An Eau Claire County farm. (Photo by Henry Redman/Wisconsin Examiner)

Seven western Wisconsin Republican lawmakers did not appear at an event hosted by the Wisconsin Farmers Union in Chippewa Falls Friday as farmers from the area said they were concerned about the effect that President Donald Trump’s first month in office is having on their livelihoods. 

Madison-area U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Black Earth), state Sen. Jeff Smith (D-Eau Claire) and state Reps. Jodi Emerson (D-Eau Claire) and Christian Phelps (D-Eau Claire) were in attendance. 

U.S. Reps. Tom Tiffany and Derrick Van Orden, state Reps. Rob Summerfield (R-Bloomer), Treig Pronschinske (R-Mondovi) and Clint Moses (R-Menomonie) and state Sens. Jesse James (R-Thorp) and Rob Stafsholt (R-New Richmond) were all invited but did not attend or send a staff member. 

“All four of us want you to know that there are people in elected office who want to fight for you,” Phelps said. “Because I think there’s a lot of fear that comes from the fact that we’re seeing a lot of noise and action from the people who aren’t and some of the people that didn’t show up to this. So I hope that you will also ask questions of them when you get a chance.” 

Multiple times during the town hall, Pocan joked that Van Orden was “on vacation.” 

Emerson, whose district was recently redrawn to include many of the rural areas east of Eau Claire, told the Wisconsin Examiner she had just been at an event held by the Chippewa County Economic Development Corporation where a Van Orden staff member did attend, so she didn’t understand why they couldn’t hear about how Trump’s policies are harming local farmers. 

“I get that a member of Congress can’t be at every meeting all the time, all throughout their district,” Emerson said. With 19 counties in the 3rd District, “it’s a big area. But I hope that they’re hearing the stories of farmers and farm-adjacent businesses, even if they weren’t here. There’s something different to sit in this room and look out at all the farmers, and when one person’s talking, seeing the tears in everybody else’s eyes, and it wasn’t just the female farmers that were crying, the big tough guys, and I think that talks about how vulnerable they are right now, how scary it is for some of these folks.”

Carolyn Kaiser, a resident of the nearby town of Wheaton, said she’s never seen her congressional representative, Van Orden, out in the community. Despite Van Orden’s position on the House agriculture committee, Kaiser said her town needs help managing nitrates in the local water supply and financial support to rebuild crumbling rural roads that make it more difficult for farmers to transport their products.

“When people don’t come, it’s unfortunate,” Kaiser said. 

Emmet Fisher, who runs a small dairy farm in Hager City, said during the town hall that he was struggling with the freeze that’s been put on federal spending, which affected grants he was set to receive through the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

Fisher told the Examiner his farm has participated in a USDA program to encourage better conservation practices on farms and that money has been frozen. He was also set to receive a rural energy assistance grant that would help him install solar panels on the farm — money that has also been held up.

The result, he said, is that he’s facing increased uncertainty in an already uncertain business.

“We get all our income from our farm, young family, young kids, a mortgage on the farm, and so, you know, things are kind of tight, and so we try to take advantage of anything that we can,” he said. “[The] uncertainty seems really unnecessary and unfortunate, and it’s very stressful. You know, basically, we have no idea what we should be planning for. The reality is just that in farming already, you can only plan for so much when the weather and ecology and biology matter so much, and now to have all of these other unknowns, it makes planning pretty much impossible.”

A number of crop farmers at the event said the looming threat of Trump imposing tariffs on Canadian imports is alarming because a large majority of potash — a nutrient mix used to fertilize crops — used in the United States comes from Canada. Les Danielson, a cash crop and dairy farmer in Cadott, said the tariffs are set to go into effect during planting season.

“How do you offer a price to a farmer? Is it gonna be $400 a ton, or is it gonna be $500 a ton?” he asked. “I’m not even thinking about the fall. I’m just thinking about the spring and the uncertainty. This isn’t cuts to the federal budget, this is just plain chaos and uncertainty that really benefits no one. And I know it’s kind of cool to think we’re just playing this big game of chicken. Everybody’s gonna blink. But when you’re a co-op, or when you’re a farmer trying to figure out how much you can buy, it’s not fine.”

A recent report by the University of Illinois found that a 25% tariff on Canadian imports — the amount proposed by Trump to go into effect in March — would increase fertilizer costs by $100 per ton for farmers.

Throughout the event, speakers said they were concerned that Trump’s efforts to deport workers who are in the United States without authorization  could destroy the local farm labor force, that cuts to programs such as SNAP (commonly known as food stamps) could cause kids to go hungry and prevent farmers from finding markets to sell their products, that cuts to Medicaid could take coverage away from a population of farmers that is aging and relies on government health insurance and that because of all the disruption, an already simmering mental health crisis in Wisconsin’s agricultural community — in rural parts of the state that have seen clinics and hospitals close or consolidate — could come to a boil.

“Rural families, we tend to really need BadgerCare. We need Medicaid. We need those programs, too,” Pam Goodman, a public health nurse and daughter of a farmer, said. “So if you’re talking about the loss of your farming income, that you’re not going to have cash flow, you’re already experiencing significant concerns and issues, and we need the state resources. We need those federal resources. I’ve got families that from young to old, are experiencing significant health issues. We’re not going to be able to go to the hospital. We’re not going to go to the clinic. We already traveled really long distances. We’re talking about the health of all of us, and that is, for me, from my perspective as a nurse, one of my biggest concerns, because it’s all very interrelated.”

Near the end of the event, Phelps said it’s important for farmers in the area to continue sharing how they’re being hurt by Trump’s actions, because that’s how they build political pressure.

“Who benefits from all the chaos and confusion and cuts? Nobody, roughly, but not literally, nobody,” he said. “Because I just want to point out that dividing people and making people confused and uncertain and vulnerable is Donald Trump’s strategy to consolidate his political power.”

“And the people that can withstand the types of cuts that we’re seeing are the people so wealthy that they can withstand them. So they’re in Donald Trump’s orbit, basically,” Phelps said, adding  that there are far more people who will be adversely affected by Trump’s policies than there are people who will benefit.

“And you know that we all do have differences with our neighbors, but we also have a lot of similarities with them, and being in that massive group of people that do not benefit from this kind of chaos and confusion is a pretty big similarity,” he continued. “And so hopefully these types of spaces where we’re sharing our stories and hearing from each other will help us build the kind of community that will result in the kind of political power that really does fight back against it.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

While several industry insiders told School Transportation News last week that it was too early to tell the impact of new Trump administration tariffs on imports, Blue Bird representatives told investors to expect a 5-percent price increase on all non-electric school buses.

The company made the statement last week during its fiscal year 2025 first quarter financial results call, which reported the company’s second-best quarterly profit and margin, the eighth consecutive quarter of beating guidance, and $250 million of electric school buses in “firm order backlog.”

“Our position is that any potential government tariffs will be passed through to the end customer so there will be no net financial impact on Blue Bird,” said Phil Horlock, who is retiring as president and CEO this week but retaining his board of director seat.

John Wyskiel succeeds Horlock on Feb. 17.

Last week, President Donald Trump paused for 30 days a 25-percent tariff on imported goods from both Canada and Mexico, though a 10-percent tariff on Chinese imports went into effect. Essentially, think of tariffs as an added sales tax by the federal government, Blue Bird CFO Razvan Radulescu said during the Q&A portion of the call on Feb. 5.

Meanwhile, Horlock said Blue Bird is confident U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Clean School Bus Program funding will continue unfettered. He shared details from a Feb. 4 memo issued by Gregg Treml, the acting CFO of EPA, that stated a federal court injunction pausing Trump administration freezes on unspent federal program funding under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act “shall not be paused and disbursement of funds shall continue while ongoing litigation proceeds or until otherwise directed by a Court.”

Horlock said Blue Bird also has confirmed political support for the Clean School Bus Program with members of Congress.

