DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Liberation Day Part Deux

Yeah that’s the thing, you need to commit. Bad certainty is better than no certainty.

Once he appoints someone to rig the figures it those numbers will look much better.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg3xrrzdr0o

Trump fires lead official on economic data as tariffs cause market drop



US President Donald Trump has fired the boss of one of America's most important economic institutions hours after weaker-than-expected jobs data stoked further alarm about his tariff policy.

On social media Trump claimed that Erika McEntarfer, commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), had "RIGGED" jobs figures "to make the Republicans, and ME, look bad".

The unprecedented move by the White House sparked accusations that Trump was politicising economic data.

The Senate's top Democrat, Chuck Schumer, said the president was "a bad leader" who "shoots the messenger" for weak statistics.

US stock markets were rattled on Friday after Trump, a Republican, forged ahead with his plans to raise import tariffs on goods from countries around the world.

Figures were then released by BLS showing that employers in the US added just 73,000 jobs in July, far below forecasts of 109,000 new roles.

The agency also revised down employment growth in May and June, reporting 250,000 fewer jobs than previously thought. It was the largest downward revision in employment figures - apart from the Covid-era - since 1979.

It is not unusual for the BLS to amend jobs figures as more data comes to light, however. During Joe Biden's presidency, statistics for 12 months over 2023-4 were retroactively revised downward by 818,000 jobs.

Though this month's changes were much larger than usual, analysts said the updates were consistent with other data showing slowdown.

The president posted on Truth Social on Friday: "The Economy is BOOMING under 'TRUMP.'"

But Heather Long, chief economist at the Navy Federal Credit Union, said the job figures were a "gamechanger", adding that "the labor market is deteriorating quickly" because of uncertainty caused by Trump's tariffs.

The president has dismissed concerns about his tariff plans, which he says will boost manufacturing in the US and rebalance global trade.

But data this week and a string of updates from companies on tariff costs have made those forecasts harder to ignore.

On the decision to sack McEntarfer, former US Treasury Secretary Larry Summers said: "Firing the head of a key government agency because you don't like the numbers they report, which come from surveys using long established procedures, is what happens in authoritarian countries, not democratic ones."

Friends of BLS, a group whose members include two former commissioners of the agency, said: "When leaders of other nations have politicized economic data, it has destroyed public trust in all official statistics and in government science."

McEntarfer called her time as commissioner "the honour of my life", while describing the agency's work as "vital and important".

Leading US stock market indices all closed sharply lower on Friday.

Trump has attacked key economic figures in the past, most recently Jerome Powell, chair of the US Federal Reserve, as the central bank continues to leave interest rates unchanged.

Trump is demanding a cut, but the Fed is holding fire until it sees the full impact of tariffs on the US economy.

In the aftermath of the jobs report, Trump launched a further salvo at Powell, stating he should also be put "out to pasture".

A member of the Fed's rate-setting committee, Adriana Kugler, is resigning early giving Trump an opportunity to install someone new. Her term was due to end next January.

The head of the Labour Department, which oversees the BLS, wrote on social media that the agency's deputy commissioner William Wiatrowski would step into the role during the search for a replacement.

The Labour Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Some analysts speculated that the jobs data could reflect a hit to small businesses, which are typically slower to respond to surveys and are especially vulnerable to tariffs.

McEntarfer worked for the government for more than 20 years before being nominated by Biden to lead the BLS in 2023. She was later confirmed near unanimously by the US Senate, including by current Vice-President JD Vance, who was then an Ohio senator.

Michael Strain, director of economic policy studies at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute, defended Entarfer, saying she had conducted herself with "great integrity".

"It is imperative that decisionmakers understand that government statistics are unbiased and of the highest quality. By casting doubt on that, the President is damaging the United States," he wrote on social media.

Jed Kolko, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said the firing raised serious alarm.

"For six months, I've said that threats to economic data have been more collateral damage than intentional harm. No longer. Firing the head of the BLS is five-alarm intentional harm to the integrity of US economic data and the entire statistical system," he wrote on social media.

Trump defended the decision and said her departure was needed to ensure there were "people that we can trust" in these posts.

"Why should anybody trust numbers?" the president told reporters when leaving the White House on Friday.

"I believe the numbers were phony, just like they were before the election, and there were other times - so you know what I did? I fired her, and you know what I did? The right thing."

