Best Buy became the latest company to warn about tariff impacts.

Best Buy on Thursday lowered full-year forecasts for profits and sales for the retailer’s fiscal year 2026, citing likely impacts of tariffs on business, becoming the latest company to flag concerns and cut projections, citing uncertainty over U.S. tariffs.

Best Buy reported first-quarter earnings for fiscal year 2026 and lowered full-year sales and earnings projections, as CFO Matt Bilunas said the cuts were made to “incorporate the impact of tariffs,” which the retailer expects to “stay at the current levels for the rest of the year” with “no material change in consumer behavior from the trends we have seen in recent quarters.”

Abercrombie & Fitch, despite surpassing first-quarter projections for earnings and revenue, according to FactSet, lowered its profit outlook for 2025 and cited a 30% tariff on imports from China and a 10% tariff on all other imports, with an expected $50 million hit to profits.

Macy’s, whose first-quarter revenue and earnings beat out Wall Street’s expectations, according to FactSet, lowered its full-year outlook for earnings per share, as the retailer cited “initial and current tariffs, some moderation in consumer discretionary spending and a heightened competitive promotional landscape.”

Target will likely have sales decline throughout 2025, the retailer said after previously projecting a 1% growth, as CEO Brian Cornell and CCO Rick Gomez reportedly blamed weaker spending amid uncertainty about tariffs and backlash to the company’s phasing out of diversity, equity and inclusion efforts.

Diageo, the distributor for Guinness, Smirnoff, Johnnie Walker and other brands, warned the company will likely take a $150 million hit to annual profits in 2025, though Diageo noted it plans to offset about half of this impact through unspecified “actions that we have in place already” before it raises any prices.

Walmart CEO Doug McMillon told investors the company would “do our best to keep our prices as low as possible,” but warned Walmart was unable to “absorb all the pressure given the reality of narrow retail margins” and that “higher tariffs will result in higher prices.”

Foxconn said it was being more cautious and “slightly adjusting its outlook to significant growth from strong growth,” with the company’s Chairman, Young Liu, noting: “Rapid changes in U.S. tariff policies have considerably impacted the global supply chain…with recent exchange rate fluctuations adding to the uncertainty.”

Toyota estimated about $1.25 billion in profits was erased in April and March, ciiting the “impact of U.S. tariffs,” as the Japanese automaker forecast a nearly 21% dip in operating income through 2025.

Steve Madden, which previously forecast revenue growth up to 19%, withdrew its financial guidance for 2025 as CEO Edward Rosenfeld said the company faced “heightened uncertainty due to the impact of new tariffs on goods imported into the [U.S.]”

Rivian lowered its targets for vehicle deliveries and capital spending for 2025, noting the “current global economic landscape presents significant uncertainty,” including “evolving trade regulation, policies” and tariffs.

AMD said the company expects to lose $1.5 billion in revenue in 2025 because of restrictions on chip shipments to China.

Ferrari noted in its first-quarter financial report the company was subject to a “potential risk” of a 50 basis points reduction to earnings in 2025, as the luxury car maker cited the “introduction of import tariffs on [European] cars” into the U.S.

Mattel’s CEO Ynon Kreiz reportedly said “it’s hard to tell where things will land and how the tariff situation will evolve,” and the toy company announced it is pausing its full-year guidance until it “has sufficient visibility, given the volatile macro-economic environment and evolving U.S. tariff situation,” and may raise prices of its toys “where necessary.”

Ford announced it expects tariffs to reduce its earnings before interest and taxes by about $1.5 billion in 2025, and said it is suspending its full-year guidance, citing “the potential for industrywide supply chain disruption impacting production” along with “the potential for future or increased tariffs in the U.S.,” potential retaliatory tariffs by other countries and more.

Cummins withdrew its forecast for 2025, as CEO Jennifer Rumsey said the truck engine maker faced “growing economic uncertainty driven by tariffs” and as customers endured an “increasingly challenging environment.”

Apple CEO Tim Cook said the company expects Trump’s tariffs will cause a $900 million hit to the company’s bottom line during its second quarter, saying it will be “very difficult” to predict beyond June “because I’m not sure what will happen with tariffs,” as Apple’s sales in China dropped below projections.

