• Trump's tariffs on China could mean higher prices for wedding dresses.
• Some 90% of wedding gowns are made in China.
• David's Bridal says it's working to shift production outside China to avoid the added costs.

As if planning a wedding wasn't already stressful enough, President Donald Trump's trade war could make it even pricier to say "I do."

The Trump administration has issued a combined 145% tariff on many imports from China, where the vast majority of wedding dresses are produced.

That means the average wedding dress — which retails for about $2,000, according to a survey by The Knot, a wedding planning site — could end up more than twice as expensive if retailers pass the additional costs down to the consumer.

Bridal retailers told Business Insider that the tariffs have been a huge disruption to their industry. The National Bridal Retailers Association, which represents over 6,000 independent brick-and-mortar bridal stores around the United States, said as many as 90% of bridal gowns are produced in China.

"The overriding feeling is despair," Angie Oven, a bridal shop owner and president of the NBRA, told BI after a meeting she held with 75 of the group's members. "There's a little bit of PTSD right now because a lot of us really just recovered from COVID."

Oven, who owns The Bridal Gallery in Salem, Oregon, said shops are working closely with manufacturers to find solutions. The group is also appealing to lawmakers to push for bridal gowns to be added to a tariff exemption list.

"Our No. 1 goal is to be removed from the tariff list," Sandra Gonzalez, vice president of NBRA and owner of Sparkle Bridal Couture in Sacramento, said.

Although Americans often associate China with cheap goods, bridal shop owners said the quality of dresses produced in China at scale is remarkable, from the lace to the boning to the sometimes 10,000 beads handsewn onto the gowns.

"We do not have the infrastructure to produce the quality of goods that brides are demanding of us," Gonzalez said. "To build the factories and train the people, that would take a whole generation."

Price increases and uncertainty

Alicia Adams, owner of Her's Bridal & Special Occasion in Minden, Louisiana, said the price of gowns is already going up. Some manufacturers are raising the wholesale price of gowns by as much as 30%, while others are, at least for now, trying to absorb the cost.

"Now that it's over 100%, obviously those manufacturers and designers aren't able to absorb those costs," she told BI. "They're going to have to pass it down to us, which means we would have to pass it down to our brides."

Adams said some bridal stores might try to absorb the costs, but at the current tariff rate, it likely won't be feasible. Some might instead absorb 50% and then pass the other half on to shoppers.

Complicating the situation is that many bridal gowns are made-to-order, meaning some brides have already picked out and paid for dresses now being produced abroad. When those gowns are delivered, they could be hit with a huge tariff for which the bride or the bridal shop never planned.

Vanessa Gerstner, whose wedding is this September in Italy, told BI she's waiting for a dress she ordered in November to arrive from Australia — where tariffs on imported goods are 10%.

"I'm hoping that I won't get another huge charge on top of what I've already paid, but since it is being shipped directly to me and not a bridal salon, I think, from my understanding, I would have to eat that cost," she said.

She said the additional fee "isn't terrible," especially compared to other brides who are now opting for cheaper dresses than they originally planned due to the increased tariff costs.

Bridal consultant Alina Garza, who works at One Bridal in Annapolis, Maryland, said in a video posted to TikTok last week that dress designers have already reached out to her to say they'll be raising prices by up to 20%. Two are US designers that source fabric from India and China, she later told BI by direct message.

One commenter said she was "not able to sleep over this" and planned to have items from China shipped to Mexico, where she would pick them up. Another said the factory making her dress has paused all shipments.

Shifting production out of China

Trump has said one of his motivations for the tariffs is to encourage more manufacturing in the United States. But while big bridal companies are considering shifting production out of China, they aren't necessarily looking at the United States.

Kelly Cook, CEO of David's Bridal, the largest wedding retailer in the United States, told BI that the company is not "tariff-proof" but "tariff-resilient," in part because it has 36 design and production facilities around the world, including in Sri Lanka, the Philippines, and Myanmar.

In anticipation of tariffs, the company has been proactively shifting its production out of China over the past few months. Cook said the company has lowered its China-based production from 50% of its total just several months ago to 30% today.

The company is also working to help its partners, who primarily manufacture dresses in China, shift production to their facilities in countries that haven't been hit quite as hard by tariffs.

As of Friday, Cook said David's Bridal had not raised prices. "We want to do everything in our power not to pass anything on to the customer," she told BI.

The smaller bridal shops said they were also working with their manufacturers to avoid passing on costs to brides, but the longer the high tariffs remain, the harder that will be. Still, they said many bridal shops now have plenty of gowns in store that brides could take home, free of tariffs.

Adams, who owns the shop in Louisiana, said it's still too soon to tell how severe the impact will be and that she didn't want to cause fear among brides. "We don't want to freak people out and then a month later everything goes back to normal," she said.

Still, Adams is also concerned that if tariffs do raise prices, it could deter brides from visiting their local brick-and-mortar bridal stores, many of which are longtime fixtures on their local main street.

"We hope people in Washington will give a little," she said. "They don't want people to not get married and not celebrate life moments."

• 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.

• Gen Z is driving the growth in camping, with many in the generation favoring glamping experiences.
• Camping spending is also rising, and Gen Z spends more daily on the pastime than other generations.
• KOA is expanding glamping options to meet the growing demand for luxury camping.

Camping — the ultimate budget travel option — is more popular than ever with Gen Z.

More campers today are younger, and although they may be looking for an affordable way to travel, they're not afraid to get spendy during their trips, according to Kampgrounds of America's 2025 Camping and Outdoor Hospitality Report, which was released Wednesday.

Toby O'Rourke, CEO and president of KOA, North America's largest network of privately-owned campgrounds, told Business Insider in an interview last month that Americans are sticking with camping, if not at pandemic-era levels, even after revenge travel had vacationers going big with international trips and cruises.

"Definitely, the growth is being driven by those younger generations," she said, adding that 61% of all new campers last year were Gen Z or millennials.

KOA found camping spending is also on the rise, reaching $61 billion in 2024. Gen Z campers spent more daily, $266, than any other generation, while baby boomers spent the least, $134. O'Rourke said that could be because younger campers are renting gear for activities or spending more on food and experiences in the local community.

Move over RVs

Between 2020 and 2023, the height of pandemic restlessness, the camping surge was so good for KOA it turned its owner, financier and investor Oscar Tang, into a billionaire.

When O'Rourke started at KOA 15 years ago, their customer base was overwhelming baby boomers — typically traveling in RVs. Today, while the retirees have stuck around, younger generations are making up a greater share and are more interested in "glamping," or more elevated camping experiences with unique accommodations.

KOA also found that 72% of campers consider it a cost-effective travel option, and O'Rourke said they continue to make it work even when facing economic uncertainty.

"They see high value in stays at campgrounds over how far their dollar goes at a resort or hotels even," she said.

"They're going to camp closer to home, or they're going to take a shorter stay versus a longer stay," she added, "or they might be canceling other types of trips and camping instead."

Travel industry experts previously told BI that while travel demand is softening in advance of a summer of economic uncertainty, many Americans will simply change their plans rather than cancel a trip altogether, instead opting for more affordable vacations like road trips or national parks.

Glamping's lower barrier to entry

Gen Z campers are also fueling the rise in glamping, which O'Rourke said is a priority for KOA, especially as luxury travel spending continues to grow.

"Almost every KOA has some form of glamping," she said.

Glamping is a broad term but generally refers to a camping experience beyond the basics, with amenities typically associated with traditional accommodations, like a hotel. Glamping can refer to a large, fancy tent with a real bed, a tiny cabin, or something unique like a treehouse or yurt.

For instance, KOA has a glamping resort in Maine — the Terramor Outdoor Resort, near Acadia National Park — with 64 canvas tents featuring electricity and wifi, a portable heater, and a noise machine.

While KOA added 15 new campgrounds last year, O'Rourke said the company is focused on upgrading existing locations with more glamping or specialty patio sites for RVs. She said she's always focused on addressing pain points or the aspects of camping that make it too difficult for someone to try for the first time or stick with.

"That's what I put a lot of my time into thinking about because otherwise if it's difficult, they're not going to do it anymore," she said. "How do we continue to modernize our parks to meet the demands and expectations of the current camper and the changing camper?"