
What Trump's New Tariffs Could Mean For US Consumers
It's been nearly 100 years since the nation had an overall import tax rate as high as the one set Thursday. But the individual impact on business costs and consumer prices could vary as much as the tariffs applied to goods of nearly 70 US trading partners, from complicated economies like the European Union to the small African nation of Lesotho.
Exports from a majority of them are getting taxed at 15%. For a handful of countries in Asia, the rate is 19%. Products from the rest are subject to taxes of 20% to 50%. Meanwhile, a 55% tariff on Chinese-made goods is scheduled to take effect next week if a US-China trade deal is not agreed on before then.
Businesses in the US and abroad have been dealing in various ways since February with Trump's fluctuating tariffs on specific products and countries. Many automakers appeared to have absorbed the costs for now. But recent government data indicated that retail prices for groceries, furniture and appliances started creeping up in June.
Because tariffs are a tax on imports, economists have expected US consumers to foot at least part of the bill eventually.
The country-specific round enforced Thursday, together with the president's earlier tariffs on specific sectors such as automobiles and steel, will increase prices 1.8% in the short term, the Budget Lab at Yale estimated. That's the equivalent of a $2,400 loss of income per US household, according to the non-partisan policy research center
The projections were based on an analysis of duties implemented this year through Wednesday, as well as a doubling of the levy on items made in India that Trump said would be implemented near the end of August.
"Retailers have been able to hold the line on pricing so far, but the new increased tariffs will significantly raise costs for US retailers, manufacturers and consumers," Jon Gold, vice president of supply chain and customs policy at the National Retail Federation trade group, said in an emailed statement to The Associated Press.
Here's what to know about the tariffs and where US consumers are most likely to notice effects:
Trump unveiled sweeping import taxes on goods coming into the US from 66 countries, the European Union, Taiwan and the Falkland Islands in April. He said the "reciprocal" tariffs were meant to boost domestic manufacturing and restore fairness to global trade.
The president paused the country-specific tariffs a week later but applied a 10% tax to most imports. In early July, he began notifying countries that their exports would be subject to higher tariffs on August 1 unless they reached trade deals. A week ago, he pushed the start date to Thursday.
In the meantime, Trump announced a 35% tariff on imports from Canada, but delayed action on Mexico while negotiations continued. However, a free trade agreement reached with Mexico and Canada during Trump's first term shields most of those countries' products from punishing duties.
The president also ordered a 50% tariff on goods from Brazil. This week, he signed an executive order to take India's tariff rate from 25% to 50% for its purchases of Russian oil. The timing gives India and Russia a chance to negotiate with the Trump administration.
Other duties not specific to countries remain in place, such as a 50% tariff on imported aluminum and steel announced in June. Trump also threatened 100% tariffs on computer chips that aren't made in the US. The administration has said tariffs are still coming on imported pharmaceutical drugs.
The US Commerce Department reported on July 31 that prices rose 2.6% in June, up from an annual pace of 2.4% in May. Earlier in July, the government reported that its primary inflation measure, the Consumer Price Index, also ticked higher in June as the cost of furniture, toys and other frequently imported items increased.
Shoppers should be prepared to pay more for clothes and shoes because the combined tariffs "disproportionately affect clothing and textiles," according to the Budget Lab at Yale. It estimates that shoe prices will go up 39% temporarily and stay 19% above where they are now. For apparel, the Budget Lab put the comparable figures at 37% and 18%.
Overall, Americans face an average tax of 18.6% for imported products, the highest rate since 1933, the research center said.
The tariffs will almost certainly result in higher food prices, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Foundation. The US simply doesn't make enough of some products, like bananas or coffee, to satisfy demand. Fish, beer and liquor are also likely to get more expensive, the foundation said.
The US Wine Trade Alliance and other alcohol industry trade groups sent a letter to Trump that warned a 15% tariff on European wines and spirits could result in more than 25,000 American job losses and cost the industry nearly $2 billion in lost sales.
"Mr. President, we need toasts, not tariffs, as we head into the most important season for our industry," read the letter dated Wednesday.