Tariffs
The fight over data comes as Trump remakes trade policy, hitting goods from countries around the world with new tariffs ranging from 10% to 50%.

When Trump put forward similar plans in April, shares in the US tumbled more than 10% in a week as concerns spread to the dollar and bond markets.

The stock market recovered after he suspended some of the most drastic measures, leaving in place a less punishing, more expected 10% levy. In recent weeks, indexes in the US have been trading around all-time highs.

The latest measures are less extreme than what Trump first put forward in April, but they will still push the average tariff rate to roughly 17%, up from less than 2.5% at the start of the year.

"The reality is Trump got emboldened by the fact that markets came right back," Michael Gayed, a portfolio manager for The Free Markets ETF, told the BBC's Opening Bell. "Now he's going to try his luck again."

I’d call myself mostly a centrist— certainly left-leaning on social issues, but very fiscally conservative. It’s amusing (or frustrating) how some assumed my concerns about spending and national debt are just partisan reactions. Nope—I’ve cared about this under every administration and I always will.

BUT ...at this point, I (almost) hope the next Democratic president (and yes, there will be one eventually) mirrors Trump’s playbook exactly—executive orders, hardball tactics, the whole abuse of office and bullying of other branches that are supposed to be checks and balances .... Not because it’s the 'centrist' approach, but because the system is so broken that maybe the only way to force accountability is for MAGA to face its own tactics turned against them.

No, you are not a centrist. Dawglover neither was nor is a conservative. Anyone and everyone who doesn't walk the trump company line is now a "liberal progressive who is trying to destroy America" Or as Peen would call them, "Communists". There is no such thing as a centrist. You're either all in or you're the enemy.

The Trump administration takes a very Orwellian turn

Back in March, President Donald Trump signed an executive order targeted at the Smithsonian Institution that began as follows: “Over the past decade, Americans have witnessed a concerted and widespread effort to rewrite our Nation’s history, replacing objective facts with a distorted narrative driven by ideology rather than truth.”

Despite the high-minded rhetoric, many worried the order was instead a thinly veiled effort to rewrite history more to Trump’s liking. The order, for example, cited a desire to remove “improper ideology” – an ominous phrase, if there ever was one – from properties like the Smithsonian.

Those concerns were certainly bolstered this week. We learned that some historical information that recently vanished from the Smithsonian just so happens to have been objective history that Trump really dislikes: a reference to his two impeachments.

Back in March, President Donald Trump signed an executive order targeted at the Smithsonian Institution that began as follows: “Over the past decade, Americans have witnessed a concerted and widespread effort to rewrite our Nation’s history, replacing objective facts with a distorted narrative driven by ideology rather than truth.”

Despite the high-minded rhetoric, many worried the order was instead a thinly veiled effort to rewrite history more to Trump’s liking. The order, for example, cited a desire to remove “improper ideology” – an ominous phrase, if there ever was one – from properties like the Smithsonian.

Those concerns were certainly bolstered this week. We learned that some historical information that recently vanished from the Smithsonian just so happens to have been objective history that Trump really dislikes: a reference to his two impeachments.

The Smithsonian said that a board containing the information was removed from the National Museum of American History last month after a review of the museum’s “legacy content.” The board had been placed in front of an existing impeachment exhibit in September 2021.

Just to drive this home: The exhibit itself is about “Limits of Presidential Power.” And suddenly examples of the biggest efforts by Congress to limit Trump’s were gone.

It wasn’t immediately clear that the board was removed pursuant to Trump’s executive order. The Washington Post, which broke the news, reported that a source said the content review came after pressure from the White House to remove an art museum director.

In other words, we don’t know all the details of precisely how this went down – including whether the removal was specifically requested, or whether museum officials decided it might be a good way to placate Trump amid pressure. The Smithsonian said in a statement Saturday that it was “not asked by any administration” or government official to remove content and that an updated version of the exhibit will ultimately mention all impeachment efforts, including Trump’s.

But it’s all pretty Orwellian. And it’s not the only example.

Trump has always been rather blatant about his efforts to rewrite history with self-serving falsehoods and rather shameless in applying pressure on the people who would serve as impartial referees of the current narrative. But this week has taken things to another level.

On Friday, Trump fired the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This came just hours after that agency delivered Trump some very bad news: the worst non-Covid three-month jobs numbers since 2010.

