Cleveland Fed: Tariffs are raising some prices in Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Kentucky
President Donald Trump holds up a chart while speaking during a 'Make America Wealthy Again' trade announcement event in the Rose Garden at the White House on April 2, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by)
Tariffs — and uncertainty over them — are forcing up costs for businesses in Ohio and parts of three other states, according to market surveillance published last week by the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland. At last some of those costs are being passed on to customers, the report said.
The news comes as recent polls show that voters strongly disapprove of the way President Donald Trump, the author of huge new tariffs, is handling the economy.
The Cleveland Fed represents the Federal Reserve System's Fourth District — a region that covers all of Ohio and parts of Pennsylvania, Kentucky and West Virginia. Eight times a year, it conducts interviews and online questionnaires with businesses, community organizations, economists and other sources.
The Beige Book report released last week said those sources 'continued to suggest flat business activity in the Fourth District in recent weeks, and they expected activity to remain flat in the months ahead. Retailers noted a pullback in consumer spending, and manufacturers said that ongoing economic and trade policy uncertainty continued to dampen demand for their goods. Demand for professional and business services increased driven by higher demand for consultations amid the shifting regulatory environment.'
A tariff is a tax on imports that is sometimes imposed to foster domestic industry. Sometimes they're imposed in retaliation against perceived unfair practices by trading partners, such as China.
Since taking office, Trump has announced a bewildering array of on-again, off-again tariffs, including 50% ones on steel and aluminum that took effect last week.
The Consumer Price Index grew at a relatively moderate 2.4% in May, but the New York Times pointed out that it reflects only the initial impacts of the tariffs. While many of Trump's tariffs have been delayed or are just beginning to take effect, the Cleveland Fed report said their effects are being felt.
'On balance, contacts indicated that nonlabor input costs rose at a robust pace in recent weeks, continuing an upward trend that began after a period of stability in 2024,' it said. 'Contacts from multiple sectors noted that tariffs were now increasing the costs of materials that they import. Some contacts also noted secondary impacts of tariff-related cost increases from domestic producers. For example, one manufacturer said that their U.S.-based raw materials suppliers raised prices to factor in the overtime needed to meet increased domestic demand.'
It added that its sources of food and hospitality information voiced relief over dropping egg prices. But they 'generally expected costs to grow at a strong pace in the coming months.'
More of the fed's sources said they increased prices than did in the previous reporting period. Some blamed tariffs.
'Contacts across industries, particularly those in manufacturing and construction, said that they raised prices to cover costs related to tariffs and to elevated prices of materials such as steel,' the report said. 'Auto dealers generally mentioned raising prices of new and used vehicles, and one said that they were offering less discounting because of higher demand.'
Some of that demand, the report said, was from consumers trying to buy vehicles now because they anticipate higher prices in the future.
The news comes as Ohio has the nation's sixth-highest unemployment, consumer confidence remains relatively low, and Americans disapprove of Trump's handling of the economy.
A Quinippiac University poll released on Tuesday said that respondents disapproved of him on the economy by a 16-point margin. The president had an overall approval rating of 38%.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
30 minutes ago
- Fox News
Trump earns bipartisan praise for decisive action against Iran's nuclear program
Exuberant Republicans, and at least one prominent Democrat, lauded President Donald Trump's leadership on Saturday after the U.S. completed an attack on three Iranian nuclear sites. "Good. This was the right call. The regime deserves it. Well done, President @realDonaldTrump," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., wrote on X. Democratic Sen. John Fetterman, D-Penn., also said Trump made the right call. "As I've long maintained, this was the correct move by @POTUS," he said on X. "Iran is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities. I'm grateful for and salute the finest military in the world." Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, wrote: "'Peace through strength' means ensuring our existential enemies don't acquire the most lethal and catastrophic weapons known to man." And former Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz called Trump a "peacemaker." "President Trump basically wants this to be like the Solimani strike - one and done. No regime change war. Trump the Peacemaker!" he wrote on X. Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Ala., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said in a statement that the president "made the correct decision to strike Iran's nuclear sites. Iran made the choice to continue its pursuit of a nuclear weapon and would only be stopped by force. It would be a grave mistake to retaliate against our forces." Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., said on X, "Iran has waged a war of terror against the United States for 46 years. We could never allow Iran to get nuclear weapons. God bless our brave troops. President Trump made the right call and the ayatollahs should recall his warning not to target Americans." Republican Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming, said Trump's decision was the "right one. The greatest threat to the safety of the United States and the world is Iran with a nuclear weapon. God Bless our troops." House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., wrote on X that the U.S. "military operations in Iran should serve as a clear reminder to our adversaries and allies that President Trump means what he says." Johnson said that the president gave Iran "every opportunity to make a deal, but Iran refused to commit to a nuclear disarmament agreement. President Trump has been consistent and clear that a nuclear-armed Iran will not be tolerated. That posture has now been enforced with strength, precision, and clarity." He added that Trump's "decisive action prevents the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism, which chants 'Death to America,' from obtaining the most lethal weapon on the planet." However, Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., who authored a war powers resolution to prevent the U.S. from getting involved in Iran said the attacks were "not constitutional." Rep. Ro Khanna, a Democrat from California, echoed Massie's sentiments. "Trump struck Iran without any authorization of Congress. We need to immediately return to DC and vote on @RepThomasMassie and my War Powers Resolution to prevent America from being dragged into another endless Middle East war," he wrote on X.
