Tariffs

HOUMA, La. — For nearly 50 years, James Blanchard has made his living in the Gulf of Mexico, pulling shrimp from the sea.

It’s all he ever wanted to do, since he was around 12 years old and accompanied his father, a mailman and part-time shrimper, as he spent weekends trawling the marshy waters off Louisiana. Blanchard loved the adventure and splendid isolation.

He made a good living, even as the industry collapsed around him. He and his wife, Cheri, bought a comfortable home in a tidy subdivision here in the heart of Bayou Country. They helped put three kids through college.

But eventually Blanchard began to contemplate his forced retirement, selling his 63-foot boat and hanging up his wall of big green fishing nets once he turns 65 in February.

“The amount of shrimp was not a problem,” said Blanchard, a fourth-generation shrimper who routinely hauls in north of 30,000 flash-frozen pounds on a two-week trip. “It’s making a profit, because the prices were so low.”

Then came President Trump, his tariffs and famously itchy trigger finger.

Blanchard is a lifelong Republican, but wasn’t initially a big Trump fan.

In April, Trump slapped a 10% fee on shrimp imports, which grew to 50% for India, America’s largest overseas source of shrimp. Further levies were imposed on Ecuador, Vietnam and Indonesia, which are other major U.S. suppliers.

Views of the 47th president, from the ground up

Tariffs may slow economic growth, discombobulate markets and boost inflation. Trump’s single-handed approach to tax-and-trade policy has landed him before the Supreme Court, which is expected to rule by summer on a major test case of presidential power.

Blanchard snacks on a bag of dried shrimp.

But for Blanchard, those tariffs have been a lifeline. He’s seen a significant uptick in prices, from as low as 87 cents a pound for wild-caught shrimp to $1.50 or more. That’s nowhere near the $4.50 a pound, adjusted for inflation, that U.S shrimpers earned back in the roaring 1980s, when shrimp was less common in home kitchens and something of a luxury item.

It’s enough, however, for Blanchard to shelve his retirement plans and for that — and Trump — he’s appreciative.

“Writing all the bills in the world is great,” he said of efforts by congressional lawmakers to prop up the country’s dwindling shrimp fishermen. “But it don’t get nothing done.”

Trump, Blanchard said, has delivered.

::

Shrimp is America’s most popular seafood, but that hasn’t buoyed the U.S. shrimp industry.

Wild-caught domestic shrimp make up less than 10% of the market. It’s not a matter of quality, or overfishing. A flood of imports — farmed on a mass scale, lightly regulated by developing countries and thus cheaper to produce — has decimated the market for American shrimpers.

In the Gulf and South Atlantic, warm water shrimp landings — the term the industry uses — had an average annual value of more than $460 million between 1975 and 2022, according to the Southern Shrimp Alliance, a trade group. (Those numbers are not adjusted for inflation.)

A boat moves up a canal in Chauvin, La.

Over the last two years, the value of the commercial shrimp fishery has fallen to $269 million in 2023 and $256 million in 2024.

As the country’s leading shrimp producer, Louisiana has been particularly hard hit. “It’s getting to the point that we are on our knees,” Acy Cooper, president of the Louisiana Shrimp Assn., recently told New Orleans television station WVUE.

In the 1980s, there were more than 6,000 licensed shrimpers working in Louisiana. Today, there are fewer than 1,500.

Blanchard can see the ripple effects in Houma — in the shuttered businesses, the depleted job market and the high incidence of drug overdoses.

Latrevien Moultrie, 14, fishes in Houma, La.

“It’s affected everybody,” he said. “It’s not only the boats, the infrastructure, the packing plants. It’s the hardware stores. The fuel docks. The grocery stores.”

Two of the Blanchardses’ three children have moved away, seeking opportunity elsewhere. One daughter is a university law professor. Their son works in logistics for a trucking company in Georgia. Their other daughter, who lives near the couple, applies her advanced degree in school psychology as a stay-at-home mother of five.