Wine distributors and retailers avoided price increases before now by accelerating shipments from France and other EU countries earlier in the year. But with the EU's tariff rate raised to 15% on Thursday, customers may see European wines costing 30% more in September, U.S. Wine Trade Alliance President Ben Aneff said.
Some automakers already raised prices to counteract tariffs. Luxury sports car maker Ferrari said last week it was waiting for more details of Trump's trade deal with the EU before scaling back a 10% surcharge it put on most vehicles in the US.
For the most part, automakers waited for details instead of passing on tariff costs to consumers. But that could change.
General Motors said on July 22 that the impact of the tariffs could get more pronounced in the third quarter of the year. GM has estimated the tariffs will cost it $4 billion to $5 billion this year.
Toyota reported Thursday a 37% drop in profits in the April-June quarter, cutting its full-year earnings forecasts largely because of Trump's tariffs.
Even with so many new tariffs kicking in, the tariff situation remains fluid. Trump's use of an emergency powers law to implement tariffs is being challenged in the courts. The case is expected to wind up before the US Supreme Court.
Moreover, the tariffs on goods from China haven't been finalised. Consumers may start seeing more effects when the administration ends a tax exemption for small parcels sent from other countries.
Trump last week signed an order to suspend the "de minimis" exemption that has allowed shipments valued at $800 or less to enter the US duty-free. International e-commerce companies have widely used the rule to avoid paying customs charges.
Trump withdrew the exemption in early April for goods shipped from China and Hong Kong tariff-free. It is now set to be eliminated for low-value packages from every country on August 29.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)

First Post
19 minutes ago
- First Post
Trump 2.0 and the end of strategic trust: Why Bharat must prepare for a long separation from America
Donald Trump's foreign policy, defined by personal deal-making rather than institutional continuity, has tilted sharply toward Pakistan—driven less by geopolitical considerations and necessities than by the overlapping business interests of his family, friends, and close associates read more For decades, the Bharat-United States relationship—built painstakingly across several administrations, especially in the last 25 years—operated on a certain baseline of strategic trust. Even when disagreements arose, a bipartisan consensus in Washington recognised Delhi as an indispensable partner in not just balancing China but also stabilising the Indo-Pacific. But in Donald Trump's second term, this consensus seems to have been shattered. His foreign policy, defined by personal deal-making rather than institutional continuity, has tilted sharply toward Pakistan—driven less by geopolitical considerations and necessities than by the overlapping business interests of his family, friends, and close associates. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The clearest sign of Pakistan's growing closeness to the United States has come with two high-profile visits to Washington by Field Marshal Asim Munir in as many months. Such access is rare for an Asian military leader, rarer still for one from a country the US has long viewed through the prism of counterterrorism and aid dependency. But in Trump's presidency, Munir's military credentials are only part of the attraction; his economic utility is far more significant. This shift has produced one disquieting outcome—an unambiguous American tilt toward Pakistan. And this preference, rooted in personal financial networks rather than traditional diplomacy, makes it unlikely that Trump will seek to normalise relations with Bharat anytime soon. Worse, the repercussions may very well extend beyond his presidency. In just six months, Trump has rewritten the rules of American statecraft. Allies and adversaries are no longer defined by shared values or strategic need but by whether they can offer him, his family, or those around him a lucrative offer—and a headline-grabbing deal for the state. If the offer/deal is worthwhile, a country is a friend. If not, it risks being treated as a pariah/rival. A banana republic like Pakistan fits in well in this game of loot and scoot. An eminent democracy like Bharat doesn't. Trump's Dubious Pakistani Links Jared Kushner was among the first in the Donald Trump orbit to cultivate influence in West Asia, working closely with Saudi Arabia during Trump's first term. After leaving the White House, his private equity firm secured a $2 billion 'investment' from the Saudi sovereign wealth fund. A New York Times article, 'The Wooing of Jared Kushner: How the Saudis Got a Friend in the White House' (December 8, 2018), details how Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman courted Kushner to advance his 'hawkish regional agenda and consolidate his own power'. Based on documents, emails, and texts, the report shows that a Saudi delegation—visiting the US the very month Trump was first elected—identified Kushner 'as a crucial focal point in the courtship of the new administration'. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Trump secured his second tenure on November 5, 2024. The very next day, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman met Field Marshal Asim Munir, then Pakistan's army chief, in Riyadh. Many analysts link this meeting directly to the Trump-Munir rapport, viewing it as the starting point of their relationship. The connection deepened in April 2025, when Pakistan's newly formed Pakistan Crypto Council (PCC) signed a landmark agreement with World Liberty Financial (WLF)—a cryptocurrency firm majority-owned by Donald Trump Jr, Eric Trump, and Jared Kushner. The deal came just days after a deadly terrorist attack in Pahalgam on April 22. The timing was conspicuous, and the links unmistakable. WLF's flagship product, the USD1 stablecoin, operates on Binance's blockchain. Binance was founded by Changpeng Zhao, who, as per Forbes, was ranked the 24th-richest person in the world and second-richest Canadian, with a net worth of $64.8 billion in May 2025. Interestingly, on April 7, 2025, Zhao—who was once convicted in the US for money laundering—was appointed by Pakistan's Finance Ministry as a strategic adviser to the Pakistan Crypto Council (PCC), a regulatory body to oversee and promote blockchain technology in that country. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Trump's Pakistan connection is further bolstered by his long-time real estate partner, Steven Charles Witkoff, and his sons—Zach and Alexander. The Witcoffs co-founded WLF in 2024, of which the Trump family owns 60 per cent of the shares. Steven Witkoff is Trump's main adviser in West Asia. He has developed deep connections in the ruling and business classes of the region, which were further strengthened by his close association with the US President. The presence of the Witcoffs has helped the Trumps spread their business deals across West Asia. A Reuters article, 'Trump's stablecoin chosen for $2 billion Abu Dhabi investment in Binance, co-founder says' (May 2, 2025), reports how a stablecoin launched by Trump's WLF 'is being used by an Abu Dhabi investment firm for its $2 billion investment in crypto exchange Binance', run by Changpeng Zhao. The report adds, 'The use of USD1 in the deal highlights World Liberty's growing clout in the global crypto industry, and its ties to Binance.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD WLF may be less than 20 months old, but it has already courted controversies. A New York Times investigation has found the company offering endorsements to cryptocurrency firms in exchange for payments of $10–30 million, while pocketing most of the funds. The Trump saga doesn't just end with WLF. Texas investor Gentry Beach, a close friend of Trump Jr, too, has deep Pakistan connections, though he has also courted Bangladesh and Turkey for his ventures. As per media reports, Beach visited Pakistan on January 30, 2025, within a fortnight of Trump taking office for the second time. He went there as chairman of a firm called White Bridge Global. The visit was organised by Pakistan's Special Investment Facilitation Council (SIFC). Interestingly, top military officials, including Field Marshal Asim Munir, are on the SIFC. White Bridge has reportedly signed a deal in Pakistan to explore placer gold deposits near the Indus River. It has also signed luxury real estate deals in the country. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD During his meeting with Prime Minister Sharif, Beach reportedly said, 'America cares about Pakistan… You are our front face in the entire region.' How prophetic were his words! Then, there is Omeed Malik, born to a Pakistani father and Iranian mother. Malik is the co-founder of 1789 Capital with Trump Jr. In an article, 'Meet Don Jr's New Boss', published in the New York Post on November 22, 2024, Malik is showcased as the brain behind the 'idea for a 'parallel economy'—a kind of Brexit for conservatives from corporate America, which he saw tilting inexorably into wokeness'. Those who know Malik say that he has created a sort of conservative deep state within the United States that now supports Trump against the traditional deep state, which distrusts the Donald. Donald Trump has used his time between the first and the second presidencies to create new connections globally to set up his own deep state ecosystem, with his Rockbridge Network as the nerve centre. This conservative deep state may be opposed to the traditional deep state of America, but it continues to carry forward the distrust for Bharat. Thus, this new deep state—just like the Leftist deep state—has deep links with Pakistan, Bangladesh, and West Asia. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD An Alternative World Order Bharat, in Trump 2.0, thus had no chance, given the personalised objectives and expectations the new president came to power with. This aspect becomes glaring in comparison to autocratic countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh, and the countries of West Asia. Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Bharat, being a responsible and responsive democracy, insists on transparent processes and guards its strategic autonomy. It cannot offer such depredatory concessions, making it a bad fit for Trump's loot-and-scoot policies. Trump's public derision of Bharat, his punitive tariffs, and his warm embrace of Pakistan's military leadership have left a deep scar in New Delhi. Even if relations improve on the surface, the trust that took decades to build has taken a massive beating. This mistrust won't vanish when Trump leaves office. To make matters worse, America now has two deep states, which stand opposed to each other, but on Bharat they have a common worldview: It's inimical to Delhi and seeks alliance with Islamabad. This foreign policy would ultimately backfire on America, but when the country is led by those obsessed with forwarding personal wellbeing and family businesses, the nation becomes the casualty. The US President, with his Trump-first policy, has signed the death pact for Pax Americana. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD For Bharat, the strategic lesson is clear: First, the United States is not a dependable partner. Second, New Delhi must start looking for an alternative world order, as the US-led Western order remains innately biased towards the white world. This Western doublespeak was evident at the start of the Ukraine war when a large section of the Western world was abhorred to see the Ukrainian plight, while far more cataclysmic events in Afghanistan, Sudan, and elsewhere in the Global South went largely unheeded. Historically, it's not coincidental that the only case of nuclear catastrophe was seen in an Asian country even when World War II was largely the creation of one European nation. One can just imagine the reaction in the Western world had the US dropped a nuclear bomb on a White Christian state! Bharat must use the occasion to create a coalition of dharmic states—countries across East and Southeast Asia with deep historical and cultural ties with Bharat. From China, Japan, and Mongolia to Myanmar, Thailand, and Cambodia, these connections provide a foundation for a civilisational alliance that can complement, not replace, India's other partnerships. This, however, doesn't mean Bharat can become oblivious to Chinese perfidy. The Trumpian emergency has forced Bharat and China to come closer and look beyond obvious differences, but this doesn't mean Delhi can—and should—let its guard down, for that would come at great national cost. Beyond this civilisational bloc, outreach to Brics partners like Russia, South Africa, and Brazil can reinforce Bharat's multipolar strategy. This approach is not driven by sentiment alone. The global balance of power is shifting. Brics now surpasses the G7 in purchasing power parity. The world's 'unipolar moment' is over; Pax Americana is in decline. Trump's foreign policy accelerates this decline by eroding American credibility. For India, that volatility is a reason to engage more deeply with Asia, Africa, and Latin America, to invest in strategic infrastructure abroad, and to expand trade with economies that share an interest in a balanced world order. Bharat's challenge is to turn the Trumpian turbulence into an opportunity—to globalise Delhi's partnerships, deepen its civilisational connections, and act as a confident pole in an increasingly disrupted multipolar world. The path to success is often tough, treacherous, and lonely. Trump has just shown that to Bharat. And the country should be grateful to him for imparting this timely lesson. The views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.


