Nike warns Trump tariffs could cost it nearly £730m
Sportswear giant Nike has warned that US President Donald Trump's trade tariffs could cost it around an extra one billion US dollars (£727 million).
The group said it was taking action to offset the hit, having recently warned it would raise prices on some trainers and clothing in the US to counter rising tariffs.
Nike also said it would reduce supply from China to the US market to bring down costs.
It currently makes around 16% of its footwear in China, which is then imported into the US, but is looking to reduce this to a 'high single-digit range' by the end of the current financial year.
Bosses at the group said supply in China would be 'reallocated to other countries around the world'.
Matt Friend, Nike's chief financial officer, said: 'These tariffs represent a new and meaningful cost headwind.'
He said the cost impact would be about one billion US dollars (£727 million) if tariffs remain at current levels.
Mr Friend added: 'We will optimise our sourcing mix and allocate production differently across countries to mitigate the new cost headwind into the United States, despite the current elevated tariffs for Chinese products imported into the United States.
'Manufacturing capacity and capability in China remains important to our global source base.'
He also said the group was looking to 'minimise the overall impact to the consumer', although it confirmed it would start pushing through price hikes in the US starting from the autumn.
Corporate costs could also be cut under plans to offset the expected cost hit.
The comments came as Nike reported its worst quarterly earnings in more than three years, although the out-turn was better than feared on Wall Street, helping its US-listed shares lift overnight on Thursday.
Chief executive Elliott Hill, who returned from retirement last year to take the helm, is leading a turnaround at the group.
He said the group's results showing a 12% drop in fourth quarter revenues to 11.1 billion dollars (£8.1 billion) were 'not where we want them to be'.
'As we enter a new fiscal year, we are turning the page and the next step is aligning our teams to lead with sport through what we are calling the sport offense,' he said.
Mr Friend also said the sales decline 'reflected the largest financial impact' of its revamp, adding 'we expect the headwinds to moderate from here'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
35 minutes ago
- The Independent
Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions, but fate of Trump birthright citizenship order unclear
A divided Supreme Court on Friday ruled that individual judges lack the authority to grant nationwide injunctions, but the decision left unclear the fate of President Donald Trump's restrictions on birthright citizenship. The outcome was a victory for Trump, who has complained about individual judges throwing up obstacles to his agenda. But a conservative majority left open the possibility that the birthright citizenship changes could remain blocked nationwide. Trump's order would deny citizenship to U.S.-born children of people who are in the country illegally. Birthright citizenship automatically makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers in the country illegally. The right was enshrined soon after the Civil War in the Constitution's 14th Amendment. In a notable Supreme Court decision from 1898, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the court held that the only children who did not automatically receive U.S. citizenship upon being born on U.S. soil were the children of diplomats, who have allegiance to another government; enemies present in the U.S. during hostile occupation; those born on foreign ships; and those born to members of sovereign Native American tribes. The U.S. is among about 30 countries where birthright citizenship — the principle of jus soli or 'right of the soil' — is applied. Most are in the Americas, and Canada and Mexico are among them. Trump and his supporters have argued that there should be tougher standards for becoming an American citizen, which he called 'a priceless and profound gift' in the executive order he signed on his first day in office. The Trump administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States, a phrase used in the amendment, and therefore are not entitled to citizenship. But states, immigrants and rights groups that have sued to block the executive order have accused the administration of trying to unsettle the broader understanding of birthright citizenship that has been accepted since the amendment's adoption. Judges have uniformly ruled against the administration. The Justice Department had argued that individual judges lack the power to give nationwide effect to their rulings. The Trump administration instead wanted the justices to allow Trump's plan to go into effect for everyone except the handful of people and groups that sued. Failing that, the administration argued that the plan could remain blocked for now in the 22 states that sued. New Hampshire is covered by a separate order that is not at issue in this case. As a further fallback, the administration asked 'at a minimum' to be allowed to make public announcements about how it plans to carry out the policy if it eventually is allowed to take effect. ___
Daily Mail
37 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
BREAKING NEWS Supreme Court delivers bombshell ruling on Trump's plan to end birthright citizenship
President Donald Trump was handed a major victory by the Supreme Court in his bid to end birthright citizenship in the U.S. Trump signed an executive order when he took office bolding ending birthright citizenship - the legal principle that U.S. citizenship is automatically granted to individuals upon birth. Under the directive, children born to parents in the United States illegally or on temporary visas would not automatically become citizens, radically altering the interpretation of the Constitution's 14th Amendment for over 150 years. The president claimed the idea was tied to 'slavery' and should be immediately dismantled. 'That's not about tourists coming in and touching a piece of sand and then all of the sudden there's citizenship, you know they're a citizen, that is all about slavery,' Trump argued. 'If you look at it that way, that case is an easy case to win,' he had previously stated. Six conservative justices – three appointed by Trump himself – sided with the president when it handed down its decision on Friday. The majority opinion in the Trump v. CASA Inc., New Jersey and Washington case came on the last day of the high court's term. Democratic states and an immigrant rights group sued to stop Trump's January 20, 2025 executive order from taking effect. Lower courts issued nationwide preliminary injunctions on the presidential order. Birthright citizenship was ratified in 1868 in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, establishing that anyone born on American soil, regardless of their parents' citizenship or immigration status, is automatically a U.S. citizen. 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,' Section 1 of the 14th Amendment states. After his election but before being sworn in as president for a second time, Trump vowed he would fight for a constitutional shake-up by ending the provision. 'Can you get around the 14th Amendment with an executive action?' NBC host Kristen Welker asked Trump in an interview that aired in December. 'Well, we're going to have to get it changed,' he said. 'We'll maybe have to go back to the people. But we have to end it.' 'We're the only country that has it, you know,' Trump added in explaining his bid to end 125 years of precedent. The president was elated in April when the Supreme Court decided to take on the case despite the high court rarely hearing emergency appeals. 'I am so happy,' he told reporters in the Oval Office on April 17. 'I think the case has been so misunderstood.' But oral arguments earlier this spring set the stage for the staggering decision that the president is sure to denounce. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer was grilled by both liberal and conservative justices over how the narrowing of birthright citizenship rights would work when put into action. Sauer didn't seem clear on how it would work, and said it would be up to legislators to work out the logistics. 'What do hospitals do with newborns?' Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a Trump pick, questioned during oral arguments last month. 'What do states do with a newborn?' 'Federal officials will have to figure that out,' Sauer replied. Additionally, Justice Amy Comey Barrett was not pleased with how Sauer refused to answer a legitimate question from liberal Justice Elana Kagan.