(Cheri Blanchard, 64 and retired from the state labor department, keeps the books for her husband.)

It turns out the federal government is at least partly responsible for the shrinking of the domestic shrimp industry. In recent years, U.S. taxpayers have subsidized overseas shrimp farming to the tune of at least $195 million in development aid.

Seated at their dining room table, near a Christmas tree and other remnants of the holidays, Blanchard read from a set of scribbled notes — a Bible close at hand — as he and his wife decried the lax safety standards, labor abuses and environmental degradation associated with overseas shrimp farming.

James Blanchard and his wife, Cheri, like Trump’s policies. His personality is another thing.

The fact their taxes help support those practices is particularly galling.

“A slap in the face,” Blanchard called it.

::

Donald Trump grew slowly on the Blanchards.

The two are lifelong Republicans, but they voted for Trump in 2016 only because they considered him less bad than Hillary Clinton.

Once he took office, they were pleasantly surprised.

They had more money in their pockets. Inflation wasn’t an issue. Washington seemed less heavy-handed and intrusive. By the time Trump ran for reelection, the couple were fully on board and they happily voted for him again in 2024.

Republican National Committee reading material sits on the counter of James Blanchard’s kitchen.

Still, there are things that irk Blanchard. He doesn’t much care for Trump’s brash persona and can’t stand all the childish name-calling. For a long time, he couldn’t bear listening to Trump’s speeches.

“You didn’t ever really listen to many of Obama’s speeches,” Cheri interjected, and James allowed as how that was true.

“I liked his personality,” Blanchard said of the former Democratic president. “I liked his character. But I didn’t like his policies.”

It’s the opposite with Trump.

Unlike most politicians, Blanchard said, when Trump says he’ll do something he generally follows through.

Such as tightening border security.

“I have no issue at all with immigrants,” he said, as his wife nodded alongside. “I have an issue with illegal immigrants.” (She echoed Trump in blaming Renee Good for her death last week at the hands of an ICE agent.)

“I have sympathy for them as families,” Blanchard went on, but crossing the border doesn’t make someone a U.S. citizen. “If I go down the highway 70 miles an hour in that 30-mile-an-hour zone, guess what? I’m getting a ticket. … Or if I get in that car and I’m drinking, guess what? They’re bringing me to jail. So what’s the difference?”

Between the two there isn’t much — apart from Trump’s “trolling,” as Cheri called it — they find fault with.

Blanchard hailed the lightning-strike capture and arrest of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro as another example of Trump doing and meaning exactly what he says.

“When Biden was in office, they had a $25-million bounty on [Maduro’s] head,” Blanchard said. “But apparently it was done knowing that it was never going to be enforced.”

More empty talk, he suggested.

Just like all those years of unfulfilled promises from politicians vowing to rein in foreign competition and revive America’s suffering shrimping industry.

James Blanchard aboard his boat, which he docks in Bayou Little Caillou.

Trump and his tariffs have given Blanchard back his livelihood and for that alone he’s grateful.

There’s maintenance and repair work to be done on his boat — named Waymaker, to honor the Lord — before Blanchard musters his two-man crew and sets out from Bayou Little Caillou.

He can hardly wait.

The United States Supreme Court is expected to rule on a case about the legality of President Donald Trump’s tariffs.

The high court on Tuesday added a non-argument/conference date on its website, indicating that it could release its ruling, although the court does not announce ahead of time which rulings it intends to issue.

The challenge to Trump’s tariffs has been one of the most closely watched cases on the court’s docket amid the broader impact on the global economy.

In a social media post on Friday, Trump said such a ruling would be a “terrible blow” to the US.

“Because of Tariffs, our Country is financially, AND FROM A NATIONAL SECURITY STANDPOINT, FAR STRONGER AND MORE RESPECTED THAN EVER BEFORE,” Trump said in another post on Monday.