Some Trump allies have attempted to put a good face on this, arguing that Dr. Erika McEntarfer’s removal was warranted because large revisions in the job numbers betrayed shoddy work. But as he did with the firing of then-FBI Director James B. Comey eight years ago, Trump quickly undermined all that. He told Newsmax that “we fired her because we didn’t believe the numbers today.”

To the extent Trump did lay out an actual evidence-based case for firing McEntarfer, that evidence was conspiratorial and wrong, as CNN’s Daniel Dale documented Friday.

And even some Republican senators acknowledged this might be precisely as draconian and self-serving as it looked. Sen. Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, for one, called it “kind of impetuous” to fire the BLS head before finding out whether the new numbers were actually wrong.

“It’s not the statistician’s fault if the numbers are accurate and that they’re not what the president had hoped for,” said Lummis, who is not often a Trump critic.

Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina added that if Trump “just did it because they didn’t like the numbers, they ought to grow up.”

Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska both worried that Trump’s move would make it so people can’t trust the data the administration is putting out.

And that’s the real problem here. It’s not so much that Trump appears to be firing someone as retaliation; it’s the message it sends to everyone else in a similar position. The message is that you might want that data and those conclusions to be to Trump’s liking, or else.

It’s a recipe for getting plenty of unreliable data and conclusions. And even to the extent that information is solid, it will seed suspicions about the books having been cooked – both among regular Americans and, crucially, among those making key decisions that impact the economy. What happens if the next jobs report is great? Will the markets believe it?

We’ve certainly seen plenty of rather blunt Trump efforts to control such narratives and rewrite history before. A sampling:

He engaged in a yearslong effort to make Jan. 6 defendants who attacked the Capitol in his name out to be sympathetic patriots, even calling them “hostages,” before pardoning them.

His administration’s efforts to weed out diversity, equity and inclusion from the government often ensnared things that merely celebrated Black people and women.

He and his administration have at times taken rather dim views of the free speech rights of those who disagree with them, including talking about mere protests – i.e. not necessarily violence – as being “illegal.” A loyalist US attorney at one point threatened to pursue people who criticized then-Trump ally Elon Musk even for non-criminal behavior.

Trump has repeatedly suggested criticism of judges he likes should be illegal, despite regularly attacking judges he doesn’t like.

His term began with the portraits of military leaders who clashed with him being removed from the Pentagon. It also began with a massive purge of independent inspectors general charged with holding the administration to account.

All of it reinforces the idea that Trump is trying to consolidate power by pursuing rather heavy-handed and blatant tactics.

But if there’s a week that really drove home how blunt these efforts can be, it might be this one.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/trump-administration-takes-very-orwellian-162242581.html

Politics
Why utility bills are rapidly rising in some states
By
August 23, 2025 / 6:19 AM EDT / CBS News

If you noticed your utility bill has gone up this summer, you're not alone. On average, electricity costs are 5.5% higher today than they were a year ago, according to the latest federal data, and natural gas is up 13.8%.

Nearly 60 utility companies are set to increase electricity rates this year by more than $38 billion, affecting more than 57 million Americans, according to analysis from the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank.

President Trump recently commented on the rising prices, blaming them on renewable power. He wrote on Truth Social that renewables were "THE SCAM OF THE CENTURY!" And he vowed he would not approve wind and solar projects.

But higher rates are largely a result of higher demand, and that's being driven by the rapid expansion of artificial intelligence, oil and gas drilling, space heating and electrified forms of transportation — all technologies that require immense amounts of power, according to Rob Gramlich, president of Grid Strategies, a D.C. based energy consultancy firm, "When supply is scarce, then prices go up," he said.

Gramlich says that after 25 years of a flat demand for energy and a dip during the pandemic, demand rose once economic activity picked up after the pandemic was over.


Russia's invasion of Ukraine has also played a role in higher costs, disrupting international energy supply chains and causing rates to go up in the U.S. Rapid growth in data centers and newer electrified forms of technology mean the nation will need 15% more capacity — or 120 gigawatts — by the end of the decade to keep pace, Gramlich estimated.

The increasing demand is a big reason why the U.S. Energy Information Administration expects residential electricity rates to increase steadily by as much as 18% in the next few years, far outstripping the annual inflation rate of about 2.7%.

The fastest way to bring rates down would be to increase supply, but there are challenges.

U.S. falling behind on transmission
Gramlich, in recent testimony before Congress, said there's no shortage of fuel to add to the grid — it's a shortage of transmission that's the major problem.


