Some critics of the citizenship question the Trump administration wants to add to the 2020 census are coming from a group that tends to stay away from politically heated issues — business leaders.

From longtime corporations like Levi Strauss & Co. to upstarts like Warby Parker, some companies say that including the question — “Is this person a citizen of the United States?” — could harm not only next year’s national head count, but also their bottom line.

How governments use census data is a common refrain in the lead-up to a constitutionally mandated head count of every person living in the U.S. The new population counts, gathered once a decade, are used to determine how congressional seats and Electoral College votes are distributed among the states. They also guide how hundreds of billions in federal tax dollars are spread around the country to fund public services.

What is often less visible is how the census data undergird decisions made by large and small businesses across the country. The demographic information the census collects — including the age, sex, race, ethnicity and housing status of all U.S. residents — informs business owners about who their existing and future customers are, which new products and services those markets may want and where to build new locations.

Weeks before the Supreme Court heard oral arguments over the citizenship question last month, more than two dozen companies and business groups filed a friend-of-the-court brief against the question. Its potential impact on the accuracy of census data, especially about immigrants and people of color, is drawing concern from both Lyft and Uber, as well as Levi Strauss, Warby Parker and Univision.

“We don’t view this as a political situation at all,” says Christine Pierce, the senior vice president of data science at Nielsen — a major data analytics company in the business world that filed its own brief with the high court. “We see this as one that is around sound research and good science.”

Next year, the Trump administration wants to use the census to ask about the citizenship status of every person in every household in the country through a question approved by Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, who oversees the Census Bureau. The collected responses, the administration maintains, would be used to better enforce Voting Rights Act protections against discrimination of racial and language minorities.

Researchers at the Census Bureau, however, recommended against adding a question, which they said would produce citizenship information that’s less accurate and more expensive than existing government data. The question could bump up the cost of the 2020 census by at least $121 million, according to the bureau’s latest estimates.

Three federal judges have issued orders blocking the question, and the issue is now before the U.S. Supreme Court. The justices are expected to issue their ruling by the end of June.

“No substitute for a good census”

In the meantime, Nielsen and other companies are pushing back against the administration’s efforts.

Pierce says asking about a topic as sensitive as a person’s citizenship status is likely to discourage some people from participating in the head count. It’s also important, she adds, to test changes to a survey before implementing them.

The Census Bureau had not conducted a field test of a 2020 census form with a citizenship question before Ross decided to include the question.

Pierce emphasized these points last year in an affidavit for the New York-based lawsuits over the citizenship question. Through the court filing, she testified that Ross mischaracterized comments she made in a phone conversation they had that was later cited in Ross’ memo announcing his decision to add the question.

“If there is an undercount, that could carry through to our audience estimates and could mean that people will make decisions based on data that isn’t as accurate as it should be,” Pierce says, referring to the TV ratings that Nielsen produces using census data.

That data, Nielsen estimates, are tied to $90 billion in TV and video advertising.

“There’s just no substitute for a good census and having that count be as thorough as possible,” Pierce says.

Data that affect “our day-to-day lives”

The ride-hailing app Lyft is worried that an inaccurate census could mean that some communities may not get their fair share in federal funding for roads and public transportation over the next 10 years.

“That is a direct impact on our business because it means that those roads will end up being more clogged up and those people will have a harder time getting around,” says Anthony Foxx, a former U.S. secretary of transportation during the Obama administration who now serves as Lyft’s chief policy officer.

“This data that comes out of the census is not just some bureaucratic government data that sits in a vault somewhere that no one sees. It’s actually data that affects our day-to-day lives,” says Jessica Herrera-Flanigan, Univision’s executive vice president of government and corporate affairs.

Census Bureau research suggests including the question would discourage Latinos and Latinas from responding. Herrera-Flanigan is concerned that could lead to an undercount of Latinx residents.

“It’s a big lift”

Still, Univision is planning to talk up next year’s census on its TV programs. The children’s talent show Pequeños Gigantes recently featured a segment with kids attempting to explain what a census is.

“Regardless of what happens in the courts, we are going to be pushing people to know about the importance of the census and actually do it,” Herrera-Flanigan says. “It’s a big lift.”

