• A tourism helicopter crashed in the Hudson River on Thursday, killing three adults and three children.
• A Siemens executive, his wife, and their three children were among the dead, a company spokesperson said.
• The NTSB said the aircraft was not equipped with any flight recorders and was on its eighth flight of the day.

The National Transportation Safety Board said on Saturday that the helicopter involved in a crash that killed six people in New York earlier this week was not equipped with any flight recorders and that the accident occurred during the aircraft's eighth flight of the day.

"No onboard video recorders or camera recorders have been recovered and none of the helicopter avionics onboard recorded information that could be used for the investigation," the NTSB said in an update.

It added that the helicopter had completed seven tour flights on the day of the crash and that its last "major" inspection took place on March 1.

A Siemens executive, his wife, their three children, and a pilot were killed when a tourism helicopter plummeted into the Hudson River near Manhattan on Thursday.

Agustín Escobar, 49, had been the global CEO of the rail unit for Siemens Mobility. His wife, Mercè Camprubí Montal, also worked for the company as the global commercialization manager for its energy division.

"We are deeply saddened by the tragic helicopter crash in which Agustin Escobar and his family lost their lives. Our heartfelt condolences go out to all their loved ones," a Siemens spokesperson said on Friday.

New York City Mayor Eric Adams told a press conference on Thursday night that four people were pronounced dead at the scene, and two were taken to the hospital where they later died.

The pilot, who has been identified as US Navy veteran Sean Johnson, was the other victim.

The Federal Aviation Administration said the helicopter involved was a Bell 206, and that the NTSB would lead the investigation.

The NTSB said on X that it was "launching a go-team" to investigate the crash.

Videos posted on social media appeared to show the helicopter's rotor disconnected from the rest of the aircraft, spinning mid-air as the cabin plunged into the water.

Officials said that it appeared the helicopter, which was operated by New York Helicopters Tour Company, had lost control.

In a statement Friday, New York Helicopter Tours said it was "profoundly saddened by the tragic accident and loss of life that occurred on April 10, 2025, involving one of our helicopters in the Hudson River."

"The safety and well-being of our passengers and crew has always been the cornerstone of our operations. Our immediate focus is supporting the families and their loved ones affected by this tragedy, as well as fully cooperating with the FAA and NTSB investigations," it continued.

The company did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Calls to the helicopter's registered owner, a Louisiana firm, were unanswered.

The NTSB said Saturday that the helicopter's main fuselage, the forward portion of the tail boom, the horizontal stabilizer finlets, and the vertical fin had been recovered, but that divers were continuing to search for the main rotor, main gear box, tail rotor, and a large section of the tail boom.

A recent spate of plane crashes has raised awareness of aviation safety.

The Hudson River sees heavy helicopter traffic between airports and tourist flights over landmarks such as the Statue of Liberty. Pilots are required to use specific corridors.

In 2018, five people died after a helicopter made an emergency landing in the East River and flipped upside down, trapping the passengers inside.

The following year a helicopter crash-landed on the roof of a skyscraper, killing the pilot.

• Donald Trump quietly opened a pizza parlor at Trump Tower in New York City.
• The food has been a focal point of his career and political campaigns.
• The parlor's opening makes Trump the first known president to own a pizza joint while in office.

Donald Trump's love story with pizza entered its latest chapter as the president quietly opened a pizza parlor at Trump Tower in New York City.

Trump Pizza is "where New York tradition meets Italian craftsmanship," according to a Tuesday post on the Trump Tower Instagram page. It also makes Trump the first known president to own a pizza parlor while in office.

The new pizza parlor, first pointed out by Emily Sundberg in her "Feed Me" Substack, appears to be part of a recently completed renovation of Trump Cafe, one of the restaurants located within Trump Tower. The oven in the Instagram photo showcases the signature white marble and gold aesthetic that Trump has become known for over the years, as well as several of the restaurant's offerings: pepperoni, a sausage and pepper combination pie, and what appears to be a classic Margherita with tomato, mozzarella, and basil.

While a full menu following the upgrades is not yet available online, Business Insider has previously reported dining options at Trump Tower are pricey — and a little lackluster.

The Cafe was closed at the time of publication. A receptionist at Trump's 45 Wine and Whiskey Bar told Business Insider that they did not know the cost of a slice at the Cafe.