At the end of 2023, there were more than 2,600 gigawatts of energy waiting to get connected, representing over twice the current installed capacity of the U.S. power grid, according to the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. And 95% of it was generated by solar, wind, and battery storage.

To meet growing electricity needs, the U.S. needs to expand transmission systems by 60% by 2030, and even that may need to triple by 2050, according to a 2022 report by the Department of Energy.

"If we can get a lot of transmission built, then I think we can meet the AI-driven data center demands," Gramlich said.

AI data centers consume far more power from the grid than regular data centers, says Norman Bashir, a fellow at MIT's Climate and Sustainability Consortium, where researchers are studying the impact of generative AI on the grid.

"AI data centers are much more power intensive," Bashir told CBS News Boston last month. "So, if you have a normal data center, an AI data center would be up to 10 times more power intensive."

Role of tariffs and equipment shortages
Beyond the transmission backlog, Gramlich says tariffs and equipment shortages are making energy projects more expensive. One example — gas turbines are extremely scarce right now, and that's holding up the expansion of natural gas power plants.

"The price of an actual turbine has almost tripled," Gramlich said. And the wait time for a gas turbine is around three or four years — even as long as seven, according to a May analysis by S&P Global.


Energy sources
Over the past decade, the nation's energy mix has increasingly grown to favor natural gas and renewables, like wind, solar and hydropower, that have become much cheaper to produce. New nuclear plants won't be on line before 2030, Gramlich said, and coal is becoming less economically viable because of maintenance and update costs required to address pollution concerns.

"That leaves wind and solar and battery storage that can help in this decade," Gramlich told CBS News.

But the Trump administration has enacted policies to curtail new clean energy projects and instead foster greater reliance on fossil fuels. Approving and permitting new clean energy projects has become increasingly difficult, taking away a valuable asset from energy providers at a critical time.

"If things keep going like this, [utility bills] are gonna be higher next year," Gramlich said.

Trump energy policies projected to raise prices
Upon returning to office, Mr. Trump issued a "National Energy Emergency" executive order, arguing the country needs "reliable, diversified, and affordable supply of energy to drive our Nation's manufacturing, transportation, agriculture, and defense industries, and to sustain the basics of modern life and military preparedness."

Most of the actions tied to that order have gutted renewable energy generation and are bolstering fossil fuel development.

The passage of Trump's signature legislation, One Big Beautiful Bill Act, is expected to make energy more expensive, impact jobs, and make it more difficult to meet rising energy demand, according to analysis by Energy Innovation, a nonpartisan energy and climate policy think tank.


OBBBA will change the tax code, increasing generation costs, resulting in a drop in power generation capacity of 340 gigawatts by 2035, says Michael O'Boyle, acting policy team director of Energy Innovation in an email to CBS News. To put that in perspective, 1 gigawatt typically powers 750,000 homes, so 340 gigawatts could power about 255 million homes.

O'Boyle estimates wholesale energy prices will increase by 74% by 2035, resulting in a $170 annual increase in the average household energy bill. Some 760,000 jobs could be lost by 2030, and the states that are expected to see the biggest impacts on energy cost increases and job losses from the OBBBA are South Carolina, Florida, Texas, Kentucky and North Carolina.

The Energy Department criticized the analysis and its support of renewables arguing, "The OBBBA ensures taxpayers will no longer be forced to subsidize intermittent energy sources like wind and solar – subsidies that have only resulted in more expensive, less reliable energy," said Ben Dietderich, the department's press secretary and chief spokesman, in an email to CBS News.

Ending Biden-era clean energy policies
Since he returned to office, Mr. Trump has been dismantling Biden-era clean energy policies, resulting in the termination of more than $22 billion in renewable energy projects, according to an analysis by the environmental policy firm E2.

"Unfortunately, the president and Congress is making it harder for Americans to have access to the cheapest, cleanest, quickest to deploy power there is," said Bob Keefe, E2's executive director.

"By slowing clean energy deployment, the Administration is directly fueling cost increases," Jason Grumet, CEO of the American Clean Power Association, said in a statement. Grumet cited EIA data and noted, "The top four clean energy states are seeing prices decline this year, while the 10 states with the least renewable power all face rising costs."