He added the court order reversing the freeze should also protect nearly $80 million in Domestic Manufacturing Conversion Grant Program funding from the U.S. Department of Energy that was appropriated under the Inflation Recovery Act. The funds are to be used to convert Blue Bird’s diesel motorhome manufacturing plant in Fort Valley, Georgia, into a 600,000 square-foot Type D electric school bus facility.

To address the initial pause in EPA funding, Horlock said Blue Bird reprioritized production to build fully-funded school buses earlier and pushed back build dates for bus orders to be paid for with federal money. He added the manufacturer is also prioritizing “significant new EV orders” paid for by state and local funding. Still, Blue Bird lowered the number of forecasted electric school bus deliveries to 1,000 units from the previous range of 1,000 to 1,300.

The company also noted higher internal combustion engine school bus prices compared to a year ago and at comparable levels with its competitors.

Blue Bird also said the quarter-one results beat the previous guidance and that it remained on track to meet the full-year guidance of Adjusted EBITDA at $200 million and a 14-percent margin.

---

Related: U.S. Delays Tariffs with Canada, Mexico as Bus Associations Warn of Fallout
Related: (STN Podcast E215) Next-Level Safety: Exclusive Interview – Seatbelts Standard on Blue Bird Buses
Related: Blue Bird Announces Standard Lap/Shoulder Seatbelts on All School Buses

The post Blue Bird: Tariffs Would Increase Non-EV School Bus Prices by 5% appeared first on School Transportation News.

President Donald Trump speaks to reporters in the Oval Office of the White House on Feb. 3, 2025, in Washington, D.C.  (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump on Monday punted for one month his plans to impose sweeping tariffs against Mexico and Canada after both countries agreed to act on his demands to curb drug trafficking and illegal immigration into the United States.

The pauses came as Trump signed a trio of executive orders over the weekend that would kick-start a 25% tariff on Mexico, a 25% tariff on most goods from Canada and a 10% tariff on imports from China, beginning early Tuesday. The tariff against China remained in place Monday night.

Many economists have warned about the negative effects such broad tariffs could have on consumers.

Trump imposed the tariffs — a tax on goods that come into the country — in an effort to hold the three countries “accountable to their promises of halting illegal immigration and stopping poisonous fentanyl and other drugs from flowing into our country,” according to a White House fact sheet.

Mexico, Canada and China are the United States’ top trading partners. The three countries had responded to Trump’s plans with their own retaliatory measures.

Two calls with Trudeau

In a post on social media, Trump said “Canada has agreed to ensure we have a secure Northern Border, and to finally end the deadly scourge of drugs like Fentanyl that have been pouring into our Country, killing hundreds of thousands of Americans, while destroying their families and communities all across our Country.”

Trump held two calls Monday with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

After his second call with Trump, Trudeau said in a social media post that “Canada is implementing our $1.3 billion border plan — reinforcing the border with new choppers, technology and personnel, enhanced coordination with our American partners, and increased resources to stop the flow of fentanyl.”

He said nearly “10,000 frontline personnel are and will be working on protecting the border” and that the country would make new commitments to appoint a “Fentanyl Czar.”

Canada will also “list cartels as terrorists, ensure 24/7 eyes on the border” and “launch a Canada- U.S. Joint Strike Force to combat organized crime, fentanyl and money laundering,” Trudeau said.

“I have also signed a new intelligence directive on organized crime and fentanyl and we will be backing it with $200 million,” he said. 

Negotiations with Mexico

In a social media post on Monday, Trump said he had a “very friendly conversation” with Mexico’s President Claudia Sheinbaum and that the two agreed to “immediately pause the anticipated tariffs for a one month period.”

Negotiations led by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary nominee Howard Lutnick and “high-level” Mexico representatives would take place during that time, Trump said.

Sheinbaum also agreed to “immediately supply” 10,000 troops to the U.S.-Mexico border in an effort to curb illegal immigration to the United States, in addition to fentanyl smuggling.

Senate Dems on tariff impacts

Meanwhile, Senate Democrats — including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York; Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota; Ron Wyden of Oregon; Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire; and Angela Alsobrooks of Maryland — underscored how Trump’s tariff plans could hit Americans’ pocketbooks.

“Trump is yet again rigging the same game for his billionaire friends while doing nothing to lower costs for American families,” Schumer said.

“These nonsense tariffs equate to a tax increase on the American people, and the president isn’t just randomly slapping on tariffs — he’s slapping consumers right where it hurts: their wallets,” he added.

Asked about any legislation the Senate Democrats were contemplating, Wyden said “everything is on the table at this point.”

“No president has ever used this particular statute to impose a tariff, and we’ve already got legislation from several Democrats to make sure that it can’t be used as a blank check for the president,” the Oregon Democrat said.

The senators also brought in Ernie Tedeschi, director of economics at the Budget Lab at Yale, which has conducted its own analysis on the economic and fiscal effects of Trump’s tariff plans regarding Mexico, Canada and China.

“We found that the average price increase was the equivalent of about $1,250 per household in America,” Tedeschi said.

“Now bear in mind that that’s just an average — tariffs are not an equitable tax — they pinch the middle class more than they pinch upper-income households.”

President Donald Trump reached an agreement with Canada and Mexico to delay 25-percent import tariffs with each country that were set to go into effect Tuesday.

Trump signed the  executive order Saturday, and Canada responded with its own threat of a 25-percent tariff on $30 billion worth of U.S. goods, also set for Tuesday. The Ministries of Finance and Foreign Affairs said Canada also intended to impose a tariff on $125 billion in additional U.S. goods, which includes electric vehicles, trucks and buses.

The U.S. agreements with Canada and Mexico to postpone the tariffs by at least 30-day days hinged on more investment at both the northern and southern border to curb immigration and the flow of drugs, especially fentanyl.

A 10-percent tariff with China moved forward and went into effect Tuesday.

The American Bus Association (ABA), United Motorcoach Association (UMA), Motor Coach Canada (MCC), and Ontario Motor Coach Association (OMCA) said they are closely monitoring the trade disputes between the U.S. and Canada and warned of the impact to manufacturers, suppliers and consumers.

​ABA, UMA, MCC and OMCA issued a joint update Sunday that said the tariffs could significantly impact the motorcoach industry, which like the school bus industry relies on a global supply chain involving components from both countries. The associations added they are coordinating advocacy and lobbying efforts to mitigate the impact of the tariffs and are encouraging members to share their concerns.

Last month, S&P Global said the blanket tariffs would have a “massive impact” on nearly all automative manufacturers worldwide, with reciprocated tariffs by Canada and Mexico adding “another degree of complexity.” While commenting specifically on passenger vehicles, S&P Global noted that Canadian or Mexican-sourced propulsion systems and components in U.S. manufactured vehicles “would see a tariff as well.”

It added that the tariffs could add $6,250 to the cost of $25,000 vehicle.

School Transportation News reached out to multiple sources Monday to ask about the potential impact of tariffs  school bus production and sales. One source responded that it was premature to discuss the tariffs as they were being negotiated in real time. Another indicated that the tariffs are subject to continuing negotiations and could change, as “school bus manufacturing isn an American success story,” though concern remains especially about individual components.

Meanwhile, Micro Bird, the joint Type A venture between Blue Bird of Fort Valley, Georgia, and Girardin Minibus of Drummondville, Quebec, is the only school bus currently manufactured in Canada for sale in the U.S.

Electric school bus manufacturer GreenPower Motor Company has headquarters in Vancouver, British Columbia, but the company manufactures out of Porterville, California, and South Charleston, West Virginia. RIDE, the school bus arm of Chinese company BYD, manufactures its electric school buses in Lancaster, California.

An auction process begins this month for Lion Electric Company, which obtained bankruptcy protection in December.

Additionally, many school bus suppliers of technology solutions and equipment are based in Canada or have manufacturing there. Many school bus components are also imported from China.

​This is a developing story.

