If you walked into a Walmart in San Leandro or a Costco in Seattle this week, you’d see more than just shelves of goods and shoppers ticking items off their lists. You’d see America’s quiet economic anxiety playing out in real time. Carts are no longer brimming, not because appetites have shrunk, but because wallets have tightened. Price tags on everyday staples: beef roasts up 20 percent from last year, coffee pods dearer by 15 percent, even baby spoons nudging upward - glare from the shelves like stubborn reminders of a shifting reality. In the toy aisle, a mother eyes a Lego set that now costs $32.99 instead of $29.99, muttering about spreading her son’s birthday gift over installments. At the meat counter, a retiree hesitates over the flat iron steak at $11.84 a pound, quietly acknowledging that inflation is no longer an abstract statistic; it’s etched into the labels. According to USDA data released this month, beef steak prices alone have climbed 8 percent year-on-year-one of several staples hit by a wave of tariffs and supply chain pressures.
This isn’t just a collection of isolated moments. It is the visible aftermath of policy choices made in Washington. As of August 11, 2025, the United States is grappling with the full weight of President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariff regime. Yale’s Budget Lab notes the average U.S. tariff rate has surged to 17.3 percent, the highest since the protectionist era of 1935. What began as an exercise in economic nationalism has evolved into a sweeping tax on imports, touching everything from Chinese-made toys to Canadian lumber and Mexican avocados. The latest salvo, effective August 7, imposes duties of up to 41 percent on dozens of countries, intensifying a spiral that began with April’s so-called “Liberation Day” tariffs. June’s Consumer Price Index recorded the steepest year-on-year increase since February - 3.2 percent overall, with food prices rising at twice the 20-year average.
Cessy, a homemaker featured in recent news reports, noticed her family’s preferred beef cut jumped from $9.84 to $11.84 per pound. USDA figures confirm her suspicion: steak prices are up eight percent year-on-year, a trend compounded by higher feed costs from imported grains and retaliatory tariffs. Eggs, already whiplashed by market volatility, are next in line to climb further. An AP-NORC poll underscores the human toll: half of Americans now list grocery prices as a major source of stress, a figure that spikes to nearly two-thirds for households earning less than $30,000.
Small businesses, the supposed beneficiaries of protectionism, are instead caught in the crossfire. Take Dusty Kenney, who sells baby spoons and lunch boxes, most of them sourced from China. “We’d love to make them here,” she says, “but the infrastructure just isn’t there.” Tariffs on plastic raw materials have pushed her costs up 34 percent, and with stockpiles dwindling, price hikes are inevitable. The American Toy Association notes that 80 percent of U.S. toys originate in China - a figure that means higher tariffs translate directly into higher shelf prices. Even corporate giants aren’t immune. Procter & Gamble has raised prices on a quarter of its U.S. products. Amazon has added price increases to deodorants and pet supplies. Walmart’s CFO has conceded that tariffs on baby gear and home goods are “more than any retailer can absorb,” and Costco members are already spotting steeper tags on coffee and toiletries.
Economists are unequivocal: tariffs are taxes paid by importers, inevitably passed on to consumers. Yale’s analysis estimates a short-term 1.8 percent rise in prices, effectively stripping $2,400 from the average household’s annual income - a figure climbing to $3,800 when factoring in apparel and footwear, which have seen hikes of 17 and 19 percent, respectively. Morgan Stanley projects that over a decade, tariffs could cost households up to $2.7 trillion. June retail sales fell 0.33 percent, with core sales slipping 0.32 percent, as businesses hold back investment in an uncertain climate. Yale forecasts GDP growth will be shaved by 0.5 percentage points in 2025 and 2026, with a lingering 0.4 percent long-term drag.
On social media, the discontent is plain. Shoppers post images of repriced goods - shirts tagged higher before the tariffs even took full effect, coffee climbing from $11 to $19 within weeks. Rural Walmart closures are whispered about as sales plummet in some areas. Costco’s value proposition is under pressure, with wage gains being swallowed by price hikes in core staples.
The history books offer a sobering parallel. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, intended to shield American industry, instead deepened the Great Depression by inviting retaliatory measures and choking off trade. Trump’s “reciprocal” approach risks a modern echo, especially when over 90 percent of importers are small and medium enterprises that cannot quickly relocate or rebuild domestic supply chains. Stockpiled inventories blunted the early blow, but as they run dry, imported goods are set to rise faster than their untariffed counterparts. Cars, clothing, coffee - all are queued for steeper climbs.
