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

An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testifies during a Senate Committee on Appropriations hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on July 21, 2026. Hegseth is crafting a strong and masculine identity for his audience as he reportedly contemplates a presidential run.

(Alex Wroblewski/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

Politicians Can’t Just ’Give the People What They Want’

For reasons that will baffle my many detractors, I am often asked for advice about being an opinion journalist. One of my standard responses is: You have to be willing to disappoint your biggest fans.

What I mean is that if you start to see your job as telling fans what they want to hear, you risk becoming an entertainer rather than a thinker, and eventually you become a caricature. I’ve seen it happen numerous times. Patrick Buchanan was a brilliant columnist and a serious person. But over the course of his career, he listened too much to the people who said, “Go Pat, go!” and too little to friends who said, “I think that’s taking it too far.”

Keep ReadingShow less
White marble exterior of the United States Capitol, often called the Capitol Building, is the home of the United States Congress and the seat of the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government

Congress approval is at a record-low 10%. Moderation and consensus-building, not partisan theatrics, are how Washington gets problems solved.

Richard Sharrocks / Getty Images

Reclaiming the Politics of the Possible

Washington is stuck in a cycle of performative conflict. The incentives seem to reward outrage, not outcomes that last; purity tests, not problem‑solving. So it’s no surprise that after three shutdowns in less than a year, public approval of Congress collapsed to just 10 percent this spring. (Gallup, April 2026.) But the country we live in — where many middle-income families report persistent financial strain and businesses are navigating unprecedented technological upheaval — cannot be governed by theatrics. Breaking this cycle requires moderation, consensus‑building, and a cooperative approach to governance.

This is not a call for centrism as an ideology. Instead, this is a call for transformative leaders to embrace moderation as their governing strategy, recognizing that in a pluralistic country of nearly 350 million people durable solutions require broad and stable alliances. Ultimately, this is a call for the 240 million of us who are eligible to vote in November to elect consensus-builders instead of bomb-throwers, and healers instead of arsonists.

Keep ReadingShow less
Adult man holds a microphone while asking a question during a town hall meeting.

Congress ignored 90% of public support for background checks. Learn how citizen assemblies and sortition helped Ireland break gridlock and could work in the US.

SDI Productions/Getty Images

Consensus Without Power: How Sortition Could Break America's Legislative Gridlock

In April 2013, four months after the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting killed twenty children, the US Senate voted on the Manchin-Toomey Act to expand background checks and to include gun-show and internet sales of firearms. Roughly nine in ten Americans, including a majority of gun owners, supported the bill—a figure that has held steady across more than a decade of polling. It fell short of the 60-vote threshold by six votes. This was not an outlier. On complex issues, representatives often fail to translate public consensus into reality. Research shows that legislators consistently vote in line with donor and interest group preferences over constituent opinion. Before the vote, the National Rifle Association (NRA) warned every senator it would “rate” their vote on its annual rating system, and a low NRA rating could cost senators their next primary. Consequently, the bill died 54-46, and the majority of Americans watched, powerless, as their consensus was overridden by self-interested representatives.

Liberal democracies need a method to bypass electoral incentives that run counter to public opinion. One already exists: Ireland faced the same stalemate on complex issues before it instituted a process called sortition. The beauty of sortition lies in its removal of the primary pressure that misaligns representatives’ interests from public interest: reelection. Much like jury duty, citizens are randomly drawn from the population. An independent body then stratifies the pool, so the final group mirrors the country by age, gender, geography, and income. The group meets over weeks or months, hearing from experts and the public, as well as debating frequently. At the end, it issues a recommendation that parliament may then put to a referendum or pass into law.

Keep ReadingShow less