• President Donald Trump may have other routes to impose tariffs if the court strikes down his current duties.
• A pause on Trump's use of the IEEPA to impose tariffs has been halted by an appeals court.
• International trade experts say other ways to hike tariffs may be limiting and time-consuming.

President Donald Trump has four more swings at implementing his tariffs — even if courts strike down his use of the IEEPA.

Experts in international trade told Business Insider that Trump could take four different routes to imposing trade barriers without Congress. All four are doable, though significantly more complicated, and are unlikely policies he could change at will overnight.

"Now we're over a hundred days into the tariffs, and tariffs are a very top-of-the-agenda item," Drew DeLong, lead in geopolitical dynamics practice at Kearney, a global strategy and management consulting firm, told BI.

"There are a number of motivations underneath tariffs, and whether his current tariffs stay, he will find ways to continue to amplify pressure on trading partners," DeLong added.

After small businesses sued Trump and his various trade officials over tariffs, the US Court of International Trade ruled unanimously on May 28 that he doesn't have the authority to levy sweeping tariffs using the IEEPA — a 1970s law typically used for economic sanctions during national emergencies.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit resumed the tariffs a day later, but their fate remains uncertain.

"That decision, if it is favorable to Trump, would still go to the Supreme Court for review," said Kent Jones, Professor Emeritus of international economics at Babson College. "Many conservative judges, even Trump appointees, have tended to view Trump's use of IEEAP as overstepping the limits of delegating tariff-making power from Congress to the President."

Here are four things the Trump administration could do next to keep trade barriers up without Congress.

Section 122

DeLong said Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, also known as the Balance of Payments Act, could be the White House's first choice if it wants to "continue the pressure immediately" on trading partners.

The act's official language allows it to be applied only if there are "large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits," otherwise known as trade deficits.

"Section 122 is probably going to be a top pick," Robert Shapiro, an attorney of international trade at Thompson Coburn LLP, told BI. "That gives Trump some vehicle, but it's a limited 15% for 150 days, and then he has to go to Congress."

"That would open the door for Congress to pass a whole bunch of trade actions, but the administration obviously didn't want to go through that first," Shapiro added.

Section 232

Section 232 under the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 allows the White House to raise duties on imports it deems a threat to national security.

A recent probe into critical mineral imports, for example, argued that the US is overly dependent on foreign sources for materials essential to defense, infrastructure, and innovation.

DeLong said that at the moment, there are at least eight ongoing Section 232 investigations, including those involving copper, timber, and semiconductors. He said the recent June 3 tariff hike on steel and aluminum from 25% to 50% is also being done under section 232.

Jones said, however, that each section 232 tariff requires a formal investigation, and the sectors it could be applied to are limited.

"The problem with section 232 is that it requires a separate action for each industrial category of goods against which tariffs can be imposed," said Jones. "The perceived advantage of the IEEPA was that it allowed broad tariff coverage across the board to all industries."

Section 301

Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 gives the US Trade Representative — now Jamieson Greer — broad authority to investigate whether other countries are violating existing trade agreements or hurting American businesses.

DeLong said that the first Trump administration leaned heavily on the provision to impose tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars worth of Chinese goods and aircraft from the European Union.

But section 301 would require a formal investigation and even a public comment period.

"The problem with sec. 301, however, is that it requires a separate determination of specific foreign unfair or discriminatory trade practices, country by country," said Jones.

"The IEEPA, again, seemed to give the President more flexibility in declaring an emergency against all global imports into the US without the need to document specific foreign practices," Jones added.

Section 338

DeLong said Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 could theoretically allow any US president to impose up to a 50% tariff on countries that discriminate against the US. However, he said this would be a very uncommon approach that could again bring the tariff argument into uncharted territories.

"That has not been used — and I don't think I'm understating this —in decades, or ever," said DeLong of section 338. "That would be relatively new."

• Elon Musk predicted Trump's tariffs will trigger a recession later this year.
• Musk's comment comes amid a growing public fallout with the president.
• Wall Street has expressed similar concerns over Trump's tariffs.

Elon Musk predicted Donald Trump's tariffs will send the economy into recession, one of many verbal barbs the tech billionaire threw at the president on Thursday as their relationship collapsed into acrimony.

"The Trump tariffs will cause a recession in the second half of this year," Musk wrote on X while reposting another tweet that called Trump's tariffs "super stupid."

The morning began with Trump saying he was disappointed by Musk's opposition to his "One Big Beautiful Bill" during a press appearance to welcome the German Chancellor to the White House.

The feud intensified when Musk called out Trump's "ingratitude," and suggested establishing a new political party. The SpaceX cofounder also proposed decommissioning the company's Dragon spacecraft after Trump threatened to cut his government contracts, although Musk backed off that idea pretty quickly on X.

Fractures between the two emerged after Musk left his role recently at the White House. On Tuesday, Musk blasted the Republicans' tax-and-spending-cut bill, which Trump helped to shepherd through the House, calling it "pork-filled'" and a "disgusting abomination."

Musk isn't alone in criticizing the potential fiscal impact of this legislation. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated it could increase deficits by $2.4 trillion over a decade.

Other experts also agree with Musk that Trump's tariffs could have a negative impact on the US economy.

JPMorgan predicted a 60% chance of a US recession after Trump imposed sweeping tariffs on April 2. The bank adjusted the possibility down to below 50% recently after Trump paused most of his highest tariffs.

In a March interview with Fox News, Trump had also declined to rule out the possibility of a recession.

"I hate to predict things like that," said Trump.

"There is a period of transition," he added, "because what we're doing is very big. We're bringing back wealth to America. That's a big thing, and there are always periods of, it takes a little time, it takes a little time."

• Elon Musk and Donald Trump's friendship unraveled publicly over a tax bill dispute.
• Musk criticized Trump's tax bill, calling it the 'Big Ugly Spending Bill.'
• Here's how their recently fragile friendship fractured on Thursday, minute-by-minute.

Twenty-five minutes of live TV, more than a dozen posts on X, and three posts on Truth Social over the period of five hours (and counting) — that's how the already fractured friendship of Elon Musk and President Donald Trump publicly unraveled on Thursday.

The first signs of trouble began when Musk showed opposition to Trump's spending bill, the "One Big Beautiful Bill," though he never explicitly targeted Trump.

"Shame on those who voted for it," Musk tweeted on Tuesday, referring to Congress members who voted for Trump's tax cut bill.

Trump, for his part, had stayed uncharacteristically mum about Musk's criticism of the bill.

But that all changed on Thursday morning.

Here is a minute-by-minute breakdown of how the relationship between two of the most powerful men on the planet devolved.

11:20 a.m. ET

Musk began digging up Trump's old posts on what was then Twitter about the deficit, including one from January of 2013.

11:46 a.m. ET

Musk unearthed another old X post by Trump from back in July 2012, presumably as a swipe at the new Republican tax bill that many economists and the congressional Budget Office said would increase the country's deficits.

12 p.m. ET

Trump responded to Musk's attacks for the first time when answering press questions during a White House event to welcome German Chancellor Friedrich Merz.

"And you know Elon's upset because we took the EV mandate, which was a lot of money for electric vehicles," said Trump. "And they're having a hard time, the electric vehicles. And they want us to pay billions of dollars in subsidy. Elon knew this from the beginning; he knew it from a long time ago."

12:07 p.m. ET

Trump's comments about Musk continued at the press appearance.

"He knew every aspect of this bill — better than almost anybody —and he never had a problem until right after he left," said Trump. "He said the most beautiful things about me. He hasn't said bad things about me personally, but I'm sure that'll be next. But I'm very disappointed in Elon. I've helped Elon a lot."

"People leave my administration, and they love us, and then at some point they miss it so badly, and some of them embrace it, and some of them actually become hostile," Trump continued.

"I don't know what it is. It's sort of Trump derangement syndrome, I guess they call it, but we have it with others, too. They leave and they wake up in the morning, and the glamour's gone. The whole world is different, and they become hostile," he added.

12:25 p.m. ET

Musk began a whirlwind of tweets soon after, responding in near real time to what Trump said during the press appearance.