Amazon said in its first quarter earnings report Thursday that its future results are “inherently unpredictable” because of factors including “changes in global economic and geopolitical conditions” and “tariff and trade policies,” the latter of which was a not a reason included in its last quarter report.

General Motors, which earlier said it would reassess its financial guidance for 2025 to include the “potential impact of tariffs,” lowered its forecast for earnings to between $10 billion and $12.5 billion, down from $13.7 billion to $15.7 billion, as CEO Mary Barra said the company was adjusting to “the new trade policy environment.”

McDonald’s reported a 3.6% decline in U.S. same-store sales through its first quarter in 2025, the largest decrease since an 8.7% dip in 2020, as the fast food giant said consumers were “grappling with uncertainty.”

Stellantis suspended its full-year financial guidance for the 2025 fiscal year because of “tariff-related uncertainties,” and noted the company was “highly engaged with policymakers” about tariffs and has “[taken] action to reduce impacts.”

Mercedes pulled its full-year outlook for the 2025 fiscal year because the “volatility with regard to tariff policies” had become “too high to reliably assess” the automaker’s business development for the remainder of the year, adding estimates could not be made “with the necessary level of certainty.”

UPS pulled its full-year guidance after previously forecasting revenue of $89 billion for 2025, citing the “current macro-economic uncertainty” as the shipping giant also announced it would lay off 20,000 workers by the end of the year.

Kraft Heinz CEO Abrams-Rivera said the company had lowered its full-year outlook as the “operating environment remains volatile,” and they would monitor the “potential impacts from macro-economic pressures such as tariffs and inflation.”

JetBlue CEO Joanna Geraghty announced the company had pulled its full-year outlook for 2025 because of “macroeconomic uncertainty,” while JetBlue president Marty St. George said the airline expected “softened demand” to continue.

Snap declined to issue guidance for its second quarter, as the company behind Snapchat said “uncertainty with respect to how macro economic conditions may evolve in the months ahead” could impact advertising demand.

Volvo warned 2025 would be a “challenging and transition year” as a result of “macroeconomic, geopolitical and market developments,” including the effects of tariffs on profits, while pulling its guidance for the year and 2026.

PepsiCo lowered its earnings forecast for 2025 as the company expects “more volatility and uncertainty,” CEO Ramon Laguarta said, as PepsiCo said it faces higher supply chain costs because of tariffs, “elevated macroeconomic volatility and a subdued consumer backdrop.”

Procter & Gamble, the owner of Tide and Charmin, among others, lowered its sales growth projections for the year despite previously expecting growth up to 4% in 2025, while CEO Jon Moeller warned of a “challenging and volatile consumer and geopolitical environment.”

American Airlines CEO Robert Isom told investors the airline was “taking a very cautious, even a negative approach to growth” after pulling its full-year guidance, while CFO Devon May said economic uncertainty worsened by Trump’s tariffs brought “significant weakness in our main cabin demand.”

Skechers pulled its full-year outlook while citing “macroeconmic uncertainty stemming from global trade policies,” as CFO John Vandemore likened the economic environment to the pandemic.

Thermo Fisher Scientific withdrew its full-year profit forecast while the medical equipment maker expects to take a $400 million hit in sales to China, as Trump’s tariffs would likely raise the cost of parts the company sources in China.

Chipotle, which reported same-store sales well below analyst expectations, according to FactSet, lowered its full-year same-store sales growth for the year because the company expects customers to spend less as concerns about the economy became “overwhelming,” CEO Scott Boatwright told investors.

Alaska Airlines pulled its full-year 2025 guidance because of “recent economic uncertainty and volatility.”

Southwest Airlines, while maintaining some of its projections for its second quarter, withdrew guidance for 2025 in its first-quarter report while citing “macroeconomic uncertainty” that makes it “difficult to forecast given recent and short-lived booking trends.”

United Airlines held its full-year forecast, though the company also issued a second guidance featuring far lower earnings in 2025 because United believes the economy is “impossible to predict this year with any degree of confidence.”