---

Related: NAFTA Replacement is Expected to Ease Tariff Concerns
Related: Updated: Lion Electric Suspends Manufacturing Operations at Joliet Plant
Related: Electric School Bus Manufacturing Included in Nearly $2B Federal Energy Grant

The post U.S. Delays Tariffs with Canada, Mexico as Bus Associations Warn of Fallout appeared first on School Transportation News.

The White House announced that tariffs on products from Mexico, Canada and China will begin Feb. 1. (Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump plans to implement tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China on Saturday, potentially starting off a trade war that would likely lead to price increases on groceries and numerous other products.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said during a briefing Friday that Trump will place 25% tariffs on goods coming into the United States from Canada and Mexico, and a 10% tariff on imports from China. Tariffs are paid by businesses bringing goods into the United States from other countries and they often pass on the increase in costs to consumers.

“The tariffs are incoming tomorrow on Canada and the reason for that is because both Canada and Mexico have both allowed an unprecedented invasion of illegal fentanyl that is killing American citizens and also illegal immigrants into our country,” Leavitt said.

Trump hasn’t yet decided if he will later implement tariffs on the European Union, made up of 27 countries, according to Leavitt.

“I won’t get ahead of the president on tariffs when it comes to the European Union,” she said.

Trump said later Friday from the Oval Office that he wasn’t using the tariffs as a negotiating tool, but as a way to raise revenue for the federal government and bring attention to fentanyl flowing into the country.

“We’re not looking for a concession. We’ll just see what happens,” Trump said.

The new tariffs will be stacked on top of existing tariffs, he said.

Trump said he planned to add additional tariffs at some point on computer chips and “things associated with chips,” oil and gas, steel, aluminum, copper, pharmaceuticals and “all forms of medicine.”

Trump said he will likely implement the oil and gas tariffs on Feb. 18, but didn’t provide dates for the other tariffs.

Trump brushed aside a question about how tariffs would impact prices, saying he was elected to reduce inflation. He said he wasn’t concerned about the stock market’s reaction on Friday afternoon to the impending tariffs. 

Many economists, including those at conservative think tanks, like the American Enterprise Institute, have warned against broadly applying tariffs in this way.

Phil Gramm, former Republican chairman of the Senate Banking Committee and nonresident senior fellow at AEI, and Larry Summers, former Treasury Secretary during the Clinton administration, wrote an op-ed published by the Wall Street Journal on Thursday urging Trump not to implement tariffs.

“Our united opposition to non-defense-related tariffs is based not on our faith in free trade but on evidence that tariffs are harmful to the economy,” they wrote.

“Protective tariffs distort domestic production by inducing domestic producers to commit labor and capital to produce goods and services that could have been acquired more cheaply on the international market,” Gramm and Summers wrote. “That labor and capital are in turn diverted from producing goods and services that couldn’t be acquired more cheaply internationally. In the process, productivity, wages and economic growth fall while prices rise. Tariffs and the retaliation they bring also poison our economic and security alliances.”

Leavitt said during the press briefing that only Trump could decide whether he would eventually lift or alter the tariffs, while brushing aside the potential impacts to the U.S. economy. 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service writes on its website that Canada and Mexico “are the United States’ first and third largest suppliers of agricultural products (averaging $30.9 billion and $25.5 billion in 2017–21, respectively).

“Mexico supplied the United States with 31 percent of imported horticultural products including fruit, vegetables, and alcoholic beverages. Canada is also a source of horticultural products, as well as grains, and meats.”

The Office of the United States Trade Representative writes on its website that the U.S. imported $562.9 billion worth of goods from China during 2022.

U.S. agricultural exports to China, which could be impacted by retaliatory tariffs, totaled $36.4 billion during fiscal year 2022, according to the USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service. 

“U.S. exports have returned to trend growth experienced since the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO) and in the last 2 years the United States has witnessed record export values to China for soybeans, corn, beef, chicken meat, tree nuts, and sorghum. Cotton exports to China have also rebounded, propelled by strong demand. All these products are major contributors to the U.S. farm economy.”

Ashley Murray contributed to this report. 

Howard Lutnick, President Donald Trump's nominee for Commerce secretary, during his Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation confirmation hearing in the Russell Senate Office Building on Jan. 29, 2025, in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Billionaire businessman Howard Lutnick got a step closer to potentially serving as the next Commerce secretary after largely sailing through his confirmation hearing Wednesday before a U.S. Senate panel.

If confirmed by the Senate, which appears likely, Lutnick would lead the department responsible for promoting and serving the country’s international trade and economic growth. He would be critical to carrying out President Donald Trump’s vision for imposing big tariffs.

“We need healthy businesses — small, medium and large — to hire our great American workers to drive our economy,” Lutnick told the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.

The New Yorker said he would dedicate himself to “making our government more responsive, working to ensure Americans have the greatest opportunity for success.”

During the lengthy hearing that featured questions from senators on both sides of the aisle regarding artificial intelligence, trade policy, manufacturing and export controls, Lutnick said he believes that the country’s farmers, ranchers and fishermen are “treated with disrespect around the world.”

‘Across the board’ tariffs

Lutnick, who prefers “across the board” tariffs, said “we need that disrespect to end, and I think tariffs are a way to create reciprocity, to be treated fairly, to be treated appropriately, and I think it will help our farmers, our ranchers, our fishermen — to flourish.”

The Commerce Department’s wide portfolio also touches on technology, science and innovation.

Some of the department’s 13 bureaus include the International Trade Administration, the U.S. Census Bureau, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

The department is also responsible for carrying out the bipartisan CHIPS and Science Act, which authorizes billions of dollars in funding for the production and research of semiconductors in the United States.

Lutnick said he thinks the CHIPS and Science Act was an “excellent down payment” in U.S. semiconductor manufacturing and noted that “we need to study it.”

Lutnick also said he has a “very jaundiced view” regarding China. “I think they only care about themselves and seek to harm us, and so we need to protect ourselves — we need to drive our innovation — and we need to stop helping them.”

Vice President J.D. Vance praised Lutnick during an introduction of the nominee, dubbing him “just a good dude.” 

Vance, who served on the commerce panel while a U.S. senator representing Ohio, said Lutnick “is a person who on the world stage will say more and do more and convince businesses that America is back — that America is growing and thriving.”

Trump is promoting an “America First Trade Policy” and issued a memo last week that called for the Treasury secretary, in consultation with the Commerce and Homeland Security secretaries, to consider the establishment of an External Revenue Service.

The agency would “collect tariffs, duties, and other foreign trade-related revenues,” according to the memo. 

Trump also directed the Commerce secretary to “investigate the causes of our country’s large and persistent annual trade deficits in goods.”

Potential conflicts of interest

Lutnick, who’s taken heat over his business ties and potential conflicts of interest, vowed to sell all his business interests within 90 days, if confirmed.

“I made the decision that I made enough money in my life,” Lutnick said. “I can take care of myself, I can take care of my family. It is now my chance to serve the American people.”

He currently has or previously had a position in more than 800 organizations and businesses outside the government, according to his financial disclosure report.

Lutnick is the chairman and chief operating officer of Cantor Fitzgerald, a large financial services firm. He rebuilt the company after more than 650 employees, including his brother, died in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

He also established a multimillion-dollar fund for the families of the victims.  

Brooke Rollins, President Donald Trump's nominee to be agriculture secretary, speaks during her Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee confirmation hearing on Jan. 23, 2025, in Washington, D.C.  (Photo by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s pick to lead the U.S. Department of Agriculture said during her confirmation hearing Thursday that she has “a lot to learn” about highly pathogenic avian influenza or bird flu, the virus that’s wreaking havoc on the country’s poultry industry and dairy farms.

The outbreak has affected more than 136 million poultry flocks and nearly 1,000 dairy herds, and infected 67 humans, with one person dying so far. Public health experts continue to assess the risk of infection to the general public as low, but are closely monitoring bird flu’s spread among farm workers and livestock as well as domestic cats and other mammals.

