President Donald Trump’s expanding tariff campaign may backfire on American families, with new research by Yale University’s Budget Lab warning that the newly imposed and proposed duties could saddle U.S. households with up to $2,400 in additional costs in 2025 alone.

The analysis, released Wednesday, paints a stark picture of the cumulative effects of Trump’s trade policies—suggesting they could trigger a significant inflation spike, slower economic growth, job losses, and tighter consumer margins.

If all announced tariffs remain in place, the U.S. would face an 18% effective tariff rate—the highest seen in nearly a century, dating back to the protectionist Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930.

Tariffs Surge, Prices Follow

The study factors in new tariffs on a wide swath of imports, including Trump’s planned 50% duty on copper—a vital component for construction, electronics, vehicles, and national defense—as well as sweeping new rates targeting Brazil, Japan, South Korea, and potentially the pharmaceutical sector.

Already, copper prices surged 10%, reaching a historic high just hours after Trump confirmed the move. Analysts say this increase signals broader inflationary risks across industries dependent on copper.

“If this is the case, American businesses will pay a lot more than 10% extra to buy copper, raising prices for all products that use copper,” said Peter Schiff, Chief Economist at Euro Pacific Asset Management.

Schiff, a long-time critic of protectionist trade measures, warned the tariffs would ignite a consumer cost crisis.

“As I warned, Trump just imposed an additional 25% tariffs on imports from South Korea and Japan… Consumers need to brace for much higher prices and get used to higher interest rates.”

What Will Get More Expensive?

According to Yale’s model, clothing, shoes, electronics, metals, leather goods, and cars will bear the brunt. In the short term, clothing prices are expected to rise 37%, shoes by 39%, and electrical equipment by 26%. Long term, prices may stabilize—but not before settling 18% higher on average.

Even everyday essentials like coffee, fruits, vegetables, and orange juice—especially those imported from Brazil—are projected to become more expensive. Groceries may see more moderate increases, but they still compound the cost-of-living burden for low-income households.

GDP Loss, Jobs at Risk

The tariff blow won’t just be at the checkout counter. Yale projects a 0.7% drop in U.S. GDP in 2025 and a 0.4% increase in the unemployment rate, as businesses cut jobs or delay hiring to manage rising costs. The damage could be more permanent too: with tariffs in place long term, GDP would remain 0.4% smaller every year, amounting to an annual loss of $110 billion.

Sectors like construction, agriculture, retail, and auto manufacturing are expected to be disproportionately affected. Yale researchers did note a possible 2% increase in U.S. manufacturing, but they cautioned that this boost comes at the cost of broader economic stability.

Massive Revenue or Massive Burden?

On paper, Trump’s trade strategy could generate $2.6 trillion in revenue between 2026 and 2035, with $2.2 trillion in net gains after accounting for losses. That projection is what the Trump administration points to in defending the tariffs as a vital revenue source and a measure to “level the playing field.”

However, economists warn this windfall is heavily regressive, coming at the expense of consumers and small businesses. Most of the revenue would be collected through higher prices on imports—paid indirectly by the public—not foreign exporters.

Businesses Brace for the Blow

A KPMG survey of 300 U.S. business executives found that 83% expect to raise prices in the next six months, and more than half say tariffs have already started to squeeze their profit margins.

“The full impact on consumers is likely still to come,” said Brian Higgins, Advisory Partner at KPMG US. “Many companies are holding off price increases until August 1.”

Despite the sweeping impact, the full extent of Trump’s tariff program remains uncertain. The president has frequently shifted positions on trade policy, earning the nickname “TACO Trump”—‘Trump Always Chickens Out’—due to delays and reversals.

After global markets plunged earlier this year following the announcement of Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs, the White House paused implementation for 90 days. That pause expires August 1, and most of the tariffs are now slated to kick in immediately thereafter. While some countries—like China, Vietnam, and the U.K.—have reached partial agreements, Trump continues to send letters to foreign governments saying rates could still change depending on the “relationship with your Country.”

