logo
Spike in steel tariffs could imperil Trump promise of lower grocery prices

Spike in steel tariffs could imperil Trump promise of lower grocery prices

Yahoo2 days ago

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 announcement Friday of a staggering 50% levy on those imports stoked 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, which Trump said would go into effect on Wednesday. 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. 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

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump appears to undercut US proposal to Iran, declaring he won't allow any uranium enrichment
Trump appears to undercut US proposal to Iran, declaring he won't allow any uranium enrichment

Washington Post

time30 minutes ago

  • Washington Post

Trump appears to undercut US proposal to Iran, declaring he won't allow any uranium enrichment

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump on Monday appeared to undercut a proposal that was offered by his special envoy to Iran, saying he will insist that Tehran fully dismantle its nuclear enrichment program as part of any deal to ease crushing sanctions. Trump and Steve Witkoff, who is leading the negotiations for the U.S., have repeatedly offered inconsistent public messages about whether Iran would be allowed to retain the capacity to enrich uranium to lower levels for civilian purposes. The Trump administration maintains that it will not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. The negotiations have been framed by Trump as both countries' best chance to avoid direct military conflict over Iran's nuclear program. Tehran, which denies seeking a nuclear weapon, has insisted that it will not agree to any deal that fully scraps its enrichment program. 'Under our potential Agreement — WE WILL NOT ALLOW ANY ENRICHMENT OF URANIUM!' Trump wrote on social media. The White House didn't elaborate on the post. Trump's post comes after media reports that Witkoff's latest proposal to Tehran would allow Iran to retain low levels of enrichment for civilian uses like nuclear medicine and commercial power if it agrees to shut down its heavily protected underground sites for a period of time. The U.S. and Iran have engaged in several rounds of direct nuclear talks for the first time in years. Senior officials — including Witkoff and Trump himself — have said within the last few weeks that Iran would not be able to keep enriching uranium at any level. The proposal, reported by Axios and confirmed by two U.S. officials, called for the creation of a regional consortium to handle uranium enrichment for civilian uses — a plan first studied more than a decade ago in negotiations that led to the 2015 Iran nuclear deal. Trump was sharply critical of that agreement — which also allowed set limits on uranium enrichment but permitted Iran to maintain such a capacity — and withdrew the U.S. from it in 2017 during his first term. The officials spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity to discuss private diplomatic negotiations. The International Atomic Energy Agency found that Iran has further increased its stockpile of uranium enriched to near weapons-grade levels since its last update in February, according to a confidential report released by the U.N. nuclear watchdog on Saturday. Iran has maintained that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only, but Iranian officials have increasingly suggested that Tehran could pursue an atomic bomb. 'President Trump has made it clear that Iran can never obtain a nuclear bomb,' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement before Trump's post. 'Special Envoy Witkoff has sent a detailed and acceptable proposal to the Iranian regime, and it's in their best interest to accept it. Out of respect for the ongoing deal, the Administration will not comment on details of the proposal to the media.' The proposal that Trump appeared to undercut on Monday evening included significant concessions by the administration certain to anger Israel along with pro-Israel lawmakers in the United States. Several of the main points were essentially the same or very similar to conditions outlined in the 2015 nuclear deal. Early iterations of that agreement negotiated by the Obama administration also suggested the possibility of a regional consortium that would put Iranian uranium enrichment above a certain level under the control of Iran and its neighbors. The idea was scrapped, however, because of Gulf Arab nations' objections and Iranian suspicions of the ultimate aims of the consortium. People who were involved in the 18-month negotiations for the 2015 deal reacted immediately to reports that the Trump administration might allow Iran to continue with an enrichment program at any level, particularly after senior officials repeatedly said Iran would not be able to retain such programs. 'This proposal poses a moment of truth for critics of previous Iran nuclear negotiations/agreements (and) those who have called for a no-enrichment, full-dismantlement deal,' Dan Shapiro, Obama's former ambassador to Israel, wrote on X. 'Will they hold Trump to the same standard?'

Federal officials identify two 'sanctuary cities' in NH
Federal officials identify two 'sanctuary cities' in NH

Yahoo

time33 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Federal officials identify two 'sanctuary cities' in NH