Hindustan Times
19 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
How Trump Is Expanding the Role of the American Military on U.S. Soil
President Trump's decision to deploy National Guard troops in Washington, D.C., is his boldest move to date to expand the use of military power on U.S. soil. President Trump announced that he will deploy National Guard troops to Washington, D.C., to combat crime rates. WSJ's Meridith McGraw explains the announcement and what it means for the city. Photo: Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call/ZUMA Press/Andrew Leyden/ZUMA Press The deployment of 800 National Guard troops to Washington, which the president alleges has been 'overtaken by violent gangs and bloodthirsty criminals,' amplifies the law-and-order themes that play well with his political base. He buttressed this announcement Monday by effectively federalizing the Washington police department, putting it under the control of the Trump administration. In making these moves, he alleged the actions were warranted for a number of reasons that ranged from crime to homelessness. The announcement was the latest in a series of moves by Trump to push the boundaries of how U.S. troops can be deployed in American territory, triggering a fierce legal debate over the U.S. military's expanding footprint at home. Trump is also using U.S. military bases for migrant detention centers and has deployed National Guard troops to Los Angeles and on the Southern U.S. border. 'The most benign interpretation is that this is an attempt to gain a public-relations victory by claiming credit for the already historically low crime rates in D.C.,' said Carrie Lee, a senior fellow at the German Marshall Fund and a former professor at the U.S. Army War College. 'The worst-case interpretation is that it is a test run for more legally dubious uses of military forces in other American cities.' The same day as Trump's announcement about the National Guard in D.C., a federal trial began in San Francisco over California Gov. Gavin Newsom's challenge to Trump's move to federalize state National Guard units there two months ago. The case might be the opening salvo in a much broader battle over the use of military force in the nation's streets when the president's claims of emergency are widely disputed. Trump has long leaned on the threat of using U.S. military force to respond to domestic problems. In the first administration, chief of staff John Kelly told others that one of his biggest challenges was dissuading the president from using the military on U.S. soil. He said that Trump didn't understand that the military was only meant to be deployed domestically in rare circumstances, according to a person familiar with the exchanges. After returning to the White House earlier this year, Trump increasingly began to notice homeless encampments when his motorcade drove through the city to go to his golf course in Sterling or to the Kennedy Center, according to a senior administration official. 'He's staying in D.C. a lot more this term, and he pays attention to the news in D.C.,' the person said. Trump raised the issue of crime and graffiti with D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser during the transition and closely followed a spate of crimes over the July 4 weekend, repeatedly raising the topic of crime with top aides, including deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller. For nearly 150 years, the Posse Comitatus Act has sharply limited the military's role in domestic law enforcement, barring it from policing civilians except in rare, legally defined cases. Since Trump returned to the White House in January, he has deployed the National Guard and U.S. military on domestic soil several times. In June, Trump deployed U.S. Marines and California National Guard troops to Los Angeles when demonstrators protested the role of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents' arrests of suspected illegal immigrants, leading to confrontations with law enforcement. On the U.S.-Mexico border, where active-duty U.S. and National Guard soldiers have been deployed, troops have detained migrants inside a newly declared 'National Defense Area,' and U.S. Air Force planes have also been used to ferry detainees out of the country. A rally on Monday. protesting the Trump administration's federal takeover of the District of Columbia. Last month, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told lawmakers that military bases in New Jersey and Indiana would be used to house detainees suspected of being illegal immigrants who would be overseen by the Department of Homeland Security. That would enlarge the network of military facilities for detained migrants, which has included U.S. military bases at Fort Bliss, Texas, and Guantanamo, Cuba, which have already been used to hold detainees. While Trump activated all 800 members of the D.C. National Guard, only 100 to 200 soldiers will be supporting law enforcement at any given time, according to an Army statement. Army spokesman Dave Butler said they would not come in direct contact with civilians and only provide a presence to deter criminals, as well as administrative and logistical support to law enforcement. D.C. officials say violent crime last year was at a 30 year low. A tent in Washington, D.C., on Monday. President Trump has pointed to homelessness as a reason to deploy troops. While U.S. troops deployed to Los Angeles were only meant to protect federal buildings, their role was broadened to escorting ICE agents during their arrests of suspected illegal immigrants. It also turned out to be open-ended—while they were initially meant to stay in Los Angeles for 60 days, the Pentagon recently issued a new activation order to extend their deployment through early November. Only several hundred of the nearly 5,000 National Guard troops sent to the city remain, mostly limited to two locations with federal buildings in Los Angeles. It isn't clear how long the National Guard will be deployed to Washington. 