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

For decades, pizza has been a focal point of Trump's career and political campaigns; indeed, pizza and politics have long gone slice-in-hand.

Many politicians, Trump included, have made campaign stops at local pizza parlors in an effort to sway blue-collar voters. They have regularly made headlines when being caught eating a slice with a knife and fork or being seen delivering pies to hardworking civil servants.

On several occasions dating back nearly 30 years, Trump has publicly declared his love for the tasty Italian offering, including in a 1995 Pizza Hut commercial in which Trump and his then-wife, Ivana, negotiated a deal to eat their pizza the "wrong way" (crust first) to promote new stuffed crust options at the franchise.

However, his preferred method for enjoying a cheesy slice remains unclear. After being lambasted on The Daily Show for stacking several slices on top of each other and cutting individual bites away with a fork, the food journalism outlet Serious Eats reported that Trump said he preferred no crust at all.

"This way you can take the top of the pizza off, you're not just eating the crust," Serious Eats reported he said. "I like not to eat the crust so that we keep the weight down at least as good as possible."

But, no matter how you slice it, it was just a matter of time before Trump had a pizza stone to call his own.

• President Donald Trump has issued a wave of executive orders targeting high-profile law firms.
• Trump has restricted clearances — ultimately limiting the way they do business — for firms that have clashed with his administration.
• While some firms have agreed to Trump's demands, others have sued the administration.

As Donald Trump has taken aim at Big Law law firms in recent weeks, some firms have made deals with the president, while others are refusing to throw in the towel.

The president's wide-reaching orders have prompted reviews of each firm's government contracts, canceling security clearances for some firm employees and, in some cases, blocking them from entering federal buildings — including courthouses.

Trump has accused the Big Law firms — including Paul Weiss, Perkins Coie, and Covington & Burling, among others — of weaponizing the judicial system. His orders have, in turn, made it harder for the firms to continue conducting business as usual. Several firms have alleged in lawsuits that the executive orders intended to chill free speech and deter clients from doing business with them. Others have agreed to work with the administration to avoid punitive executive actions against them.

The president has singled out a string of law firms that he says have wronged him in some capacity, have worked with his political opponents, or have had diversity initiatives that are counter to his anti-DEI efforts.

What's more, Trump instructed Attorney General Pam Bondi to identify firms with "frivolous" cases against the administration so that they could be targeted for further executive action.

Whether they're on the ropes or down for the count, here are the firms Trump is taking on, how they've responded, and where the legal process stands for those who have challenged him in court.

Paul Weiss

On March 14, Trump issued an executive order directed at the prominent New York City-based law firm Paul Weiss, where he railed against the attorney Mark Pomerantz and decried what he said was "unlawful discrimination" from diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives at the firm.

Pomerantz previously left Paul Weiss to aid the Manhattan District Attorney's office as it probed Trump's finances. When Pomerantz resigned as special district attorney in February 2022, he wrote in a departing letter that he believed Trump was "guilty of numerous felony violations."

In the order, Trump sought to revoke security clearances and bar access to government buildings for attorneys of the firm. Such a sweeping directive could also include federal courthouses, a scenario that would be detrimental to the firm's work.

However, Trump just days later rescinded the executive order and announced an agreement with Paul Weiss chairman Brad Karp. Trump said the firm would provide $40 million in pro bono work for causes that the administration supports and end its DEI policies.

Karp received a heap of criticism, with many questioning why Paul Weiss didn't challenge Trump's order. In an email to the firm's attorneys, he said there was a desire from the outset to challenge the directive. In the same email, though, Karp argued that even if Paul Weiss won in court, it would become "persona non grata" with the Trump White House, which could prompt a wave of clients to switch to other firms and subsequently threaten the viability of the firm.

"It was very likely that our firm would not be able to survive a protracted dispute with the administration," Karp wrote in the email.

Perkins Coie

On March 6, Trump targeted the law firm Perkins Coie, issuing an executive order to suspend the security clearances of the firm's attorneys and criticizing its diversity and inclusion policies.

In the order, Trump called out what he said was the firm's "dishonest and dangerous activity."

The president, in his order, highlighted the firm's representation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — his rival in the 2016 presidential election — during that year's tumultuous campaign.