The four-hour hearing showed Brooke Rollins likely has the support to secure Senate confirmation, though members from both political parties raised concerns about the decline in family farms, hollowing out of rural America, speed with which USDA delivers disaster aid to farmers and future of nutrition programs.

Tariffs and trade

Rollins also received numerous questions from both Democrats and Republicans about Trump’s plan to raise tariffs on imports, likely leading to retaliatory tariffs on American exports and negative repercussions for farmers and food prices. 

“Regarding the president’s tariff agenda, I think it probably comes as no surprise to anyone sitting in this room that he believes it is a very important tool in his toolkit to continue or bring America back to the forefront of the world and to ensure that we have a thriving economy,” Rollins said. “But just as he did and we did in the first administration, he also understands the potential devastating impact to our farmers and our ranchers.”

Michigan Democratic Sen. Elissa Slotkin raised concerns about what happened during Trump’s first administration after he placed tariffs on allied nations as well as China. She urged Rollins to make sure Trump understands that would likely happen again, if he does place steep tariffs on other countries.

“President Trump announced 25% tariffs on Chinese products — batteries, TVs, medical devices,” Slotkin said. “China retaliated and put 25% tariffs on soybeans, fruits, pork and some other items. Then we got into a trade war; we started adding more things to the list, they already started adding more things to the list. It went on and on and on and back and forth.

“Suddenly our farmers across the country are screaming bloody murder, because … no one wanted to buy our stuff because it had a 25% tariff. We felt that very acutely.”

The prior Trump administration then pulled billions out of the Commodity Credit Corporation to aid farmers who were harmed by the retaliatory tariffs, she said. 

“That emergency fund is the same fund that helps us with things like avian flu that we’re now dealing with all over the country,” Slotkin said.

Kentucky Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell said he hoped the country won’t go down the same path it has before with respect to tariffs and trade wars.

“It seems to me that trade has sort of become a word for a lot of Americans that implies exportation of jobs,” McConnell said. “In Kentucky, we think of trade as exportation of products and it’s an extremely important part of what we do.”

Colorado Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet told Rollins that he is “sympathetic to some of the trade policies that President Trump is trying to advocate for.”

“But agriculture’s already in a tough spot … and we don’t want it to be in a tougher spot as a result of what happens here,” Bennet said.

He then asked Rollins if she believed her responsibility as secretary of agriculture would be “to go into the Oval Office and say, ‘You haven’t thought through the unintended consequences that are going to flow to American agriculture if you pursue these trade policies.’”

Rollins said her role, if confirmed, would be “to defend, to honor, to elevate our entire agriculture community in the Oval Office, around the table, through the interagency process. And to ensure that every decision that is made in the coming four years has that front of mind as those decisions are being made.”

Bird flu

Rollins was less secure in telling senators how she should handle the ongoing bird flu, or H5N1, outbreak.

Poultry farmers and the USDA have had to deal with the virus in domestic flocks for years, but it didn’t begin infecting dairy herds until about a year ago.

The spillover into another section of American agriculture and the uptick in farmers catching the virus led to a multi-agency response from the federal government that included the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Food and Drug Administration and USDA.

“There is a lot that I have to learn on this. And if confirmed, this will be, as I mentioned in my opening statement, one of the very top priorities,” Rollins said, referencing her previous comments about getting a “handle on the state of animal disease outbreaks.”

Minnesota Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar, who had asked Rollins what her plan was for curbing the spread of bird flu, then questioned her about a new requirement that prevents some public health officials from external communications.

“I will note that just yesterday the administration announced they will halt external public health communications from the CDC on these avian flu (and) animal diseases,” Klobuchar said. “These important announcements have helped keep producers up to date with the latest information on disease spread, health of workers. And while I know that wasn’t under the USDA, I just urge you to talk to them about that. We’re concerned.”

Effect of mass deportations on ag

Rollins was pressed during the hearing about how sweeping deportations might impact the agriculture industry and food supplies throughout the country. Senators also asked how she planned to keep the pipeline that moves food from farms to people’s tables from collapsing if mass deportations are carried out.

“President Trump ran and was overwhelmingly elected on the priority of border security and mass deportation,” Rollins said. “He and his team are, I’m assuming, currently putting in place the plans to begin that process. Of course, first with those who have committed criminal offenses once they have been here.”

Rollins said she planned to work with Labor Secretary nominee Lori Chavez-DeRemer, if she is confirmed, on issues related to the agriculture workforce.

Rollins testified she wants to make changes to the H2A visa for temporary agricultural workers, though she didn’t detail what those changes might entail. 

California Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff asked Rollins whether a potential sudden drop-off in agricultural workers due to mass deportations might lead to higher food prices “in sharp contrast with what the president said he wanted to do.”

Rollins said while that was a hypothetical, it was one that “we do need to be thinking through.”

“And I think it’s a very fair point,” Rollins said. “The president has made food inflation and the cost of food one of his top priorities. I have worked alongside him. I have been part of his team for many years now. I believe in his vision and his commitment to America and to his promises. And in so doing, I believe that we will be able to find in our toolkit what we need to do to solve for any hypothetical issues that end up turning out to be real moving forward over the coming months and years.”

Rollins was the director of the Domestic Policy Council during Trump’s first administration before going on to become the president and chief executive officer of the America First Policy Institute think tank.

Trump announced Rollins as his pick for agriculture secretary in November, writing that she “has a practitioner’s experience, along with deep Policy credentials in both Nonprofit and Government leadership at the State and National levels.”

Rural development

During the hearing, Rollins also addressed the needs of rural communities, including housing, child care and food assistance, during a detailed exchange with Minnesota Democratic Sen. Tina Smith.

“I sometimes think that people forget that the rural development side of the USDA is really important,” Smith said. “And I will be honest, I’m fearful that the work done there — those efforts not being well understood — could become the target for budget-cutting.

“I also know that American farmers and ranchers really trust the USDA on those issues. They don’t want to see those programs farmed out to other agencies, where we all are worried that they would just get less attention.”

Rollins said that if confirmed, she would be excited “to put forward a vision and build a program around revivifying, restoring and bringing back rural America.”

Smith also asked about the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, saying that nutrition programs, many of which are administered by USDA, are “foundational for healthy Americans.”

“In Minnesota, rural communities have the highest food insecurity in the whole state,” Smith said. “And in this country, 9 out of 10 (counties) with the highest food insecurity rates are rural.”

Rollins testified that she does believe in work requirements, though she conceded she didn’t have extensive knowledge of the SNAP.

“I don’t fully understand, but plan to get more in the weeds on this, if confirmed,” Rollins said. “And working with all of you to make sure that your concerns are part of that education process for me.”

Smith took the opportunity to note that SNAP does have work requirements, but that there are exceptions if people “are taking care of a child or an incapacitated person,” or if “they are participating in an alcohol or drug treatment program,” or if they are “already working under some other programs.”

Billionaire hedge fund manager Scott Bessent prepares to testify before the Senate Finance Committee during his confirmation hearing for Treasury secretary in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill on Jan. 16, 2025 in Washington, D.C.  (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald Trump’s choice for Treasury secretary appeared on track for Senate confirmation after a wide-ranging hearing Thursday that included substantial debate on tax policy and how tariffs would affect everyday Americans.

Scott Bessent, a hedge fund manager whom Trump announced as his pick in November, repeatedly deferred to the incoming president’s policies during the Finance Committee hearing, though he did delve into his background and beliefs as well.

GOP senators appeared far more supportive than Democrats, though Bessent hasn’t elicited the type of concerns some of his fellow nominees have from left-leaning senators.

“When it comes to your qualifications to be the next secretary of the Treasury, there is no room for debate,” Chairman Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, said at the end of the hearing. “And you have shown that today here in the hearing — your background, your training, everything is tailor-made for this role. And your character and demeanor are self-evident.”

