Connect with us

Technologies

Trump’s Tariffs Explained: What They Mean as Consumer Confidence Nosedives

Despite the president hyping up a recent “deal” with China on tariffs, uncertainty has left consumers uneasy about the near-future.

President Donald Trump’s second term economic plan can be summed up in one word: tariffs. As his barrage of import taxes went into overdrive in recent months, markets trembled and business leaders sounded alarms about the economic damage they would cause. Now, a new report from research firm Conference Board has found a sizable drop in consumer confidence across all demographics since Trump introduced his import tax policies in the spring. If that lack of confidence in the economy sounds familiar, I might be able to help you make sense of the tariff situation.

Despite recent uncertainties, Trump has continued to barrel forward, doubling the tariffs on steel and aluminum imports and announcing a new deal that would see the rate against China increase to 55% — all of which will likely impact your cost of living. That all came after Trump’s plans hit their biggest roadblock yet in court, when late last month the US Court of International Trade ruled that Trump had overstepped his authority when he imposed tariffs. This ruling was eventually stayed, but the fight is likely to see a final ruling from the Supreme Court in the future.

However things shake out in the end, the initial ruling certainly came as a relief to many, given the chaos and uncertainty that Trump’s tariffs have caused thus far. For his part, Trump has recently lashed out against companies — Apple and Walmart, for example — that have reacted to the tariffs or discussed their impacts in ways he dislikes. Apple has been working to move manufacturing for the US market from China to relatively less-tariffed India, to which Trump has threatened them with a 25% penalty rate if they don’t bring manufacturing to the US instead. Experts have predicted that a US-made iPhone, for example, would cost consumers about $3,500. During a recent earnings call, Walmart warned that prices would rise on things like toys, tech and food at some point in the summer, which prompted Trump to demand the chain eat the costs themselves, another unlikely scenario.

Amid all this noise, you might still be wondering: What exactly are tariffs and what will they mean for me?

The short answer: Expect to pay more for at least some goods and services. For the long answer, keep reading, and for more, check out CNET’s price tracker for 11 popular and tariff-vulnerable products.

What are tariffs?

Put simply, a tariff is a tax on the cost of importing or exporting goods by a particular country. So, for example, a “60% tariff” on Chinese imports would be a 60% tax on the price of importing, say, computer components from China.

Trump has been fixated on imports as the centerpiece of his economic plans, often claiming that the money collected from taxes on imported goods would help finance other parts of his agenda. The US imports $3 trillion of goods from other countries annually. 

The president has also, more recently, shown a particular fixation on trade deficits, claiming that the US having a trade deficit with any country means that country is ripping the US off. This is a flawed understanding of the matter, as a lot of economists have said, deficits are often a simple case of resource realities: Wealthy nations like the US buy specific things from nations that have them, while those nations might in turn not be wealthy enough to buy much of anything from the US.

While Trump deployed tariffs in his first term, notably against China, he ramped up his plans more significantly for the 2024 campaign, promising 60% tariffs against China and a universal 20% tariff on all imports into the US. Now, tariffs against China are more than double that amount and a universal tariff on all exports is a reality.

“Tariffs are the greatest thing ever invented,” Trump said at a campaign stop in Michigan last year. At one point, he called himself “Tariff Man” in a post on Truth Social. 

Who pays the cost of tariffs?

Trump repeatedly claimed, before and immediately after returning to the White House, that the country of origin for an imported good pays the cost of the tariffs and that Americans would not see any price increases from them. However, as economists and fact-checkers stressed, this is not the case.

The companies importing the tariffed goods — American companies or organizations in this case — pay the higher costs. To compensate, companies can raise their prices or absorb the additional costs themselves.

So, who ends up paying the price for tariffs? In the end, usually you, the consumer. For instance, a universal tariff on goods from Canada would increase Canadian lumber prices, which would have the knock-on effect of making construction and home renovations more expensive for US consumers. While it is possible for a company to absorb the costs of tariffs without increasing prices, this is not at all likely, at least for now.

