Wedding bells and trade deals: How the US-China tariff deal is shaping Kentucky bridal plans
The agreement will roll back the crippling tariffs both countries put in place in response to President Trump's trade war.
Wedding bells and trade deals: How the US-China tariff deal is shaping Kentucky bridal plans
Sen. Paul points to business-sector resistance to Trump's tariffs in solidly red Kentucky
Driver caught on video hitting Lexington business
However, the pause is only set to last 90 days, as the two countries work towards a final long-term trade policy.
Both sides remain optimistic despite there being no indication how long a permanent trade deal could take, and if it can be done in 90 days.
Now, when couples start planning their wedding, the last thing they expect is for international trade policy to end up on the guest list.
But, despite that trade deal overnight, companies in Kentucky will continue to deal with the long-term effects of the trade war.
'Usually, about probably 90% of your wedding gowns are made in China,' said Beverly Coleman, co-owner of The White Dress of Lexington. 'That's where most of the fabrics come from.'
Julia Reese, co-owner of The White Dress of Lexington, said they've had to warn brides about the possible price hikes.
List: 5 Big Lots stores in Kentucky reopening this week
Lexington eatery makes OpenTable's 'Top 100 Brunch Restaurants' in the US
Study: Kentucky is the toughest state to own an EV in
'We have had to tell some of our recent brides that they may have tariffs imposed. We're not charging until the last second,' Reese added. 'Like once we know, they just come in and it has one; that's the only time we're planning on doing such, as charging.'
But, a bit of good news if you're a bride: tariffs on Chinese goods are set to drop from 145% to 30%, while China plans to cut tariffs on American products from 125% to just 10%.
But even still, Reese and Coleman are asking brides to shop early.
'Some of the companies have even dried up their shipping; they've laid off workers in China and things, so they're holding orders, hoping the tariffs will go down,' said Coleman. 'To be on the safe side, I would say shop early and get your dress early.'
From dress to decor, tariffs are turning wedding planning into a more delicate dance.
Sen. Paul points to business-sector resistance to Trump's tariffs in solidly red Kentucky
President Trump announces plan to cut prescription drug costs
House GOP unveils plan to raise debt limit by $4 trillion
'It may affect some of the venues as well as far as if you do silk flowers or even imported flowers and things,' said Coleman. 'Which, not everything comes from China, but the United States is dependent on China.'
Coleman and Reese said they're closely monitoring the tariff situation and are doing what they can to ease brides' concerns.
'Things will get settled, and we want to make sure the wedding day is a happy day and stress-free is all that we can do, and we just have to make each day a good day,' Coleman said.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Court Lets Trump Block Billions of Dollars in Foreign Aid
(Bloomberg) -- The Trump administration can cut billions of dollars in foreign assistance funds approved by Congress for this year, a US appeals court ruled. Sunseeking Germans Face Swiss Backlash Over Alpine Holiday Congestion To Head Off Severe Storm Surges, Nova Scotia Invests in 'Living Shorelines' New York Warns of $34 Billion Budget Hole, Biggest Since 2009 Crisis Five Years After Black Lives Matter, Brussels' Colonial Statues Remain For Homeless Cyclists, Bikes Bring an Escape From the Streets In a 2-1 decision on Wednesday, the appellate panel reversed a Washington federal judge who found that US officials were violating the Constitution's separation of powers principles by failing to authorize the money to be paid in line with what the legislative branch directed. The ruling is a significant win for President Donald Trump's efforts to dissolve the US Agency for International Development and broadly withhold funding from programs that have fallen out of favor with his administration, regardless of how Congress exercised its authority over spending. Trump's critics have assailed what they've described as a far-reaching power grab by the executive branch. The nonprofits and business that sued could ask all of the active judges on the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit to reconsider the three-member panel's decision. If the panel's decision stands, it wasn't immediately clear how much it would affect other lawsuits contesting a range of Trump administration funding freezes and cuts besides foreign aid. Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson wrote in the majority opinion that the challengers lacked valid legal grounds to sue over the Trump administration's decision to withhold the funds, also known as impoundment. The US Comptroller General — who leads an accountability arm of Congress — could sue under a specific law related to impoundment decisions, Henderson wrote, but the challengers couldn't bring a 'freestanding' constitutional claim or claim violations of a different law related to agency actions. Henderson, appointed by former President George H.W. Bush, was joined by Judge Greg Katsas, a Trump appointee. The court didn't reach the core question of whether the administration's unilateral decision to refuse to spend money appropriated by Congress is constitutional. Judge Florence Pan, nominated by former President Joe Biden, dissented, writing that her colleagues had turned 'a blind eye to the 'serious implications' of this case for the rule of law and the very structure of our government.' White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said in a statement that the appeals court 'has affirmed what we already knew – President Trump has the executive authority to execute his own foreign policy, which includes ensuring that all foreign assistance aligns with the America First agenda.' A lead attorney for the grant recipients did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The two consolidated cases before the appeals court only deal with money that Congress approved for the 2024 fiscal year, which ends on Sept. 30. Grantees are poised to lose access to funds if they haven't yet been approved to be spent by federal officials — a precursor to actual payouts — or unless a court order is in place. The administration lost one of its few battles before the US Supreme Court earlier this year in the foreign aid fight. In March, a majority of justices refused to immediately stop US District Judge Amir Ali's injunction taking effect while the legal fight went forward. Since