However, Perkins Coie struck back, filing a lawsuit against the administration for actions that it said "violates core constitutional rights, including the rights to free speech and due process."

"At the heart of the order is an unlawful attack on the freedom of all Americans to select counsel of their choice without fear of retribution or punishment from the government," Perkins Coie managing director Bill Malley said in a statement in March. "We were compelled to take this action to protect our firm and our clients."

The day after Perkins Coie filed its suit, a federal judge agreed to temporarily block part of the president's executive order.

Perkins Coie, in a statement, said the ruling was "an important first step in ensuring this unconstitutional Executive Order is never enforced."

Covington & Burling LLP

Trump on February 25 signed a memorandum to evaluate federal contracts and direct the suspension of security clearances for some employees at Covington & Burling, a DC-based law firm known for its antitrust work.

The president in the memo said he was suspending the clearances of individuals who advised former special counsel Jack Smith.

Smith brought two federal cases against Trump — one for election interference in the 2020 presidential election and the other for retaining classified documents — but both were dropped after the president won reelection to a second term in November 2024.

In the memo, Trump went after individuals whom he said were "involved in the weaponization of government" and named Peter Koski, a lawyer at Covington representing Smith.

A Covington spokesperson in March said it was representing Smith in an "individual" capacity.

"We recently agreed to represent Jack Smith when it became apparent that he would become a subject of a government investigation," the spokesperson said in a statement. "We look forward to defending Mr. Smith's interests and appreciate the trust he has placed in us to do so."

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

Skadden made a deal with Trump, acting before it was singled out in any executive orders. The firm promised to provide $100 million in pro bono legal services "to causes that the President and Skadden both support," Trump announced on March 28.

Skadden also affirmed its commitment to merit-based hiring and employee retention, Trump said. The firm also agreed that it would refrain from engaging in "illegal DEI discrimination," according to a copy of the agreement that Trump shared on Truth Social.

In a statement, Jeremy London, Skadden's executive partner, said the firm "engaged proactively" with the administration to reach the agreement.

"We firmly believe that this outcome is in the best interests of our clients, our people, and our Firm," London said.

Speaking from the White House, Trump referred to the deal as "essentially a settlement."

Within the firm, some associates and employees expressed frustration about the deal, calling it the beginning of the end for Skadden.

In the weeks leading up to the agreement, Skadden associate Rachel Cohen publicly resigned and circulated an open letter among associates at top firms calling out their employers for what she has described as inaction in the face of the administration's attacks.

After the deal was announced, another employee, Brenna Frey, also resigned publicly in an announcement on LinkedIn.

Elias Law Group

The chair of Elias Law Group took a different approach after it was targeted by the administration.

Trump named the Elias Law Group in his "frivolous" lawsuits memo, formally titled "Preventing Abuses of the Legal System and the Federal Court."

It claimed that the law firm was "deeply involved in the creation of a false 'dossier' by a foreign national designed to provide a fraudulent basis for Federal law enforcement to investigate a Presidential candidate in order to alter the outcome of the Presidential election."

The memo went on to say that the firm "intentionally sought to conceal the role of his client — failed Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton — in the dossier."

Marc Elias, the Democratic election lawyer who founded and chairs the group, released a statement swinging back at Trump, whose actions target "every attorney and law firm who dares to challenge his assault on the rule of law," he said.

"President Trump's goal is clear," Elias said in the statement. "He wants lawyers and law firms to capitulate and cower until there is no one left to oppose his Administration in court."

Adding that American democracy is in a state of "peril," Elias said his law firm would not cower.

"Elias Law Group will not be deterred from fighting for democracy in court," he said. "There will be no negotiation with this White House about the clients we represent or the lawsuits we bring on their behalf."

Jenner & Block

Trump signed an order naming Jenner & Block on March 25 that revoked security clearances from the firm's attorneys and ordered a review of the firm's contracts with the federal government.

Trump's order singled out Andrew Weissmann, a former Jenner attorney who Trump accused of building his career around "weaponized government and abuse of power." Weissmann was a lead prosecutor in Robert Mueller's Special Counsel's Office, which investigated Trump's 2016 presidential campaign and its ties to Russia.

Jenner issued a statement calling the order an "unconstitutional executive order that has already been declared unlawful by a federal court."

