Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Ending De Minimis Trade Hurts Average Americans

Ending De Minimis Trade Hurts Average Americans

Figurines of manual workers with stacks of coins

Getty Images/Glow Images

Among the international trade issues making headlines is President Trump’s recent announcement to abandon current U.S. law regarding small, low-value packages containing products purchased by Americans from overseas. The initial Executive Order was paused just days later. But the threat remains, making damaging economic repercussions imminent.

The process for such small-dollar shipments is de minimis entry. The term means “pertaining to tiny or trivial things,” emphasizing why its usage only applies to goods under a lower-priced threshold.


Critics deride the provision, typically using the term “loophole” in their attacks on the law. However, the process has been in place since 1938, when the de minimis exemption for low-value imports was created “to avoid expense and inconvenience to the Government disproportionate to the amount of revenue that would otherwise be collected.”

The initial threshold was $200 for individual shipments. Congress raised the amount several times, most recently in 2015 when bipartisan majorities in both chambers agreed to an $800 limit. The provision benefits American businesses and consumers through reduced costs and an already-stretched US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) by allowing officials to use limited resources on higher-value imports.

Inflation and the general cost of goods have been on Americans; minds for the last few years, so demand for inexpensive products is unsurprising. De minimis imports are exempt from duties and processing fees, and the business needs to hire customs brokers to keep costs down. There has been a corresponding growth of online retailers and platforms, some of whom have established direct-to-consumer practices, especially appealing to Americans hit by inflation.

Domestic small businesses also constitute a significant portion of the economics at play. Many American small businesses have adopted models that reply to drop-shipping as a key competitive advantage for selling merchandise.

Business Magazine  Inc.  describes this growth and the impact: “The rise of e-commerce was particularly beneficial for small businesses, including those owned by women and minorities, and those in rural areas. . . companies that could not afford to hire an import/export broker and didn’t have the capital to hold large stores of inventory could suddenly source goods overseas, from office supplies to individual auto parts.”

Plenty of evidence shows that eliminating de minimis rules would be a severe blow to everyday American consumers.

An Oxford Economics analysis study examined bills to restrict goods entering under de minimis rules and found a 40 to 55 percent cost increase for end users. President Trump’s addition of a 10 percent tariff on all goods made in China would increase those prices.

Financial firm Nomura arrived at a similar conclusion, with its analysts noting that “products previously sent under de minimis could rise by as much as 55% if the full cost of additional administrative fees and duties is passed on to consumers.”

A recent paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research found a cumulative cost on Americans of eliminating what the authors justifiably call the current “pro-poor” de minimis policy. That total is between $10.9 billion and $13 billion—the worst part is that the relative cost per person will be higher for lower-income Americans, with people in the poorest ZIP Codes facing price hikes of up to 12 percent.  

The National Foreign Trade Council perhaps boiled it down best: “Reducing de minimis would double the cost of a $50 package, costing taxpayers millions and undoubtedly causing unnecessary delays for businesses and consumers without improving enforcement.” Recent reactions from online shoppers show that, in some cases, the fees are even worse.

Supposedly, a big portion of the concerns around de minimis packages is the rise of fentanyl consumption.

Liberal protectionist politicians have agitated against products made abroad and using fentanyl as an excuse. Sens. Ron Wyden (D-OR), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), and the recently retired Rep. Blumenauer (D-OR) have all been harbingers of ending de minimis, to the delight of labor union bosses.

Though Trump followed their lead, especially with rhetoric about fentanyl, the reality is different. First, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) points out in detail that counter-smuggling efforts are best aimed at cross-border enforcement. Second, current law allows packages—even packages imported under de minimis rules— to be inspected for fentanyl and other drugs, counterfeits, products produced by forced labor, etc.

To be sure, improvements to customs security processes should be a top priority. But Trump’s de minimis push is missing this element. His second Executive Order, suspending the first, focuses heavily on tariff processing, not on security.

The confusion in the days between the two orders highlighted the logistical challenges. Customs and Border Protection officials scrambled to deal with shipments coming in, and the U.S. Postal Service announced that it would no longer accept any packages from China or Hong Kong backed up by established processes.

Over a million packages, even those for which import fees were paid, were backed up at JFK Airport alone in just a couple of days.

Ending de minimis comes with a significant cost to Americans, especially those with lower incomes. If Trump actually wants to combat illicit activity, then the administration would do well to look closely at enhancing security measures. Otherwise, one must question what is to be gained by causing more hardship to hardworking American families.

Mario H. Lopez is the president of the Hispanic Leadership Fund, a public policy advocacy organization that promotes liberty, opportunity, and prosperity for all.

Read More

Dozens of Questions: How Are Trump’s Auto Parts Tariffs Affecting the Broader Economy?

Photo of a car being assembled by robotic arms

Lenny Kuhne via Unsplash

Dozens of Questions: How Are Trump’s Auto Parts Tariffs Affecting the Broader Economy?

President Donald Trump made economic waves earlier this year when he announced a 25% tariff on imported automobiles and parts with the stated goal of revitalizing U.S. auto manufacturing. Yet as of summer 2025, the majority (92%) of Mexican-made auto parts continue to enter the United States tariff-free.

That’s because of a March 2025 revision that exempts cars and parts manufactured in compliance with the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) from tariffs.

Keep ReadingShow less
Agribusiness and Hospitality Sectors, Threatened by Deportations, Poured Millions Into Republican Victories

Farm workers weed a bell pepper field in southern California.

Photo by Etienne Laurent/AFP via Getty Images

Agribusiness and Hospitality Sectors, Threatened by Deportations, Poured Millions Into Republican Victories

President Donald Trump’s messaging about deporting undocumented farm, food and hospitality workers has shifted multiple times in recent days, with his latest comments indicating he may be open to a middle-ground solution.

Despite appeals from affected industries and Trump’s comments in support of leniency in such sectors, ICE agents resumed deportation-related work last week, edging the Trump administration nearer to its goal of 3,000 arrests every day. This reversal comes as congressional Republicans continue their work on the “Big Beautiful Bill,” Trump’s wide-ranging policy initiative that would add $75 billion to the ICE budget over the next five.

Keep ReadingShow less
Trump’s Erosion of America’s “Soft Power” Will Have Economic Impacts
A person holding a stack of dollar bills that are flying away.
Getty Images, PM Images

Trump’s Erosion of America’s “Soft Power” Will Have Economic Impacts

President Donald Trump has championed a strong, often confrontational posture toward many nations, defining his foreign policy as “America First.” This is a new U.S. that the world is dealing with, no longer the chief architect of the multilateral world of markets, democracy, and human rights that the U.S. has been, albeit imperfectly, since World War II.

But since Trump has been in office for only five months, it’s too early to tell the ultimate impacts. However, one thing is becoming increasingly clear. The Trump administration’s posturing is causing an erosion of what is known as “soft power.” And that is starting to result in some negative economic impacts.

Keep ReadingShow less
Insider trading in Washington, DC

U.S. senators and representatives with access to non-public information are permitted to buy and sell individual stocks. It’s not just unethical; it sends the message that the game is rigged.

Getty Images, Greggory DiSalvo

Insider Trading: If CEOs Can’t Do It, Why Can Congress?

Ivan Boesky. Martha Stewart. Jeffrey Skilling.

Each became infamous for using privileged, non-public information to profit unfairly from the stock market. They were prosecuted. They served time. Because insider trading is a crime that threatens public trust and distorts free markets.

Keep ReadingShow less