The Independent
39 minutes ago
- The Independent
Supreme Court rules in Trump birthright citizenship case
The Supreme Court's conservative majority has stripped federal courts' authority to issue nationwide injunctions that have blocked key parts of Donald Trump's agenda. The court's anticipated ruling in a case attached to a question of whether the president can unilaterally redefine who gets to be a citizen states that nationwide injunctions 'exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to the federal courts.' A series of federal court rulings across the country struck down the president's attempt to block citizenship from newborn Americans who are born to certain immigrant parents. But the government argues those decisions should only impact the individual states — and the unborn children of pregnant mothers in them — who sued him and won. Opponents have warned that such a decision would open a backdoor to begin stripping constitutional rights. Allowing the president to unilaterally redefine who gets to be a U.S. citizen in states subject to Trump's unilateral rewriting of the 14th Amendment would create a patchwork system of constitutional rights and citizenship benefits — including voting rights. More than 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship every year under Trump's order, according to the plaintiffs. In January, more than 20 states, immigrants' advocacy groups and pregnant plaintiffs sued the administration to block the president's executive order that attempts to redefine the Constitution to determine who is eligible for citizenship. Three federal judges and appellate court panels have argued his order is unconstitutional and blocked the measure from taking effect nationwide while legal challenges continue. During oral arguments, the Supreme Court's liberal justices appeared shocked at the president's 'unlawful' measure. But the administration used the case not necessarily to argue over whether he can change the 14th Amendment but to target what has become a major obstacle to advancing Trump's agenda: federal judges blocking aggressive executive actions. The government asked the court to limit the authority of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions, which have imperiled a bulk of the president's agenda, which has thus far been dictated largely through an avalanche of executive orders, not legislation. The government pushed the Supreme Court to reduce the federal judiciary's power to issue nationwide injunctions, cutting off one of the few critical checks and balances against an administration that critics warn is mounting an ongoing assault against the rule of law. More than half of the injunctions issued over the last 70 years were against the Trump administration, according to the Harvard Law Review, as Trump pushed the limits of his authority. In Trump's first term in office, his administration faced 64 injunctions, compared to 14 injunctions against Joe Biden and 12 against Barack Obama The second administration faced 17 within its first two months. In arguments to the Supreme Court, Trump's personal attorney John Sauer, who was appointed by the president to serve as U.S. solicitor general, called the 'cascade of universal injunctions' against the administration a 'bipartisan problem' that exceeds judicial authority. 'The vision of the district courts that's reflected in the issuance of these nationwide injunctions is a vision of them as a roving commission to correct every legal wrong that they can consider and to exercise general legal oversight over the executive branch,' he said. Trump's allies, however, have relied on nationwide injunctions to do the very same thing they commanded the Supreme Court to strike down. Critics have accused right-wing legal groups of 'judge shopping' for ideologically like-minded venues where they can sue to strike down — through nationwide injunctions — policies with which they disagree. After the government's arguments fell flat in front of a mostly skeptical Supreme Court last month, Trump accused his political opponents of 'playing the ref' through the courts to overturn his threat to the 14th Amendment. 'The Radical Left SleazeBags, which has no cards remaining in its illegal bag of tricks, is, in a very coordinated manner, PLAYING THE REF with regard to the United States Supreme Court,' Trump wrote. 'They lost the Election in a landslide, and with it, have totally lost their confidence and reason. They are stone cold CRAZY! I hope the Supreme Court doesn't fall for the games they play,' he added. In a separate post, written in all-caps, he claimed the nation's high court is 'BEING PLAYED BY THE RADICAL LEFT LOSERS' whose 'ONLY HOPE IS THE INTIMIDATION OF THE COURT, ITSELF.' The 14th Amendment plainly states that 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.' But under the terms of Trump's order, children can be denied citizenship if a mother is undocumented or is temporarily legally in the country on a visa, and if the father isn't a citizen or a lawful permanent resident. The president's attempt to define a key component of the 14th Amendment is central to his administration's sweeping anti-immigration agenda. His administration has effectively ended entry for asylum seekers, declaring the United States under 'invasion' from foreign gangs to summarily remove alleged members, and stripped legal protections for more than 1 million people — radically expanding the pool of 'undocumented' people now vulnerable for arrest and removal. The administration has also effectively 'de-legalized' tens of thousands of immigrants, and thousands of people with pending immigration cases are being ordered to court each week only to have those cases dismissed, with federal agents waiting to arrest them on the other side of the courtroom doors. The White House has also rolled back protections barring immigration arrests at sensitive locations like churches and bumped up the pace of immigration raids in the interior of the country. To carry out the arrests, the administration has tapped resources from other state and local agencies while moving officers from federal agencies like the FBI and DEA to focus on immigration.