"We remain focused on serving and safeguarding our clients' interests with the dedication, integrity, and expertise that has defined our firm for more than one hundred years and will pursue all appropriate remedies," the statement from Jenner said.

Jenner also fought back with a lawsuit. The firm is represented by Cooley LLP, a liberal-leaning firm that has hired lawyers from Democratic administrations.

On March 28, Judge John D. Bates of the US District Court for the District of Columbia issued a temporary restraining order that keeps the Trump administration from taking action against Jenner. On April 1, Bates extended this order until a final judgement has been made. Both the Justice Department and Jenner consented to the extension.

Following the ruling, Jenner said in a statement that the order holds "no legal weight."

"We will continue to do what we have always done, our job as lawyers and fearless advocates for our clients," the firm said.

WilmerHale

The Trump administration has also targeted WilmerHale, which employed Mueller and other lawyers who worked with the Justice Department to investigate ties between Russia and Trump's 2016 campaign.

On March 27, Trump signed an executive order that suspended security clearances for WilmerHale employees and limited their access to federal buildings. The order also revoked WilmerHale's government contracts for engaging in "partisan representations to achieve political ends" and "efforts to discriminate on the basis of race."

In contrast with other firms that have inked deals with the president, WilmerHale filed a lawsuit.

The firm hired Paul Clement, the conservative legal superstar of the firm Clement & Murphy, to fight back against the Trump administration.

"This lawsuit is absolutely critical to vindicating the First Amendment, our adversarial system of justice, and the rule of law," Clement told Business Insider in a statement.

On the afternoon of March 28, Judge Richard J. Leon of the US District Court for the District of Columbia approved a motion for a temporary restraining order to halt executive actions against WilmerHale.

"There is no doubt this retaliatory action chills speech and legal advocacy, or that it qualifies as a constitutional harm," Leon wrote.

A spokesperson for WilmerHale called the executive order unconstitutional and praised the court's "swift action."

Milbank

On April 2, Trump announced on Truth Social that he had struck a preemptive deal with Milbank without targeting the firm for executive action.

The terms of the deal, according to the president's announcement, include the firm's agreement to end any DEI-based hiring practices, and to perform at least $100 million worth of pro bono legal work to advance causes supported by the Trump administration, such as "assisting veterans" and "combatting antisemitism."

In addition, Milbank's pro bono committee will ensure the firm takes on cases representing "the full political spectrum, including Conservative ideals," and commits that it "will not deny representation to clients" based on the personal political views of individual lawyers, per Trump's announcement.

"Milbank LLP approached President Donald J. Trump and his Administration, stating their resolve to help end the Weaponization of the Justice System and the Legal Profession," reads a statement from the White House included in Trump's post. "The President continues to build an unrivaled network of Lawyers, who will put a stop to Partisan Lawfare in America, and restore Liberty and Justice FOR ALL."

Milbank's chairman, Scott Edelman, said in a statement posted by Trump that, after a "constructive dialogue," the firm was "pleased we were so quickly able to find common ground" with the administration.

When reached by Business Insider, a spokesperson for the firm provided a letter sent by Edelman to Milbank's staff in which he said the agreement "is very much in Milbank's interest."

"The Administration's expressed concerns about big law firms, and in some cases its entry of Executive Orders against particular firms, have created uncertainty for law firms like ours," Edelman's letter to staff reads. "With this agreement, we believe we have gone a long way to putting these issues behind us. But we have done so in a way that allows us to continue to focus on the Firm's values and missions, including with respect to pro bono and our hope to foster an inclusive, non-discriminatory community where all of our members have an equal opportunity to succeed."

Edelman added: "Having now reached an agreement with the Administration, we can continue to do what we do best — focus on providing the best possible advice, counseling and service to our clients."

Susman Godfrey

On April 9, Trump signed an executive memorandum targeting Susman Godfrey, a specialized litigation firm.

In a fact sheet, the White House accused Susman of spearheading "efforts to weaponize the American legal system and degrade the quality of American elections."

Trump's order immediately suspends any Susman security clearances held by the firm's employees. The federal government will also terminate any contracts with the firm.

The firm's hiring practices will also be reviewed "to ensure compliance with civil rights laws against racial bias."

Susman said it would fight Trump's order.

"Anyone who knows Susman Godfrey knows we believe in the rule of law, and we take seriously our duty to uphold it," the firm said in a statement to Business Insider. "This principle guides us now. There is no question that we will fight this unconstitutional order."

