logo
Small-Business Owners Say Tariffs Will Squeeze Them, and Their Customers

Small-Business Owners Say Tariffs Will Squeeze Them, and Their Customers

New York Times04-02-2025

For small businesses across the United States, President Trump's broad tariffs on Chinese-made goods could squeeze their already tight margins, and cause sticker shock for customers.
Sarah Pitkin, who owns four hardware stores in Virginia, said the prices of the power tools, barbecue grills and electronics that she stocks could all rise as a result of the 10 percent tariff on Chinese products, which took effect on Tuesday. At least 40 percent of the goods that Ms. Pitkin sells are imported from China through her distributors, who she said would probably pass the cost of the tariff on to her.
A $129 drill at her store, for example, might jump to more than $140. Profit margins for power tools are tight, Ms. Pitkin said, meaning she would have to charge her customers for the entire cost of the tariff.
'People can't pay more for stuff, and won't pay more for items,' Ms. Pitkin said. Referring to the size of her inventories, she added, 'Your items shrink to the point where you're really going to evaluate if you'll keep certain shops open.'
Consumer electronics, electrical equipment, and textiles and apparel are among the top categories of goods imported into the United States from China, according to Census Bureau data compiled by Torsten Slok at Apollo Global Management. Tariffs on these imports, and others, are poised to have ripple effects throughout the economy, hitting small businesses that rely on the goods — whether directly or through distributors — particularly hard.
In a survey of more than 600 members by the National Small Business Association, set to be released next week, more than half the owners said they were concerned about tariffs under the Trump administration, and nearly a third were 'very concerned,' said Molly Day, a spokeswoman for the association.
Kelli Courtney, who owns Margaret's Boutique, a women's clothing shop in Decorah, Iowa, buys most of the clothing from manufacturers based in the United States. On Tuesday morning, she walked around the store, examining the tags on dresses and jeans from various brands, including one called Democracy.
'That sounds very American, but if I look in their pants, in their jeans, it says, 'Made in China,'' Ms. Courtney said. 'When it comes across the border all sewn together, that company that I'm working with will pay the tariff, but of course they're going to pass it on to me.'
How much of those costs that Ms. Courtney would on to her own customers is an open question. Raising prices too much could run her out of business. And small businesses don't have the same leverage as big box retailers to negotiate with their suppliers for lower costs, she said.
Another issue looms over Ms. Courtney's business decisions: potential tariffs on Canada. Roughly 15 percent of her clothing lines come directly from Canada, which along with Mexico was granted a one-month reprieve from U.S. tariffs after their leaders struck last-minute deals with Mr. Trump on Monday. On Tuesday, two of the Canadian clothing lines that sell to Ms. Courtney told her that they planned to absorb any costs from upcoming tariffs, rather than charge her.
But the uncertainty surrounding tariffs on Canada is already influencing Ms. Courtney's business decisions. She was planning to feature a Canadian manufacturer's merchandise at an event this spring, but 'now I'm completely on hold,' she said.
The lingering threat of tariffs on Canada is a dilemma that Michael Howard, who owns Howard Family Designs, a furniture business in Warren, Mich., is confronting, too.
About 30 percent of the softwood lumber in the United States is imported from Canada, which is also the source of much of the plywood Mr. Howard buys from stores in his area. A sheet of plywood from his local supplier jumped to $80 last week, from $60 last month, he said. He attributed the surge to anticipation of sweeping tariffs on Canada.
That jump in cost is forcing Mr. Howard to raise estimates for his work. He now plans to quote one client $2,000 for a custom-made bookshelf, $300 more than he would have otherwise charged.
'I can't absorb the increased cost of a product,' Mr. Howard said.
For Jennifer Zimmerman, who owns No Gluten Kneaded, a gluten-free bakery in Bohemia, N.Y., prices for crucial ingredients are likely to increase. She buys xanthan gum, a gluten substitute, from a wholesale supplier in Queens that imports it from China. Her gluten-free rice flour also comes from China.
Ms. Zimmerman thinks her suppliers in the United States will probably pass on the cost of the tariffs to her, which means she is considering raising prices in her bakery, too. But she is worried that customers won't pay much more than what she already charges. Ingredient costs, including the high price of eggs, have already forced her to raise prices for her baked goods in recent weeks.
'It's going to be harder for us to stay open,' she said.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Elon Musk Claims Trump's Name Is On The Epstein List, Taco Trump Threatens To End Phony Stark's Government Contracts
Elon Musk Claims Trump's Name Is On The Epstein List, Taco Trump Threatens To End Phony Stark's Government Contracts