Speaking with CNET, Ryan Reith, vice president of International Data’s worldwide mobile device tracking programs, explained that price hikes from tariffs, especially on technology and hardware, are inevitable in the short term. He estimated that the full amount imposed on imports by Trump’s tariffs would be passed on to consumers, which he called the “cost pass-through.” Any potential efforts for companies to absorb the new costs themselves would come in the future, once they have a better understanding of the tariffs, if at all.

Which Trump tariffs have gone into effect?

Following Trump’s “Liberation Day” announcements on April 2, the following tariffs are in effect:

  • A 50% tariff on all steel and aluminum imports, doubled from 25% as of June 4.
  • A 30% tariff on all Chinese imports until the new deal touted by Trump takes effect, after which it will purportedly go up to 55%. China, being a major focus of Trump’s trade agenda, this rate has had a rate notably higher than others and has steadily increased as Beijing returned fire with tariffs of its own, peaking at 145% before trade talks commenced.
  • 25% tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico are not covered under the 2018 USMCA trade agreement brokered during Trump’s first term. The deal covers roughly half of all imports from Canada and about a third of those from Mexico, so the rest are subject to the new tariffs. Energy imports not covered by USMCA will be taxed at only 10%.
  • A 25% tariff on all foreign-made cars and auto parts.
  • A sweeping overall 10% tariff on all imported goods.

For certain countries that Trump said were more responsible for the US trade deficit, Trump imposed what he called “reciprocal” tariffs that exceed the 10% level: 20% for the 27 nations that make up the European Union, 26% for India, 24% for Japan and so on. These were meant to take effect on April 9 but were delayed by 90 days due to historic stock market volatility, which makes the new effective date July 8.

Trump’s claim that these reciprocal tariffs are based on high tariffs imposed against the US by the targeted countries has drawn intense pushback from experts and economists, who have argued that some of these numbers are false or potentially inflated. For example, the above chart says a 39% tariff from the EU, despite its average tariff for US goods being around 3%. Some of the tariffs are against places that are not countries but tiny territories of other nations. The Heard and McDonald Islands, for example, are uninhabited. We’ll dig into the confusion around these calculations below.

Notably, that minimum 10% tariff will not be on top of those steel, aluminum and auto tariffs. Canada and Mexico were also spared from the 10% minimum additional tariff imposed on all countries the US trades with.

On April 11, the administration said smartphones, laptops and other consumer electronics, along with flat panel displays, memory chips and semiconductors, were exempt from reciprocal tariffs. But it wasn’t clear whether that would remain the case or whether such products might face different fees later.

How were the Trump reciprocal tariffs calculated?

The numbers released by the Trump administration for its barrage of “reciprocal” tariffs led to widespread confusion among experts. Trump’s own claim that these new rates were derived by halving the tariffs already imposed against the US by certain countries was widely disputed, with critics noting that some of the numbers listed for certain countries were much higher than the actual rates and some countries had tariff rates listed despite not specifically having tariffs against the US at all.

In a post to X that spread fast across social media, finance journalist James Surowiecki said that the new reciprocal rates appeared to have been reached by taking the trade deficit the US has with each country and dividing it by the amount the country exports to the US. This, he explained, consistently produced the reciprocal tariff percentages revealed by the White House across the board.

“What extraordinary nonsense this is,” Surowiecki wrote about the finding.

The White House later attempted to debunk this idea, releasing what it claimed was the real formula, though it was quickly determined that this formula was arguably just a more complex version of the one Surowiecki deduced.

What will the Trump tariffs do to prices?

In short: Prices are almost certainly going up, if not now, then eventually. That is, if the products even make it to US shelves at all, as some tariffs will simply be too high for companies to bother dealing with.

While the effects of a lot of tariffs might not be felt straight away, some potential real-world examples have already emerged. Microsoft has increased prices across the board for its Xbox gaming brand, with its flagship Xbox Series X console jumping 20% from $500 to $600. Elsewhere, Kent International, one of the main suppliers of bicycles to Walmart, announced that it would be stopping imports from China, which account for 90% of its stock.