Logitech withdrew its outlook for its 2026 fiscal year because of the “continuing uncertainty surrounding the tariff environment.”

Walmart announced it would pull forecasts for operating income in its upcoming first-quarter report on May 15, as the “range of outcomes” grew as Trump’s tariffs were implemented in trade.

The ripple effects of newly proposed and implemented US tariffs on furniture and home goods are starting to reach American designers and global manufacturers alike. And while reactions vary depending on what side of the Atlantic (or supply chain) you’re on, one thing is clear: uncertainty is the common denominator.

For interior designers sourcing high-end furnishings, especially vintage and fabric, there’s confusion over what’s taxed, when and at what stage of the process. Product designers navigating international production pipelines are facing raw material markups and reconsidering where – and how – they manufacture. Even European firms who serve a U.S. clientele are feeling the tension, with some already adjusting pricing or strategy to stay competitive.

This spring, showrooms and studios began receiving notices: a surcharge would now be added to orders – ostensibly to offset tariffs, though details were often vague. In April, logistics companies like DHL temporarily suspended shipments over $800 from Europe to the US entirely, citing compliance complexities. On 12 May, a 90-day tariff reduction between the US and China was implemented, lowering general import tariffs from 125 per cent to 30 per cent and the tariff on packages under $800 from 120 per cent to 52 per cent.

While the actual rates and timelines remain in flux, the prevailing mood is one of pause: designers are waiting to place orders, to communicate pricing changes to see how – if at all – American manufacturing might respond. Some brands are quietly scaling back their U.S. presence. Others are debating whether or not to add line-item surcharges. Many are still trying to understand where, exactly, the extra money is going.

We asked six voices across the design world – spanning California to Stockholm to Paris – to explain how they’re dealing with the upheaval. Here’s what they had to say, in their own words.

Cédric Morisset, CEO, Pierre Yovanovitch Group (Paris, France)

(Image credit: Courtesy Stephen Kent Johnson; Eric Petschek)

On luxury markets and lasting uncertainty:

‘From a financial perspective, the 10 per cent tariff increase on our goods in the U.S., when combined with local sales tax, still results in a total cost that is often lower than the VAT applied to furniture sales in Europe. So while there is an impact, it is not as significant as one might expect.

Wallpaper* Newsletter Receive our daily digest of inspiration, escapism and design stories from around the world direct to your inbox. Contact me with news and offers from other Future brands Receive email from us on behalf of our trusted partners or sponsors

This is especially true in the high-end market, where our furniture – anchored in unique craftsmanship and specialised savoir-faire – cannot simply be replicated elsewhere.

The greater impact lies in the confusion and uncertainty these changes create. This atmosphere can delay purchasing decisions, cause stock market fluctuations, stall large-scale projects, and shake client confidence. More importantly, it undermines the spirit of collaboration that drives our work.’

Roman Alonso, Cofounder, Commune Design (Los Angeles, California)

(Image credit: Courtesy Rich Stapleton; Laure Joliet)

On local loyalty and keeping clients calm:

‘Most of our vendors have guaranteed existing quotes and estimates, and everyone is waiting to see what happens after the three-month hiatus.

We always try to keep things as local as possible and always look for craftspeople in the area to support our [interior design] projects. From the start, Commune has been a proponent and supporter of American – specifically California – arts and crafts.

Of course our clients are concerned and have been asking a lot of questions. We’re trying to stay on top of the news, although it’s not easy with constant changes happening. The tariff situation just gives us more reason to continue to operate the way we always have.’

Petrus Palmér, Founder, Hem (Stockholm, Sweden)

(Image credit: Courtesy Erika Svensson; Pietro Cocco)

On preparation and a global approach:

‘We’ve built Hem to be globally resilient. With warehouses in both Europe and the U.S. where we proactively stocked up, we’ve been able to cushion the impact of recent and proposed tariffs.

From day one, we’ve kept our trade partners in the loop, offering clear communication and minimizing surprises. The large majority of our products are made in Europe, which has helped us maintain stability in both pricing and lead times, despite global uncertainty.