Willkie Farr & Gallagher

Willkie Farr & Gallagher, which employs Doug Emhoff, husband of former Vice President Kamala Harris, struck a deal with the administration, pledging at least $100 million in pro bono legal work for conservative causes, Trump said in an April 1 social media post.

"Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP proactively reached out to President Trump and his Administration, offering their decisive commitment to ending the Weaponization of the Justice System and the Legal Profession," the White House said, according to Trump's post on Truth Social.

The firm's ties to Trump go to the 1990s when it represented the then real estate developer in a bankruptcy case.

In 2023, Willkie brought Tim Heaphy as partner. Heaphy was the former chief investigative counsel for the congressional committee that investigated the January 6, 2021, attacks on the Capitol.

The firm also represents X, Elon Musk's social media platform.

Trump said that Willkie Farr & Gallagher also committed to "Merit-Based Hiring, Promotion, and Retention," which touches on the Trump's efforts to dismantle DEI initiatives.

A representative for Willkie Farr & Gallagher did not respond to a request for comment.

Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft

Trump said in a Truth Social post April 11 that the administration had come to an agreement with Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, saying the law firm agreed to provide $100 million in pro bono legal services.

The services would go toward causes supported by Trump and the law firm, including assisting veterans and law enforcement, combatting antisemitism, and "ensuring fairness in our justice system."

The statement said the firm also agreed to "not engage in illegal DEI discrimination and preferences" or to deny legal representation "because of the personal political views of individual lawyers."

"The substance of our agreement is consistent with the principles that have guided Cadwalader for over 230 years: We always put our client's interests first; We believe that Justice should be available to everyone; and We are committed to attracting, retaining and nurturing the very best talent from all backgrounds," Patrick Quinn, managing partner at Cadwalader, said in a statement shared by Trump.

Cadwalader did not respond to a request for comment.

Kirkland & Ellis

Trump also announced on April 11 the administration had come to an agreement with an additional four law firms, including Kirkland & Ellis. The president said in a Truth Social post the firms agreed to provide a total of $500 million in pro bono legal services to go toward the same types of causes, with each firm contributing $125 million.

The firms also agreed to engage outside counsel to oversee their hiring practices and ensure they comply with antidiscrimination laws.

Trump said as a result of the agreement, he would end an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission investigation into the law firms over their DEI practices, which was initially announced on March 17.

In a joint statement shared by Trump, the senior executives at the four law firms said: "We have resolved this matter while upholding long-held principles important to each of our Firms: Equal Employment Opportunity; providing pro bono assistance to a wide range of underserved populations, and ensuring fairness in the Justice System; and representing a broad spectrum of clients on various matters."

In a firm-wide internal memo obtained by BI, the Kirkland & Ellis executive committee said the agreement "resolves the EEOC's investigation, including its broad request for information about our people and our clients, which we no longer will be required to provide, and we will not be the target of an executive order."

"We made the decision to pursue this solution because at our very core our mission is to protect and support our people and our clients, and this agreement does both," the memo said.

A&O Shearman

A&O Shearman was among the law firms with which Trump said on April 11 that his administration had reached an agreement. The firm agreed to provide $125 million in pro bono legal services to causes supported by the administration. It also agreed to engage outside counsel to oversee its hiring practices, and the EEOC investigation into the firms has stopped.

A&O Shearman did not respond to a request for comment.

Simpson Thacher & Bartlett

Simpson Thacher & Bartlett also reached an agreement with the White House to provide $125 million in pro bono legal services to causes supported by the firm and Trump, as well as engage outside counsel to ensure its hiring practices comply with antidiscrimination laws.

As a result of the agreement, the EEOC investigation into the firm's hiring practices was stopped.

Simpson Thacher & Bartlett did not respond to a request for comment.

Latham & Watkins

Latham & Watkins was also among the four firms that reached an agreement with Trump, according to the April 11 announcement. The firm agreed to provide $125 million in pro bono legal services as well as engage outside counsel to oversee its hiring. As a result, the Trump administration ended the EEOC investigation into the firm.

Latham & Watkins did not respond to a request for comment.