Oregon Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden, ranking member on the panel, argued at the outset of the hearing that Bessent didn’t meet his requirements for Treasury secretary.

“Many people, myself included, hoped that the president-elect would pick a steady hand for Treasury secretary; someone who would be a moderating force, who’d work with all sides, and especially for the interests of all Americans for a tax code that gives everybody in America a chance to get ahead, not just the people at the top,” Wyden said. “I wish I had read something that would indicate that this nominee would be the kind of Treasury secretary I described.”

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, who introduced his fellow South Carolinian at the beginning of the three-hour hearing, said he was very qualified to hold the role.

“I’m here today to tell you, if you use qualifications as your test, this is the easiest vote you’ll ever take,” Graham said. “If your goal is to play like the election didn’t happen, then I guess you’ll vote no.”

2017 tax cut law

Republican and Democratic senators on the committee repeatedly asked Bessent about the 2017 Republican lax law that’s often referred to as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

Trump and GOP members of Congress are planning to extend the various tax policies in that law, many of which are set to expire this year.

Republicans are planning to pass their new bill through the complicated budget reconciliation process, which has strict rules, but means they won’t need to negotiate with Democrats.

Bessent said during his hearing that extending the tax policy in the 2017 law past the sunset date is “the single most important economic issue of the day.”

“If we do not renew and extend, then we will be facing an economic calamity,” Bessent said. “And as always, with financial instability, that falls on the middle- and working-class people.”

Bessent testified he favors Congress extending the 2017 law for Americans at all income levels, including those making more than $400,000, $1 million, $10 million, or even $1 billion, in response to a series of questions from Georgia Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock.

“There is no income level that I don’t think we should continue the TCJA as it was,” Bessent said.

Allowing previous, higher tax rates to go back into place for people making between $400,000 and $1 million would likely “capture an inordinate amount of small business people,” he said. 

Bessent gave a similar answer for people making more than $1 million, saying he believed higher taxes on that segment of the country would negatively affect “small business pass-through owners.”

He said the federal government should want to “put in incentives for them to invest” when asked about people making more than $10 million a year. And that people making more than $1 billion annually shouldn’t have their tax rates increased since they are “job creators.”

‘A spending problem’

While much of Bessent’s testimony focused on tax rates, which contribute most of the revenue the federal government has to spend on programs, he also spoke about the spending side of the federal ledger.

Bessent said he believes the country’s annual deficit is not the result of the government bringing in too little revenue from taxes and fees, but because Congress has approved too much spending.

“We do not have a revenue problem in the United States of America; we have a spending problem,” Bessent said. “And to be clear, this is one of the things that got me out from behind my desk and my quiet life in this campaign — was the thought that this spending is out of control.”

The federal government spent $6.1 trillion and brought in $4.4 trillion in revenue during fiscal year 2023, according to data from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The Treasury Department had to borrow the rest to pay all of the country’s bills.

The bulk of that spending went to so-called mandatory programs, including Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, which accounted for $3.8 trillion.

The remainder of federal spending went to what’s referred to as discretionary programs, with $805 billion for defense and $917 billion going to the domestic side of the ledger.

Bessent said during his opening statement that in order to get the country’s “fiscal house in order” he would propose that Congress “adjust federal domestic discretionary spending.”

Congress cutting all domestic discretionary spending — which goes toward hundreds of programs, including agriculture, border security, public lands and transportation — might balance the budget, though likely with significant economic consequences.

Most economists argue that to reduce or eliminate the country’s annual deficit, Congress must increase revenue and decrease spending. 

IRS direct tax filing

Bessent, if confirmed by the Senate, would have some influence over whether the IRS continues a program launched just last year that allows Americans to file their taxes for free.

When asked about preserving the Direct File program by Wyden, he only committed to doing so for this calendar year.

“I will commit that for this tax season that direct file will be operative and the American taxpayers who choose to use it, will,” he said. “And if confirmed, I will consult and study the program, and understand it better, and make sure that it works to serve the IRS’s three goals of collections, customer service and privacy.”

Tariffs eyed

Bessent didn’t go into detail during the hearing about when and how exactly Trump plans to implement tariffs once in office, though he did encourage lawmakers to watch for three specific areas.

“One will be for remedying unfair trade practices, either by industry or country — the Chinese tariffs, the steel,” Bessent said. “Two, may be for a more generalized tariff as a revenue raiser for the federal budget.”

The third type of tariff, he said, would likely focus on encouraging countries to negotiate with the United States on issues Trump views as important. 

“He believes that we’ve probably gotten over our skis … on sanctions. And that sanctions may be driving countries out of the use of the U.S. dollar so the tariffs can be used for negotiations,” Bessent said, specifically mentioning Mexico blocking fentanyl from entering the country.

Bessent maintained he doesn’t believe the tariffs will raise prices on goods for Americans, a position with which several Democrats on the panel and numerous economists outside Congress disagree.

Washington state Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell said she hoped the Trump administration would reconsider some of its proposed tariffs. 

“I do think we’re going to see retaliatory tariffs,” Cantwell said, adding that previous tariffs negatively affected her home state and agriculture.

Minimum wage

Bessent said he would likely advise Trump and Republicans against raising the federal minimum wage above $7.25 per hour, in response to a question from Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders.

“I believe that the minimum wage is more of a statewide and regional issue,” he said.

Russian sanctions

Bessent said he would fully support efforts to raise sanctions on Russia in trying to end the war in Ukraine, calling when and where the Biden administration implemented tariffs “not fulsome enough.”

“If any officials in the Russian Federation are watching this confirmation hearing, they should know that if I’m confirmed, and if President Trump requests as part of his strategy to end the Ukraine war, that I will be 100% on board for taking sanctions up; especially on the Russian oil majors to levels that would bring Russian Federation to the table.”

A scene on tariffs from Ferris Bueller’s Day Off in 1986 is getting some extra attention. (Paramount Pictures.)

Fans of the movie, “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off,” will remember the scene. Ben Stein plays a famously boring high school teacher giving a lecture about economics to a room full of teenagers fighting to stay awake. In about a minute, he covers the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act and the Laffer Curve, fundamental economic topics, desperately trying to get the students to engage with him.

“Anyone? Anyone…” is the memorable device Stein uses, to no avail, to engage an audience who couldn’t care less.

Some analysts say the economy is the reason voters chose Donald Trump for a second term in last month’s election. His economic plan is rooted in the broad and cavalier use of tariffs on imports from friends and foes alike. Last week, he announced his plan to impose 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico. The announcement prompted a surprise visit from Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and a phone call from Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum.

Meanwhile, the American public, particularly Trump voters, remain in an economic daze much like Ben Stein’s class.

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act was passed in 1930 in an attempt to thwart the impacts of the Great Depression. It was legislation initially designed to provide relief to the American agriculture sector but became “a means to raise tariffs in all sectors of the economy.” It also marked the end of an entrenched Republican platform of protectionist policymaking during that era. The policies ended because they were…anyone…anyone? Failures.

The details

Ignorance has become a vital asset in the political space these days. Yes, it is an asset in politics, but it is the devil in economics.

As a political asset, there are voters who believe that simply throwing a tariff at any nation they are mad at has nothing but benefits. Mad at Mexico because of migration? Slap them with a tariff and border crossings will go down, right? A good number of voters believe the answer is yes. Though this is almost entirely wrong, politically speaking, that ignorance served the pro-tariff candidate in November.

Economically however, the only real certainty that a 25% tariff on Mexico will have, is a 25% price increase in America. There actually is no disagreement on how tariffs functionally work, but I will refer to PBS for a simple explanation. Importers here pay the tariff, otherwise known as a tax, and remit that payment to the U.S. Treasury. How they pass that increase in costs along may vary a little from merchant to merchant, but ultimately it ends up in the price the American consumer pays.