However, data on this is mixed. The US gross domestic product (GDP) grew by 4.3 percent in the third quarter of 2025, marking the biggest increase in two years. Meanwhile, US job growth has slowed, with sectors heavily exposed to tariffs seeing little to no job growth.

“Jobs in sectors with higher import exposure grew more slowly than jobs in sectors with lower import exposure, suggesting tariffs may have weighed on employment,” Johannes Matschke, senior economist for the Kansas City branch of the Federal Reserve, said in an analysis in December.

Legal arguments

Trump invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) in February 2025 on goods imported from individual countries to address, what he called, a national emergency related to US trade deficits.

Arguments challenging the legality of the decision began in November. At the time, the court’s liberal and some conservative justices had doubts about the legality of using the 1977 act.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, whom Trump appointed during his first term, was among those sceptical.

“Congress, as a practical matter, can’t get this power back once it’s handed it over to the president,” Gorsuch said at the time.

Chief Justice John Roberts told Solicitor General D John Sauer, who argued on behalf of the administration, that imposing tariffs and taxes “has always been the core power of Congress”.

The act grants broad executive authority to wield economic power in the case of a national emergency.

The matter reached the Supreme Court after the lower courts ruled against the Trump administration, finding that the use of the law exceeded the administration’s authority.

Among the courts that ruled against the White House was the Court of International Trade. In May, the New York court said that Congress, and not the executive branch, has “exclusive authority to regulate commerce”. This decision was upheld in a Washington, DC, appeals court in August.

Legal experts believe it is likely that the high court will uphold lower court decisions.

“My sense is that, given the different justices’ concerns, the Supreme Court will decide that IEEPA does not provide the ability for the Trump administration to adopt the tariffs,” Greg Shaffer, a law professor at Georgetown University, told Al Jazeera.

If the Trump administration were to lose the case, the US would need to refund some of the tariffs.

“It [ruling against the administration] would mean that those who paid tariffs that were imposed illegally would have to be reimbursed. I would think that that would be the outcome,” Shaffer added.

In September, Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent said on NBC’s Meet the Press that the US would “have to give a refund on about half the tariffs”.

The Trump administration has said that if the Supreme Court does not rule in its favour, it will use other statutes to push through tariffs.

Jan. 1 (UPI) — The Italian government said Thursday that the United States has pulled back on tariffs the Trump administration had placed on several pasta brands based in Italy.

The U.S. Department of Commerce reduced tariffs on 13 Italian pasta brands, rolling back levies that had been announced as the administration alleged that the companies had been trying to undercut U.S. manufacturers, CBS News and The Financial Times reported.

The tariffs, which were originally announced as 92% on brands that include Barilla, La Molisana and Pastificio Lucio Garofalo, would have nearly doubled their cost.

With the rollbacks, the brands will only carry a 2% to 14% tariff: La Molisana will see a 2.26% tariff, Garofalo will see a 13.98% tariff and the other 11 companies will face a 9.09% tariff.

After a preliminary review of the companies’ operations revealed that they had not been trying to undercut the price of U.S. manufactured pasta.

“The recalculation of the duties is a sign that U.S. authorities recognize our companies’ constructive willingness to cooperate,” the Italian foreign ministry said of the shift.

According to a business association in Italy, the tariffs would have affected about half of the pasta that is typically shipped to the United States.

In 2024, roughly $788 million of pasta was imported from Italy to the United States.

Over the course of 2025, the Trump administration introduced high tariffs on a wide range of products — from food and clothes to furniture and kitchen cabinets — but many have been rolled back or canceled as officials have negotiated with other countries’ officials or, such as in the case of Italian pasta, consumers were primed to see significantly increased costs.

Published on
01/01/2026 – 16:59 GMT+1

President Donald Trump has eased pressure on two key import sectors — furniture and pasta — by delaying or scaling back steep tariffs shortly before they were due to take effect on 1 January, 2026.

For furniture, Trump has postponed planned tariff increases on certain imported home goods for one year, keeping existing duties in place while allowing further negotiations with trading partners.