• Donald Trump's aggressive tariff strategy has caused the market and consumers to recoil in shock.
• While the market contracts, one niche segment may have a narrow opening: regional winemakers.
• Some producers may see a renaissance as consumers look for alternatives to their imported favorites.

Alcohol consumption is down across the board, and President Donald Trump's aggressive tariff strategy has struck a hard blow to the US economy, causing the market and consumers to recoil in shock. However, 2025 may not be a total loss for one niche segment in the booze industry.

Small California winemakers are waiting with bated breath to see if they could be one of the few lucky winners of Trump's unconventional trade policy.

"There's a potential upside for us here," Nicholas Miller, the vice president of sales and marketing for Miller Family Wine Company, told Business Insider. "The US wine industry has been in a cycle of being severely oversupplied for the last couple of years — but that's also been when there's a big global market coming in."

As the largest global consumer market for wine, the US is among the most desirable locations for any producer looking to sell their goods, Miller said. Hence, the market has, in recent years, been oversaturated by imported wines. But Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs slapped blanket 10% fees on any goods imported into the country — 20% from major wine importers like Italy and France — and Miller said that could "level the playing field" for domestic vintners.

"If tariffs do indeed slow down imports and make them less competitive, I can see that there would be an upside for domestic wines in that case," Miller said.

Industry insiders told Business Insider that ultra-premium wine producers likely won't see the same potential benefits from Trump's tariff plan that lower-tier producers might because too much of their business lies in exports, which have been disrupted. The wealthiest buyers also likely won't be significantly deterred by price hikes on their favorite French and Italian imports or will drink from their private reserves while waiting for the trade madness to subside.

"For the high-end collector, the wine connoisseur, someone with a high wine IQ, for them, those flavors are not fungible," Miller said. "Their favorite is not replaced by a domestic wine just because it's the same price point."

Similarly, bottom-tier suppliers may lose some business because the lowest-income households could simply stop buying any wine, as it's a luxury they don't need amid the economic turmoil. Still, mid-range varietals, like those abundant in California, have a narrow opportunity to gain ground, both in direct sales and tourism to the region.

"I feel like if people are pulling their purse strings because of their worries about the economy, then they would typically — and we saw this certainly during COVID but for other different reasons — choose to come to Santa Barbara County versus taking European vacations," Scott Bull, owner of Sustainable Wine Tours in Santa Barbara, California, told BI. "If we're talking about wine enthusiasts in general, we've seen they will turn to the California market to visit their local backyard rather than taking these extravagant trips."

A boon for mid-market producers

California produces an average of 81% of total US wine, employs 1.1 million Americans, and generates $170.5 billion in annual economic activity across the country, according to data from the Wine Institute. The famous Napa Valley, located northeast of San Francisco, is a major tourism draw, as is Santa Barbara County on the Central Coast and the Southern California wine region of the Temecula Valley.

"For us, certainly during COVID, and we're hoping maybe again now, is that we got the Los Angeles market and all these other people who typically would go overseas to look for those fine wines, instead coming into our backyard," Bull said. "And they realize that we have some extraordinary wines here that really offer the same type of quality or even higher quality, and that really offer everything they're looking for, from Burgundy to Bordeaux varietals. And so I think this could be that new introduction point."

Of course, Trump's tariffs do not mean it's all smooth sailing for mid-range producers. They still have to contend with the rising costs of imported goods they rely on for production — barrels, corks, and glass for their wine bottles are all seeing significant price jumps — and their export businesses are on the rocks.

"The tariffs have also killed any chance of exporting for domestic wine producers," Mike Officer, cofounder of Carlisle Winery, an ultra-premium Sonoma County zinfandel producer, told Business Insider. "After California, Canada and Denmark were our largest distribution channels. Those markets no longer exist for us."

Still, Trump's tariffs still represent a window of opportunity for some regional winemakers.

"I do think, potentially, the sweet spot is for that mid-market producer," Miller said. "For the largest players in central California, there also could be an opportunity open up the market where previously they were getting undercut."

The opportunity may not be limited to California winemakers. Other regional consumer goods, often regarded as modest luxuries compared to mass-produced big-brand products or fancy artisan imports — like Hawaiian coffee — could also see an increase in consumer interest amid Trump's burgeoning trade war.

Alexandre Bossard, the general manager of Kauai Coffee, told BI the current global trade dynamics represent "both challenges and opportunities" that Hawaiian coffee growers are monitoring closely.