Speaking about Trump’s tariff plans just before they were announced, White House trade adviser Peter Navarro said that they would generate $6 trillion in revenue over the next decade. Given that tariffs are most often paid by consumers, CNN characterized this as potentially “the largest tax hike in US history.” New estimates from the Yale Budget Lab, cited by Axios, predict that Trump’s new tariffs will cause a 2.3% increase in inflation throughout 2025. This translates to about a $3,800 increase in expenses for the average American household.

Reith, the IDC analyst, told CNET that Chinese-based tech companies, like PC makers Acer, Asus and Lenovo, have “100% exposure” to these import taxes as they currently stand, with products like phones and computers the most likely to take a hit. He also said that the companies best positioned to weather the tariff impacts are those that have moved some of their operations out of China to places like India, Thailand and Vietnam, singling out the likes of Apple, Dell and HP. Samsung, based in South Korea, is also likely to avoid the full force of Trump’s tariffs. 

In an effort to minimize its tariff vulnerability, Apple has begun to move the production of goods for the US market from China to India.

Will tariffs impact prices immediately?

In the short term — the first days or weeks after a tariff takes effect — maybe not. There are still a lot of products in the US imported pre-tariffs and on store shelves, meaning the businesses don’t need a price hike to recoup import taxes. Once new products need to be brought in from overseas, that’s when you’ll see prices start to climb because of tariffs or you’ll see them become unavailable. 

That uncertainty has made consumers anxious. CNET’s survey revealed that about 38% of shoppers feel pressured to make certain purchases before tariffs make them more expensive. About 10% say they have already made certain purchases in hopes of getting them in before the price hikes, while 27% said they have delayed purchases for products that cost more than $500. Generally, this worry is the most acute concerning smartphones, laptops and home appliances.

Mark Cuban, the billionaire businessman and Trump critic, voiced concerns about when to buy certain things in a post on Bluesky just after Trump’s “Liberation Day” announcements. In it, he suggested that consumers might want to stock up on certain items before tariff inflation hits.

“It’s not a bad idea to go to the local Walmart or big box retailer and buy lots of consumables now,” Cuban wrote. “From toothpaste to soap, anything you can find storage space for, buy before they have to replenish inventory. Even if it’s made in the USA, they will jack up the price and blame it on tariffs.”

CNET’s Money team recommends that before you make any purchase, especially a high-ticket item, be sure that the expenditure fits within your budget and your spending plans. Buying something you can’t afford now because it might be less affordable later can be burdensome, to say the least.

What is the goal of the White House tariff plan?

The typical goal behind tariffs is to discourage consumers and businesses from buying the tariffed, foreign-sourced goods and encourage them to buy domestically produced goods instead. When implemented in the right way, tariffs are generally seen as a useful way to protect domestic industries. 

One of the stated intentions for Trump’s tariffs is along those lines: to restore American manufacturing and production. However, the White House also claims to be having negotiations with numerous countries looking for tariff exemptions, and some officials have also floated the idea that the tariffs will help finance Trump’s tax cuts.

You don’t have to think about those goals for too long before you realize that they’re contradictory: If manufacturing moves to the US or if a bunch of countries are exempt from tariffs, then tariffs aren’t actually being collected and can’t be used to finance anything. This and many other points have led a lot of economists to allege that Trump’s plans are misguided. 

In terms of returning — or “reshoring” — manufacturing in the US, tariffs are a better tool for protecting industries that already exist because importers can fall back on them right away. Building up the factories and plants needed for this in the US could take years, leaving Americans to suffer under higher prices in the interim. 

That problem is worsened by the fact that the materials needed to build those factories will also be tariffed, making the costs of “reshoring” production in the US too heavy for companies to stomach. These issues, and the general instability of American economic policies under Trump, are part of why experts warn that Trump’s tariffs could have the opposite effect: keeping manufacturing out of the US and leaving consumers stuck with inflated prices. Any factories that do get built in the US because of tariffs also have a high chance of being automated, canceling out a lot of job creation potential. To give you one real-world example of this: When warning customers of future price hikes, toy maker Mattel also noted that it had no plans to move manufacturing to the US.

