Tips for planning a wedding at a time of new tariffs
NEW YORK (AP) — Weddings in the United States are often dependent on goods imported from countries hit with new tariffs.
Vendors and engaged couples are navigating higher prices and supply worries after President Donald Trump went to war over trade around the globe. Exports from dozens of countries, including major centers for goods such as cut flowers, wedding gowns and decorations, are now subject to extra taxes when they reach the U.S.
Wedding professionals see potential for pivots to alternative sources. Some recommendations for people who are planning a wedding while the tariff situation remains in flux:
Buy local. Buy from non-tariff countries. Buy used. Buy from vendors that promise not to pass on the new taxes.
Some businesses are breaking out line items stating what new costs they're imposing on consumers. Some are not. Without that information, it's harder to gauge quality by price. Does something cost $25 because it's worth $25 or because it's a $10 item with a huge markup slapped on?
Dig into reviews if buying online. If buying offline, take an up-close look at textiles, candles and other goods.
Katie Sexton in Chicago is a project manager for an international e-commerce shipping company. She's also getting married in June 2026. She has warehouse-size thoughts on getting around tariffs.
The best bet to see the full pricing picture of an item is to find brands that are shipping it from within the U.S., she said. A company doing that will most likely have adjusted their prices higher already to include the tariff cost they incurred upon importing to the warehouse.
That means fewer surprises at checkout. Transparency is a friend as tariff drama plays out.
Weddings are often heavy on rentals of all kinds: tables, chairs, linens, glassware, dinnerware, dance floors, lighting, tents. And companies special order items all the time.
Tariff uncertainty has complicated custom orders because of pricing instability a year or more before a wedding, said Morgan Montgomery, co-owner of the rental company Paisley and Jade in Richmond, Virginia. She buys rental items from China.
'If they wait to make a decision now, we will need to re-quote, as our suppliers are tweaking prices constantly,' she said.
The solution? Work with the existing inventory of your vendor, even if it stifles your creative vision.
Vijay Goel, co-owner of Los Angeles venue 440 Elm and caterer Bite Catering Couture, is among wedding vendors pointing to the need to tweak contracts. He recommends booking for rental goods with a substitution clause. That would allow a couple to switch to something else if the price of an item rises closer to their wedding date.
'Maybe Napa sparkling wines will make more sense than French Champagne? Select vendors that have a flexible mindset and the ability to help you navigate choices,' Goel said.
No crystal ball required.
Jaime Coast, who designs wedding invitations and other stationary as owner of the online shop Cotton and Bow, recently had clients in the U.S. get married in Canada. They needed paper goods shipped to their wedding planner before their big day.
'I tried to estimate what the taxes would be in advance on the Canadian government website, but the calculators hadn't been updated yet. What was estimated to be a $60 bill turned into a $500 bill upon pickup,' she said.
Her tip? Bring items with you when possible and avoid shipping altogether.
Kimberly Sisti, owner, lead florist and wedding planner for Sisti & Co. in San Diego, said prices are already out of control. And that includes U.S. growers who are seeing higher demand and may be taking advantage of tariff chaos by raising prices.
She has an unusual tip: Look for a florist whose prices already well exceed business costs.
'If you have a healthy markup on your labor and goods, then a 10% tariff shouldn't break the bank and affect your customers at all,' she said. 'In fact, you can probably absorb the cost and keep your clients confident and happy.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
What the Trump travel ban means for the 2026 World Cup and 2028 Olympic Games
GENEVA (AP) — U.S. President Donald Trump often says the 2026 World Cup and 2028 Los Angeles Olympics are among the events he is most excited about in his second term. Yet there is significant uncertainty regarding visa policies for foreign visitors planning trips to the U.S. for the two biggest events in sports. Trump's latest travel ban on citizens from 12 countries added new questions about the impact on the World Cup and the Summer Olympics, which depend on hosts opening their doors to the world. Here's a look at the potential effects of the travel ban on those events. What is the travel ban policy? When Sunday ticks over to Monday, citizens of 12 countries should be banned from entering the U.S. They are Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. Tighter restrictions will apply to visitors from seven more: Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela. Trump said some countries had 'deficient' screening and vetting processes or have historically refused to take back their own citizens. How does it affect the World Cup and Olympics? Iran, a soccer power in Asia, is the only targeted country to qualify so far for the World Cup being co-hosted by the U.S., Canada and Mexico in one year's time. Cuba, Haiti and Sudan are in contention. Sierra Leone might stay involved through multiple playoff games. Burundi, Equatorial Guinea and Libya have very outside shots. But all should be able to send teams to the World Cup if they qualify because the new policy makes exceptions for 'any athlete or member of an athletic team, including coaches, persons performing a necessary support role, and immediate relatives, traveling for the World Cup, Olympics, or other major sporting event as determined by the secretary of state.' About 200 countries could send athletes to the Summer Games, including those targeted by the latest travel restrictions. The exceptions should apply to them as well if the ban is still in place in its current form. What about fans? The travel ban doesn't mention any exceptions for fans from the targeted countries wishing to travel to the U.S. for the World Cup or Olympics. Even before the travel ban, fans of the Iran soccer team living in that country already had issues about getting a visa for a World Cup visit. Still, national team supporters often profile