American Companies Are Stocking Up to Get Ahead of Trump’s China Tariffs
Businesses plan to stockpile, raise prices and accelerate shift to manufacturing elsewhere
Businesses plan to stockpile, raise prices and accelerate shift to manufacturing elsewhere
By 9 p.m. on election night, it had become clear to Jason Junod that Donald Trump was returning to the White House. That night, he contacted his skin-care company’s suppliers in China to order a year’s worth of inventory for about $50,000—as much as he could afford to buy and had room to store.
His hope is that the roughly 30,000 body brushes and exfoliating gloves make it to Bare Botanics’ facility in Madison, Wis., before Inauguration Day. He thinks Trump is serious about his campaign promise to impose tariffs of 60% on all Chinese goods.
American businesses are dusting off a playbook they used during Trump’s first term: stocking up on imported goods before tariffs are enacted. They are also considering how to cope with the levies if and when enacted—whether they will be able to raise prices and whether they will need to find alternatives to their Chinese manufacturers.
“The biggest consideration is, do we stay in China?” Junod said.
When Trump began his trade war against China in 2018, U.S. businesses scrambled to front-load imports before tariffs were implemented, according to an International Monetary Fund analysis. As a result, the U.S.’s trade deficit with China—how much imports exceed exports—rose in 2018 before falling in 2019.

Already, exports from China surged last month, which some economists think could have been driven at least in part by front-loading amid uncertainty around election results. Outbound shipments from China rose nearly 13% in October from a year earlier, well above consensus expectations and up sharply from 2.4% growth in September.
Chinese exports growth should remain strong through the next few months because of front-loading, Wall Street economists said.
China remains the world’s top exporter of goods and the U.S. its top buyer. American companies bought roughly $430 billion of Chinese goods last year, with computer and electronic products making up the biggest chunk.
Wan Junhui, who works in marketing for an electronics manufacturer in Guangdong province, said his company has observed an increase in inquiries and “noticeable unease” from its U.S. clients recently. He said that tariffs so far haven’t affected sales significantly, but that buyers end up absorbing the levies and sometimes raising prices for their end customers.
“We’ll do our best to focus on reducing costs to help ease the situation and make it through this harsh winter,” he said.
Though China’s share of U.S. imports has declined to roughly 14% in 2023, from 22% in 2017, rising tariffs between the U.S. and China have done little to curb the overall U.S. trade deficit in global trade or China’s overall trade surplus.