Yes, a tariff program, in the most basic sense, is government imposed price increases. So, if high prices are the reason why an American voted against the current party in power, voting for higher prices seems, well, ignorant.

Now, does a tariff hurt who the angry American is mad at? Sure. In our example, Mexican goods become less affordable if a tariff is applied to them. In that sense, a tariff can hurt who it is designed to hurt. But that doesn’t change the fact that Americans pay the tariff, not the other country.

Many voters have the perspective that Trump imposed tariffs during his first term, and everything worked out fine. The Associated Press reports, “When Trump first became president in 2017, the federal government collected $34.6 billion in customs, duties and fees. That sum more than doubled under Trump to $70.8 billion in 2019, according to Office of Management and Budget records.” That sounds like a lot of money, until it is put in the context of the current $29.3 trillion gross domestic product.

The tariffs Trump is discussing in 2024 are wildly bigger and are being threatened toward virtually every country. But that’s not the only thing different between 2024 and 2017.

What else is different?

Anyone? Anyone?

The economy that Trump inherited in 2017 is sharply different than the one he will inherit in January. Inflation eight years ago was low and had been for a long time. Interest rates were also low and had been for a long time. The 2016 election wasn’t about inflation, and those rather small tariffs weren’t either. But times have changed.

For the life of me, I cannot find any credible theory as to how raising prices on imported goods will have the effect of lowering prices. I’ve written that sentence six times, and I know it reads like gibberish, but I just can’t help it.

Simply put, tariffs raise prices. After a bout with historic global inflation, consumers are exhausted with high prices. We can all agree with that part.

But there is a word for thinking that raising prices will actually lower them.

Anyone? Anyone?

Ohio Capital Journal is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Ohio Capital Journal maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor David Dewitt for questions: info@ohiocapitaljournal.com. Follow Ohio Capital Journal on Facebook and X.

A ‘For Sale’ sign is seen on March 19 in Austin, Texas. Policymakers are watching for indications of what President-elect Donald Trump plans to do to ease housing costs next year after an election where voters were laser-focused on the economy.

Americans hand over a huge chunk of their paycheck for a roof over their heads. Policymakers are looking out for indications of what President-elect Donald Trump plans to do to ease housing costs next year after an election where voters were laser-focused on the economy.

Housing accounted for 32.9% of consumers’ spending in 2023, making it the largest share of consumer expenditures, according to the most recently available data Bureau of Labor Statistics. And that was an increase of 5.7% from 2022.

This year, many Americans still struggle to find affordable housing, whether they choose to rent or buy a home.

There’s a lot economists and housing advocates still don’t know about what to expect from a second Trump term. It’s unclear which campaign promises will find their way into administrative rules or  legislation, even with a Republican trifecta – the GOP will control the White House and both chambers of Congress.

But policy experts, researchers and economic analysts are looking at Trump’s record, his recent remarks on housing, and  Project 2025 – the conservative Heritage Foundation’s 900-page plan to overhaul the executive branch – for a glimpse of what may lie ahead.

Tariffs and the cost of building homes

Trump has spoken frequently of his proposed 60% tariff on goods from China, which he has said would create more manufacturing jobs in the U.S. Tariffs could be as high as 20% on goods from other countries.

But housing economists and other experts say that could be bad news for building more affordable housing.

Selma Hepp, chief economist for CoreLogic, a financial services company, said tariffs are one of her main concerns about the effects of a second Trump term.

“One of the biggest concerns is not just lumber [costs], but the overall cost of materials, which have been going up,” said Selma Hepp, chief economist for CoreLogic, a financial services company.

Construction material prices have risen 38.8% since February 2020, according to an Associated Builders and Contractors’ analysis of October Producer Price Index data.

Kurt Paulsen, professor of urban planning in the department of planning and landscape architecture at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, said building costs are already high from tariffs on Canadian lumber that Trump first imposed and that the Biden administration kept and increased.

“It used to be in construction that you would get a bid from a contractor or a subcontractor or supplier and it would be good for 60 days. Now, the bids are good for like five days because you don’t know where prices are going to be,” he said.

Immigration policy and its effect on construction labor

Trump tweeted on Nov. 18 that he is planning to use the declaration of a national emergency as part of his mass  deportation plan.

Besides disrupting lives, Trump’s plan  could have effects on what it costs to build housing, Hepp said.

“There is the cost of labor as well, if we do indeed have all these deportations. That’s a big, big concern,” she said. “A large share of labor in the construction industry obviously comes from immigrants. That is a huge issue for new construction and particularly new construction as it relates to affordable housing.”

Foreign-born construction workers made up 3 million of the 11.9 million people who work in the construction industry in 2023, according to the latest American Community Survey data.

Trump’s ‘not in my backyard’  rhetoric

The former president hasn’t always been clear on where he stands with zoning regulations and making way for more affordable housing in a wide variety of neighborhoods.

In a July Bloomberg interview, Trump spoke critically of zoning regulations and said that they drive up housing costs. But Trump also has a record of tending toward a “not in my backyard,” or NIMBY, approach to housing that maintained some of these zoning regulations. The Trump administration moved to roll back an Obama-era regulation that tied HUD funding to assessing and reducing housing discrimination in neighborhoods.

“He’ll talk about reducing regulations on developers, but he’ll also use this NIMBYism talking about protecting suburbs from low-income housing and you really can’t have it both ways,” said Sarah Saadian, senior vice president of public policy and field organizing at the National Low Income Housing Coalition.

Paulsen said Project 2025 embraces a pushback against anti-NIMBY approaches to expand multi-family housing.

“What I read in the Project 2025 documents is a clear statement that says every local community and neighborhood should be able to choose the housing it wants to accept or not. The challenge of that is that if every community in every neighborhood can veto housing, then we just don’t get enough housing and prices go up and prices and rents go up,” he said.

A more punitive approach to homelessness 

Last year, homelessness rose to its highest level recorded since the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development began collecting this information in 2007. The ending of pandemic safety nets that gave some households better financial stability and a lack of affordable housing supply contributed to the number of unhoused people, the report explained.

Trump has been outspoken on his view that homeless people should be “off our streets.” The president-elect has also proposed putting unhoused people with mental health issues into “mental institutions.”

“There’s a movement that I think is largely reflected in Project 2025 that says, actually, cities need more coercive policy tools to enforce public order and to require that someone who’s camping take a shelter placement even if they don’t want it,” Paulsen said.

Saadian said that given the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Grants Pass v. Johnson, which makes it easier to criminalize unhoused populations for sleeping outside, she’s worried about a changing political environment where policies that prioritize stable housing over policing fall out of favor.

“I think all of that just shows a culture shift in the political dynamic here that we’re definitely worried about,” she said.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

President-elect Donald Trump says on his first day in office he would impose 25% tariffs on all imports from Canada and Mexico and 10% tariffs on goods from China until those countries stop the flow of illegal drugs and migrants into the U.S. (Getty photo illustration by Olivier Le Moal)

President-elect Donald Trump’s announcement Monday that he would impose harsh tariffs on the United States’ closest trading partners will work against his pledge to bring down consumer prices, Democrats in Congress and economists are warning.

In a pair of posts to his social media platform, Truth Social, on Monday evening, Trump said on his first day in office he would impose 25% tariffs on all imports from Canada and Mexico and 10% tariffs on goods from China until those countries stopped the flow of illegal drugs and migrants into the U.S.

“Thousands of people are pouring through Mexico and Canada, bringing Crime and Drugs at levels never seen before,” Trump wrote. “On January 20th, as one of my many first Executive Orders, I will sign all necessary documents to charge Mexico and Canada a 25% Tariff on ALL products coming into the United States, and its ridiculous Open Borders. This Tariff will remain in effect until such time as Drugs, in particular Fentanyl, and all Illegal Aliens stop this Invasion of our Country!”

While Trump has not always followed through on threats of stiff tariffs — generating doubts about how severe the next round will actually be — the executive branch does have wide latitude to impose the taxes on foreign goods without congressional approval, meaning it is likely Trump will act in some way.