Hamilton Spectator
35 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Democrats are at odds over response as Trump announces the US has entered Israel-Iran war
After nearly two years of stark divisions over the war in Gaza and support for Israel, Democrats seemed to remain at odds over policy toward Iran. Progressives demanded unified opposition before President Donald Trump announced U.S. strikes against Tehran's nuclear program but party leaders were treading more cautiously. U.S. leaders of all stripes have found common ground for two decades on the position that Iran could not be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon. The longtime U.S. foe has supported groups that have killed Americans across the Mideast and threatened to destroy Israel. But Trump's announcement Saturday that the U.S. had struck three nuclear sites could become the Democratic Party's latest schism, just as it was sharply dividing Trump's isolationist 'Make America Great Again' base from more hawkish conservatives. Ken Martin, chair of the Democratic National Committee, noted that in January, Trump suggested the U.S. could 'measure our success not only by the battles we win, but also by the wars that we end, and perhaps most importantly, the wars we never get into.' 'Today, against his own words, the president sent bombers into Iran,' Martin said in a statement. 'Americans overwhelmingly do not want to go to war. Americans do not want to risk the safety of our troops abroad.' Sen. Peter Welch, a Vermont Democrat, said the U.S. entering the war in Iran 'does not make America more secure.' 'This bombing was an act of war that risks retaliation by the Iranian regime,' Welch said in a statement. While progressives in the lead-up to the military action had staked out clear opposition to Trump's potential intervention, the party leadership played the safer ground of insisting on a role for Congress before any use of force. Martin's statement took a similar tact, stating, 'Americans do not want a president who bypasses our constitution and pulls us towards war without Congressional approval. Donald Trump needs to bring his case to Congress immediately.' Virginia Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine called Trump's actions, 'Horrible judgement' and said he'd 'push for all senators to vote on whether they are for this third idiotic Middle East war.' Many prominent Democrats with 2028 presidential aspirations had been silent on the Israel-Iran war , even before Trump's announcement — underscoring how politically tricky the issue can be for the party. 'They are sort of hedging their bets,' said Joel Rubin, a former deputy assistant secretary of state who served under Democratic President Barack Obama and is now a strategist on foreign policy. 'The beasts of the Democratic Party's constituencies right now are so hostile to Israel's war in Gaza that it's really difficult to come out looking like one would corroborate an unauthorized war that supports Israel without blowback.' Progressive Democrats also are using Trump's ideas and words Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., had called Trump's consideration of an attack 'a defining moment for our party.' Khanna had introduced legislation with Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., that called on the Republican president to 'terminate' the use of U.S. armed forces against Iran unless 'explicitly authorized' by a declaration of war from Congress. Khanna used Trump's own campaign arguments of putting American interests first when the congressman spoke to Theo Von, a comedian who has been supportive of the president and is popular in the so-called 'manosphere' of male Trump supporters. 'That's going to cost this country a lot of money that should be being spent here at home,' said Khanna, who is said to be among the many Democrats eyeing the party's 2028 primary. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who twice sought the Democratic presidential nomination, had pointed to Trump's stated goal during his inaugural speech of being known as 'a peacemaker and a unifier.' 'Supporting Netanyahu's war against Iran would be a catastrophic mistake,' Sanders said about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Sanders reintroduced legislation prohibiting the use of federal money for force against Iran, insisted that U.S. military intervention would be unwise and illegal and accused Israel of striking unprovoked. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York signed on to a similar bill from Sanders in 2020, but so far was holding off this time. Some believed the party should stake out a clear anti-war stance. 'The leaders of the Democratic Party need to step up and loudly oppose war with Iran and demand a vote in Congress,' said Tommy Vietor, a former Obama aide, on X. Mainstream Democrats are cautious, while critical The staunch support from the Democratic administration of President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris for Israel's war against Hamas loomed over the party's White House ticket in 2024, even with the criticism of Israel's handling of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Trump exploited the divisions to make inroads with Arab American voters and Orthodox Jews on his way back to the White House. Today, the Israel-Iran war is the latest test for a party struggling to repair its coalition before next year's midterm elections and the quick-to-follow kickoff to the 2028 presidential race. The party will look to bridge the divide between an activist base that is skeptical of foreign interventions and already critical of U.S. support for Israel and more traditional Democrats and independents who make up a sizable, if not always vocal, voting bloc. In a statement after Israel's first strikes on Iran, Schumer said Israel has a right to defend itself and 'the United States' commitment to Israel's security and defense must be ironclad as they prepare for Iran's response.' Sen. Jacky Rosen, D-Nev., said 'the U.S. must continue to stand with Israel, as it has for decades, at this dangerous moment.' Other Democrats have condemned Israel's strikes and accused Netanyahu of sabotaging nuclear talks with Iran. They are reminding the public that Trump withdrew in 2018 from a nuclear agreement that limited Tehran's enrichment of uranium in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions negotiated during the Obama administration. 