It’s also tricky ground for businesses to navigate — especially after President Trump has tweeted his support of the citizenship question.

“The American people deserve to know who is in this Country,” Trump tweeted the day after the Supreme Court hearing.

At a public meeting earlier this month, Census Bureau official Burton Reist noted the bureau is running into hurdles trying to recruit businesses to promote the census.

“We had a meeting with McDonald’s, but that was a year ago. And we’ve had a hard time getting anything to come from it,” he explained to members of the bureau’s National Advisory Committee on Racial, Ethnic and Other Populations.

In response, Arturo Vargas — who leads the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials Educational Fund, a member of the committee — said business leaders have told him they’re reluctant to promote a census that has become so “politicized” by the Commerce Department’s efforts to get a citizenship question added.

“This is now something that, even though it’s such a fundamental aspect of our democracy, that they themselves are not willing to be associated with something that is so controversial now,” Vargas said.

Reist said, so far, a promotional partnership is “underway” between the bureau and the J.M. Smucker Company.

NPR has confirmed the bureau is also in discussions with Procter & Gamble, the company behind Pampers, Luvs and other brands.

Since speaking with the bureau early last year, McDonald’s has “not made any decisions on this at this time,” a spokesperson for the company, Lauren Altmin, said in an email.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Zakary Pashak is a rare breed. His company, Detroit Bikes, is one of the very few American bicycle makers. Most bikes come from China.

At times, Pashak endured ridicule at trade shows. “I’d get kind of surly bike mechanics coming up and telling me that my products stunk. There’s definitely a fair bit of attitude in my industry,” he says.

But last September, the industry’s tune abruptly changed. The first round of U.S. tariffs, or import taxes, upped the cost of Chinese-made bikes by 10%, and companies saw Detroit Bikes as a potential partner.

“All of a sudden I felt like the belle of the ball or something,” Pashak says.

Now a new round of tariffs set at 25% is hitting imports from China. Like many other American companies, Detroit Bikes is poring over the 194-page list of imported Chinese goods subject to the levies. Companies like Detroit Bikes rely on those goods, and now they face choices that will ultimately determine the prices consumers will pay.

Pashak started the company when he moved to Detroit in 2011, at a time when the city was reeling.

“What drew me to Detroit was the history, the music, the manufacturing,” he says. “But it was also the state that the city was in at the time.”

The financial crisis slammed automakers, laid off thousands of workers, many of whom abandoned their homes. Pashak envisioned an urban revival. Using those idle factories and workers, he wanted to build an American-made bicycle, which is how Detroit Bikes was born.

This month, the Trump administration upped the taxes it charges on Chinese imports by an additional 15%. Now, several companies seeking to avoid those added costs are considering hiring Detroit Bikes to manufacture bikes for their brands.

“If these tariffs are still in place next year at this time, I would anticipate that would probably be quite good for my business,” he says.

But the tariffs aren’t all good for Detroit Bikes. In fact, Pashak says the effects are so convoluted, he’s not sure yet whether they will ultimately help or hurt.

For one thing, his company relies on imported parts — rims, spokes, tires, cranks — most of which come from China. Tariffs on those also increased 25% since last fall, driving up Detroit Bikes’ expenses. To counteract that, Pashak is painstakingly evaluating each part, to see whether cheaper alternatives are available elsewhere.

He’s looking at parts made in Taiwan, which aren’t subject to tariffs. Or Cambodia, which he says is “the new hot country … that everyone’s trying to rush into.”

Businesses like Detroit Bikes react to tariffs in many ways, and one of the most significant is in finding alternate sources of goods. If Pashak succeeds in finding cheaper substitute parts, he keeps costs down on his bikes, which range from about $400 to $1,250. That then blunts the overall price increase for his customers.

Economists call this “substitution,” and say it affects how much consumers pay for tariffs.

“The impacts of these wars depend heavily on the substitution effect,” says Amit Khandelwal, a professor of international business at Columbia University.

Some substitutes are relatively easy to find. When China slapped retaliatory tariffs on American soybeans and corn, for example, buyers quickly turned to suppliers in South America.

But finding replacements for things like bike chains or software chips is considerably harder; factories can’t just be ginned up on demand. “Generally, the more specialized products often take longer to substitute,” Khandelwal says.