Tariffs haven’t changed our belief in international collaboration—they’ve only reinforced the need for agile, transparent operations. Great design knows no borders, and we’ll keep building a business that reflects that.”

Lee Anne Blake, CEO, The Expert (Los Angeles, California)

(Image credit: Courtesy the Expert; Courtesy Christina Cole & Co. and photographed by Nils Timm.)

On domestic insulation and transparency with clients:

‘Initially, we observed a wave of concern across the industry. The conversation quickly shifted to strategic decisions – whether to add surcharges, raise prices outright, or temporarily pause certain international products.

With the recent 90-day tariff pauses, we’re seeing a more measured approach as businesses wait to assess long-term implications. This has actually highlighted one of our strengths: approximately 80 per cent of our brand partners and products are American-made, and our curated vintage collection is already stocked stateside and ready to ship, insulating much of our offering from these challenges.

The design community has been remarkably resilient, having already weathered significant supply chain disruptions during the pandemic. Rather than panic, we’re observing designers taking a strategic approach – reconsidering their billing structures to account for potential tariff costs and becoming more intentional about domestic sourcing. The situation has prompted meaningful conversations about transparency with clients regarding potential delays or cost increases.’

Conor Taylor, Director, Foresso (Birmingham, England)

(Image credit: Courtesy Foresso)

On systemic instability and emerging opportunities:

‘The tariffs have been incredibly difficult for small businesses like ours. Larger companies may be able to slowly absorb the cost increases and stretch out their price hikes to avoid scaring customers, but for independents, there’s no buffer – every shift hits hard and fast.

What’s just as damaging as the tariffs themselves is the uncertainty they create. I’ve had conversations with other business owners who are already scaling back their presence in the US, redirecting budgets, and pulling out of trade fairs. I’ve heard of 10–25 per cent cuts to sales and marketing budgets, simply because people no longer feel confident investing in a market that feels unpredictable.

But disruption can also open up opportunities. I’ve been approached by several manufacturers looking to establish new partnerships to replace lost US trade. There’s a real appetite for connection and collaboration.

That said, supply chains in our industry – especially around materials for design and architecture – can’t just be relocated at will. Even if you invested tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in moving production, the maintenance parts and core materials would still need to come from abroad. And that’s before considering the cost of labour. For larger-scale, long-term projects, the uncertainty is even more destabilising – I’ve heard of cases where tariff rules have changed mid-transit, creating chaos and delays that ripple right through the build timeline.’

Charles de Lisle, Designer (San Francisco, California)

(Image credit: Courtesy Daniel Dent; Eric Petschek)

On unclear surcharges and future endeavors:

‘There’s this wild card that’s been placed in our system that we don’t know how to manage yet. Tariffs are showing up on purchase orders – 5 per cent, 15 per cent – but no one can explain what the percentage is based on. We’ve received invoices where a $580 tariff charge is listed with no breakdown.

A goal of ours this year was to manufacture lighting at quantity. Every single component – porcelain sockets, switches, plugs – comes from China. There are no US manufacturers. The idea that American factories will step in isn’t realistic unless there’s real innovation. Otherwise, I think we’ll just see prices go up and stay up, like they did after the pandemic.

Because our idea is to start small and make really beautiful things, hopefully it will be okay. My concern is that if we do want to scale, it’s going to be challenging to figure out.’

President Trump’s trade war has created chaos for companies around the world, snarling supply chains, sowing uncertainty and muddling their ability to plan for the future.

After announcing tariffs that started at 20 percent for nearly all imports from European Union members — and more on other countries — the president has scaled the rate to 10 percent until July, saying his administration will use the time to negotiate bilateral deals with America’s trading partners. At the same time, Mr. Trump has escalated a trade war with China, potentially squeezing European companies.

We are a team of reporters who write about business and economic issues in Europe for The New York Times. In recent weeks, we have covered how tariffs have been affecting the car industry, financial markets and economic expectations for European countries.

To better understand the impact the tariffs are having on companies in Europe, including Britain, we would like to hear from business owners, entrepreneurs, managers and employees. How might the import taxes affect your company or job? Have you delayed hiring, postponed expansion plans or canceled orders? Have you altered your supply chains? We would also like to hear what tariffs mean for your production, and whether you are considering moving some part of it to the United States.