Black America Web

time10 minutes ago

  • Black America Web

Elon Musk Claims Trump's Name Is On The Epstein List, Taco Trump Threatens To End Phony Stark's Government Contracts

Source: The Washington Post / Getty / Elon Musk / Donald Trump It should come as no surprise that the bromance between these two ego maniacs would have come to a fiery end. We knew this day would come, but no one had Musk and Trump beefing with each other so soon on their bingo cards. The alleged ketamine abuser couldn't keep his disdain for Trump's 'one big beautiful bill,' calling it a 'disgusting abomination.' 'I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore,' Musk began. 'This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it.' Trump was uncharacteristically quiet following Musk's initial comments about his legislative centerpiece of his second presidency, the 'one big beautiful bill.' That all changed when Trump finally 'clapped back' at Musk while taking questions during his meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. Trump said he was 'very surprised' and 'disappointed' by his former financier's comments about his stupid bill, claiming the Tesla chief saw the bill and understood its inner workings better than anybody, while suggesting that Musk was mad because of the removal of subsidies and mandates for electric vehicles. Elon Musk Had Time For Donald Trump Musk responded in real time via his 'former platform,' X, formerly Twitter, with a flurry of posts on X accusing Trump of 'ingratitude' and 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election,' while refuting the orange menace's claims. 'Keep the EV/solar incentive cuts in the bill, even though no oil & gas subsidies are touched (very unfair!!), but ditch the MOUNTAIN of DISGUSTING PORK in the bill,' Musk wrote. Oh, and he wasn't done. Musk then hit the president with a low blow, writing, 'Time to drop the really big bomb: @realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT!' Donald Trump Claps Back Trump finally fired back on his platform, Truth Social, by threatening to cut Musk's government contracts. 'The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts. I was always surprised that Biden didn't do it.' Felon 47 wrote. Musk replied by threatening to decommission SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft, which could be detrimental to the International Space Station and NASA, as it is described as 'the only spacecraft currently flying that is capable of returning significant amounts of cargo to Earth' and can seat seven passengers. Musk also agreed with a post stating that Trump should be impeached and replaced by JD Vance. Oh, this is getting spicy. While all of this was going on, CNN reports that Tesla stocks took a hit and Musk's net worth shrank. Per CNN : Tesla shares plummeted 15% this afternoon as Elon Musk's battle with President Donald Trump intensified. Trump threatened in a social media post to target Musk's business empire. 'The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts,' Trump wrote on Truth Social. The Tesla selloff has wiped off more than $150 billion off the market value of Telsa, which started the day worth nearly $1.1 trillion. It has also erased a chunk off the net worth of Musk, the world's richest person. Social media has pulled up all the seats, grabbed some popcorn and are currently watching Musk go at with Trump and his supporters, you can see those reactions in the gallery below. Elon Musk Claims Trump's Name Is On The Epstein List, Taco Trump Threatens To End Phony Stark's Government Contracts was originally published on Black America Web Featured Video CLOSE

How a Supreme Court decision backing the NRA is thwarting Trump's retribution campaign
How a Supreme Court decision backing the NRA is thwarting Trump's retribution campaign

CNN

time11 minutes ago

  • CNN

How a Supreme Court decision backing the NRA is thwarting Trump's retribution campaign