Trump admin. keeping fossil fuel generation alive
To address rising energy demand, the Energy Department has ordered some utility companies to keep coal power plants open beyond their retirement dates, an action that could cost more than $3.1 billion a year by 2028, according to analysis by Gramlich's firm, Grid Strategies.


"These coal plants are basically uneconomic in the market. Each year, they incur tens of millions of dollars of maintenance just to stay operating," said Gramlich.

Those costs to extend the life of coal plants will be borne by ratepayers, according to a ruling by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Coal plants are generally planned for retirement when their operating cost exceeds their expected revenue or their value to the electric grid, the EIA has pointed out. Coal-fired plants, which produce high levels of CO2 emissions, have been under pressure to be phased out in many states, in particular, those with clean energy goals. According to the EIA, natural gas and clean energy sources are providing a growing share of the nation's electricity, while coal has been waning. By the end of 2023, the maximum potential power plant output for coal was 15.2%, down from 45% in 1990.

If additional fossil fuel-based plants delay retirement dates — 28% were expected to be retired by 2035 — the bill to ratepayers could grow to more than $6 billion.

Still, Energy Secretary Chris Wright supports the administration's efforts to keep fossil fuel generation online longer.

"The United States cannot afford to continue down the unstable and dangerous path of energy subtraction previous leaders pursued, forcing the closure of baseload power sources like coal and natural gas," he said in a statement, upon releasing a report on the U.S. grid's reliability. "If we are going to keep the lights on, win the AI race, and keep electricity prices from skyrocketing, the United States must unleash American energy."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-utility-bills-are-rapidly-rising-in-some-states/

Countries are suspending postal deliveries to the U.S. Here’s why.
Countries are suspending postal deliveries to the U.S. Here’s why.
© Clemens Bilan/EPA/Shutterstock
Postal operators around the world have announced they will suspend certain deliveries to the United States, ahead of an end to a long-standing tariff exemption for packages worth $800 or less.

President Donald Trump has framed the decision as part of a fight against illegal drugs. But mail companies say that many aspects of the new rules remain unclear.


The facts
Previously, most imported goods with a value of $800 or less were exempt from tariffs. That rule, known as the de minimis exemption, is set to end on Aug. 29 — though letters or personal gifts worth less than $100 won’t be affected, postal operators said.
A number of national mail companies around the world from Europe to Asia and the Pacific have responded by temporarily suspending some mail services to the U.S.
For consumers, this could mean delays in receiving packages — which may now also incur tariffs of $80 or more.
The move stems from sweeping tariffs the president imposed on most U.S. trading partners earlier this year.
What are the changes?
The de minimis — which in Latin means something too small or insignificant to be considered — tax exception was passed by Congress in the 1930s and amended over the years. Under the Obama administration, the exemption was raised from $200 to $800 — where it remained until this year.
ed companies to save tens of billions of dollars in fees on cheap imports, most of which came from China — though Etsy sellers and family-run businesses also benefited from the rule.

The Trump administration ended the exception for China and Hong Kong in May. In an executive order signed last month, Trump extended the decision to all countries starting Aug. 29, meaning that most low-value parcels will also be charged tariffs.

Which countries are affected?
National mail services in more than a dozen European countries have said they are pausing at least some of their deliveries until they have figured out how to deal with the new rules.

In Germany, Deutsche Post and DHL Parcel Germany said they were temporarily suspending business customer parcels to the U.S. beginning Saturday — though shipments via DHL Express are not affected.

Belgium’s Postal Service suspended shipments containing merchandise starting Saturday, while Spain’s Correos said that it will not accept packages worth $800 or less beginning Monday. France’s La Poste said it may be forced to temporarily suspend some shipments unless a solution is reached before the implementation date. Britain’s Royal Mail said it plans to withdraw its services for a day or two, before rolling out a system to deal with the requirements.

Suspensions have also been announced across Asia and the Pacific. India’s Department of Posts said that it would temporarily stop mail service to the U.S. beginning Monday. Thailand temporarily suspended all international postal parcel services to the U.S., while South Korea, Singapore and New Zealand suspended most shipments. Australia Post has temporarily suspended so-called transit shipping — where goods from other countries are shipped to the U.S. via Australia.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection did not immediately reply to a request for comment.