And while it's too soon to know exactly how it will all shake out, California's regional winemakers are cautiously optimistic that they can avoid the worst impacts of Trump's trade war.

"It actually levels the playing field in a way that I think could be great for us," Bull said.

• JPMorgan analysts told clients that Trump's tariff plan will have drastic economic effects.
• The risk of the global economy falling into a recession has increased from 40% to 60%, they warned.
• The restrictive trade policy also risks supply-side damage that'll lower US growth in the long run.

JPMorgan's chief global economist has a bleak outlook on President Donald Trump's aggressive tariff policy: "There will be blood."

In a research note to clients published on Thursday, JPMorgan's Bruce Kasman, along with several other company economists, warned that the risk of the global economy falling into a recession has increased from 40% to 60% in response to Wednesday's "Liberation Day" tariff announcement.

Trump on Wednesday announced sweeping 10% tariffs on goods from any country imported into the United States, and even higher tariffs for 60 trading partners with a persistent trade deficit with the US.

The wide-reaching "Liberation Day" tariffs impact countries including China and Japan, as well as the European Union, and territories near Antarctica inhabited only by penguins. They are in addition to existing tariffs against the United States' top trade partners, Canada and Mexico.

"Disruptive US policies has been recognized as the biggest risk to the global outlook all year," JPMorgan's research note reads. "The latest news reinforces our fears as US trade policy has turned decisively less business-friendly than we had anticipated."

The banking giant's economists describe tariffs "at a basic level" as a functional tax increase on US household and business purchases of imported goods. Economists and supply chain experts previously told Business Insider the increased import costs caused by Trump's tariff plan are expected to result in higher prices for everything from pantry staples like coffee and sugar to apparel and larger purchases like cars and appliances.

JPMorgan's analysts found that this week's announcement, on the heels of earlier tariff increases, raises the US average tax rate "by roughly 22%-pts to an estimated 24%," equivalent to roughly 2.4% of the total value of all goods and services produced within the country, or GDP.

"A hike of this size would be on par with the largest tax hike since WWII," the JPMorgan research note reads. Its effects could be magnified "through retaliation, a slide in US business sentiment, and supply chain disruptions."

"We thus emphasize that these policies, if sustained, would likely push the US and possibly global economy into recession this year. An update of our probability scenario tree makes this point, raising the risk of a recession this year to 60%," the note continues.

But a nationwide or global recession "is not a foregone conclusion," JPMorgan's economists offered as a potential silver lining.

"Beyond the obvious point that policy actions may be changed in the coming weeks, we continue to emphasize that the US and global expansions stand on solid ground and should be able to withstand a modest-sized shock."

For now, though, the note indicates JPMorgan's economists "view the full implementation of announced policies as a substantial macroeconomic shock" — one not easily recovered from, should Trump's policies persist.

• Donald Trump has enacted sweeping tariffs on items imported from the country's global trade partners.
• The tariffs will cause price increases on goods from pantry staples to apparel, experts told BI.
• On average, consumers should expect to pay about $3,800 more this year, a Yale economist said.

If you thought the cost of groceries was high before, economists and supply chain experts have some bad news.

President Donald Trump on Wednesday announced sweeping 10% tariffs on goods from any country imported into the United States, and even higher tariffs for 60 trading partners with a persistent trade deficit with the US.

The wide-reaching "Liberation Day" tariffs impact countries including China and Japan, as well as the European Union, and territories near Antarctica inhabited only by penguins. They come in addition to existing tariffs against the United States' top trade partners, Canada and Mexico.

For consumers, the increased import costs caused by Trump's aggressive tariff plan are expected to result in higher prices for everything from pantry staples like coffee and sugar to apparel and larger purchases like cars and appliances.

Ernie Tedeschi, the director of economics at the Budget Lab at Yale, said the price hikes are expected to increase the overall price level of goods in the United States by 2.3%, costing the average consumer household about $3,800 this year.

Tedeschi told Business Insider that the existing tariffs against Mexico and Canada alone account for an expected 1% price increase of about $1,700 per household. The "Liberation Day" tariffs announced Wednesday are expected to result in a further 1.3% hike, or $2,100 per household.

"So 1.3% may not sound like a lot to the normal person, but $2,100 is a meaningful amount," Tedeschi said. "Now, of course, that's an average, so if you open up the hood to that number, there's a distribution beneath that number."