On Wednesday Trump signed a proclamation delaying the scheduled increases — originally set to take effect on Thursday — until January 1, 2027.

The order preserves the current 25% tariff on “certain upholstered wooden products,” kitchen cabinets and vanities, rather than allowing it to rise to 30% for upholstered furniture and 50% for kitchen cabinets and vanities as previously directed.

“The United States continues to engage in productive negotiations with trade partners to address trade reciprocity and national security concerns with respect to imports of wood products,” the White House said in a statement announcing the move.

The furniture tariffs were imposed in September 2025 under a broader push to reshape US trade relationships and protect domestic industries. In addition to the 25% on furniture and cabinets, the administration also placed a 10% duty on imported softwood timber and lumber late last year.

The higher rates that were set to begin this week would have hit imports from major suppliers like Vietnam and China particularly hard and come amid ongoing concern about rising consumer prices.

Separately, the US Supreme Court is expected to rule on the legality of some broad tariff measures imposed under national security authorities, a decision that could have wider implications for Trump’s trade strategy.

In contrast to the furniture delay the Trump administration has significantly reduced planned anti-dumping duties on Italian pasta, offering relief to several major brands after months of dispute.

The US Department of Commerce had initially proposed very high provisional anti-dumping duties — more than 91% — on certain imports of Italian pasta, on top of an existing 15% general tariff on EU food products.

Following a review and consultations with Italian authorities, the United States lowered those planned tariffs sharply. La Molisana will face a 2.26% duty, Garofalo will face a 13.98% duty and eleven other Italian producers will face 9.09% duties.

“The redefining of these tariff rates is a testament to the US authorities’ recognition of our companies’ effective will to cooperate,” Italy’s foreign ministry said in a statement.

Italy had been working with both the US government and the European Commission since October 2025 to find a solution to the dispute.

The US market remains crucial for Italian pasta producers. Exports of pasta to the United States were estimated at about €671 million in 2024, representing roughly 17% of Italy’s total pasta exports.

U.S. President Donald Trump’s sweeping April 2025 tariff measures sent shockwaves through financial markets while upending decades of carefully built trade relationships worldwide, marking the most significant U.S. trade policy shift in at least a century. Economic experts immediately warned that raising the average effective U.S. tariff rates from just under 1.0% to between about 22.5% and 24%, the highest since 1910, could be catastrophic for an economy that was among the few to show significant growth coming out of the pandemic.

Since “the tariff increases were significantly larger than expected,” U.S. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell said in a speech two days after their announcement, “the same is likely to be true of the economic effects, which will include higher inflation and slower growth.” George Pearkes, a macro analyst at Bespoke Investment Group, and Justin Wolfers, professor of public policy and economics at the University of Michigan, both told Investopedia the size of the tariffs significantly increased the likelihood of a recession, with JPMorgan forecasters raising their risk of a global recession to 60%.

Tariffs and the Potential for a Recession

The rationale economists give is based on several mutually reinforcing outcomes they view as likely:

1. Direct consumer impact: “These tariffs are going to hurt. A lot,” Wolfers wrote in a piece for the New York Times, adding that “they are going to reshape your life in much more fundamental ways”—more akin to a “crash” than a “jolt”—compared with those from the first Trump administration. The tariffs are expected to raise consumer prices by 2.3% in 2025, an average loss of about $3,800 per U.S. household, with the proportional effects growing worse for those lower on the income scale. Higher costs will come, too, from knock-on effects beyond the price tags for foreign goods. For example, “higher prices for auto parts will raise insurance costs,” Wolfers pointed out to Investopedia.
2. Business investment and supply chain disruptions: Half of U.S. imports are production inputs, meaning tariffs directly increase manufacturing costs for American companies that need them to make finished products. On the heels of the April tariff changes, many analysts projected it would decrease real gross domestic product (GDP) growth by about 0.9% in 2025, with exports projected to fall 18.1%.
3. Global retaliation: Trading partners are sure to counter with their own tariffs, causing blowback for the world’s economy: the World Trade Organization warns of a potential 1% contraction in global trade volumes.
4. Problems facing any U.S. Federal Reserve response: Specific sectors are expected to see major price increases (see the table on this page), potentially creating a combination of rising inflation and economic contraction called stagflation—something that the U.S. Federal Reserve would find difficult to address since its primary tool, interest rates, can’t address both prices and growth at the same time.