The actions of the Trump administration are somewhat surprising, given the campaign rhetoric at face value. While the administration promised an end to burdensome Federal regulation and an era of new Federalism, the current policy regarding clean energy and the environment has been anything but. The president’s executive order “Unleashing American Energy”, issued on January 20th, 2025, is, in fact, a heavy-handed intrusion by the Federal government into state and local energy policies, and reads, according to Bryk, like a “mindless assault on anything that sounds clean.”

While the acts of the current administration will make a transition to clean energy more difficult, the message from Bryk was that “the arc of history bends towards clean energy.” The transition will happen because, politics aside, the science is now clear and not in dispute. So what can be done in the face of an administration that is antagonistic to this transition? As described by the panel, US states in fact have a tremendous amount of jurisdiction over not only energy policies, but over the industries that primarily contribute to climate change, such as transportation and housing. And the advice from Bryk to those state and local governments is “not to chase the chaos.” Most states and communities have affirmative agendas for their energy policies, and those need to be defended, including in the courts.

There is a long history of Federal and state collaboration on various programs, and many states also cooperate among themselves to agree on, for example, emission limits from power plants operating within those states. Historically, these efforts have broad bipartisan support. One of the points repeatedly mentioned during this presentation was that there is more agreement on the need for an energy transition than might be apparent based on the highly polarized talking points visible at the national level. But how is this possible?

Part of the reason is that the discussion at the state and local levels is not necessarily about “climate change.” In fact, how we discuss the transition to clean energy is a complicated issue itself, and what we say can also obscure what is happening in many states. Bryk emphasized that in many states, “climate is not the driver. Job creation is the driver.” Or, reducing energy costs is the driver, or just trying to keep energy dollars local is the driver. It can be surprising for people steeped in climate change discussions to learn that the US states that generate the most wind power (Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas) or have the most widespread use of heat pumps (South Carolina) do not have the most aggressive climate policies. They have other priorities that align with the desire to make a transition to clean energy, and the climate impact may be just a side benefit, for now. On the topic of the transition to clean energy, the American electorate has more in common than it has differences. Even conservatives argue that the Trump energy policy is interfering in the market, and is not allowing renewable energy sources to move to the forefront. However, it is often economically advantageous for them to do so.

So, how we talk about this issue matters. As Sosland emphasized, we are all paying for the costs of the energy choices we are currently making. We pay not just in terms of dollars, but also in terms of the impact on the climate and our own health. “We need to do a better job in the climate community of framing a message that works. We talk so much about cost, so much about utility and other kinds of economics…we are really talking about human beings in flood zones, coughing, getting sick. We are talking about humans here. The human impact of this issue is not even being addressed. That has to change. It has to turn around.” As Bryk put it, “The underlying values that we have are not controversial, and that’s a place where we can start and have conversations about these things with our families and our friends.”

If the transition is going to happen, however, it’s not the case that unleashed market forces by themselves will get us to where we want to be. As Bryk recognized, we know that there are “communities across the country that have been overburdened by pollution and underserved by the clean energy solutions.” There is a disconnect, and it’s important to think about what, as she says, a “just and orderly transition looks like, economic sector by economic sector. To make that transition orderly, we will need policies to be put into place that avoid the failures that often occur in the market. “That’s part of what we have to think about when we are thinking about equitable transition … all of those opportunities to intervene and help it work better and prevent the bad things from happening that can happen in a transition.”