Price hikes on pantry staples and produce

The exact intention behind Trump's tariff plan remains unclear — the president says his main goal is to bring manufacturing jobs back to the United States, but some analysts suspect he may be trying to trigger a recession to reduce interest rates purposely — and the stock market has tanked in response to the uncertainty.

Imports from some countries will be hit with higher tariffs than others, driving uneven price hikes across industries. For example, China — which largely imports machinery and appliances, furniture, toys, and electronics to the US — will be subject to a 54% tariff when combining the new tariffs (34%) with ones that have been previously announced. Goods from the European Union, which primarily imports medical and pharmaceutical products and motor vehicles, will be subject to a new 20% tariff.

Tedeschi said the cost of clothing items is expected to increase by about 8%. He added that pantry staples like sugar and coffee are expected to increase in price by about 1.3%, while fresh produce is likely to increase by about 2.2%.

"The luxury of eating our favorite fruits and vegetables regardless of the season is based on global imports with much coming from Central and South America," Margaret Kidd, an instructional associate professor of supply chain and logistics technology at the University of Houston, told BI. "Tariffs will make many of these staples unaffordable."

The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, which replaced the North American Free Trade Agreement in 2020, maintains NAFTA's zero-tariff treatment for most agricultural products, textiles, apparel, and other goods that meet the trade agreement's rules of origin. But while the United States gets much of its produce from neighboring Mexico tariff-free, including tomatoes, avocados, and strawberries, other imports will face new price hikes — like grapes from Peru or bananas and mangoes from the Philippines.

"The USMCA is still in effect, so there are fruits and vegetables still covered under the deal and are tariff-free, but then some of them, they are not covered," Chris Tang, a UCLA professor who's an expert in global supply chain management and the impact of regulatory policies, told Business Insider.

Stockpiling and substitutions

Of course, consumers and businesses alike will try to find substitutions. Still, Tedeschi said it takes time to carve out new supply chain routes, for stores to expand their offerings, and for customers to find suitable alternatives to their typical favorites.

"So you may, literally and figuratively, eat the price increase in the short run, as you're figuring out what a proper substitute is, but there are areas where there will be substitutions available," Tedeschi said. "Let's say coffee, for example, imported from Colombia. If Starbucks has a supply chain agreement with Colombia, over time, they'll be able to shift that to another country or another supplier to mitigate the cost of the tariff, perhaps. Whereas, in the short run, like, in a month, Starbucks is not going to be able to do that, so if you want your latte, you're going to have to pay extra."

Some, like "Shark Tank" star Mark Cuban, have suggested Americans start stockpiling goods now to avoid price hikes. They say retailers may raise prices and "blame it on tariffs," even if their goods are US-made. While the experts who spoke to Business Insider say that may be true, panic buying might further hurt supply chains and cause prices to go up, too.

"This kind of shift in demand would actually exacerbate this price increase," Tang said. "If the demand is more stable, then the price is more stable. If everyone starts stocking up on toothpaste and toilet paper, the prices go higher."

Low-income households will bear the brunt

And that's just the immediate impact on everyday consumable items.

The Consumer Technology Association estimated in a January report that Trump's tariffs could increase the price of laptops and tablets by 46-68%, video game consoles by 40-58%, and smartphones by 26-37%.

Car imports will see tariffs of upward of 25%, which could translate to $12,000 or more based on an average car price of $48,000. Some automakers have responded to the tariffs by offering employee pricing deals, while others paused work at their factories and started cutting staff, Business Insider previously reported.

Not every household will be affected by the tariffs similarly, either. In response to Trump's trade plan, Tedeschi said, lower-income households will spend about two and a half times more of their share of income than the highest-earning households will.

Kidd said pharmaceuticals, which represent $251 billion of imports, will face tariffs from 20% to more than 50%, which will disproportionately burden Americans without insurance and may set the path toward an increased deductible for those covered under an employer health plan.

"Lower income households are more likely to purchase imports. They spend a larger share of their income than higher income households do, and so they are more vulnerable to tariffs than higher income households are," Tedeschi said. "And obviously people care about food for food's sake, but that also has distributional implications as well. The more the price of food goes up, the more that disproportionately affects lower-income families as well."