As Harvard University, elite law firms and perceived political enemies of President Donald Trump fight back against his efforts to use government power to punish them, they're winning thanks in part to the National Rifle Association. Last May, the Supreme Court unanimously sided with the gun rights group in a First Amendment case concerning a New York official's alleged efforts to pressure insurance companies in the state to sever ties with the group following the deadly 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Florida. A government official, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the nine, 'cannot … use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.' A year later, the court's decision in National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo has been cited repeatedly by federal judges in rulings striking down a series of executive orders that targeted law firms. Lawyers representing Harvard, faculty at Columbia University and others are also leaning on the decision in cases challenging Trump's attacks on them. 'Going into court with a decision that is freshly minted, that clearly reflects the unanimous views of the currently sitting Supreme Court justices, is a very powerful tool,' said Eugene Volokh, a conservative First Amendment expert who represented the NRA in the 2024 case. For free speech advocates, the application of the NRA decision in cases pushing back against Trump's retribution campaign is a welcome sign that lower courts are applying key First Amendment principles equally, particularly in politically fraught disputes. In the NRA case, the group claimed that Maria Vullo, the former superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services, had threatened enforcement actions against the insurance firms if they failed to comply with her demands to help with the campaign against gun groups. The NRA's claims centered around a meeting Vullo had with an insurance market in 2018 in which the group says she offered to not prosecute other violations as long as the company helped with her campaign. 'The great hope of a principled application of the First Amendment is that it protects everybody,' said Alex Abdo, the litigation director of the Knight First Amendment Institute. 'Some people have criticized free speech advocates as being naive for hoping that'll be the case, but hopefully that's what we're seeing now,' he added. 'We're seeing courts apply that principle where the politics are very different than the NRA case.' The impact of Vullo can be seen most clearly in the cases challenging Trump's attempts to use executive power to exact revenge on law firms that have employed his perceived political enemies or represented clients who have challenged his initiatives. A central pillar of Trump's retribution crusade has been to pressure firms to bend to his political will, including through issuing executive orders targeting four major law firms: Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale and Susman Godfrey. Among other things, the orders denied the firms' attorneys access to federal buildings, retaliated against their clients with government contracts and suspended security clearances for lawyers at the firms. (Other firms were hit with similar executive orders but they haven't taken Trump to court over them.) The organizations individually sued the administration over the orders and the three judges overseeing the Perkins Coie, WilmerHale and Jenner & Block suits have all issued rulings permanently blocking enforcement of the edicts. (The Susman case is still pending.) Across more than 200-pages of writing, the judges – all sitting at the federal trial-level court in Washington, DC – cited Vullo 30 times to conclude that the orders were unconstitutional because they sought to punish the firms over their legal work. The judges all lifted Sotomayor's line about using 'the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression,' while also seizing on other language in her opinion to buttress their own decisions. Two of them – US district judges Beryl Howell, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, and Richard Leon, who was named to the bench by former President George W. Bush – incorporated Sotomayor's statement that government discrimination based on a speaker's viewpoint 'is uniquely harmful to a free and democratic society.' The third judge, John Bates, said Vullo and an earlier Supreme Court case dealing with impermissible government coercion 'govern – and defeat' the administration's arguments in defense of a section of the Jenner & Block order that sought to end all contractual relationships that might have allowed taxpayer dollars to flow to the firm. 'Executive Order 14246 does precisely what the Supreme Court said just last year is forbidden: it engages in 'coercion against a third party to achieve the suppression of disfavored speech,'' wrote Bates, who was also appointed by Bush, in his May 23 ruling. For its part, the Justice Department has tried to draw a distinction between what the executive orders called for and the conduct rejected by the high court in Vullo. They told the three judges in written arguments that the orders at issue did not carry the 'force of the powers exhibited in Vullo' by the New York official. Will Creeley, the legal director at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, said the rulings underscore how 'Vullo has proved its utility almost immediately.' 'It is extremely useful to remind judges and government actors alike that just last year, the court warned against the kind of shakedowns and turns of the screw that we're now seeing from the administration,' he said. Justice Department lawyers have not yet appealed any of the three rulings issued last month. CNN has reached out to the department for comment. In separate cases brought in the DC courthouse and elsewhere, Trump's foes have leaned on Vullo as they've pressed judges to intervene in high-stakes disputes with the president. Among them is Mark Zaid, a prominent national security lawyer who has drawn Trump's ire for his representation of whistleblowers. Earlier this year, Trump yanked Zaid's security clearance, a decision, the attorney said in a lawsuit, that undermines his ability to 'zealously advocate on (his clients') behalf in the national security arena.' In court papers, Zaid's attorneys argued that the president's decision was a 'retaliatory directive,' invoking language from the Vullo decision to argue that the move violated his First Amendment rights. ''Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors,'' they wrote, quoting from the 2024 ruling. 'And yet that is exactly what Defendants do here.' Timothy Zick, a constitutional law professor at William & Mary Law School, said the executive orders targeting private entities or individuals 'have relied heavily on pressure, intimidation, and the threat of adverse action to punish or suppress speakers' views and discourage others from engaging with regulated targets.' 'The unanimous holding in Vullo is tailor-made for litigants seeking to push back against the administration's coercive strategy,' Zick added. That notion was not lost on lawyers representing Harvard and faculty at Columbia University in several cases challenging Trump's attacks on the elite schools, including one brought by Harvard challenging Trump's efforts to ban the school from hosting international students. A federal judge has so far halted those efforts. In a separate case brought by Harvard over the administration's decision to freeze billions of dollars in federal funding for the nation's oldest university, the school's attorneys on Monday told a judge that Trump's decision to target it because of 'alleged antisemitism and ideological bias at Harvard' clearly ran afoul of the high court's decision last year. 'Although any governmental retaliation based on protected speech is an affront to the First Amendment, the retaliation here was especially unconstitutional because it was based on Harvard's 'particular views' – the balance of speech on its campus and its refusal to accede to the Government's unlawful demands,' the attorneys wrote.

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