“We are going to get several tariff threats via rage-posts over the next four years,” Brendan Duke, a senior director for economic policy at the liberal Center for American Progress, said in an interview. “Unclear what exact levels on what exact countries he is going to pursue.”

What about inflation?

Tariffs are consistent with Trump’s preference for a protectionist trade policy, but may actively hurt in an area that was key to his election win over Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris this month: taming inflation.

An analysis from the Center for American Progress said the tariffs Trump announced Monday would raise annual costs for the average U.S. family by $1,300.

Democratic members of the U.S. House Ways and Means Committee, which oversees tax and trade policy, estimated tariffs favored by Trump would increase consumer costs by up to $4,000 per year.

According to CBS News exit polling, 78% of voters said inflation was a moderate or severe hardship. Trump won voters who rated the economy as bad by 40 points over Harris.

Cars, ag and energy to be hardest-hit

About 15% of goods consumed in the United States are imported, Gary Hufbauer, a nonresident senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, an economics research center, said.

Adding across-the-board tariffs on those imports would contribute to consumers’ overall cost of living, even without considering related economic consequences.

“You’ve added to inflation, and that’s assuming that U.S. producers of similar products don’t jack up their prices,” he said. “But experience shows that if the economy is strong, they’ll do just that.”

The U.S. automotive sector, which is heavily integrated with Mexico and Canada with parts of a single vehicle produced in all three countries, could see “pretty startling” price increases, Hufbauer said.

Additionally, the U.S. imports Mexican fruits and vegetables and Canadian oil, complicating Trump’s campaign promise to bring down prices specifically of groceries and gas, Duke said.

“Americans have obviously been frustrated with the cost of food and the cost of gas,” he said. “Some parts of the United States are heavily reliant on Canadian oil, even though we’re a net exporter … So, one would expect price increases, especially in places like the Midwest that are heavily dependent on Canadian oil.”

Tariffs on Chinese goods would increase the costs of electronics, clothing and other consumer goods, Duke said.

Democratic legislation

Ways and Means Democrats, led by Washington’s Suzan DelBene and Virginia’s Don Beyer, and also joined by Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, Terri Sewell of Alabama, Steven Horsford of Nevada, Dan Kildee of Michigan and four others, introduced a bill Tuesday to rein in the executive’s ability to implement tariffs, citing the added cost to American families.

“The American people have clearly and consistently said that costs are one of their top concerns,” DelBene said in a statement. “Imposing sweeping tariffs on imported goods would raise prices on consumer products by thousands of dollars a year according to estimates. Not only would widespread tariffs drive up costs at home and likely send our economy into recession, but they would damage our trade relationships with allies and likely lead to significant retaliation, hurting American workers, farmers, and businesses.”

Trump’s promises of dramatic tariffs go beyond the intent of the law that gave the president the power to enact tariffs, the Democrats said. Congress wanted a president to be able to quickly impose tariffs on hostile foreign countries, but did not intend “to allow a president to indiscriminately impose tariffs without Congress’ approval.”

Tariffs can be an important tool for conducting foreign policy, but the range Trump is proposing is 10 to 20 times beyond what even he did in his first term, Duke said.

He cautioned that the final form of new tariffs may not be exactly what Trump proposed Monday night, though they could be similar.

“He’s gonna do something on tariffs. I don’t know what. It’s probably not these exact levels on these exact countries,” he said. “But it rhymes with it.”

Howard Lutnick, left, the CEO of Cantor Fitzgerald, was tapped by President-elect Donald Trump on Tuesday to be Commerce secretary in Trump's second administration. Lutnick is shown in this photo at a Trump rally at Madison Square Garden in New York City with billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk on Oct. 27, 2024. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald Trump announced Tuesday he will nominate transition co-chair and billionaire businessman Howard Lutnick as the country’s next secretary of Commerce, a position that will have a hand in shaping Trump’s tariff policies.

If confirmed by the Senate, Lutnick would lead a 13-bureau department that houses the U.S. International Trade Commission, where tariff policy is managed. Trump campaigned on levying at least 10% tariffs on all foreign products and steep targeted tariffs on Chinese and Mexican imports upwards of 60%.

“He will lead our Tariff and Trade Agenda, with additional direct responsibility for the Office of the United States Trade Representative,” Trump said in a brief statement on his social media platform, Truth Social.

Trump also praised Lutnick’s role on his transition team, crediting him with creating “the most sophisticated process and system to assist us in creating the greatest Administration America has ever seen.”

Lutnick is CEO of the large financial services firm Cantor Fitzgerald, which lost more than 650 employees in the 9/11 terrorist attacks on New York City’s World Trade Center. Lutnick became known for rebuilding the company afterward and establishing a multimillion-dollar fund for the victims’ families.

The CEO is a backer of cryptocurrency and reportedly was in the running for Trump’s choice for Treasury secretary, though according to The Bulwark, lost the bid because he annoyed advisers at Mar-a-Lago. Billionaire Elon Musk, who has been tapped by Trump to lead a not-yet-defined commission to evaluate government spending, backed Lutnick for the Treasury post.

Lutnick was a featured speaker at Trump’s October Madison Square Garden campaign rally, an event infamous for a comedian calling Puerto Rico “an island of garbage” and where former Fox News personality Tucker Carlson joked about Vice President Kamala Harris’ race.

“We must elect Donald J. Trump president because we must crush jihad,” Lutnick said on stage after telling the story of losing employees on 9/11.

During his speech, Lutnick assailed income taxes and advocated for a return to the “rockin’” U.S. economy at the turn of the 20th century.

“All we had was tariffs, and we had so much money that we had the  greatest businessmen of America get together to try to figure out how to spend it,” Lutnick said.

The United States is now “letting the rest of the world eat our lunch,” Lutnick said.

Lutnick, who spoke before Musk took the stage, introduced the fellow billionaire as “the greatest capitalist in the United States of America” and bantered with him about cutting $2 trillion in federal spending.

Economists across the political spectrum warn increasing tariffs will cost typical American households up to $2,600 annually and potentially cause a trade war.

Tesla owner Elon Musk, right, was hardly alone in the tech sector in supporting the reelection efforts by Donald Trump, left. Many Silicon Valley investors and innovators were hoping for a lighter regulatory hand than they have seen under President Joe Biden. (Photo by Brandon Bell/Getty Images)

Some venture capital investors, who have funded the tech boom in Silicon Valley and beyond, say they are excited by the prospect of a lighter regulatory environment under a new Trump Administration than they saw under President Joe Biden.

But they warn that Trump policies that will benefit many technology companies may come at a cost to other pro-Trump voters.

The Bay Area bubble of Silicon Valley, which is home to institutional tech giants like Apple, Google, Intel and Adobe, had been previously seen as a left-leaning region, like many other California communities. But the 2024 election was a unique one, venture capitalists and founders say.

“There’s been a significant shift in the valley rightward since the last election,” said Joe Endoso, a Silicon Valley investor.  “And you’ve seen that in the financial flows — in the level of dollars — that were directed towards supporting President Trump’s campaign from the technology sector.”

Endoso, president of financial tech platform Linqto, said some tech industry people who previously voted for progressive issues and candidates this time cast their ballot for Trump. He said he’s heard more concern about potential regulations in the tech industry and negative economic effects under continued Democratic leadership.

This turn toward Trump wasn’t universal in the Valley. The majority of donations from employees at companies like Google, Amazon and Microsoft went toward Democratic candidate Kamala Harris, Reuters reported in September. But tech billionaires like Elon Musk and venture capital investors, like Andreessen Horowitz co-founders Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz, poured millions into his campaign.

While Trump didn’t receive unanimous support from the tech sector, many American tech giants and investors are excited about the light-handed approach to tech regulation that’s likely to come in the next four years. Congress has struggled to pass any federal laws around emerging technology like AI, though states have done so on their own on issues like data privacy, transparency, discrimination, and on how AI-generated images can be used.