If the tariffs do lead to an economic contraction, how you prepare depends on your circumstances:

Long-term investors: “Your focus right now should be structured by your time frame. For anyone in the long term—10-plus years, like retirement accounts—today’s headlines don’t matter,” Pearkes said. “Don’t try and time the market, you won’t be successful.”

Short-term investors: “For shorter-term investors, it’s hard to see a positive catalyst in the near term,” Pearkes said. “The better entries to step in and buy are likely going to come later.” In other words, those with shorter time horizons might consider maintaining higher cash positions until the markets stabilize.

Consumers: With projected price increases of 2.3% across the board and significantly higher in categories like food (2.8%) and apparel (17%), households should consider doing the following:

• Review your budget to account for higher prices on imported goods.
• Consider accelerating major purchases in categories facing steep tariffs before they arrive, then switching to delaying, if you can, those purchases once they are in force.
• Build emergency savings.

The Bottom Line

“Few propositions command as much consensus among professional economists as that [free] world trade increases economic growth and raises living standards,” noted Harvard economist Greg Mankiw has written. Economists now worry the April 2025 U.S. tariffs could trigger a recession. With global markets in turmoil and businesses beginning to implement layoffs, the question is how severe and widespread the pain will be. “No one wins a trade war,” Wolfers said.

Dec. 22 (UPI) — Beijing unveiled tariffs as high as 42.7% on imports of European Union dairy products on Monday, saying the subsidies Brussels provided to producers in the 27-country bloc were the cause of “substantial damage” to China’s dairy industry.

The import taxes of between 21.9% and 42.7%, which come into force Tuesday following a 16-month-long anti-subsidy probe by China’s Ministry of Commerce, will affect France’s famous Roquefort, other blue, fresh and processsed cheeses as well as whole and unsweetened milk and cream.

“The investigating authority has preliminarily determined that imported dairy products originating from the European Union were subsidized, causing substantial damage to the relevant dairy product industry in China, and that there is a causal relationship between the subsidies and the substantial damage,” the ministry said in a statement.

It said that the highest levy would be applied to the products of firms that had failed to cooperate with the investigation with firms that had been cooperative only subject to a rate of 28.6%.

Firms named in the ministry list hailed from across the bloc with France, the Netherlands and Belgium heavily represented. Italian and Spanish producers also feature. Most companies were hit with a rate of 28.6% or 29.7%.

The Netherlands’ Friesland Campina and its subsidiary in neighboring Belgium were both hit with the top 42.7% rate along with an “Other EU Companies” grouping, which is not specified. It is unclear if this group is all EU companies not named in the document that export to China.

The EU criticized the action, saying it was neither justified nor warranted.

The move came just over a year after the EU hit China’s massive EV sector with import tariffs of as high as 36.3%, alleging unfair competition due to subsidies provided to the industry by the Chinese government.

Among the big three EV makers — BYD, Geely and SAIC — BYD and Geely were slapped with duties of 17% and 19.3% respectively, along with a 21.3% tariff on other “cooperating companies.”

The top rate was applied to SAIC together with other EV makers deemed not to have cooperated with the EU’s investigation.

The EV tariffs also saw Beijing launch anti-competition probes into Europe’s brandy and pork products industries, leading to accusations the EU was dumping surplus pork production in the Chinese market.

In September, Beijing imposed short-lived tariffs of between 15.6% and 62.4% on EU pork and pig by-product imports, but revised them down to between 4.9% and 19.8% on Tuesday.