A federal Department of Homeland Security report identified the city of Lebanon and adjacent town of Hanover as the only communities in New Hampshire it identifies as being 'sanctuary' communities for immigrants in the country illegally. The report comes less than two weeks after Gov. Kelly Ayotte signed two bills (SB 62 and HB 511) to outlaw sanctuary city policies in the state and to block local officials from preventing police departments or county jail administrations from reaching cooperative agreements with federal immigration authorities. DHS officials said its report complies with President Donald Trump's executive order titled, 'Protecting American Communities from Criminal Aliens.' The report listed the 35 states and the District of Columbia where at least one community had an ordinance blocking or altering cooperation with federal officials about suspected, illegal immigrants. Maine and New Hampshire are the only states in New England not identified as sanctuary states. In Maine, the sanctuary status exists in two counties and the city of Portland, according to the report. A federal court order created the sanctuary treatment in Rhode Island while officials in Massachusetts, Connecticut and Vermont adopted their own language, DHS officials said. The Franconia Board of Selectmen earlier last month endorsed a sanctuary community ordinance. Ayotte said the bills she signed would nullify that town's actions. Legislative critics charged the legislation would worsen the relationship local law enforcement has with legal immigration advocates in their hometowns and was an unfunded mandate as it could impose unreimbursed costs on communities. The new laws the governor signed take effect Jan. 1 except for one anti-sanctuary city provision that would apply starting in late July. Legislative leaders sent out letters last Friday thanking the sheriffs in Rockingham and Hillsborough Counties for signing so-called Section 287G agreements with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Two other counties, six towns and New Hampshire State Police have applied for their own agreements. klandrigan@

Judge grants preliminary injunction to protect collective bargaining agreement for TSA workers
Judge grants preliminary injunction to protect collective bargaining agreement for TSA workers

Yahoo

time33 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Judge grants preliminary injunction to protect collective bargaining agreement for TSA workers

SEATTLE (AP) — A federal judge on Monday granted a preliminary injunction to stop Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem from killing a collective bargaining agreement for Transportation Safety Administration workers. U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman of Seattle said in her order that an injunction is needed to preserve the rights and benefits that TSA workers have enjoyed for years while being represented by the American Federation of Government Employees. In their lawsuit, Pechman said, the union has shown that Noem's directive to end the agreement 'constitutes impermissible retaliation against it for its unwillingness to acquiesce to the Trump Administration's assault on federal workers.' It also likely violated due process and AFGE is likely to succeed in showing that Noem's decision was 'arbitrary and capricious," she added. 'Today's court decision is a crucial victory for federal workers and the rule of law,' AFGE National President Everett Kelley said in a release. 'The preliminary injunction underscores the unconstitutional nature of DHS's attack on TSA officers' First Amendment rights. We remain committed to ensuring our members' rights and dignity are protected, and we will not back down from defending our members' rights against unlawful union busting.' Assistant U.S. Attorney Brian Kipnis declined to comment on the judge's ruling, according to Emily Langlie, spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney's office. AFGE had entered into a new, seven-year collective bargaining agreement with agency last May, but Noem issued a memo Feb. 27 rescinding that agreement. One week later, TSA informed the union about Noem's directive, saying the contract was terminated and all pending grievances would be deleted. AFGE filed a lawsuit against Noem, claiming the move was retaliation against the union for pushing back against the Trump administration's attacks on federal workers. AFGE had filed a separate lawsuit Feb. 19 against the Office of Personnel Management to stop the firing of probationary workers. A judge issued a temporary restraining order Feb. 27 stopping the firings — the same day Noem issued her memo. Abigail Carter, representing AFGE during oral arguments before Pechman on May 27, said Noem's move was retaliation and a violation of the union's First Amendment right to protected speech and its Fifth Amendment right to due process. 'The administration has made it clear that if you don't disagree with it politically, you and your members can keep your rights, but if you do disagree, you lose them,' Carter said. She also argued that the collective bargaining agreement was necessary because TSA workers are not covered under the federal labor-management code. The agreement protects them from dangerous working conditions and unreasonable hours. Kipnis denied the retaliation claim and said it was simply a difference in management styles. Pechman questioned that contention. Not all unions are banned by the administration, Pechman said, only the ones oppose the administration. 'Isn't this a pattern that you see?' Pechman asked Kipnis. 'Attorneys who take opposition stances get banned. Those who don't, don't have those restrictions. Isn't this the pattern that the White House has set up?" Kipnis said tension between unions and management are common and this conflict doesn't signal a violation of the workers' First Amendment rights, but instead reflects a confrontational relationship. But Pechman wasn't convinced. Previous TSA managers have found unions to be beneficial and renewed their contracts for years, she said. They found they made a happier workforce, and 'they wanted their employees to feel that they were well-treated,' she said. What has changed is this administration's attitude, she said. To that, Kipnis replied: 'Or you could characterize it as a different management style. The former administration apparently saw that as a better way to do business. ... But this administration sees a different way of doing business. And the same statute affords them the same amount of discretion.' Pechman said she understood that the administration has the right to exercise that discretion, 'but to abruptly cancel doesn't seem well reasoned, so I'm having trouble with that." She also noted, "But why the United States gets to back out of contracts that it's made is harder to accept.' In Monday's order, Pechman said TSA workers would suffer 'irreparable harm' without the injunction, noting that if they lose their collective bargaining agreement, they will lose the benefits it provides. 'While the loss of money alone does not show irreparable harm, the total harms here are more than monetary,' Pechman said. 'They include the loss of substantive employment protections, avenues of grievance and arbitration, and the right to have a workforce that can unite to demand benefits that might not be obtainable through individual negotiation.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store