The Biden administration, however, on its own issued a number of “best practice” guides for emerging technologies and aggressively pursued antitrust cases against some tech giants, including an ongoing case against Google that could force the company to spin off its popular Chrome web browser.

It appears unlikely that Trump will continue the Biden era regulatory and enforcement drives.

Those working in emerging technologies like AI are making advancements so quickly that regulators are unlikely to be able to keep up anyway, Endoso said. The tech industry mindset — move fast and break things, first coined by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg — will likely continue under Trump’s administration.

“You’re running through walls and hoping that when the regulations come about, they’re not going to be so, you know, restrictive,” Endoso said. “But you’re not going to sit and wait for the regulators. You can’t afford to.”

Why care about the VC market?

Venture capitalists pour money into many promising startups in Silicon Valley and elsewhere, looking for the ones that will create lucrative new technologies or “disrupt” existing ones. Silicon Valley successes include Uber, which received its first round of venture capital investment for just about $1.3 million in 2010, and Airbnb, which started with just a $20,000 investment in 2008. Today, the companies are worth $146 billion and $84 billion, respectively.

Many more, however, fail. High-visibility startups that folded after raising very large sums include streaming platform Quibi, which raised $1.75 billion and ChaCha, the SMS text-based search platform that had raised $108 million.

The high-risk, high-reward nature of the industry makes for a rarified business, and there’s a high barrier to entry. To become an accredited venture capital investor, one must have an income of at least $200,000 a year, or be worth $1 million. The handful of firms pouring the most money into the United States technology market are usually worth billions.

Yet, the technology being developed and funded by wealthy investors today will shape the next decade of everyone’s lives. Some of the most influential technology in the global economy has been released under President Joe Biden’s administration in the last three and a half years.

Advancements in generative AI and machine learning technology, rapid development of augmented and virtual reality, further adoption of cloud computing and Internet of Things (IoT) technologies, such as internet connected appliances and home devices, along with automation of many industries have already shifted much of American life. ChatGPT, one of the most recognizable examples of generative AI that the public can use, was only released two years ago, but the sector of generative AI is already threatening many American jobs.

Those with writing-focused careers like copywriters and social media marketers, are already feeling the disruption, and experts believe STEM professionals, educators and workforce trainers and others in creative and arts fields are going to see much of their job responsibilities automated by AI by 2030. 

The venture capital market has been a volatile one over the last four years. Though many of Trump’s attacks on Democrats during his campaign cycle centered on the healthy economy under his first term, the COVID-19 pandemic was the single-biggest economic factor to disrupt the venture capital market and others.

The U.S. saw its biggest year for venture capital investments in 2021, but supply-chain issues and the continuing reliance on remote work changed the trajectory of many companies’ plans to go public on the stock market. High inflation and interest rates have kept many investors from deploying capital and many companies from completing mergers and acquisitions since then, although the second half of 2024 is looking up.

The economy quickly became the number one issue for Americans in the presidential election cycle. And though thriving venture capital markets usually benefit those that are already wealthy enough to invest, we’ll likely see a positive correlation in the general markets too, said Scott Nissenbaum, president and CEO of Ben Franklin Technology Partners, an innovation-centered fund in Pennsylvania.

“A thriving, efficient market is good for venture capital. And the flip side is also true,” he said. “We feed into and create the innovations and the efficiencies and the next generation … that create the robust and the boom.”

How investors and founders are preparing for Trump 

Nissenbaum predicts that Trump may remove regulations for technology used by U.S. transportation and military systems, allowing for more tech integration than previously permitted without human safeguards in place. That might look like more flight optimization technology, or more drone usage by military branches. Nissenbaum also thinks Trump will attempt to open up space travel, especially with big backing by Musk, who runs SpaceX.

Health care also has been implementing technology rapidly, and Nissenbaum believes could see some major changes under Trump.

That is of note for healthtech founder Sipra Laddha, an Atlanta-based psychiatrist and cofounder of LunaJoy, which provides in-person and virtual wellness visits for women. The three-year-old company raised venture capital in 2022 and 2023, despite a more challenging fundraising market. Women’s health care companies saw a surge of VC investment in the wake of the overturning of Roe v. Wade in June 2022, an exception to the generally slower investment market at the time.

But she is uncertain about how Trump’s potential cabinet appointees, like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who was appointed to head the Department of Health and Human Services, will affect LunaJoy’s operation. Kennedy has made health a key issue in his public advocacy and political activity, but he has also espoused eccentric and even false views on issues such as vaccines and pharmaceuticals.

“When women don’t have choices, mental health is significantly worse, and that’s something that goes on, often, for the entire time of that family’s trajectory,”  Laddha said. “So I’m not quite sure what’s going to happen, but you know, those are certainly things that, as a women’s mental health company, we are looking at and watching closely to see what sort of legislation, rules and laws come out.”

When it comes to fundraising early next year, Laddha is optimistic. She’s focused on how fragmented the healthcare industry is right now, and plans to showcase how companies like hers will aim to integrate with larger health systems.

“Our role is to be really as disruptive as possible, and to bring to the forefront the most innovative solutions that we can do while still working within the current framework of healthcare that exists today,” she said.

Some sectors worry about Trump economic policy

While software and cloud-based technologists seem excited by the effects of deregulation, startup founders that make physical products, especially using microchip technology, are wary of Trump’s plan to impose tariffs on imported goods.

Samyr Laine, a managing partner at Los Angeles-based Freedom Trail Capital, specializes in consumer tech and consumer packaged goods. Laine said he feels a sense of relief in ending the “uncertainty” around who will take the presidency the next four years, but he predicts many founders will feel the costly effects of Trump’s planned tariffs, and pass those additional costs to consumers.

Though the existing companies in his portfolio won’t be hit too hard, it’s a factor they’ll be forced to review when considering investments in companies in the future. Those that will incur the additional costs of imported goods will have to adjust their profit margins and might not be as attractive to investors.

“As a consumer and someone who isn’t in the space, not to be like a fear monger, but expect that some of the things you typically pay for, the price will go up,” Laine said.

The effect on work

Although Trump was successful in picking up a significant amount of tech industry elite support this election season, much of his voter base is working class people who will not feel the positive effects of tech industry deregulation.

Endoso, the Silicon Valley investor and founder, says the Trump coalition of tech entrepreneurs and working-class voters represents “a division between the haves and the have-nots.” The usual basis on which people pick their electoral preferences, like race, geography, income and proximity to city life, were “shattered” this time around.

“It was a revolt of the working class, at least in my view,” he said.

The advancements of AI and machine learning, which will enrich the investor class, will have large implications on employment for those working class voters. The vast majority of Americans who are not college educated, and work physical jobs, might struggle to thrive, he said. We’ll likely see overhauls of industries as robots replace and automate a majority of physical labor in warehouses, and self-driving vehicles take over jobs like long-haul trucking and ride services such as Uber and Lyft.

“I think those are important questions to be asking from a policy standpoint, and I think that the intelligent answers shouldn’t be ‘let’s shut the innovation down.’” Endoso said. “That didn’t work in 19th century England. It won’t work here today, right? But it does require our rethinking the definition of work, and the definition of how you … organize a society along lines where you don’t need to have the same level of maybe direct labor input as we had in the past.”

Nissenbaum agreed, saying that AI has already begun to leak into every field and industry, and will only continue to disrupt how we work. As revolutionary as the internet and internet companies were in the late 1990s, the web has become the infrastructure for artificial intelligence to become more efficient and effective at everything it does.

With lighter regulation under a new Trump administration, we’re likely to see AI develop at unpredictable rates, he said. And laborers will definitely be feeling the effects over the next four years.

“You’re not going to lose your job to AI,” Nissenbaum said. “You’re going to lose your job to someone who understands how to do your job with AI.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE