Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Tariffs Are Taxing America’s Families

Opinion

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

Understanding the National Environmental Policy Act Reform Debate
Three blocks labeled "environmental", "social", and "governance" in front of a globe.
Getty Images, Khanchit Khirisutchalual

Understanding the National Environmental Policy Act Reform Debate

History of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

Signed into U.S. law in 1970, NEPA is considered the “Magna Carta” of environmental law. It requires federal agencies to assess the environmental impact of major construction projects such as airports, highways, federal buildings, or projects constructed on federally owned land before construction. To fulfill the NEPA requirements, federal agencies are required to complete a detailed Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for any actions with environmental impact. The completed EIS is an extensive written report from federal agencies that includes a summary of the environmental effects of the proposed project, a purpose statement, potential alternatives, and an overview of the affected environment.

Before a final EIS can be published, agencies must publish a draft EIS for a public review and comment period of 45 days. The final EIS must fully address substantive comments from the review period to be considered complete. Major projects with a low likelihood of pronounced environmental impact can bypass the NEPA process if granted a Categorical Exclusion (CATEX). If the project’s impact on the environment is uncertain, agencies are required to prepare a shorter Environmental Assessment (EA) to determine the need for an EIS.

Keep ReadingShow less
Crowd waving flags
Crowd waving flags
(Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

The Parallel Twin Lives of Democracy

It is a striking paradox of contemporary American life: The country appears to be bitterly divided, yet at the same time it is in deep internal agreement.

Survey after survey show broad consensus on issues that once split the nation: Same-sex marriage, interracial marriage, public smoking bans, marijuana legalization, background checks for gun ownership, even paid parental leave. Many of these were once thought irreconcilable, but today they register supermajority support. Yet at the same time, partisanship has become the most toxic line of fracture in American identity. As political philosopher Robert Talisse has observed, parents who would welcome a child marrying across lines of faith or ethnicity recoil at the prospect of marriage across ideological lines. The left and right increasingly define one another not as fellow citizens who happen to disagree, but as existential threats.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Democratic Party's American Dream Problem — And Opportunity

New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani holds a campaign event with the healthcare worker's union on September 24, 2025 outside of St. Barnabas Hospital in the Bronx borough of New York City.

(Photo by Stephanie Keith/Getty Images)

The Democratic Party's American Dream Problem — And Opportunity

Why have so many rank-and-file Democrats found Zohran Mamdani’s candidacy for New York mayor so captivating – despite all the naysaying from the party’s establishment? Because his message may be the first from a Democrat to counter decades of Republican dominance over a narrative central to our nation: the American Dream.

What the American Dream tells us is that anything is possible in America, that if you work hard, nothing can stop you, and you will succeed. It’s a rags-to-riches story, reminiscent of Horatio Alger and Rocky Balboa, and the classic tale of immigrants arriving with nothing and sacrificing everything to create a better life for themselves and their families.

Keep ReadingShow less
The New Face of US Interventionism: Economic Warfare in Brazil

USA Brazil tariffs

AI generated

The New Face of US Interventionism: Economic Warfare in Brazil

President Donald J. Trump has threatened to impose a new round of tariffs and sanctions against Brazil after Brazil’s Supreme Court sentenced the former far-right president Jair Bolsonaro to 27 years in prison for attempting a coup — an act of political retaliation that should raise alarm bells across the globe.

President Trump’s threat follows the earlier imposition of a 50% tariff on Brazilian goods and Magnitsky sanctions on Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who presided over Bolsonaro’s trial. These measures are designed to punish Brazil’s judiciary for daring to prosecute Bolsonaro, who plotted to overturn the 2022 elections and assassinate then-president-elect Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.

Keep ReadingShow less