'Trump created the problem,' Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., posted on X. The progressives' pushback A Pearson Institute/Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll from September 2024 found that about half of Democrats said the U.S. was being 'too supportive' of Israel and about 4 in 10 said their level of support was 'about right.' Democrats were more likely than independents and Republicans to say the Israeli government had 'a lot' of responsibility for the continuation of the war between Israel and Hamas. About 6 in 10 Democrats and half of Republicans felt Iran was an adversary with whom the U.S. was in conflict. ___ Associated Press writers Mary Clare Jalonick, Linley Sanders, Will Weissert and Lisa Mascaro in Washington contributed to this report Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Hamilton Spectator
35 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Trump ignites debate on presidential authority with Iran strikes and wins praise from Republicans
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump's bombardment of three sites in Iran quickly sparked debate in Congress over his authority to launch the strikes, with Republicans praising Trump for decisive action even as many Democrats warned he should have sought congressional approval. The instant divisions in the U.S. Congress reflected an already swirling debate over the president's ability to conduct such a consequential action on his own, without authorization from the House and Senate on the use of military force. While Trump is hardly the first U.S. president to go it alone, his expansive use of presidential power raised immediate questions about what comes next, and whether he is exceeding the limits of his authority. 'Well done, President Trump,' Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina posted on X. Alabama Sen. Katie Britt called the bombings 'strong and surgical.' The Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, Roger Wicker of Mississippi, said Trump 'has made a deliberate — and correct — decision to eliminate the existential threat posed by the Iranian regime.' Democrats, and a few Republicans, said the strikes were unconstitutional. House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who called for an immediate classified briefing for lawmakers, said that Trump 'misled the country about his intentions, failed to seek congressional authorization for the use of military force and risks American entanglement in a potentially disastrous war in the Middle East.' Some Republicans had similar concerns. Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie, a Republican and a longtime opponent of U.S. involvement in foreign wars, posted on X after Trump announced the attacks that, 'This is not Constitutional.' But the quick GOP endorsements of stepped up U.S. involvement in Iran came after Trump publicly considered the strikes for days. Many congressional Republicans had cautiously said they thought he would make the right decision. The party's schism over Iran could complicate the GOP's efforts to boost Pentagon spending as part of a $350 billion national security package in Trump's 'big, beautiful' tax breaks bill , which is speeding toward votes next week. 'We now have very serious choices ahead to provide security for our citizens and our allies,' Wicker posted on X. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune both were briefed ahead of the strikes on Saturday, according to people familiar with the situation and granted anonymity to discuss it. Thune said Saturday evening that 'as we take action tonight to ensure a nuclear weapon remains out of reach for Iran, I stand with President Trump and pray for the American troops and personnel in harm's way.' Johnson said in a statement that the military operations 'should serve as a clear reminder to our adversaries and allies that President Trump means what he says.' House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rick Crawford, R-Ark., said he had also been in touch with the White House and 'I am grateful to the U.S. servicemembers who carried out these precise and successful strikes.' Breaking from many of his Democratic colleagues, Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, an outspoken supporter of Israel, also praised the attacks on Iran. 'As I've long maintained, this was the correct move by @POTUS,' he posted. 'Iran is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities.' Both parties have seen splits in recent days over the prospect of striking Iran, including some of Trump's most ardent supporters who share his criticism of America's 'forever wars.' Republican Rep. Warren Davidson of Ohio posted that 'while President Trump's decision may prove just, it's hard to conceive a rationale that's Constitutional.' 'This is not our fight,' posted Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia. Most Democrats have maintained that Congress should have a say, even as presidents in both parties have ignored the legislative branch's constitutional authority. The Senate was scheduled to vote soon on a resolution from Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine that would require congressional approval before the U.S. declares war on Iran or takes specific military action. Kaine said the bombings were 'horrible judgment.' 'I will push for all senators to vote on whether they are for this third idiotic Middle East war,' Kaine said. Democratic Rep. Greg Casar, the chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, also called on Congress to immediately pass a war powers resolution. He said politicians had always promised that 'new wars in the Middle East would be quick and easy.' 'Then they sent other people's children to fight and die endlessly,' Casar said. 'Enough.' Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