differently to fans of club teams who go abroad for games in international competitions like the UEFA Champions League. For many countries, fans traveling to the World Cup — an expensive travel plan with hiked flight and hotel prices — are often from the diaspora, wealthier, and could have different passport options. A World Cup visitor is broadly higher-spending and lower-risk for host nation security planning. Visitors to an Olympics are often even higher-end clients, though tourism for a Summer Games is significantly less than at a World Cup, with fewer still from most of the 19 countries now targeted. How is the U.S. working with FIFA, Olympic officials? FIFA President Gianni Infantino has publicly built close ties since 2018 to Trump — too close according to some. He has cited the need to ensure FIFA's smooth operations at a tournament that will earn a big majority of the soccer body's expected $13 billion revenue from 2023-26. Infantino sat next to Trump at the White House task force meeting on May 6 which prominently included Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem. FIFA's top delegate on the task force is Infantino ally Carlos Cordeiro, a former Goldman Sachs partner whose two-year run as U.S. Soccer Federation president ended in controversy in 2020. Any visa and security issues FIFA faces — including at the 32-team Club World Cup that kicks off next week in Miami — can help LA Olympics organizers finesse their plans. 'It was very clear in the directive that the Olympics require special consideration and I actually want to thank the federal government for recognizing that," LA28 chairman and president Casey Wasserman said Thursday in Los Angeles. 'It's very clear that the federal government understands that that's an environment that they will be accommodating and provide for,' he said. 'We have great confidence that that will only continue. It has been the case to date and it will certainly be the case going forward through the games.' In March, at an IOC meeting in Greece, Wasserman said he had two discreet meetings with Trump and noted the State Department has a "fully staffed desk' to help prepare for short-notice visa processing in the summer of 2028 — albeit with a focus on teams rather than fans. IOC member Nicole Hoevertsz, who is chair of the Coordination Commission for LA28, expressed 'every confidence' that the U.S. government will cooperate, as it did in hosting previous Olympics. 'That is something that we will be definitely looking at and making sure that it is guaranteed as well,' she said. 'We are very confident that this is going to be accomplished. I'm sure this is going to be executed well." FIFA didn't immediately respond to a request for comment about the new Trump travel ban. What have other host nations done? The 2018 World Cup host Russia let fans enter the country with a game ticket doubling as their visa. So did Qatar four years later. Both governments, however, also performed background checks on all visitors coming to the month-long soccer tournaments. Governments have refused entry to unwelcome visitors. For the 2012 London Olympics, Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko — who is still its authoritarian leader today — was denied a visa despite also leading its national Olympic body. The IOC also suspended him from the Tokyo Olympics held in 2021. ___ AP Sports Writer Beth Harris in Los Angeles contributed to this report. ___ AP soccer: and AP Olympics at
The Hill
18 minutes ago
- The Hill
Power bills in California have jumped nearly 50% in four years. Democrats think they have solutions
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California lawmakers this week advanced several efforts aimed at reining in utility profits and slashing electricity bills as part of their agenda to tackle the sky-high costs of living. The proposals would make sweeping changes to how utilities fund expensive infrastructure projects like putting power lines underground to guard against wildfires. They also would add more oversight around wildfire mitigation spending and put new requirements on utility requests to increase rates. Supporters said the goal is to make the big investor-owned utilities start sharing some of the costs to fight wildfires and build new transmission infrastructure. 'This is not a set of modest tweaks that will make minor improvements at the edges of a problem without offending anyone,' said Democratic State Sen. Josh Becker, the bill's author. 'This is a big deal.' One of the bills is part of the state Senate's package to address affordability amid growing concern about the high costs of everything from gas to groceries. Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed an executive order last year urging lawmakers to do something to address skyrocketing electricity rates, which rose 47% on average for residential customers between 2019 and 2023, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Analysts Office. But Republicans, who are in the minority in both chambers, say Democrats are not meaningfully addressing high prices. They did not support the energy reform bills, saying it wouldn't lower costs, and they unsuccessfully tried to force a vote on a proposal to limit utilities from raising power rates above the rate of inflation. Utility rate increases in recent years have been approved by state regulators in part to help investor-owned utilities bury power lines aimed at stopping wildfires. Some of the deadliest and most destructive fires in recent years have been sparked by power equipment. Pacific Gas & Electric, whose equipment sparked a 2018 wildfire that killed 85 people in 2024, raised its rates six times to help cover the costs of putting power lines underground and other improvement projects. While one in every five ratepayers can't pay their power bills, utilities like PG&E raked in record-breaking profits last year, according to The Utility Reform Network, a ratepayer advocacy group. The group supports Becker's measure and has sponsored a similar effort in the Assembly. 'There are no limits to how much the utilities can ask for in rate increases. There are no limits to how many times a year they can ask,' said Mark Toney, the group's executive director. 