The approach of the current administration will pose the greatest challenges to our ability to create just policies. Although states and communities have power, states cannot do everything when plans involve, for example, Federal leases, and the government may renege on those contracts. This makes it extremely difficult to conduct business. “What can you rely on if you can’t rely on the signature of the US government on a signed contract?” Bryk asked. The opposition of the Federal government to enabling a clean energy transition is especially surprising, given that data shows economic forces are already pushing in that direction. Sosland reminded us that in the Northeast region of the country, energy production was 21% based on coal just 10-15 years ago. It is now less than 1% coal. Market pressures are driving the shift away from fossil fuels. This is why the panel believes that the transition is inevitable, but the opposition of the Federal government will delay the transition timeframe, and that may or may not be the time that we have. International agreements aim to achieve goals by 2030, 2035, and 2050. If we are not on track to meet the first targets, we will either not meet or it will be much more expensive to meet the 2050 target. So, while the technology and ingenuity is in place, the policies of the current administration are incredibly damaging. “This isn’t a blip, necessarily, that is affordable. Losing four or more years is really going to be damaging to meeting the 2030, 2035 targets as we head to 2050,” Sosland reminded us. “There is an enormous amount to worry about,” Bryk said. We are currently in a very precarious position. I have confidence in the states, cities, communities, and some businesses. But, we are not meeting many targets that many states and companies have set. And now we are being hamstrung in a way … that’s out of our power. But there are always other places where we can make a lot of progress,” said Bryk.

And this last comment highlighted the areas of optimism that the panel wanted to emphasize. While the stance of the current US administration can be disheartening, the panel believes that considerable good can be achieved at the state and local levels.

For example, small communities are doing quite a bit. Putting solar farms on landfills. Creating bike paths as alternatives to cars. Massachusetts has incentives to adopt very stringent energy codes, so new buildings are being constructed to very high standards. Many states with climate policies are demonstrably improving the quality of life in their communities. Almost all states (44) participate in the Climate Pollution Reduction Grant Program, a policy initiated under the IRA. Whether or not these states have explicit climate policies doesn’t matter as much as the fact that they see good reasons to pursue a migration to a clean energy infrastructure. They have recognized that we are always spending money on energy infrastructure, so we can choose to allocate it to options that will yield greater benefits and longer lifespans.

If there is so much agreement on the underlying principles, why does it still seem so difficult to talk about it? The answer to that seems to be that, at the current level of polarization in our society, it is challenging to discuss anything that has become a political litmus test. How to talk about this issue was branded by Bryk as the “question of our time.” The advice given by this panel was to adopt the old aphorism, “think globally, and act locally.” It is hard to have these conversations at the national level, but easier at the state level, and even easier at the community level. And there is something happening in almost every community that is part of a clean energy transition. So, getting involved at the local level, for example, with local faith organizations, was described as one of the best ways to engage in this issue while avoiding much of the damaging political rhetoric.

Leigh Chinitz is a Board Member of the Network for Responsible Public Policy (NFRPP).

The Trump administration implemented tariffs, then slashed some of those tariffs and then put some on pause. But the impact is still being felt.

The haircare industry is a multibillion-dollar industry and sources a lot of its materials from overseas. Many in the industry say they are scrambling to keep their costs under control.

Stream San Diego News for free, 24/7, wherever you are with NBC 7. WATCH HERE WATCH HERE

“It’s just been difficult trying to maintain a decent profit margin while not going up on the customers too much and also trying to keep what they need in stock,” Renee Smith, owner of Royal Creations Hair, told NBC 7.

Royal Creations is a Black-owned beauty supply store in San Diego. A sizable portion of their products are imported, according to Smith. Along with fluctuating prices, Smith says there have also been shipping delays.

Get top local San Diego stories delivered to you every morning with our News Headlines newsletter. SIGN UP SIGN UP

“One report I’ve seen says that haircare products are worth about $13.5 billion, in terms of its overall market, and it’s projected to increase to $14.5 billion by 2030,” said Dr. Alan Gin, an economics professor at the University of San Diego.

The impact is being felt by some people more than others.

“One other thing that I found in looking at this is that it’s expected that African American women are going to be more impacted by this than any other group because they spend more of their income on haircare products than other groups,” Gin said.

Some business owners are reflecting on their timing.

“This shop cost about 50 ($50,000) to $60,000 to get up and running, and that’s with me doing a lot of the work,” said Ruth Quiacho, the owner of The Clipper Game Barbershop. “But if I were to do it now, it would be astronomical for me to get all of my things from overseas. It would be upwards of $100,000.”

It remains to be seen if the tariffs that are suspended will be implemented again and how that will further complicate operating a business.