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

The Jobs Report Is a Warning, Not a Blip

August’s jobs report showed just 22,000 jobs added, unemployment at 4.3%, and gold hitting record highs — signaling deeper economic troubles ahead.

Getty Images, J Studios

The Jobs Report Is a Warning, Not a Blip

The latest U.S. jobs report was more than just a miss—it was a warning. Employers added only 22,000 jobs in August, well below expectations of 75,000, and unemployment climbed to 4.3 percent, its highest level in nearly four years. June’s figures were quietly revised down to a net loss of 13,000 jobs, the first outright contraction since the pandemic’s peak. Markets reacted sharply: the dollar slid to six-week lows, while gold surged past $3,600 an ounce, setting a record for the 31st time this year.

For years, U.S. policymakers and presidents of both parties have promised resilience. Donald Trump has claimed his second term would deliver a “blue-collar boom.” But the August numbers suggest something deeper than a cooling labor market. They point to a structural weakness in an economy where job creation is slowing even as corporate profits remain strong, automation accelerates, and wage growth stagnates.

Keep ReadingShow less
President Donald Trump standing next to a chart in the Oval Office.

U.S. President Donald Trump discusses economic data with Stephen Moore (L), Senior Visiting Fellow in Economics at The Heritage Foundation, in the Oval Office on August 07, 2025 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, Win McNamee

Investor-in-Chief: Trump’s Business Deals, Loyalty Scorecards, and the Rise of Neo-Socialist Capitalism

For over 100 years, the Republican Party has stood for free-market capitalism and keeping the government’s heavy hand out of the economy. Government intervention in the economy, well, that’s what leaders did in the Soviet Union and communist China, not in the land of Uncle Sam.

And then Donald Trump seized the reins of the Republican Party. Trump has dispensed with numerous federal customs and rules, so it’s not too surprising that he is now turning his administration into the most business-interventionist government ever in American history. Contrary to Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” in the economy, suddenly, the signs of the White House’s “visible hand” are everywhere.

Keep ReadingShow less
Trump’s Mirage Economy Is Putting America in Foreclosure

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks in front of posters depicting household income data in the Oval Office on August 07, 2025 in Washington, DC. Trump fired Bureau of Labor Statistics Commissioner Dr. Erika McEntarfer on August 1st, claiming the agency issued “phony” jobs numbers during the Biden administration to aid Democrats.

Getty Images, Win McNamee

Trump’s Mirage Economy Is Putting America in Foreclosure

President Donald Trump likes to brand himself a business genius. But for average Americans staring at flat paychecks, shrinking opportunities, and higher grocery bills, his “Art of the Deal” looks more like a private equity raid: strip the assets, juice the numbers, and leave someone else holding the bag.

Economic policymaking under Trump is chaos in action: fire the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics for weak jobs numbers? Done. Call tariffs the “greatest tax cut in history” while quietly carving out exemptions for firms that manufacture in the U.S. That too. In Trump’s America, numbers bend to politics, and if you don’t like it, good luck finding reliable data.

Keep ReadingShow less
Tariff ‘Mission Accomplished’ Hype Is Just That

In an aerial view, a container ship arrives at the Port of Oakland on Aug. 1, 2025, in Oakland, California.

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images/TNS

Tariff ‘Mission Accomplished’ Hype Is Just That

On May 1, 2003, George W. Bush announced, “Major combat operations in Iraq have ended.” He was standing below a giant banner that read, “Mission Accomplished.” At the risk of inviting charges of understatement, subsequent events didn’t cooperate. But it took a while for that to be widely accepted.

We’re in a similar place when it comes to President Trump’s experiment with a new global trading order.

Keep ReadingShow less