And timing is a key factor. It’s unclear whether the tariffs will remain for a week, a month, or years. Businesses, from farmers to retailers, are reluctant to make big changes when they can’t plan for the long haul.

That limits options for companies like Brooklyn Bicycle Co., which is based in its namesake city. It sources all its parts from 40 Asian countries, which are then assembled in China, before being shipped to the U.S. Ryan Zagata, the company’s president, says it would take about a year to rethink his supply chain and find options outside of China. And “it would be incredibly costly,” he says.

Detroit Bikes’ Pashak says he’s already mapped out some ingenious — if complicated — workarounds, if the tariffs stay put.

“I can bring in Chinese parts to Canada at no tariff code, bring in a Cambodian frame to Canada. Or ship my American frames up to Canada, put the parts on them, and then import them into the country,” he says. Doing so would relieve his tariff burden, but would take months. In the meantime, he says, tariffs might go away next week.

So the easiest solution for many companies, in the short run, is to raise prices. Many of Detroit Bikes’ rivals that rely on imported Chinese bikes, say they’ll have no choice. But Pashak says he’s not sure if his company will follow suit.

“It might be better for me strategically just to let all my competitors raise their prices because they have to,” he says. In the meantime, he’ll continue exploring options to try to make the tariffs work to his advantage.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

A Trump administration decision to restrict the sale of U.S. technology to Chinese telecommunications company Huawei will disrupt global supply chains, say analysts, ramping up pressure on U.S. allies reluctant to join in efforts to shut out Huawei from advanced 5G mobile networks.

The Commerce Department on Wednesday announced it would add Shenzhen, China-based Huawei and its subsidiaries to a U.S. “entity list” — meaning it can keep Huawei from buying U.S. technology if “the sale or transfer would harm U.S. national security or foreign policy interests.”

The listing came the same day President Trump signed an executive order enabling the government to block U.S. firms from buying foreign-made telecom equipment if it is deemed a national security threat — a move also widely viewed as directed at Huawei.

The apparent one-two punch is the administration’s latest in a series of measures against China’s largest telecom equipment company, as the two countries engage in tense trade and technology fights. The decision comes as some European countries consider whether or not to allow Huawei into their 5G systems.

“This is a direct message to Europe about how it should be thinking of the future of its 5G networks,” says Paul Triolo, geotechnology head at political consultancy Eurasia Group. “The U.S. can allow some companies to sell to Huawei while ultimately holding the cards.”

Telecom companies including Sweden’s Ericsson and Finland’s Nokia have been vying with Huawei to set up the world’s first 5G networks, the next generation in mobile data infrastructure.

The new networks are critical to reaching data transmission speeds needed to support future “internet of things” applications, such as driverless cars.

5G’s importance to emerging industries and its reliance on a complex mixture of software and hardware have countries like the U.S. worried that adversaries could easily hack the networks to access user data and divert communication traffic to their own servers.

In a statement, Huawei said it opposed the Commerce Department’s decision, saying it was “in no one’s interest” and would “do economic harm to the American companies with which Huawei does business.”

Lu Kang, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman, said the U.S. should “stop its wrong practices” and should not “abuse export control measures while making ‘national security’ a catch-all phrase.”

Pressure to ban Huawei

The Trump administration has pressured its allies to preemptively ban Huawei equipment from their 5G networks, with limited success.

New Zealand, Australia and Japan have joined the U.S. in freezing out the Chinese company from future 5G plans. But Germany and France have not followed suit. Last month, the U.K. decided to allow Huawei restricted access to its 5G networks, a move first reported by the Daily Telegraph.

Experts say this hard-line strategy of circumscribing Huawei by citing expansive national security concerns signals a convergence with Beijing’s own restrictive cybersecurity and data laws. China has barred foreign companies from building significant market share in data-intensive technology sectors, such as cloud computing and financial services, which is a key sticking point in ongoing U.S.-China trade negotiations.

Samm Sacks, a cybersecurity fellow with think tank New America, says the administration’s executive order “is a page from Beijing’s playbook.”

She says looking at Wednesday’s executive order from Trump, “In some places, if you did a blind test with China’s cybersecurity law and tried to guess which is which, it would be hard to tell.”

“We didn’t even know there was this decision”

The announcement that Huawei would be put on the Commerce Department’s entity list took tech companies by surprise and many are now scrambling to figure out what that will mean for their operations. They argue a move to cut off Huawei from American technology sales would further decouple U.S. firms from the global technology supply chain and end an important revenue stream.

The entity listing affects major firms like chipmakers Qualcomm and Intel, which are Huawei suppliers. Even software suppliers like Google would have to apply for explicit Commerce Department permission to update Huawei’s smartphone operating systems, which run on Google Android.

“We didn’t even know there was this decision until members of the press received a statement Wednesday night,” says on industry representative who declined to be named because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

Details of how these export controls will work have not been released and it isn’t yet clear whether restrictions on Huawei will cover all American components or only a narrow subset.

If interpreted broadly, the controls on U.S. sales to Huawei could prove the biggest move yet to thwart the Chinese telecom company’s ambitions to build the hardware underpinning its global 5G network.

“It’s very difficult for Huawei to build a 5G base station without U.S. semiconductor technology,” says Brett Simpson, co-founder at Arete Research, a London-based technology research group. He was referring to the thousands of antenna stations that will process 5G bandwidth. Huawei will have to procure parts from U.S. firms like Xilinx, Texas Instruments and Analog Devices, according to Simpson.

There will be less impact on Huawei’s mobile handset business. Last year, Huawei was the world’s second-largest mobile phone supplier by sales after Samsung.

Wary of growing hostility from policymakers in Washington, Huawei has been stockpiling U.S.-made components that go into its cellphones in case the flow of parts from America is disrupted. Analysts believe this strategic reserve of electronic parts could sustain Huawei for another year without new purchases from the U.S.

Meanwhile, memory chips used in Huawei smartphones that are produced by American firms like Micron could be substituted out for South Korean products.

Huawei has also poured significant investment into the development of its own advanced microprocessors through its chip design subsidiary HiSilicon. It runs research and development bases around the world in an effort to wean itself off of high-end U.S. components.

That could allow Huawei to avoid the fate of its domestic rival, Chinese telecom company ZTE. The U.S. ordered a complete halt of U.S. components to ZTE in April 2018, forcing the company to temporarily cease operations before the Trump administration significantly eased the restrictions in July.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

President Trump signed an executive order Wednesday designed to bar U.S. telecommunications networks from using equipment from foreign suppliers, a move apparently targeting Chinese telecom giant Huawei.

The order declares a “national emergency” and says that “foreign adversaries are increasingly creating and exploiting vulnerabilities in information and communications technology and services” and committing economic and industrial espionage against the U.S.

Trump’s order directs Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross to draft rules to restrict the purchase of information and communications technology from companies “owned by, controlled by, or subject to the jurisdiction or direction of a foreign adversary.”

A senior administration official says the order is not directed at any particular country or company, but the order appears to be aimed at Chinese telecom manufacturer Huawei.

Separately, the Commerce Department reportedly said Wednesday it was adding Huawei to its “Entity List,” preventing it from buying components from American companies without U.S. government approval.

The administration says Huawei’s technology could become a conduit for snooping or sabotage by the government in Beijing. The U.S. federal government itself is already barred from doing business with Huawei and another Chinese telecom firm, ZTE. The administration has also been discouraging allies from using Huawei equipment as they build out 5G networks.

The executive order gives the Commerce Department 150 days to write regulations implementing it.

The Trump administration “will do what it takes to keep America safe and prosperous, and to protect America from foreign adversaries” targeting vulnerabilities in American communications infrastructure, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said in a statement.

The president’s action was described by a senior administration official as “company and country agnostic.” Even so, it was greeted with bipartisan endorsements on Capitol Hill as strong action against China amid American fears of technological vulnerability.

“This is a needed step, and reflects the reality that Huawei and ZTE represent a threat to the security of U.S. and allied communications networks,” said Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, in a statement. “Under current Chinese security laws, these and other companies based in China are required to provide assistance to the Chinese state.”

Republican Sen. Ben Sasse of Nebraska, also a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said in a statement, “Let’s cut to the chase: China’s main export is espionage, and the distinction between the Chinese Communist Party and Chinese ‘private-sector’ businesses like Huawei is imaginary. The Trump Administration is right to recognize this reality and issue this order.”

The president’s executive order comes as the U.S. and China are locked in a trade war, with both nations imposing tariffs on products from the other.

NPR’s Scott Horsley contributed to this report.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

A California jury has awarded a couple more than $2 billion in a verdict against Monsanto, a subsidiary of Bayer. This is the third recent court decision involving claims that the company’s Roundup weed killer caused cancer.

The jury in Alameda County, just east of San Francisco, ruled that the couple, Alva and Alberta Pilliod of Livermore, California, contracted non-Hodgkins lymphoma due to their use of the glyphosate-based herbicide. They were each awarded $1 billion in punitive damages and an additional $55 million in collective compensatory damages.

Many legal experts believe the damages will be drastically reduced on appeal.

The verdict represents the third such legal setback for the company in California since mid-2018. In March, a San Francisco jury awarded a man $80 million who blamed his cancer on his extensive use of Roundup. In August 2018, another San Francisco jury awarded $289 million to a fourth plaintiff. On appeal a judge later slashed that payout to $78 million. Bayer is appealing each of these verdicts. And the company insists there is no link between Roundup and non-Hodgkins’s lymphoma.

“Bayer is disappointed with the jury’s decision and will appeal the verdict in this case, which conflicts directly with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s interim registration review decision released just last month, the consensus among leading health regulators worldwide that glyphosate-based products can be used safely and that glyphosate is not carcinogenic, and the 40 years of extensive scientific research on which their favorable conclusions are based,” the company said in a statement.

At least one environmental group praised the verdict.

Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group said “The cloud hanging over Bayer will only grow bigger and darker, as more juries hear how Monsanto manipulated its own research, colluded with regulators and intimidated scientists to keep secret the cancer risks from glyphosate.”

Four year ago, a United Nations-sponsored scientific agency declared that Roundup probably causes cancer. As NPR’s Dan Charles reported, the finding from the International Agency for Research on Cancer caused Monsanto to launch a fierce campaign to discredit the IARC’s conclusions.

“Internal company emails, released as part of a lawsuit against the company, show how Monsanto recruited outside scientists to co-author reports defending the safety of glyphosate, sold under the brand name Roundup. Monsanto executive William Heydens proposed that the company ‘ghost-write’ one paper. In an email, Heydens wrote that ‘we would be keeping the cost down by us doing the writing and they would just edit & sign their names so to speak.’ Heydens wrote that this is how Monsanto had ‘handled’ an earlier paper on glyphosate’s safety.”

More than 13,000 other lawsuits have been filed against its subsidiary, Monsanto, the maker of Roundup.

After three jury verdicts in California, a trial is scheduled for August in St. Louis County in Missouri, the site of Monsanto’s former headquarters.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

The Trump administration imposed new higher tariffs on $200 billion in Chinese goods on Friday morning after trade talks failed to yield a deal. But to the surprise of many, China has yet to retaliate with new tariffs of its own.

Larry Kudlow, Trump’s top economic adviser said on Sunday that he is among those expecting a reaction from China. But so far “the expected countermeasures haven’t yet materialized,” Kudlow said on Fox News Sunday. “I reckon they will. We’ll see what they come up with.”

President Trump had struck a genial tone in tweets on Friday, calling the talks “candid and constructive.” But he struck a very different note Saturday, when he came out swinging at a number of targets.

“I think that China felt they were being beaten so badly in the recent negotiation that they may as well wait around for the next election, 2020, to see if they could get lucky & have a Democrat win – in which case they would continue to rip-off the USA for $500 Billion a year,” he tweeted. “The only problem is that they know I am going to win (best economy & employment numbers in U.S. history, & much more), and the deal will become far worse for them if it has to be negotiated in my second term. Would be wise for them to act now, but love collecting BIG TARIFFS!”

Kudlow was considerably more measured on Sunday. He emphasized the talks’ ongoing nature, and discouraged the term “trade war,” saying that the tariffs were simply part of the negotiations.

Trump and Xi will likely talk at the G20 summit late next month in Japan, Kudlow said, and China’s ambassador has invited U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin to Beijing.

Tariffs on Chinese goods increased from 10% to 25% on Friday, making the underlying cost of those items higher for U.S. customers. The Trump administration has imposed tariffs on Chinese goods before, and in each case, China was quick to impose tariffs on U.S. products. It was expected that Beijing would raise tariffs on U.S. goods to 25%.

But that hasn’t happened yet. And it’s not clear why not.

Wei Jianguo, a former vice-minister at the Ministry of Commerce who handled foreign trade, told the South China Morning Post that China was prepared for a long trade war.

“China will not only act as a kung fu master in response to US tricks, but also as an experienced boxer and can deliver a deadly punch at the end,” Wei said.

With the talks in limbo, Chinese stock markets dipped on Monday, and the yuan hit a four-month low. But markets there are still higher than analysts had predicted.

Who pays?

Trump has repeatedly framed the tariffs as primarily hurting China. For instance, last week at the White House, he said, “Our country can take in $120 billion a year in tariffs. Paid for mostly by China, by the way. Not by us. A lot of people try and steer it in a different direction. Ultimately it’s paid for largely by China.”

But actually it’s American businesses that will pay the tariffs, and in many cases, pass the expense on to their American customers. In some cases, China might absorb some of the cost to stay competitive, but for the most part, it’s folks in the U.S. that will pay the price.

Kudlow, Trump’s economic adviser, said as much on Sunday. “I don’t disagree with that,” he said to Fox News’s Chris Wallace. But he added that “both sides will suffer on this.”

He downplayed concerns that the tariffs would lead to U.S. job losses and hurt the GDP. “The United States’ economy is in a boom,” he said. “You’ve got to do what you’ve got to do. We have had unfair trading practices all these years and so in my judgment, the economic consequences are so small, but the possible improvement in trade and exports and open markets for the United States — this is worthwhile doing.”

Previous rounds of tariffs is already making life more expensive in the U.S., as NPR’s Yuki Noguchi reports:

“They’ve increased consumer costs by $1.4 billion a month, according to experts from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and Princeton and Columbia University. To date, tariffs have largely affected raw materials like chemicals and wooden beams used to make other products, so the cost increases appear incremental to the consumer. But additional new tariffs would boost prices on a broader number of finished goods — things consumers actually buy, like bicycles.

This latest round of tariffs will add another $500 a year in costs for the average American household, says Katheryn Russ, an economics professor at the University of California at Davis. And that could grow. President Trump has pledged to broaden tariffs even further to all Chinese imports — including big-ticket items. ‘Once the tariffs go onto cellphones, I mean then you’re going to see people scream,'” she says.

NPR Shanghai correspondent Rob Schmitz contributed to this report.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Trade negotiators from the U.S. and China wrapped up two days of what President Trump called “candid and constructive” talks on Friday but failed to reach agreement. The Trump administration raised the stakes for future negotiations by boosting tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese imports.

Those tariffs “may or may not be removed depending on what happens with respect to future negotiations,” Trump tweeted. “The relationship between President Xi and myself remains a very strong one, and conversations into the future will continue.”

While the prospect of higher tariffs rattled financial markets, investors seemed reassured that talks had not broken down completely. Major stock indexes closed up on Friday, after a sharp drop earlier in the day.

Still, U.S. business groups greeted the administration’s latest move with caution.

“CEOs are deeply concerned that a return to tariff escalation with China will hurt the U.S. economy and American workers, businesses, and farmers,” the Business Roundtable said in a statement.

The roundtable, which represents leaders of big public companies, supports the president’s push to change what it calls unfair trade practices in China. But CEOs stressed that any “final agreement should take tariffs down.”

Trump is a firm believer in tariffs, even though most economists say the import duties are primarily paid not by China but by U.S. businesses and consumers.

“Tariffs will make our Country MUCH STRONGER, not weaker,” the president tweeted. The administration increased tariffs to 25% from 10% on a wide range of Chinese products. Trump has also threatened to extend tariffs to an additional $325 billion in Chinese goods — taxing virtually everything the U.S. imports from China.

While the higher tariffs took effect in the middle of trade talks, they do not apply to goods in transit across the Pacific. That gives negotiators a narrow window to reach agreement before the effects of the higher duties are felt.

There was no immediate word on when or where trade negotiations would resume.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)