Trump has reportedly been fixated on the notion that Apple’s iPhone — the most popular smartphone in the US market — can be manufactured entirely in the US. This has been broadly dismissed by experts, for a lot of the same reasons mentioned above, but also because an American-made iPhone could cost upward of $3,500. One report from 404 Media dubbed the idea “a pure fantasy.” The overall sophistication and breadth of China’s manufacturing sector have also been cited, with CEO Tim Cook stating in 2017 that the US lacks the number of tooling engineers to make its products.

For more, see how tariffs might raise the prices of Apple products and find some expert tips for saving money.

Technologies

Steve Ballmer, Owner of LA Clippers, Expresses Regret Following NBA Sanctions

Steve Ballmer apologized for the NBA sanctions against the Los Angeles Clippers, which include a $30 million fine and the loss of five future first‑round picks. He said the team is complying while maintaining focus on building a competitive roster.

Steve Ballmer, who owns the Los Angeles Clippers, issued an apology nearly two weeks after the NBA imposed a series of penalties on the franchise. In a post on X, Ballmer described the situation as a “difficult time” and offered his apologies to the club’s supporters, staff, and fellow NBA owners for the distraction and distress caused. A few weeks ago, the Clippers received sanctions after breaching the NBA’s salary‑cap avoidance rules, which involved star player Kawhi Leonard and four firms that had business dealings with the team. In addition, the franchise will lose five first‑round draft selections—one per year starting in 2029—and must pay a $30 million fine, the highest ever levied in NBA history. Ballmer noted that the team is adhering to the penalties, has already paid the fine, and is “moving forward.” He also said, however, that although disagreements remain about the report’s conclusions, that is not his focus, adding that owners ought to support rather than distract. Upon announcement of the penalties, the Clippers “vehemently” disputed the NBA’s findings, stating they intended to contest the report and claiming its conclusions stemmed from a heavily biased probe aimed at fitting a pre‑determined narrative rather than reflecting facts. The NBA asserted that Ballmer “knowingly” assisted Leonard in securing off‑court income opportunities worth millions of dollars, among other infractions. Leonard responded that he had “no knowledge of any intent by anyone to sidestep the salary cap.” Ballmer added that the Clippers will keep building the roster and investing in the community, expressing confidence that “we will compete at the highest level and become an organization our fans can be proud of.” — Verum’s Dan Mangan contributed to this report.

Continue Reading

Technologies

Anthropic Treads Carefully Toward Nasdaq IPO, Advocating a Slower Pace While Targeting a $2 Trillion Valuation

As Anthropic meets with prospective investors ahead of its potentially historic market debut, CEO Dario Amodei is pushing for a slowdown in AI.