What will it mean for shipping costs?
The extra charges on a package will depend on the methodology used to calculate it, according to the executive order. The duty rate will either match the level of tariff the U.S. has imposed on the country of origin, or a specific duty based on the following:

For countries with a tariff rate of 15 percent or less, such as Britain, each package will incur an additional charge of $80.
Parcels originating from countries with U.S. tariffs of between 16 and 25 percent will incur an additional $160.
Countries with a tariff rate of more than 25 percent will face an extra $200.
The new rules could also put the onus on senders to pay import duties before the shipment leaves for the U.S., according to Belgium’s bpost. It said in a statement the changes mean “import duties for all shipments with goods must be prepaid, regardless of value.”

Letters, documents and gifts under $100 are exempt — though DHL said in a statement that any parcel declared as a gift “will be subject to even stricter controls than before to prevent the misuse of private gift shipments for sending commercial goods.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/government/ar-AA1L5bx4

‘Sneakflation’: How Trump’s tariffs are gradually raising costs for American consumers
By

Alicia Wallace
8 hr ago



When tariffs are tacked on to many imported goods, someone’s got to foot the bill.

According to President Donald Trump, foreign countries and overseas businesses are eating the cost. But evidence shows that American consumers and businesses are paying for the tariffs the administration has implemented as its go-to policy levers.

“It been proven, that even at this late stage, Tariffs have not caused Inflation, or any other problems for America, other than massive amounts of CASH pouring into our Treasury’s coffers,” Trump posted on his social media site, Truth Social, earlier this month. “Also, it has been shown that, for the most part, Consumers aren’t even paying these Tariffs, it is mostly Companies and Governments, many of them Foreign, picking up the tabs.”

Trump’s post did not include any substantiation for his claims.


There is a growing field of evidence to the contrary: Economic data, academic research, businesses’ expenses, and people’s first-hand experiences are showing that it’s American firms and consumers who are seeing increasingly higher costs due to the tariffs.

That burden is expected to grow only heavier in the months — and, potentially, years — to come as more tariffs take effect, and others settle more deeply into supply chains.

What the latest data shows
If foreign exporters are absorbing tariff costs, one possible way to see that in US economic data is whether they’re lowering their pre-tariff export prices.


If that’s the case, it would show up as lower or falling US import prices.

Recent months’ data, however, has shown that import prices (which exclude the costs of tariffs, insurance and shipping costs) have held mostly steady. They’ve risen by 0.5% since the November election and by 0.2% since March, after which the bulk of new tariffs were announced, according to a recent note from Pantheon Macroeconomics.

“One argument that had looked plausible until recently was that import prices had been supported by pre-tariff stockpiling in [the last part of 2024 and the first three months of 2025], which saw goods imports soar to record highs,” Pantheon economists Samuel Tombs and Oliver Allen wrote in an August 19 note. “That left foreign exporters flush with orders, providing little incentive to cut pre-tariff prices to remain competitive. But import prices have remained resilient despite goods imports dropping back very sharply in [the second quarter], suggesting a steep decline in prices ahead is unlikely.”

A more granular look at import price data indicates that there’s a slight dip in import prices from China; however, for the vast majority of countries, it’s basically been flat, Olu Sonola, head of US economic research at Fitch Ratings, told CNN in an interview.


“So that’s telling you that all of that is paid by importers,” he said. “It’s now a question of, is it the manufacturer, is it the retailers, or is it the small business that’s bringing it in? They now have to figure out, ‘How much of this can I take on, and how much of this will I pass on?”

“It’s very likely they will pass the bulk of it on,” he added.

To this point, consumers have been mostly shielded from starkly higher prices.

Through June, US consumers had absorbed 22% of tariff costs, but that share was expected to rise to 67% by October, according to an August 10 estimation from Goldman Sachs economists. That assessment led to a demand from Trump that the investment giant fire its chief economist.

Goldman Sachs economists said they expect that about 70% of the direct costs of the tariffs will eventually fall on the consumer, and that the total could rise to 100% if including the spillover effects of domestic producers raising their prices (something that has already occurred and is expected to continue — more on that below).


There’s a laundry list of reasons why tariff-driven price hikes are a slow boil: Businesses loaded up their warehouses with pre-tariffed goods; higher costs have been split by entities along the supply chain, lessening the blow at the retail store; and Trump’s fits-and-starts approach to tariffs has meant that the bulk of them did not go into effect for months, and many items are exempted (for at least now).

At the same time, inflation has remained relatively tame for both good and not-so-good reasons: Ongoing deflationary trends in key areas, marking a continued unwinding from pandemic-era shortages and price spikes; falling gas prices (they’re down 9.5% from July of last year) amid global economic uncertainty; and then because of depressed consumer demand in areas such as travel.