"False, this bill was never shown to me even once and was passed in the dead of night so fast that almost no one in Congress could even read it!" Musk posed on X.

12:46 p.m. ET

Musk then began a series of tweets directed at the president beyond the bill, including saying that without him, Republicans would have lost.

1:57 p.m. ET

Musk polls his X followers about creating a new political party "that actually represents the 80% in the middle." Mark Cuban quoted the post with three checkmarks.

2:23 p.m. ET

Musk gives Trump's bill — known on paper as the "One Big Beautiful Bill" — a new name: "Big Ugly Spending Bill."

2:37 p.m. ET

Trump responds to Musk with two consecutive posts on his own social media platform, Truth Social.

"Elon was 'wearing thin,' I asked him to leave, I took away his EV Mandate that forced everyone to buy Electric Cars that nobody else wanted (that he knew for months I was going to do!), and he just went CRAZY!" Trump wrote.

"The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts. I was always surprised that Biden didn't do it!" the president continued.

2:48 p.m. ET

Musk responds to Trump's posts on Truth Social, calling them "such an obvious lie."

2:49 p.m. ET

A minute later, Musk appeared to dare Trump to cancel government contracts with his companies.

3:10 p.m. ET

Musk makes another accusation.

4:06 p.m. ET

Trump posts on Truth Social again to defend his tax bill.

"I don't mind Elon turning against me, but he should have done so months ago. This is one of the Greatest Bills ever presented to Congress," Trump wrote.

"It's a Record Cut in Expenses, $1.6 Trillion Dollars, and the Biggest Tax Cut ever given. If this Bill doesn't pass, there will be a 68% Tax Increase, and things far worse than that. I didn't create this mess, I'm just here to FIX IT," Trump added.

4:09 p.m. ET

Musk says SpaceX will decommission its Dragon spacecraft "immediately."

SpaceX's Dragon spaceships transport NASA astronauts and supplies to and from the International Space Station. Prior to partnering with SpaceX, the agency depended on Russian Soyuz spacecraft for crewed missions.

4:26 p.m. ET

Musk says that Trump's tariffs will "cause a recession in the second half of this year."

Some economists have also predicted that Trump's tariffs would hurt the economy, and Trump himself declined to rule out the chances of a recession back in March.

JPMorgan had predicted a 60% chance of a US recession after Trump imposed sweeping tariffs on April 2. The bank adjusted the possibility down to below 50% recently after Trump paused most of his highest tariffs.

4:43 p.m. ET

Musk retweeted what appears to be a video of Trump partying with Epstein from the 1990s, doubling down on his earlier statement about the Epstein files.

"This is an unfortunate episode from Elon, who is unhappy with the One Big Beautiful Bill because it does not include the policies he wanted," White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told Business Insider in a statement. "The President is focused on passing this historic piece of legislation and making our country great again."

Representatives for Tesla did not immediately respond to requests for comments.

A walkback

Musk took a softer tone later on Thursday night.

Some five hours after his post about decommissioning the Dragon spacecraft, he walked back the decision in a response to an X user.

"This is a shame this back and forth. You are both better than this. Cool off and take a step back for a couple days," X user Fab25june wrote on the platform.

"Good advice. Ok, we won't decommission Dragon," Musk wrote at 9:20 p.m.

In a separate exchange on X, billionaire investor Bill Ackman encouraged Musk and Trump to make up.

"I support @realDonaldTrump and @elonmusk and they should make peace for the benefit of our great country. We are much stronger together than apart," Ackman wrote.

"You're not wrong," Musk responded at 9:27 p.m.

• Cracker Barrel is the latest company to report a hit from tariffs.
• The restaurant chain expects tariffs to dent earnings from its gift shop business later this year.
• Cracker Barrel is rethinking its gift store selection as part of a broader revamp of its business.

President Donald Trump's tariffs have part of Cracker Barrel's business over a barrel.

Cracker Barrel diners usually walk through the shop, which sells everything from rocking chairs to skillets featuring Dolly Parton's likeness, on their way into and out of Cracker Barrel's restaurants. The restaurant chain sources roughly one-third of those products from China, CEO Julie Masino said during an earnings call on Thursday.

The number is higher when counting China-made products that Cracker Barrel buys from US-based suppliers, the CEO said. She did not say what share of the stock those items account for.

As a result of tariffs, Cracker Barrel expects a $5 million hit to its EBITDA — a measure of profitability — next quarter, CFO Craig Pommells said. The chain expects EBITDA for its 2025 fiscal year of between $215 million and $225 million.

Cracker Barrel's retail sales made up about 20% of its revenue last year, according to the company. The majority of revenue came from its restaurants.

Like many retailers, Cracker Barrel has worked to limit the cost of tariffs by negotiating with its suppliers, finding new sources of products, and rethinking its prices, Masino said.

"The teams have been thinking about tariffs for months," she said on the call.

At the same time, Cracker Barrel has been planning changes to its gift shops as part of its broader business strategy, Masino said.

Last year, after Cracker Barrel reported a net loss and lower foot traffic, Masino said the chain's restaurants were "not as relevant as we once were." Cracker Barrel has started a three-year plan to turn around results, including new restaurant formats and menu items.

On Thursday, Masino said that Cracker Barrel was reevaluating the product selection at its gift shops as part of that turnaround plan. The company is also reconsidering when it brings in seasonal items, such as Halloween and Christmas decorations, she said.

"There have been a couple of key things that the tariff situation has actually enabled us to accelerate," Masino said.

Do you have a story to share about Cracker Barrel or another restaurant chain? Contact this reporter at [email protected].

• The OECD cut its forecast for US economic growth in 2025 from 2.8% to 1.6%.
• It cited President Donald Trump's tariffs, which had pushed the US import rate to the highest level since 1938.
• Global growth is also set to slow as trade tensions disrupt investment and inflation rises, the OECD said.

The US and global economy are losing steam, and a key forecaster said President Donald Trump's trade tariffs were part of the reason.

In its latest Economic Outlook, released on Tuesday, the Paris-based Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development cut its forecast for US economic growth in 2025, pointing to the fallout from the administration's trade policies. The 2.8% rate it predicted in March has now been reduced to 1.6%.

The OECD warned that these tariffs, which have pushed the effective US import rate to 15.4% — the highest since 1938 — were not only affecting US growth but reverberating across the global economy too.

Global growth was now projected to slow to 2.9% in both 2025 and 2026, down from 3.3% in 2024.

The OECD said the slowdown in growth was concentrated in the US, Canada, Mexico, and China. Growth in China, the world's second-largest economy, was expected to fall to 4.7% in 2025, down from 5% last year, and come in at 4.3% in 2026.

As of May 27, a blanket 10% tariff applies to all goods imported into the US, with some limited exemptions.

Stoking inflation

A 50% tariff on imports from the European Union were paused until July 7 amid "fast-tracked" negotiations, while steep levies on imports from China have also been put on hold.

The OECD said these policies were eroding investment, disrupting supply chains, and stoking inflation — especially in the US, where price growth is now projected to approach 4% by the end of the year.

OECD secretary-general Mathias Cormann said governments needed to work to keep markets open and preserve the "economic benefits of rules-based global trade for competition, innovation, productivity, efficiency and ultimately growth."

Chief economist Álvaro Pereira added: "Lower growth and less trade will hit incomes and slow job growth."

The organization urged governments to de-escalate tensions and roll back tariffs to avoid further damage to the global economy.

In a Monday note, Deutsche Bank economists said there were global signs of a "turbulent but sustained path toward trade de-escalation. The fallout from the US 'Liberation Day' policies — from falling approval ratings to a sell-off in US government bonds — forced a rethink in Washington. While recent court rulings could pave the way for an even more benign trade regime, they also prolong uncertainty."

The bank also expected US GDP to grow by 1.6% this year and by 1.7% in 2026 on an annual average basis.

• Wells Fargo said in a report that President Donald Trump's tariffs won't bring manufacturing back.
• High labor costs and a lack of workers would make building more factories an "uphill battle."
• US manufacturing needs $2.9 trillion in investment to reach 1979 employment levels.

President Donald Trump's push to revive American manufacturing through tariffs may face some hurdles.

Despite some high-profile commitments, including Nvidia's plans for a US-based supercomputer plant and Apple's pledge to invest $500 billion domestically, a new report from Wells Fargo economists predicts that bringing back offshored manufacturing jobs will be an "uphill battle."

"An aim of tariffs is to spur a durable rebound in US manufacturing employment," Wells Fargo analysts wrote in the report. "However, a meaningful increase in factory jobs does not appear likely in the foreseeable future, in our view."

The report attributes the potentially low factory job growth to high labor costs, a lack of suitable workers to fill vacant positions, and a subdued population growth from lower fertility rates and slower immigration.

"Higher prices and policy uncertainty may weigh on firms' ability and willingness to expand payrolls," the analysts added.

The tariffs are part of Trump's broader economic agenda to revive American manufacturing as a pathway toward middle-class prosperity. The tariffs are meant to hike the costs of imports to incentivize companies to make goods domestically.

"Jobs and factories will come roaring back into our country," Trump said while announcing tariffs on April 2. "And ultimately, more production at home will mean stronger competition and lower prices for consumers."

Some tariffs imposed on April 2 have been temporarily paused or greatly reduced, including tariffs on China. The 10% across-the-board tariff remains, as do some specific tariffs on Mexico and Canada, plus 30% in duties on China. Duties at their current level are still the highest they have been since the 1940s.

"In order for manufacturing employment to return to its historic peak, we estimate at a minimum $2.9 trillion in net new capital investment is required," Wells Fargo analysts wrote. "Assuming businesses are willing and able to invest such ample sums, questions over staffing remain."

The Wall Street bank says that US manufacturing employment currently stands at 12.8 million, down from its 1979 peak of 19.5 million. To get back to that mark, the US would need to add roughly 6.7 million jobs. Wells Fargo added that the figure is nearly the same as the entire pool of unemployed Americans, which in April was 7.2 million, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics.

"Population aging, negative perceptions, and skill mismatches also underpin workforce concerns," Wells Fargo analysts wrote. "New jobs will require different skills than those previously lost."

In 2024, Taiwanese chipmaker TSMC said it delayed the opening of its Arizona chip factory due to a shortage of skilled workers. A report released in April 2024 by Deloitte and the Manufacturing Institute also found that nearly half of the 3.8 million new manufacturing jobs anticipated by 2033 could remain unfilled due to skill gaps and other population factors.

"Tariffs must be high enough to make the cost of domestic production competitive in the US market, and they also must be kept in place long enough for producers to bring on additional workers and expand capacity," the report concluded. "If the economic or political costs are deemed too high, the current administration could quickly dial-back prevailing duties further."

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comments.

• Airbnb's CEO said he's heard from founders facing a challenging fundraising landscape amid economic uncertainty.
• Brian Chesky said that while a stable economy is needed, there's a "silver lining" to building a business in tough times.
• The Airbnb cofounder said on Michelle Obama's podcast that a tough economy bakes "discipline" into your company culture.

Brian Chesky is no stranger to starting a business in tough economic times.

Chesky cofounded Airbnb in 2007 and built the business during the 2008 financial crisis. In a recent podcast conversation with Michelle Obama and her brother, Craig Robinson, Chesky said it was challenging to get the business off the ground during a recession, even with some of the advantages and connects he and his founders had that other entrepreneurs might not have.

However, he said there was one "silver lining" to growing the business during tough times, which might resonate with founders facing today's economic uncertainty.

"A lot of great companies have been started in a recession," he said in a Wednesday episode of "IMO with Michelle Obama & Craig Robinson."

"And the one, I don't want to say it's a good thing, but what it does is it teaches you a certain type of discipline," he said. "A tough economy teaches you a discipline that gets institutionalized into your culture."

By comparison, a strong economy might give founders more cushioning to "perpetuate bad strategies and be a little less disciplined," Chesky said.

"I think the good news is a lot of great entrepreneurs are incredibly resourceful, and they will find a way to work," the Airbnb cofounder said. "But we absolutely need like a very stable economy."

Chesky said that entrepreneurs he's spoken with recently told him "a lot of fundraising, for all intents and purposes, was kind of on hold."

"A lot of limited partners and investors are just like hunkering down. And what we know about investors, they don't like uncertainty," he said.

He believes investors will "sit this one out until things stabilize."

"And if they don't stabilize, we're going to be in for a very prolonged kind of dry spell for fundraising," he said. "If you did not go to a prestigious school, if you weren't, like, purely a team of technical engineers, if you're not trying to create an AI company, you're just trying to create a business, that will be more difficult."

Airbnb isn't the only successful business to emerge from the Great Recession. Companies like Uber, WhatsApp, Venmo, and Square also started around the time of the 2008 financial crisis.

"It's always a great time to start a business — and some of the most successful businesses are started during recessions," certified financial planner Cary Carbonaro previously told BI. "Adversity is the mother of invention."

Donald Trump has hit out at Apple’s plans to produce more iPhones in India as a way of avoiding US tariffs on Chinese-made goods, as he continues to push the tech group to manufacture its best-selling device in America.

Speaking in Qatar on the latest leg of his Middle East tour, the US president said he had “a little problem with Tim Cook yesterday” after the Apple chief executive confirmed last week that Indian factories would supply the “majority” of iPhones sold in the US in the coming months.

The Financial Times previously reported that Apple planned to source from India all of the more than 60 million iPhones sold annually in the US by the end of next year.

Read full article

Comments

• Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene was called out by a fellow Republican for recent stock trades.
• He said those trades were "just another reason why" lawmakers should be banned from trading stocks.
• Greene has attracted scrutiny for well-timed trades made around Trump's tariff moves.

First, it was Democrats who made a big deal out of Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene's stock trading habits. Now, a fellow Republican is joining in.

"Just another reason why stock trading by members of Congress or their spouses should be banned," Rep. Mike Lawler of New York wrote on X in response to a post showing that one of the Georgia congresswoman's recent stock purchases had paid off.

Lawler, who does not own any individual stocks, is a co-sponsor of the TRUST in Congress Act, a bill to require lawmakers and their spouses to divest from stocks or place them in a blind trust.

Greene has attracted scrutiny in recent weeks for a series of well-timed trades she made around President Donald Trump's tariff moves in early April.

When stock prices began to fall after the April 2 "Liberation Day" announcement, Greene began investing tens of thousands of dollars into a variety of stocks, continuing to do so right up until stock prices shot back up after Trump announced that most of those tariffs would be paused for 90 days.

The congresswoman has said that her stock portfolio is managed by an outside financial advisor.

"All of my investments are reported with full transparency. I refuse to hide my stock trades in a blind trust like many others do," the congressman said in a statement previously shared with BI. "Since my portfolio manager makes my trades for me, I usually find out about them when the media asks."

She's not the only lawmaker who bought the dip: Democratic Rep. Jared Moskowitz of Florida did as well.

But Democrats have suggested that Greene, a close Trump ally, may have been aware of Trump's tariff moves ahead of time. The congresswoman has denied that.

Lawler's post came on the heels of a feud between the two lawmakers that began on Wednesday, when Greene denounced the New York congressman for opposing Republicans' "Big Beautiful Bill" over a tax provision.

• Walmart says tariffs remain "too high," even after recent reductions.
• The company said it would have to raise some prices if import costs didn't come down further.
• It's not yet clear how already-pressured shoppers would respond to price hikes.

President Donald Trump's shifting trade policy is causing headaches for America's largest retailer.

While Walmart CFO John David Rainey welcomed the recent reduction in tariffs, he said the company was not out of the woods yet.

"Let me emphasize, we still think that's too high," he said of the latest rates during Walmart's earnings call on Thursday.

Walmart says it imports about one-third of what it sells in the US from other countries, namely China, Mexico, Canada, Vietnam, and India, and that cargo is flowing.

"There are certain items, certain categories of merchandise, that we're dependent upon to import from other countries, and prices of those things are likely going to go up, and that's not good for consumers," Rainey said.

Rainey added that shoppers were showing signs of being more financially pressured, evidenced by their spending shifting away from general merchandise and more toward food and essentials.

Walmart CEO Doug McMillon added that he didn't think shoppers would tolerate additional price hikes on their grocery bills, which would limit the retailer's ability to shift import costs to other goods in its assortment.

"The first thing that goes through my mind is food inflation," he said. "We've been through a number of years here where prices have gone up on food, and our customers have felt that, and they don't want any more food inflation."

He also said he was hopeful that any long-term policy would address foods that the US doesn't produce in significant amounts, like bananas.

An additional wrinkle for Walmart management is the question of what economists call "price elasticity," or the change in purchasing patterns in response to changes in cost.

American consumers proved resilient during recent years of high inflation and kept on spending even though prices were climbing.

But Rainey said tariffs make it "more challenging to anticipate demand by item," since it's not clear how shoppers would respond to new tariff-related price hikes and retailers are wary of getting stuck holding large amounts of expensive merchandise.

"We'll watch where our price gaps are," McMillon said, "but we'll also watch what customers are telling us and the response that we get from pressure that they're feeling."

While that puzzle is a little more solvable with high-turnover items like food, it's considerably more difficult to predict for seasonal sales events like back-to-school shopping or the holidays — and Walmart has to place those orders now.

And thanks to a quirk of retail accounting, a significant fluctuation in shelf prices could have an outsize impact on the company's financial results in the coming quarters if it has to make large adjustments to its inventory valuation.

"How do you make a quantity call, and what tariff number do you use?" McMillon said.

• A business owner is labeling tariff costs as a separate line on the price tag of his electric bikes.
• Businesses, large and small, are hoping to retain consumer trust by showing how much tariffs increase prices.
• Business experts say consumer awareness of tariffs could spell trouble for Trump's polling rates.

When Jared Fisher found out his major supplier of electric bikes was raising its prices by 10%, he had a choice to make: eat the cost or pass it along to his customers.

"If you cut 10% into a bicycle margin, then you might as well get ready to have your exit strategy for your business because you're not going to be able to operate," Fisher, who owns several bike shops in Nevada and Utah, told Business Insider. "There's no way."

Instead, Fisher decided to be transparent with his customers about why prices were rising on some of his products. He added a new line item directly to the price tags on bikes hanging in his shops. On one bike he sells for $7,999, the price tag now shows an additional $300 "Government Tariff Charge."

"I have no problem labeling where this tax is coming from on my products," he said. "People need to know that so I have a fighting chance on my end."

On April 2, President Donald Trump imposed a 10% baseline tariff on all imports into the US, as well as additional tariffs on dozens of trading partners. Though some of the higher tariffs — with the exception of those on China and some on Mexico and Canada — are on pause, the sweeping 10% tariffs are still in place. And prices are starting to go up.

From brick-and-mortar retailers to online small businesses, many have told Business Insider that the tariffs are forcing them to pass the cost to consumers, and it's not because they want to.

To make matters worse for smaller operations, they do not have the same bargaining power with suppliers or cash flow as larger retailers like Walmart. Suppliers in some manufacturing hubs like China are also seeing ever-shrinking margins to help absorb the tariff shock.

"Small businesses are basically in danger of going out of business because of these high tariffs," Peter Cohan, associate professor of management at Babson College and a venture capitalist, told BI, "And they're trying to preserve the trust of their customers by being very transparent about why they're raising the prices."

"Maybe they're going to lose customers because of the higher rates, but at least being transparent will help reduce the damage," Cohan added.

Larger businesses may also have considered such transparency measures. After reports that Amazon is going to start displaying how much tariffs are contributing to the price of goods on its platform, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt called the idea a "hostile and political act." The e-commerce giant denied that it planned to display the cost of tariffs, saying its low-price section, Haul, had considered it for some items but then jettisoned the idea.

Chinese fast-fashion giants Shein and Temu — most affected by the 145% tariffs on China and the canceled de minimus exemptions — posted identical customer notices on their websites, saying that that there will be "price adjustments" because their "operating expenses have gone up" under "recent changes in global trade rules and tariffs."

At the end of April, Temu started adding "import charges" at checkout, which can double the price of the item. By May, Temu's main website appeared to have blocked US customers from seeing products shipped from China, and the site is filled with products marked "local" to signify they are at a warehouse in the US.

"Displaying tariff costs directly on product pages can offer strategic advantages for platforms like Temu and Shein," Nasim Mousavi, assistant professor at Georgia State University Robinson College of Business, told BI. "By itemizing tariffs, these platforms frame price increases as the result of external policy rather than their own pricing decisions."

"This transparency can enhance customer trust, reinforce a value-oriented brand image, and foster the perception that the platform is advocating on behalf of the consumer," Mousavi added.

According to a survey of 1,850 US adult citizens conducted between May 2 and 5 by the Economist and YouGov, 75% of those surveyed think that Trump's tariffs will increase their prices, and 61% would like businesses to display how much of a purchase price goes toward paying tariffs.

"The obvious reason why the White House wouldn't want businesses to show tariff costs is because it makes it obvious how much their policy is costing consumers," said Cohan. "It's going to drive down the poll ratings because consumers will be extremely aware of how much more they're paying and who's causing them to pay it."

• When you see a movie or a TV show, do you think about where it was made?
• Lots of people in Hollywood do — they're seeing more and more productions move outside the US.
• Donald Trump says he wants to reverse that. But his proposal is hard to understand.

There are many stories out right now about Donald Trump's call for a "100% Tariff on any and all Movies coming into our Country that are produced in Foreign Lands."

But let's give the concision award to Variety, which noted that Trump's Sunday night announcement generated many questions in Hollywood, "starting with: Huh?"

Let's also note that Trump frequently changes his mind about things, and most definitely about his tariff policies. So it's entirely possible his Hollywood tariff post leads to nada.

While we're throat clearing, let's also note that, unlike some of Trump's other tariff pushes, this one doesn't imagine a world where work that left the US long ago comes back to the country. Movie (and TV) production remains a huge business in the US, employing millions of people.

And lastly, Trump is correct in noting that film (and TV) production has been leaving Hollywood for years. Sometimes it has gone to other places in the US: Disney has made more than a dozen Marvel movies in Georgia. "Sinners," one of the year's biggest movies, was made in Louisiana.

But there's a clear trend in international production, driven by lower labor costs and tax incentives. Production spending in the US fell by 28% between 2021 and 2024, but rose just about everywhere else. "Thunderbolts," Marvel's most recent movie, is also set to be the last one filmed in Georgia for the foreseeable future — most of Marvel's production has moved to London.

So what would Trump's plan do to correct that? No one seems to have any clue.

"Hollywood studio executives scrambled Sunday night to determine what the announcement would mean for their business," The Wall Street Journal reports. "As is often the case with Mr. Trump's declarations on social media, it was not entirely clear what he was talking about," The New York Times deadpans. Stocks of studios and streamers like Netflix and Warner Bros. Discovery were down Monday morning.

If you take Trump's post at face value, it does indeed pose all kinds of questions. Like: Would the tariffs apply to American-owned/produced movies, or to movies from studios all over the world? Would it apply to American productions that are mostly filmed in the US but have some scenes shot in other countries? What about movies where some postproduction work, like visual effects, is handled outside the US?

And at the most basic: How, exactly, do you tariff a movie or TV show? They don't arrive in this country via cargo ships or planes. US Customs and Border Protection doesn't sign off on their import.

My sneaking suspicion is that Trump doesn't know, either. It's just that he seems to think tariffs are the solution to just about any problem.

Otherwise, if Trump were truly concerned about encouraging more domestic film (and TV) production, he might go about it the way just about everyone else does: with tax breaks and other financial incentives.

Which, it turns out, is exactly the pitch Trump heard from the actor Jon Voight and his manager, Steven Paul, this weekend, per Bloomberg. Voight — one of three actors Trump said earlier this year would be his "special ambassadors" to bring back work to Hollywood — and Paul spent time with Trump at Mar-a-Lago, and suggested a pretty normal plan, Bloomberg says: "more federal tax incentives for US film and TV production," which involves "expanding existing tax credits and bringing back ones that have expired."

Voight and Paul didn't propose tariffs, Bloomberg reports. But Trump did. So here we are. Let's see if it goes anywhere.