“Americans are tapping the brakes on spending – pulling back on dining out, hotel stays and other expenses, as they boost their savings ahead of new tariffs and continued economic uncertainty.”
…
“Strikingly, economists say Americans of all income levels, including the wealthiest, are rethinking their spending – in what could be a pivotal warning. The drop-off in consumer spending is expected to drag down economic growth in the first three months of the year, with many economists now forecasting a contraction after years of consistent growth.”
“The “Buy Canadian” movement is sending new ripples of concern through the executive offices of U.S.-based consumer companies that banked on selling their products on Canadian retail shelves.”
“Canada’s traditional relationship with the United States is over, Prime Minister Mark Carney said Thursday in response to President Donald Trump’s potentially crippling auto tariffs.”
…
” “The old relationship we had with the United States, based on deepening integration of our economies and tight security and military cooperation, is over,” Carney said on Parliament Hill after breaking from the federal campaign trail on Wednesday night in the face of Trump’s latest threats.
“We must fundamentally reimagine our economy. We will need to ensure that Canada can succeed in a drastically different world.”
…
“Ford said he also spoke to Carney and they agreed Canada would follow through on its full tariff retaliation, if necessary. Ottawa has said it would be ready to respond with up to C$155 billion in retaliatory tariffs on U.S. products.”
…
“Mexico, Canada and South Korea have duty-free access to the U.S. auto market under the terms of free trade agreements that Trump renegotiated during his first term in office.”
…
“The United States imported $214 billion worth of passenger cars in 2024, according to U.S. Commerce Department data. Trump said the U.S. would start collecting the new duties on cars and light trucks on April 3”
“the White House is reportedly confronting a very different reality: one in which Trump’s trade war leaves many Americans worse off, with farmers likely to be hit the hardest.”
…
“Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins told reporters last week that the White House has asked her to “have some programs in place that would potentially mitigate any economic catastrophes that could happen to some of our farmers” as a result of a trade war.”
…
“The time to work that out might be running short. Trump has promised to ramp up his trade war with Mexico and Canada in early April, and the administration also plans to start slapping so-called “reciprocal tariffs” on imports from other countries on April 2. As the various trade wars escalate, farmers are likely to be on the front lines—because American agricultural exports are an easy target for retaliatory tariffs from other countries.”
…
“That’s exactly what happened during Trump’s first term, when his trade war with China caused American farmers to lose a sizable chunk of one of their largest export markets. When farmers complained about it, the Trump administration provided a $28 billion bailout via a New Deal–era program at the Department of Agriculture.
Some of that is already happening. In response to tariffs imposed by Trump in February, China slapped new tariffs on a wide range of American farm exports, including beef, chicken, corn, cotton, dairy, fruits, pork, soybeans, and various vegetables. Both Canada and Mexico have indicated that they plan to retaliate against American tariffs with new levies targeting American agricultural goods.”
…
“That’s the nasty thing about trade wars. Not only do they harm manufacturers and consumers seeking to buy raw materials and finished goods from abroad, but they also harm domestic producers (like farmers) who lose access to foreign markets and therefore earn less money. Tariffs hurt Americans who want to eat avocados from Mexico, and Americans growing soybeans to sell there. There are a lot more losers than winners—and that’s before taxpayers get put on the hook for bailouts.
There should be no taxpayer-funded bailouts for American farmers who get burned by Trump’s trade wars. If the White House is concerned about the consequences that higher tariffs will have on American agriculture, there is an easy solution: Don’t impose them.”
“In a near party-line vote.., the House of Representatives blocked the most direct pathway for lawmakers to revoke the emergency executive powers Trump used last month to impose tariffs on goods from Canada, Mexico, and China. That change helps further cement executive control over trade policy and creates additional challenges for lawmakers seeking to claw back some control over tariff decisions.”
“The markets understand the basic truth about tariffs, which are taxes consumers in our country pay for imported goods. They raise prices, reduce our access to foreign goods and spark reciprocal tariffs that then punish our country’s farmers and manufacturers. They lead to less growth and more unemployment. They increase bureaucracy by requiring officials to calculate duties and enforce them. They create hostilities and have led to actual war.
As economist Robert Higgs explains, “Fiscally, protectionism is a poor source of government revenue that dries up completely as tariffs are increased so much that they reduce trade flows to zero. Morally, protectionism is vicious because it coercively substitutes the ill-informed and ill-directed judgment of government officials for the judgment of people making deals with their own private property.””
…
“Trump threatened them to gain ill-defined concessions from our friendly, highly developed and peaceful allies to the north. Then, after it was clear Canada had already conceded to whatever it was our president demanded, he suspended them. His supporters claimed tariff critics didn’t understand that this was just a brilliant negotiating tool. But then this month the president imposed them anyway. True to form, MAGA shifted back to arguing that tariffs are great policy in and of themselves.”
“What Lutnick is talking about is central planning, plain and simple. It’s also just silly. How much of America’s aluminum supply should come from Canada if not 60 percent? Is 50 percent the right amount? Is it 17.54 percent? Lutnick doesn’t know—because no one does—because that’s a question without an answer.
Clearly, however, the Trump administration wants the figure to be lower. New 25 percent tariffs on aluminum imports might accomplish that, but at significant cost to American consumers and businesses, whose only offense is buying aluminum from sources located within a country that is a close American ally and the signatory of a trade deal that the current president negotiated just five years ago.”
“Any hope of robust economic growth resulting from unleashing energy abundance, deregulating the private sector economy, or pro-growth tax policy may now be doused by the economic fallout of a pointless trade war.
It started as a murmur—a slight downward revision, nothing alarming. But within five days, the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta’s GDPNow forecast for the first quarter of 2025 went from mild optimism (2.3 percent growth) to outright recessionary territory (-1.5 percent). By March 3, the number had plunged to -2.8 percent, the kind of contraction that doesn’t just signal weakness but outright economic distress. Eight months of stock market gains were wiped out in less than four weeks.”
…
“Global supply chains are rattled, businesses are reluctant to invest in capital, and consumers are cutting back on purchases. Tariffs—pitched as a way to bring jobs back—have instead choked growth. The administration’s bet that protectionism would insulate the economy from foreign competition is proving to be precisely the opposite: a self-inflicted wound.”
“”Americans are continuing to leave high-tax, high-cost-of-living states in favor of lower-tax, lower-cost alternatives. Of the 26 states whose overall state and local tax burdens per capita were below the national average in 2022 (the most recent year of data available), 18 experienced net inbound interstate migration in FY 2024,” Katherine Loughead wrote last week for the Tax Foundation. “Meanwhile, of the 25 states and DC with tax burdens per capita at or above the national average, 17 of those jurisdictions experienced net outbound domestic migration.””