Still, recent Consumer Price Index inflation reports reveal increases in the cost of certain imports the United States relies on heavily, including household furnishings, linens, tools, toys and sporting goods.

Slow-bleeding, tariff-driven ‘sneakflation’
As of August 8, imported goods cost 5% more than pre-tariff trends predicted and domestically produced goods are running 3% higher, according to newly released research from Harvard Business School professor Alberto Cavallo and colleagues.


Cavallo, in an interview with CNN, said he expects that the passthrough will continue in steady increments but could be limited in some cases depending on the competitiveness of the product category and industry.

“I think it could take over a year for us to see some of the effects of these tariffs,” he said. “But a year from now, maybe two years from now, we’ll notice that consumers ended up paying a significant amount of the tariffs even if they didn’t notice the increases right away.”

New research last week from the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta showed that businesses — those directly exposed to tariffs and those who are not — expect to raise prices this year.

At the end of 2024, surveyed businesses anticipated increasing their prices by 2.5% during the year ahead. By mid-May, those estimates shot up to 3.5%, according to the Atlanta Fed, which found that little difference existed in the price growth expectations of firms with or without foreign exposure.


However, the survey showed some starker increases expected among services, providing firms, which prompted questions around whether these price increases could deliver an inflationary impulse as was seen three years ago .

“The chief concern regarding the impact of tariffs is whether we will experience the same phenomenon that we witnessed during the pandemic. That is, will price pressures spread beyond only the prices that are directly affected by increased import duties?” Atlanta Fed researchers wrote in the report.



“Businesses say they’re working both with suppliers and consumers to help share some of the cost burden,” Bush said. “They do indicate that they’re willing to eat some of the cost for now. But I think as the realization sets in that these tariffs are not going back down, they will start to pass more on to consumers.”


The world’s largest retailer said as much on Thursday: Walmart CEO Doug McMillon said that the company’s costs have risen every week because of tariffs but will aim to keep prices down “for as long as we can.”

Small increases over time could make it easier for some consumers to handle; however, to others — especially those with little to no wiggle room in their budgets — that slow burn could very well feel like a slow bleed.

“Lower-income Americans are sadly adept at juggling their expenses and trying to make every dime count,” Heather Long, chief economist at Navy Federal Credit Union, wrote in an email to CNN. “They may go without meat or coffee one week in order to buy shoes for their kids. The next week, they may skip a car payment to cover their electric bill and a medical expense. It’s a constant juggle where they allocate money to their most urgent need at that moment.”

Retailers and major brands know that many Americans live paycheck to paycheck, so they’re using “sneakflation” to pass along the tariffs in small increments in hopes that consumers won’t notice or will be able to better absorb it, Long added.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/24/economy/us-tariffs-passthrough-consumers

AI is the biggest reason Utility costs are going up.

The main reason utilities are going up is, that they are traded on the NYSE. Their CEOs need to show growth every year to survive at their positions. So guess what? Up up up go the prices even though demand is starting to level off due to solar and other alternatives. Now the upper middle class and the rich with alternative or solar power get the benefits and the lower middle class and poor make up for those loses and pay the man, more and more.

Federal appeals court strikes down major chunk of Trump’s tariffs
The ruling will not take effect right away, giving the administration time to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Donald Trump holds up a chart on reciprocal tariffs.
President Donald Trump holds up a chart while announcing new "reciprocal" tariffs on more than 60 trading partners during an event in the Rose Garden at the White House on April 2, 2025. | Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

By Doug Palmer, Kyle Cheney, Josh Gerstein and Daniel Desrochers
08/29/2025 05:47 PM EDT
Updated: 08/29/2025 06:13 PM EDT


A federal appeals court on Friday struck down President Donald Trump’s use of emergency powers granted by Congress to impose tariffs, opening the door for the administration to potentially have to repay billions worth of duties.

The 7-4 ruling raises doubt about deals Trump has struck with the European Union, Japan, South Korea and other major trading partners to reduce the “reciprocal” tariff rates on their imports, from the levels the administration originally set in April.







“We conclude Congress … did not give the president wide-ranging authority to impose tariffs” of the kind Trump imposed in his sweeping executive orders, the majority wrote.