'These missions are highly fraught for the military, and whether they turn out well or poorly depends on the implementation details that are still murky,' Peter Feaver, a professor of political science and public policy at Duke University, said of Trump's decision. 'The closer the implementation details come to traditional police work, the more problematic—both legally and operationally—it is for the military.' Previous presidents have deployed the National Guard to quell large-scale civil unrest, as was done in 1968 when riots erupted in Washington, D.C. following the assassination of Martin Luther King. Invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807, President Lyndon Johnson deployed 1,750 National Guardsmen and more than 11,000 active duty troops to support the beleaguered D.C. police forces. The laws pertaining to the District of Columbia grant Trump authority for using the National Guard that goes beyond what he enjoys in the rest of the country. The president has direct control over D.C. National Guard without taking steps to federalize the troops, as it required in U.S. states. 'D.C. has long been unique both politically and legally, even compared to other federal territories. The president has direct control of the D.C. National Guard in a way that he doesn't have other National Guards, including Guam's,' said Stephen Vladeck, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center. 'The larger issue is the possibility that we become desensitized to the prospect of a U.S. president putting troops in D.C. for entirely invented reasons.' Write to Michael R. Gordon at Vera Bergengruen at and Lara Seligman at

Mint
19 minutes ago
- Mint
Raghuram Rajan reacts to Donald Trump's 50% tariffs on India: ‘It's hard to negotiate with a gun to your head…'
Renowned economist Raghuram Rajan has called out United States President Donald Trump's 'pressure tactics' in imposing 50 per cent tariffs on India and Brazil, in an interview with Brazilian economic and financial publication, Valor. Speaking on Donald Trump's apparent 'shift in mood' against India, Raghuram Rajan said that while trade with Russia could be 'reconsidered', its is 'hard to negotiate with a gun to your head', and that this seems like an 'exercise in power' from the US. Donald Trump last week said the US would impose 50 per cent tariffs on India as 'punishment' for buying oil from Russia. He has in the past also criticised India and Brazil for being part of what he dubbed 'anti-American' BRICS bloc. Brazil has also been slapped with similar 50 per cent duties. According to the professor of finance at the University of Chicago, former Reserve Bank of India (RBI) Governor, and a former International Monetary Fund (IMF), chief economist, the time for a joint global response to US tariffs has 'past'. 'It's hard to negotiate with a gun to your head. And that's basically what's happening right now. I hope sanity will prevail in US relations with India,' he said. The public, threatening aspect has made negotiations difficult, according to Raghuram Rajan. 'Lowering tariffs can help our economy. But again, it's hard to negotiate with a gun to your head. I hope that tempers cool and talks resume, because a 50 per cent tariff is unsustainable—not just for India, but also for the US, which risks alienating a country it hopes will be a strategic partner. People remember these things for a long time, and turning them away is rarely smart geopolitics,' he cautioned. Raghuram Rajan noted that India may have expected trade talks to extend till October-November, and so held firm on some areas while negotiating. 'But that's not how it's worked for countries that have already reached agreements. This isn't about a balanced trade deal; it's an exercise of power.' He added that India could give in on trade with Russia, since current prices are not much different across markets. 'If Russian oil were cut off entirely, prices would rise, but India could handle that. The bigger issue is political: an overt public decision to stop buying from Russia would be seen domestically as bowing to US pressure, which plays badly in any democracy. If Washington had quietly asked India to phase out Russian oil, it might have been acceptable,' he added. On the impact of the tariffs, Raghuram Rajan noted that $80 billion of Indian exports to the US would become 'unviable', and in return some $40 billion of US imports into India, including Apple products, could 'hurt America to some degree'. On Donald Trump's opposition to BRICS, Raguram Rajan noted that as a group of emerging economies, the interests of BRICS nations has 'diverged over time'. He added, 'India is not anti-US, and neither is Brazil in its current government. Being pulled into a bloc seen as anti-American is problematic for both.' 'If tariffs stabilise, even at high levels, the world will adapt. It won't be as efficient as the low-tariff era, but supply chains will adjust over time. The bigger problem is volatility. If today it's 50 per cent tariffs on one set of countries and tomorrow another, uncertainty will keep disrupting trade and investment. Stability is essential, and that's what's in the shortest supply right now,' he added. 'It would have been useful to form a broad coalition early on, before individual countries struck their own deals with Washington. That would have increased bargaining power. But now, with Japan, the EU, and the UK satisfied with their arrangements, it's harder—especially if China is excluded, since both Beijing and Washington may prefer separate dealings,' according to Raghuram Rajan. 'It's good for Brazil and India to talk about boosting trade and investment, but a united global front is probably too late at this stage. Still, maintaining dialogue is important, because this may not be the last disruption—more could come if the U.S. administration targets other countries,' he added.