then, however, the challengers have filed complaints with Ali that the administration is failing to obligate or pay out the funds. They've rebuffed the government's position that the delay is part of a legitimate effort to 'evaluate the appropriate next steps' and accused officials of angling to use a novel tactic to go around Congress in order to cut appropriated money. The Trump administration has dramatically scaled back the US government's humanitarian work overseas, slashing spending and personnel and merging the USAID into the State Department. The challengers say the foreign aid freeze has created a global crisis, and that the money is critical for malaria prevention, to address child malnutrition and provide postnatal care for newborns. The groups argued that the president and agency leaders couldn't defy Congress' spending mandates and didn't have discretion to decide that only some, let alone none, of the money appropriated by lawmakers should be paid. The president can ask Congress to withdraw appropriations but can't do it on his own, the challengers argued. The Justice Department argued Ali's order was an 'improper judicial intrusion into matters left to the political branches' and that the judge wrongly interfered in the 'particularly sensitive area of foreign relations.' The government also said that the Impoundment Control Act, which restricts the president from overruling Congress' spending decisions, wasn't a law that the nonprofits and business could sue to enforce. The challengers countered that Ali's order blocking the funding freeze was rooted in their constitutional separation-of-powers claim, not the impoundment law. The cases are Global Health Council v. Trump, 25-5097, and AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition v. US Department of State, 25-5098, US Court of Appeals, DC Circuit. (Updated with White House comment.) Bessent on Tariffs, Deficits and Embracing Trump's Economic Plan Why It's Actually a Good Time to Buy a House, According to a Zillow Economist Dubai's Housing Boom Is Stoking Fears of Another Crash The Social Media Trend Machine Is Spitting Out Weirder and Weirder Results Americans Are Getting Priced Out of Homeownership at Record Rates ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Appeals court lets the White House suspend or end billions in foreign aid
WASHINGTON (AP) — A divided panel of appeals court judges ruled Wednesday that the Trump administration can suspend or terminate billions of dollars of congressionally appropriated funding for foreign aid. Two of three judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit concluded that grant recipients challenging the freeze did not meet the requirements for a preliminary injunction restoring the flow of money. In January, on the first day of his second term in the White House, Republican President Donald Trump issued an executive order directing the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development to freeze spending on foreign aid. After groups of grant recipients sued to challenge that order, U.S. District Judge Amir Ali ordered the administration to release the full amount of foreign assistance that Congress had appropriated for the 2024 budget year. The appeal court's majority partially vacated Ali's order. Judges Karen LeCraft Henderson and Gregory Katsas concluded that the plaintiffs did not have a valid legal basis for the court to hear their claims. The ruling was not on the merits of whether the government unconstitutionally infringed on Congress' spending powers. 'The parties also dispute the scope of the district court's remedy but we need not resolve it ... because the grantees have failed to satisfy the requirements for a preliminary injunction in any event,' Henderson wrote. Judge Florence Pan, who dissented, said the Supreme Court has held 'in no uncertain terms' that the president does not have the authority to disobey laws for policy reasons. 'Yet that is what the majority enables today,' Pan wrote. 'The majority opinion thus misconstrues the separation-of-powers claim brought by the grantees, misapplies precedent, and allows Executive Branch officials to evade judicial review of constitutionally impermissible actions.' The money at issue includes nearly $4 billion for USAID to spend on global health programs and more than $6 billion for HIV and AIDS programs. Trump has portrayed the foreign aid as wasteful spending that does not align with his foreign policy goals. Henderson was nominated to the court by Republican President George H.W. Bush. Katsas was nominated by Trump. Pan was nominated by Democratic President Joe Biden.
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Barrick Eyes Exit from Ivory Coast's Tongon Mine in $500 Million Deal with China's Zijin
Barrick Mining Corporation (NYSE:B) is one of the best cheap growth stocks to buy according to analysts. On July 23, 2025, reports emerged that China's Zijin Mining is in advanced talks to acquire Barrick's Tongon gold mine in Ivory Coast for up to $500 million. The deal, still subject to regulatory approval, comes as Barrick continues to streamline its portfolio by shedding lower-margin, shorter-life assets. Tongon, which began production in 2010, has seen its reserves decline in recent years and is projected to cease operations by 2027 without major reinvestment. Selling the mine would free up capital for Barrick to pursue higher-return opportunities, particularly in copper and long-life gold projects. The potential sale reflects Barrick's broader strategy of focusing on assets with strong margins and long production horizons. Management has signaled increased emphasis on copper, which now accounts for roughly one-fifth of the company's output, with a target of raising that share to 30 percent by 2029. Divesting from smaller, aging mines like Tongon aligns with this shift, enabling Barrick to redeploy resources toward growth-oriented ventures in regions such as Latin America, North America, and Central Asia. Barrick Mining Corporation (NYSE:B) is a global leader in gold and copper production, with operations spanning North and South America, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. Founded in 1983, the company is headquartered in Toronto, Canada. While we acknowledge the potential of B as an investment, we believe certain AI stocks offer greater upside potential and carry less downside risk. If you're looking for an extremely undervalued AI stock that also stands to benefit significantly from Trump-era tariffs and the onshoring trend, see our free report on the best short-term AI stock. READ NEXT: and . Disclosure: None. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