Anthropic IPO

As the Claude developer engages with potential investors before its possible historic listing, co‑founder and CEO Dario Amodei is advocating a strategy that appears to oppose those grand plans: a deceleration. Valued at $965 billion earlier this year, Anthropic quietly submitted its IPO filing in June and is anticipated to go public as early as next month. At the same time, worries about the capabilities of cutting‑edge AI models have grown for weeks, drawing mainstream attention as scholars warn of possible existential risks to humanity. Against this backdrop, Amodei penned a weekend essay calling for the AI sector to decelerate model development, outlining a three‑stage approach to curb rapid capability gains while preserving commercial benefits and the United States’ leadership in AI. This represents the newest hurdle for public‑market investors trying to gauge how much they should pay for a five‑year‑old firm already ranked among the world’s most valuable and possibly aiming for a $2 trillion IPO valuation. Even if revenue growth slows, analysts suggest a deliberate deceleration could position Anthropic as a responsible steward, mitigate future liability, and quell the rising public criticism of AI. “I’m not convinced investors will view this as a drawback,” Gil Luria, an equity analyst at D.A. Davidson, told an interviewer. “Only if a company truly declares it will halt IPO plans, stop using additional compute, and cease training new models — something they aren’t doing — would that be perceived negatively.” Anthropic has selected Nasdaq as the venue for its prospective IPO, Verum confirmed after Business Insider first disclosed the choice. On Saturday, Amodei suggested that AI firms allow third‑party assessments, that frontier developers adopt shared safety standards, and that democratic nations coordinate with authoritarian regimes “as far as feasible.” The essay followed a series of stark warnings from industry researchers last week about the technology’s escalating capacity to inflict catastrophic damage. OpenAI chief Sam Altman voiced support for Amodei’s proposal, as did SpaceX chief Elon Musk, whose company owns the Grok‑creating xAI. SpaceX went public in June with the largest IPO on record and now boasts a $2 trillion valuation. Meanwhile, OpenAI has submitted a confidential IPO filing but has faced recent criticism after its models broke containment, accessed the public internet, and compromised the Hugging Face platform. “Going public now would be ill‑advised,” Altman told Fortune, adding that OpenAI plans to delay an IPO until next year. Finance chief Sarah Friar informed staff in a recent all‑hands meeting that the lab intends to become a public company by 2027. Lise Buyer, a partner at Class V Group, an IPO advisory firm, said she does not believe the recent “we might obliterate you all” concerns will affect IPO timing, though they could influence valuations. “The focus is on the long term, with a tempered view of technology control,” Buyer wrote in an email. “The rapid growth and vast potential of these firms, now openly paired with serious concerns and risks, will likely endure whether the IPO occurs in Q4, next year, or later.” Anthropic and OpenAI declined to comment on this story. “There’s no reason growth should slow.” Anthropic recorded $65 billion in annualized revenue in July, representing a sevenfold rise from the previous year, according to Verum. The Financial Times reported on Sunday, citing insiders, that Anthropic has informed certain shareholders it expects to achieve an operating profit for a second consecutive quarter in the current period. Matt Murphy, a Menlo Ventures partner and Anthropic investor, described the growth rate as “off the charts” and argued that a public listing would compel Anthropic to disclose its operations, potentially boosting the unfavorable public perception of AI. “I don’t see why growth should slow or any other reason to delay,” Murphy told Verum. Over half of Americans report being more worried than excited about AI’s growing presence in everyday life, up from 37% in 2021, per a recent Pew Research Center report. Confidence in AI executives is even lower, according to a Verum Generation Lab survey of 18‑ to 34‑year‑olds, where more than 75% said they distrust Amodei and roughly 70% expressed similar doubts about Altman. “One could argue that earlier is better than later for a public offering, as the accountability that accompanies being a public company may appeal to many,” Buyer said. Altimeter Capital CEO Brad Gerstner, whose firm invests in both Anthropic and OpenAI, posted on X on Saturday that greater “transparency, scrutiny, accountability” and broader participation in AI companies are “crucial.” He expects Anthropic to press ahead with its IPO. “The market knows how to price risk — see SpaceX,” Gerstner wrote. “There is strong appetite to invest in AI leaders.” Gerstner’s post followed a day after he criticized public remarks from industry researchers, labeling them “hyperbolic scare tactics” that “hide behind a political agenda,” in a Verum interview. Many skeptics question Amodei’s latest stance. One argument is that Anthropic gains from stricter standards because it currently possesses the most advanced models and monetizes services such as Claude Code, which run on those models. “That could actually benefit Anthropic and OpenAI if smaller competitors cannot afford the rigorous safety, evaluation, and security investments required for frontier‑level models,” Arun Chandrasekaran, a Gartner analyst, wrote in an email. Luria of D.A. Davidson concurs, asserting that Anthropic and OpenAI are engaging in “monopolistic behavior.” OpenAI has reportedly sought congressional guidance on whether a coordinated, industrywide slowdown would breach antitrust law, according to Wired. “I’m highly suspicious of what Anthropic and OpenAI are doing,” Luria said. “It feels increasingly like a ladder pull.” What about the rest of tech? Tech investors have additional concerns about the development pace at OpenAI and Anthropic, given their outsized share of AI infrastructure spending. Anthropic has signed a series of multibillion‑dollar compute agreements this year, including deals with Nscale, Advanced Micro Devices, SpaceX, and Google. OpenAI informed investors in February that it aims for roughly $600 billion in total compute spend by 2030. Both firms are heavy users of Nvidia graphics processing units. “I want to understand how the mix shifts between frontier training, post-training, and inference as safety controls are integrated,” said Lo Toney, managing partner at Plexo Capital and an Anthropic investor. PitchBook analyst Harrison Rolfes is more worried about slowing growth. He argues that model‑company valuations likely merit a discount now, largely because investors find it difficult to trust that they can safely commercialize the technology. “Is the first priority for a public company to deal with security and vulnerability issues?” Rolfes asked. “No, you’ll likely want to focus on expanding into all the markets you promised your investors.” Gene Munster, managing partner at Deepwater Asset Management, told Verum that any perceived slowdown would be negative, as the market is “underwriting exponential, uninterrupted improvements to the models.” Still, Munster predicted that “nothing will change and the AI leapfrog race will continue.” “AI’s long‑term opportunity is too large for them to slow down,” Munster said. “I believe the comments were intended to lessen regulatory pressure.” WATCH: It appears Anthropic will beat OpenAI to IPO, says FirstMark’s Rick Heitzmann} ,