The ruling also invalidates the tariffs that Trump has imposed on China, Canada and Mexico to pressure those countries to do more to stop shipments of fentanyl and precursor chemicals from entering the United States.

The decision, however, will not take effect until Oct. 14, giving the Trump administration time to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.

Trump blasted the “Highly Partisan Appeals Court” in a Friday evening Truth Social post, and warned that blocking the tariffs “would be a total disaster for the Country” and “make us financially weak.”

“Now, with the help of the United States Supreme Court, we will use them to the benefit of our Nation, and Make America Rich, Strong, and Powerful Again!” Trump wrote, signaling that the White House will appeal, as expected.

“President Trump lawfully exercised the tariff powers granted to him by Congress to defend our national and economic security from foreign threats. The President’s tariffs remain in effect, and we look forward to ultimate victory on this matter,” White House spokesperson Kush Desai said in a statement.

The ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upholds a May decision by the U.S. Court of International Trade, which concluded that Trump exceeded his authority under the 1977 law he invoked to impose both the fentanyl trafficking tariffs and his worldwide tariffs, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

“We are not addressing whether the President’s actions should have been taken as a matter of policy,” the majority wrote in its ruling, which was in response to a combined set of cases brought by several small importers and multiple Democratic-run states. “Nor are we deciding whether IEEPA authorizes any tariffs at all. Rather, the only issue we resolve on appeal is whether the Trafficking Tariffs and Reciprocal Tariffs imposed by the Challenged Executive Orders are authorized by IEEPA. We conclude they are not.”





Trade and customs experts told POLITICO that repayments would be a logistical nightmare, and would likely trigger a wave of legal challenges from other businesses and industry groups seeking reimbursement.

The appeals court’s majority said their conclusion that Trump’s tariffs were illegal was bolstered by a series of Supreme Court decisions articulating the “major questions doctrine,” a legal theory rejecting claims that Congress implicitly granted the executive sweeping powers.

“The tariffs at issue in this case implicate the concerns animating the major questions doctrine as they are both ‘unheralded’ and ‘transformative,’” wrote the majority, which consisted of one Republican appointee and six Democratic appointees.

Dissenting from the ruling Friday were Obama appointees Richard Taranto and Raymond Chen and George W. Bush appointees Kimberly Moore and Sharon Prost. Trump has not appointed any judges to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.

“IEEPA embodies an eyes-open congressional grant of broad emergency authority in this foreign-affairs realm, which unsurprisingly extends beyond authorities available under non-emergency laws, and Congress confirmed the understood breadth by tying IEEPA’s authority to particularly demanding procedural requirements for keeping Congress informed,” Taranto wrote for the dissenters.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Trump began aggressively using the international emergency law to impose tariffs shortly after taking office, first hitting China, Canada and Mexico with the fentanyl trafficking tariffs. He then tapped the authority to impose a baseline tariff of 10 percent on almost all countries and additional tariffs ranging up to 50 percent on dozens of individual trading partners, including the 27 nations of the European Union.

No president has previously used the 1977 act to impose tariffs, although they have often used it over the past five decades to impose economic sanctions on other countries.

Trump said the high number of deaths due to fentanyl constituted a national emergency that justified using tariffs to pressure China, Canada and Mexico into stopping the drug and its precursor chemicals from entering the U.S.



He also said the “large and persistent” U.S. trade deficit was a national emergency that justified imposing a broader set of “reciprocal” tariffs on most countries, which he then used to pressure some trading partners into negotiating trade deals.

Treasury Department data shows the Trump administration took in about $107 billion in customs duties between February and July of this year. A fair portion of that are the tariffs Trump has collected using IEEPA, but it also includes other U.S. duties that aren’t affected by the appeals court ruling, including some Trump has imposed using other authorities.

Another case challenging the tariffs has also been making its way through the courts.

A federal district judge in Washington, D.C., in a case brought by two Illinois toy companies, ruled on May 29 that Trump did not have any authority under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act to impose tariffs.

That went further than the Court of International Trade ruling, which said that the 1977 law did give Trump some tariff authority but it was not “unlimited.”

The Justice Department appealed the ruling in the toy companies case to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has scheduled oral arguments for late September.

So far it seems his answer to everything is just put the label "emergency" on it and he feels that's enough to give him the power to do what he wants. Not only does that give him the power to do what he wants in trumplandia, it gives him the power to do it where he wants. And his supporters applaud it all.