Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Tariffs Are Taxing America’s Families

Money surrounding the Capitol
Douglas Rissing/Getty Images

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.

Read More

Is Trump Serious About Banning Mail-In Ballots… or Is It Rage-Bait?
Photo by Tiffany Tertipes on Unsplash.

Is Trump Serious About Banning Mail-In Ballots… or Is It Rage-Bait?

Earlier this month, President Donald Trump took to Truth Social, claiming he was going to “lead a movement to get rid of mail-in ballots,” adding that he would sign an executive order ahead of the 2026 midterms. However, Trump has yet to sign such an order.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Other America and Politics of Spectacle

America is two very different countries for its diverse population - one that thrives in abundance and another that stumbles from crisis to crisis.

Getty Images, Bloomberg Creative

The Other America and Politics of Spectacle

In 2024, Americans were promised a year of renewal. The election was meant to usher in stability after years of tumult, a chance to repair what had been so badly frayed. Instead, the campaign season laid bare a more uncomfortable truth: the United States is not simply divided by partisan politics. It is, in practice, two very different countries—one that thrives in abundance and another that stumbles from crisis to crisis, hoping not to slip further behind.

The numbers are stark. More than 40 million Americans lived in poverty last year. Nearly 14 million children went hungry. Homelessness surged to almost 772,000 people—an 18 percent rise, the sharpest increase ever recorded. Meanwhile, credit card debt soared past $1.14 trillion, with delinquency rates at their highest in a decade. For families who once defined the middle class, the American Dream now resembles an eviction notice.

Keep ReadingShow less
Connecticut Promised To Invest in Community-Based Care. Twenty-Six Years Later, We’re Still Waiting.
Getty Images, fotostorm

Connecticut Promised To Invest in Community-Based Care. Twenty-Six Years Later, We’re Still Waiting.

The following letter is in response to "Lamont vetoed HB 5002. What could the reworked bill include?" published by the CT Mirror.

In 1999, Connecticut made a promise. As the state downsized psychiatric institutions, leaders pledged to reinvest those funds into home and community-based services. The goal was clear: honor the Olmstead decision, reduce unnecessary institutionalization, and build systems that support people where they live—with dignity, autonomy, and care.

Keep ReadingShow less
USAID flag outside a building
A USAID flag outside a building.
J. David Ake/Getty Images

A Glimmer of Hope in a Season of Cruelty

In a recent interview, New York Times and Atlantic contributor Peter Wehner did not mince words about President Trump’s dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and slashing of funding for the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). “This to me was an act of wanton cruelty,” Wehner said. “You really had to go out of your way to think, ‘How can I kill millions of people quickly, efficiently?’ And they found one way to do it, which is to shatter USAID.”

Wehner is not alone in his outrage. At the 2025 Aspen Ideas Festival, fellow conservative columnist David Brooks echoed the sentiment: “That one decision [gutting USAID] fills me with a kind of rage that I don’t usually experience.”

Keep ReadingShow less