The persistent trade imbalance is driven by strong demand from American consumers and weakening domestic demand in China, according to the IMF. U.S. firms have boosted their share of imports from places such as Vietnam, while China has increased exports to regions including Southeast Asia.
Tariffs aren’t paid by exporters, but rather by businesses that import products. Economists say those businesses usually pass on the bulk of the cost to consumers by raising prices.
Some economists doubt the U.S. will succeed in raising tariffs to 60% across the board on Chinese products. Economists at Goldman Sachs predict additional duties on China could average out to a 20 percentage-point increase in the effective tariff rate.
In addition to duties on Chinese goods, Trump proposed tariffs of 10% to 20% on imports from all countries.
That would be the worst-case scenario for Leah Dark-Fleury, co-founder of Stone Fleury, a natural-stone and porcelain wholesaler in San Francisco. She has been buying natural stone from the same supplier in China for two decades and imports most of her other materials from Europe.
When Trump imposed a tariff on Chinese natural stone during his first term, Dark-Fleury continued buying from China as usual. The company raised prices to compensate, but tried to not charge the full increase to stay competitive.
This week, she asked her supplier in China about the possibility of ordering about two shipping containers’ worth of natural stone under a payment plan to try to get ahead of tariffs. That could cost up to around $100,000 and last her between a few months and a year, depending on customer demand. In the longer run, she expects to raise prices on materials from China and shift some sourcing to Vietnam.
“I wish that I could buy enough to get us through the four years,” she said.
Toni Norton , owner of Fine Fit Sisters in Charlotte, N.C., sources body oil from China that is popular with customers in the summertime. She normally wouldn’t be stocking up until the new year, but is trying to order about 20,000 units before the end of the year.
If tariffs on Chinese products indeed reach 60%, Norton said she might have to stop selling body oil and focus more on her fitness-coaching services. She said she doesn’t think she has much room to raise prices on the body oil, which she mostly advertises on TikTok and sells for about $13, because “people like cheap things.”
Front-loading imports “is a short-term solution,” said Chris Tang , a professor of supply-chain management at the University of California, Los Angeles. Businesses are likely to need additional strategies in a world with persistently higher and broader tariffs.
Companies have already been moving manufacturing from China to places such as Southeast Asia and Latin America, a trend that is expected to continue—if buyers are able to find a suitable alternative to Chinese production.
A 2024 survey by Bain & Company found that 69% of chief executives and chief operating officers plan to reduce their company’s dependence on China, up from 55% in 2022.
Ryan Bursky , CEO of Lucidity Lights, a maker of lighting products in Boston, said the expectation of new tariffs is only accelerating a process under way at his company. Lucidity Lights made a strategic decision last year to begin sourcing outside of China, where it had previously done all of its production, in part because of the first phase of the trade war.
The company is on track to do about 15% of production in Cambodia this year, with plans to move about half of production out of China next year. He believes it is a better use of resources to invest in supply-chain diversification, rather than stockpiling.
Bursky said it has taken some time to find the right suppliers in Cambodia, which is still growing its manufacturing capacity and speed. But he thinks that the products made in Cambodia are better quality and that there is more attention to detail.
Joe Jurken , the founder and managing director of the ABC Group in Milwaukee, which helps U.S. businesses manage supply chains in Asia, expects China to still dominate manufacturing somewhat, even as his clients have beefed up sourcing from countries such as Vietnam, India and Cambodia.
China has developed infrastructure, communication and transaction channels that make doing business easy for Western companies, while those systems are still being developed in other countries, he said. Plus, it is hard for manufacturers in other countries to beat Chinese suppliers’ low prices.
“China will never be replaced,” Jurken said. “Other markets are an alternative.”
Junod, who started his skin-care business in 2020, has considered looking for manufacturers in Southeast Asia, but believes it would be difficult to replicate the low cost and high quality he has come to rely on from his Chinese suppliers.
“It feels like we’re being punished because there isn’t really anywhere else for us to turn domestically,” he said of Trump’s proposed tariffs. “We have no choice, really, but to pay them.”
A record-breaking $11 million sale at The Centennial Collection has set a new benchmark for luxury apartment living in Bondi Junction.
As interest rates, inflation and market sentiment fluctuate, investors are being urged to focus on data, not panic.
The Federal Budget may have softened some of its proposed tax reforms, but it has exposed a bigger issue: too many families are relying on wealth structures that no longer reflect the realities of modern life.
For many Australians, the 2026 Federal Budget initially felt like a direct challenge to the way wealth is created, held and transferred between generations.
The headlines were immediate: changes to capital gains tax, reforms to discretionary trusts, restrictions on negative gearing and increased scrutiny of investment structures. Unsurprisingly, affluent families, business owners and investors began asking the same question:
Is the way we hold our wealth still fit for purpose?
In recent days, the government has announced several significant amendments following industry consultation and public feedback, including exempting testamentary trusts from the proposed 30 per cent minimum tax and expanding capital gains tax concessions for small businesses.
The backdown is welcome. But it also highlights something much bigger.
This Budget has accelerated a conversation that many Australian families have been postponing for years.
The conversation is not really about tax. It is about wealth stewardship.
For decades, Australians have built wealth through businesses, property, investments and careful long-term planning. Yet many families have not revisited the legal structures surrounding those assets in years, sometimes decades.
We often see clients who have spent years building significant wealth, only to discover their legal arrangements no longer reflect their current circumstances.
Their children are now adults. They may own multiple properties.
They may have sold a business, entered a second marriage, become grandparents or accumulated digital assets that did not exist when their original estate plans were prepared.
The trust that distributes income may need to be reconsidered. The bucket company may no longer be so attractive.
The Budget has simply exposed a reality that already existed: wealth structures cannot remain static while life continues to evolve.
Importantly, trusts themselves are not the issue.
Trusts are legitimate planning tools that provide flexibility, protection and continuity. When used appropriately, they allow families to adapt to changing circumstances over time.
And neither is tax the issue, really. Getting the fundamentals right is more important for long-term, sustainable wealth than a few favourable tax treatments around the edges.

The real issue is complacency.
Too often, families create structures and assume the job is done. It isn’t.
Estate planning is no longer a document you sign once and file away in a drawer. It is an ongoing process that should evolve alongside your life.
We are also seeing a broader shift in how Australians define wealth itself. It is no longer just the family home and an investment portfolio.
Modern wealth includes businesses, digital assets, cryptocurrency, intellectual property, frequent flyer points and increasingly complex family arrangements.
At the same time, Australians are living longer than ever before, meaning wealth may need to support multiple generations simultaneously. This creates new responsibilities and new risks.
How do you help your children enter the property market without exposing family wealth to relationship breakdowns?
How do you structure wealth so that it remains a source of opportunity rather than future conflict?
These are the questions families should be asking now.
The recent debate surrounding testamentary trusts also serves as an important reminder that policy decisions can have unintended consequences for vulnerable Australians. It is encouraging that the government has listened to feedback and clarified its position.
But the lesson remains: the wealth landscape is changing.
Increasingly, governments, regulators and tax authorities are paying closer attention to how wealth is held and transferred. That means families cannot afford to adopt a “set-and-forget” approach to their structures.
The families who will be best placed for the future are not necessarily those with the greatest wealth.
They are the families with the greatest clarity. Clarity around ownership, succession and governance. And clarity around how wealth will transition from one generation to the next.
Ultimately, preserving wealth is not about avoiding change.
It is about preparing for it.
Because the greatest risk is not change itself.
It is losing the ability to respond to it.
Anthony Hunt is Co-Founder of Wealth Lawyers and former COO of Westpac Private Bank. He advises business owners, investors and affluent Australian families on wealth protection, succession planning and intergenerational wealth transfer
A 30-metre masterpiece unveiled in Monaco brings Lamborghini’s supercar drama to the high seas, powered by 7,600 horsepower and unmistakable Italian design.
French luxury-goods giant’s results are a sign that shoppers weren’t splurging on its collections of high-end garments in the run-up to the holiday season.