Notably, Yale’s $2,400 cost estimate does not account for potential Federal Reserve responses, such as interest rate adjustments, that could further impact household budgets. Should inflation accelerate, the Fed could be forced to hike rates again—raising borrowing costs and mortgage payments for millions.

While the Trump administration insists the tariffs are strategic and patriotic, the mounting data tells a more sobering story.

This month, Perplexity AI launched Comet, its AI-powered web browser that intends to challenge Google Chrome’s 68% market share. Also, this month, rumours emerged that Apple is buying the company.

No doubt, Perplexity will shape AI’s future, but how? 

In this article, I will explore why joining Apple is Perplexity’s best shot at shaping AI’s future, and why Apple needs to make this deal happen. 

Apple’s AI Crisis: Perception, Product, Strategy

Already, Apple faces a trifecta of challenges that make Perplexity an irresistible target. 

First, there’s a perception problem. Microsoft’s integration of OpenAI’s tech has added over $1 trillion to its market cap since 2023, recasting it as an AI leader. Apple, despite its $3.5 trillion valuation, is seen as lagging, with WWDC 2025 offering iterative updates but no game-changing AI breakthrough. Investors are restless, questioning if Apple’s innovation engine has stalled.

Second, there’s a product problem. Siri, once a pioneer, now falters against ChatGPT, Google’s Gemini, and Perplexity’s conversational AI. A 2024 user survey found 62% of iPhone owners rarely use Siri for complex tasks, citing its inability to handle nuanced queries like summarizing documents or planning trips. This gap risks making Apple’s hardware feel outdated.

Finally, a strategic problem: Apple’s privacy-first, on-device AI approach limits its access to the vast datasets fueling competitors’ cloud-based models. Perplexity, with its sophisticated AI trained on public web data, offers a shortcut to world-class AI expertise without compromising Apple’s privacy ethos, as its models can be adapted for on-device processing.

Perplexity’s Edge: Redefining the User Experience

Perplexity’s strength lies in its user experience, not just its tech. Unlike Google search, Perplexity delivers synthesized, cited answers, prioritizing clarity. Its newly launched browser, Comet takes this further, transforming browsing into an AI-driven experience. TechCrunch called Comet “a glimpse into a post-Chrome world,” positioning it against rivals like Arc, which blends browsing and productivity, and Anthropic’s Claude, which powers conversational AI. 

The Synthesis: What an Apple-Perplexity Future Looks Like

If a deal were to happen, how would Apple use its new prize? 

Based on Apple’s history with acquisitions like Beats Audio (which retained its brand) and Dark Sky (which was fully absorbed), two paths emerge.

Scenario A.

In this version, Perplexity’s technology is used to supercharge Siri and Apple Search behind the scenes. The Perplexity brand is sunsetted, and its team is integrated into Apple’s existing AI/ML divisions. This is the safe, incremental play—a much-needed upgrade to existing services, but one that falls short of a true paradigm shift.

Scenario B.

This is the move that could redefine the next decade. Instead of just a better Siri, Perplexity becomes a native OS-layer, creating a true “answer-first” operating system. The grid of apps becomes secondary to a conversational interface that can understand complex requests—planning trips, summarizing meetings, drafting emails—by synthesizing information from the web, your apps, and your data. 

I hope Tim Cook and Perplexity CEO Aravind Srinivas make this deal to happen. Fingers crossed.

The odds of a U.S. recession in 2025 have indeed dropped to their lowest levels since January 2025, reflecting growing optimism about a potential economic “soft landing.” According to recent data, betting markets like Kalshi and Polymarket peg the probability of a recession at around 19-22% as of early July 2025, a significant decline from earlier peaks of over 60% in April 2025 during heightened trade tension fears. This reduction is attributed to resilient labor market data, with unemployment steady at 4.2%, stable consumer spending, and easing inflation pressures.