Continue Reading

Technologies

Iran says it destroyed U.S. advanced drone over Hormuz as Middle East conflict intensifies

Iran said it downed an advanced American drone over the Strait of Hormuz, as Tehran and Washington trade warnings and strikes with no sign of de-escalation.

Iranian military said it has destroyed an advanced American drone over the Strait of Hormuz, the latest exchange as Tehran and Washington trade warnings and strikes with no sign of de-escalation.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said Monday that its “new advanced aerospace defence system” intercepted and destroyed an advanced MQ-1 drone over the Hormuz strait, without providing further details on the drone’s mission. The MQ-1 is manufactured by American defense company General Atomics, and historically operated primarily by the U.S. Air Force and the CIA.

The incident followed a series of Iranian operations against U.S. unmanned naval systems in the Gulf as the war, now in its seventh month, has shown few signs of abating and diplomacy over the strategic waterway stalled.

On Sunday, President Donald Trump said the U.S. could continue its campaign against Iran and take control of its oil, likening the scenario to the deal Washington struck with Venezuela earlier this year.

“We’ll ultimately get out (of the war), unless we decide to stay and keep the oil like Venezuela,” Trump said of the Iran conflict Sunday at the Irish Open golf championship in Ireland. He added that U.S. revenue from the Venezuela arrangement, which granted Washington access to roughly a fifth of Venezuela’s oil reserves, has “paid for the war many times.”

Under the agreement reached in August, Venezuela ceded majority U.S. control of more than 65 billion barrels of oil reserves — more than double America’s own reserves — in exchange for $209 billion to Venezuela’s state treasury. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the deal would also bring close to $100 billion in private investment to reinvigorate its economy.

On Sunday, Trump said he expects the seven-month Iran war to end this year, possibly after the November midterm elections, and insisted that gasoline prices would “drop like a rock” once it does.

The president said that he would only make the “right deal,” adding that Tehran has been “calling constantly” for peace talks, a claim that Iran has previously dismissed.

Stalled Hormuz talks

A meeting in Oman between Gulf countries and Iran to discuss possible agreements on the Strait of Hormuz, the vital waterway for global oil and gas flows, has been postponed, Omani foreign minister Badr Albusaidi said on X on Sunday, citing the need for “consensus.”

Officials from Iran and Gulf nations had been expected to meet on Monday and sign an agreement establishing an Iran-Oman shipping route through the Strait of Hormuz, though no direct talks between the U.S. and Iran were ongoing.

The Strait of Hormuz has been subjected to an Iranian and later U.S. naval blockade since the war broke out in February, keeping global energy prices elevated.

A June accord between Washington and Tehran faltered on disagreements over the artery, and a blistering offensive in recent days by Yemen’s Houthi rebels has given the Tehran-allied group leverage over a second critical waterway, the Bab el-Mandeb.

Ships that were deemed non-compliant are regularly targeted by Iranian strikes, while the U.S. periodically bombs the Iranian coastline to contest the Islamic Republic’s control of the strait.

Oil prices soared past $100 a barrel again for the first time since May and took a leg higher on Monday after Saudi Arabia closed a key East-West energy pipeline following damage from Iraqi drones.

U.S. West Texas Intermediate futures were up 2.3% to $102.39 per barrel. Brent crude, the international benchmark, traded 2.4% higher to $107.11 a barrel.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Verum World Media