver argues his U.S. manufacturing effort is already paying off and that it will gain momentum over time. He hopes the recent scandal involving U.S. officials using the chat app Signal to discuss a military strike against Yemen, and then accidentally inviting a journalist to join them, will help lift sales by encouraging the federal government to focus more on security. Weaver wouldn't get into the specifics of Purism's financials other than to say it has millions in annual revenue and turned profitable in 2023. The Liberty Phone is its biggest seller. Wayne Lam, an analyst with market research firm TechInsights, gave a mixed take on Purism's prospect. In an email, he said: 'They can be a successful niche player, but the odds of success are lower thanks to the bigger brands. They won't be able to compete in the consumer market but government/enterprise/military are all niche markets they can address.' To fund the expansion of his business, Weaver is trying to raise additional investment after taking in $16 million in funding over the years. Some of that money would go to fixing a shortcoming with his phones. Because they don't use Apple's iOS or Google's Android operating systems, they are incompatible with many of the most popular mobile apps like Uber. To get such apps work on its devices, Purism must make technical tweaks for each one. Purism can at least claim one small advantage over the giant companies that dominate the smartphone industry. If Trump's tariffs become permanent, it won't feel much impact from its U.S.-made phone, while the big players and their foreign-made devices could be hammered. This story was originally featured on