However, some caution persists. The Conference Board Leading Economic Index (LEI) has signaled potential trouble, dropping ~5% annualized over six months, a trend that has historically preceded every U.S. recession since 1960. Additionally, concerns remain about tariffs, particularly if they escalate, and weaknesses in sectors like housing and manufacturing. The New York Fed’s recession model estimates a 29% chance by year-end, down from 70% in June 2023, while other forecasts, like Oxford Economics, also note lower risks due to positive economic momentum.

Despite the optimistic shift, policy uncertainty and potential trade disruptions could still pose risks, with some economists warning that overly aggressive tariffs or geopolitical shocks could push the economy toward stagflation or a downturn. For now, the data suggests a stronger economic outlook, but vigilance is warranted.

The drop in U.S. recession odds to the lowest levels since January 2025 carries significant implications for the economy, markets, policymakers, and consumers. The reduced recession probability, now at 19-22% according to betting markets like Kalshi and Polymarket, reflects confidence in a potential “soft landing,” where inflation cools without triggering a downturn. Stable unemployment (4.2%) and consistent consumer spending bolster this outlook.

Lower recession fears could encourage consumer spending and business investment, supporting sectors like retail and technology. However, lingering concerns about tariffs and trade disruptions may temper this optimism in trade-sensitive industries like manufacturing. The Federal Reserve may maintain or slightly adjust its current monetary policy stance, avoiding aggressive rate hikes or cuts.

With inflation pressures easing, the Fed could focus on sustaining growth while monitoring potential risks like tariff-induced price increases. Lower recession odds have contributed to bullish sentiment in stock markets, with the S&P 500 and Nasdaq showing resilience. Investors may favor growth-oriented sectors like tech and consumer discretionary, though volatility could persist if trade policy uncertainties escalate.

The drop in recession fears has kept Treasury yields stable, with the 10-year yield hovering around 4.3%. However, any unexpected tariff announcements could push yields higher due to inflation concerns. Sectors exposed to global trade, such as agriculture and industrial metals, may face pressure if tariffs disrupt supply chains, even with lower recession odds.

While the economy appears resilient, proposed tariffs (e.g., 10-20% on imports, up to 60% on Chinese goods) could raise costs, disrupt supply chains, and fuel inflation, potentially offsetting the positive economic momentum. A stronger U.S. economy benefits global markets, but trade tensions could strain relations with key partners like China and the EU, impacting global growth.

Stable employment and wages support consumer spending, but rising costs from tariffs could erode purchasing power, particularly for lower- and middle-income households. Persistent weaknesses in housing, as noted in the Conference Board’s LEI, could limit affordability, though lower recession fears may stabilize demand for home purchases.

Strong equity markets and economic growth disproportionately benefit wealthier households with investments, while lower-income groups face pressure from potential tariff-driven price increases on essentials like food and clothing. Manufacturing and housing sectors continue to lag, as indicated by the LEI’s decline, while tech and services thrive. This creates uneven job security and wage growth across industries.

States reliant on trade (e.g., Midwest manufacturing hubs) may face greater risks from tariffs, while tech-heavy regions like California benefit from growth in AI and consumer spending. The optimism around a soft landing contrasts with debates over trade policies. Supporters of tariffs argue they protect domestic industries, while critics warn of inflation and global retaliation, deepening political divides.

Despite lower recession odds, public sentiment remains mixed. Polls from early 2025 suggest many Americans feel economic strain due to past inflation, creating a disconnect between macroeconomic data and lived experiences. Urban centers tied to tech and services may see stronger growth, while rural areas dependent on agriculture or manufacturing face uncertainty from trade policies.

The U.S.’s push for protectionism could alienate trading partners, potentially isolating it economically and increasing costs for consumers. Conversely, a strong domestic economy could attract foreign investment, but only if trade disruptions are limited. Escalating tensions with China or other nations could exacerbate economic divides, with globalized industries (e.g., tech supply chains) facing higher risks than domestic-focused sectors.

The drop in recession odds signals a robust U.S. economy with potential for sustained growth, but it masks underlying divides. While markets and consumers benefit from stability, risks like tariffs, sectoral weaknesses, and inequality could undermine this progress. Policymakers face the challenge of balancing growth with mitigating trade-related disruptions.