'You can't blame them for asking for the sky.' Under Becker's proposal, utilities would be required to use public financing to fund the first $15 billion spent on capital investment projects. The option would allow utilities to access funding with lower interest rates, and utilities also would be prohibited from collecting a return on that investment for shareholders. That would save customers $8.8 billion over the next 10 years, Becker said. The bill would also set up a state-backed fund to reimburse utilities for wildfire projects, among other things. But the state may not have money to pay for that this year. The bill would also increase oversight of utility budgets and their wildfire spending. Utilities would have to include at least one rate increase proposal that doesn't exceed the rate of inflation in their requests. The proposal also calls for $60 billion worth of credits to apply on bills over the years during the summer months when usage is often at its peak. Senate Democrats overwhelmingly advanced Becker's measure this week. But Republicans, utilities and the California Chamber of Commerce said it would only drive up more costs. The legislation 'moves today's utility costs around without eliminating them,' the chamber said in a letter in opposition. New regulations around rate increase and shareholder returns also could halt utilities' investment in preventing wildfires or enhancing the grid, the letter said. Republican State senators said rising power bills are caused by Democrats' policies and push for more electric vehicles and less reliance on fossil fuels. In the Assembly, meanwhile, Republicans have called for permitting reforms to make it faster and cheaper to build better utility infrastructure. 'The regulation regime that we have in this state is oppressive and definitely drives prices,' said Sen. Roger Niello, a Republican. 'Your package of affordability is rather modest in number, but it is even more modest in its potential impact.' Lawmakers also advanced a slew of other measures aiming to provide relief to ratepayers, including one that would prohibit utilities from using rates to pay for lobbying efforts and one that would allow California to join a regional energy market with other Western states to help increase grid reliability.
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
House Dems Get Bonus Hearing on Crypto Market Structure, Assail Trump Conflicts
WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. President Donald Trump's crypto ventures were once again under the microscope during a House Financial Services Committee hearing that otherwise saw legal experts express worries about how regulators might police digital assets under a market structure bill. The committee held a "minority day" hearing — meaning the witnesses were primarily picked by the Democrats, the current minority party in the House — on Friday, letting lawmakers ask questions more targeted on concerns they have with the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, the Republican-led market structure legislation that will receive a markup vote next week. Maxine Waters, the ranking Democrat on the committee who'd demanding this extracurricular hearing after the panel met earlier in the week on the same topic, pointed to Trump's various crypto efforts in her opening statement, saying her goal was to stop Trump from profiting off of his crypto ventures to the extent he has been. "What I'm opposed to in this act … is the crooked president of the United States of America, who's decided to use the office of the presidency to enhance his access to profits," Waters said. Republicans focused on a different tack: "Currently, there is no federal framework for non-security digital assets," Committee Chair French Hill said in his own opening statement, a stance echoed by his colleagues Bryan Steil and Warren Davidson. They contend that Democrats and the administration of former President Joe Biden allowed years to pass in which they failed to protect consumers by offering no rules to oversee crypto. Crypto has driven an ideological wedge into the Democratic Party on Capitol Hill, with many Democrats — typically skewing toward the younger members — supporting the advancement of digital assets legislation despite the direction of their leadership. Most of the Democrats attending this bonus hearing on the Clarity Act were in the crypto-critical camp, though Representative Jim Himes, a Connecticut Democrat, has supported crypto bills in the past and questioned witnesses at the hearing about his concerns that the bill may include loopholes that could allow financial firms to dodge oversight. Himes, a yes vote on last year's predecessor to the Clarity Act — the Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century Act, or FIT21 — said some of the provisions in the new effort may allow for a carveout that can be abused by certain types of issuers under Securities and Exchange Commission regulations. The Clarity Act itself is more complicated than it needs to be and does not address some of the cybersecurity risks posed to the cryptocurrency industry, said Carole House, a former White House adviser who is now a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council GeoEconomics Center. She pointed to recent crypto hacks, including crypto exchange ByBit, as an example. Amanda Fischer, policy director at Better Markets, a Washington group advocating for financial policies that favor the public, said her bigger issue was with the exceptions that exist for companies to seek regulation under the Commodity Futures Trading Commission rather than the Securities and Exchange Commission, saying that it might provide loopholes for issuers or other crypto companies that otherwise would be regulated under the SEC and be subject to securities registration and reporting requirements. But as has been seen in other recent hearings, Trump's crypto ties again reappeared as the star of the show. Bart Naylor, a policy expert at Public Citizen and a former investigator for the Senate Banking Committee, said he believes Trump is specifically soliciting gifts through his memecoin and selling favors through actions like his memecoin dinner or by terminating SEC lawsuits against companies which donated money to him. White House officials have routinely denied Trump is exhibiting a conflict of interests in his pursuit of digital assets business gains. Waters had staged a walkout last month from what was meant to be a joint hearing of this and the House Agriculture Committee on crypto policy, though industry insiders were careful to note that not all the panel's Democrats followed Waters' departure.