Ultimately, tariffs feed government coffers - projected to reach into the trillions - but the bill is paid at the checkout counter. The trade war’s proponents tout self-reliance; its critics warn of stagflation. Walking through those aisles today, the balance seems to be tipping toward the latter. For families like Cessy’s, the policy debate isn’t academic. It’s the question of whether the weekly shop will fit within the budget, or whether the cart will roll out half-empty. Policymakers must decide if the price of economic nationalism is worth the erosion of household prosperity - before the checkout line becomes the front line of America’s next economic crisis.
Ahmed Bouzid is the co-founder of The True Representation Movement.























image of U.S. President Donald Trump is displayed on a digital billboard in Times Square in New York on April 8, 2026.
Trump is stuck between two realities. Neither serves the American people
Normally, I worry that events may overtake a column. But not so with the Iran war.
I don’t worry about running afoul of a headline or Truth Social post from the president because what is said about the situation is no longer very relevant to the reality.
On April 8, Nick Catoggio, my Dispatch colleague, dubbed an earlier stoppage with Iran “Schrödinger’s ceasefire.” This was a reference to the famous thought experiment by the physicist Erwin Schrödinger, who was trying to explain the weirdness of “superpositionality” in quantum physics. A cat in a box is both dead and alive at the same time until you open the box. Schrödinger meant to illustrate the absurdity of the idea that particles aren’t any one thing, but a “cloud of probabilities.”
The Trump administration is stuck in a word cloud of probabilities of his own making. The war is over. The war is on. The war isn’t a war. We have a deal, but we don’t have a deal, but we’re about to have a deal. We destroyed Iran’s military. No, we left it intact. We want regime change. No we don’t. We already accomplished it. We “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program a year ago. We had to go to war in February to prevent nuclear war. The Strait of Hormuz is open, closed, or something in-between. No deal without “unconditional surrender.” Let’s make a deal!
This everything-all-at-once vibe can be disorienting, particularly since most Americans didn’t have a war with Iran on their bingo cards until the shooting had already started. President Trump didn’t prepare the country or consult with Congress beforehand because he thought it would all be a smashing success in a matter of weeks.
The miscalculation that started it all: killing Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and much of Iran’s senior leadership, on the first day of the war. To “the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand,” Trump announced on Feb. 28. “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.”
I support regime change in Iran and shed no tears for Khamenei or his goons. But when you start a war by killing the regime’s top leaders, it’s not unreasonable for the remaining ones to conclude that you really intend regime change.
Khamenei was a murderous fanatic, but he was a fairly cautious one. He liked to threaten closing the Strait of Hormuz or attacking our regional allies, but he was reluctant to actually do it, fearing it would invite a regime change war. The mullahs and IRGC goons believed, not unreasonably, that if they lost their grip on power, they’d be lynched by the Iranian people they’ve brutalized for decades.
By starting with a regime change war, Trump removed any reason for the regime not to go for broke. When you have nothing to lose — particularly when you are a millenarian religious fanatic — a Persian Alamo strategy makes a lot of sense.
So Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz and attacked its neighbors.
But it turns out this wasn’t the Alamo. In the contest of wills, Trump blinked. The Iranian regime’s tolerance for punishment proved — so far — to be greater than Trump’s and that of our gulf allies. Militarily we could finish the job, but that would require ground troops and much greater economic turmoil. In a conflict Trump launched unilaterally without the prior support of Congress, NATO or the American people, Trump doesn’t have the political capital for that.
But that’s only half the problem. Trump wants the war over, but he doesn’t want to pay — militarily, economically, politically — what that would cost. So he wants to make a deal that ends it. But there is no deal available that wouldn’t come at an equally undesirable cost. Any deal that looks like what President Obama struck with the Iranians would be too embarrassing to bear. But the Iranians are convinced that they can get just such a deal, and they’re willing to drag things out as long as it takes.
The result: Trump’s in a box of his own making. He thinks he can talk his way out by simply asserting a reality that doesn’t exist. When the financial markets get nervous, he announces a breakthrough that is, at best, a possibility. When the Iranians agree to a deal that looks similar to one Obama might negotiate, Trump goes back to his threats.
It can’t go on forever. But I’m sure it’ll last until long after this column is forgotten.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.