As President Donald Trump fights to win battleground state Michigan, there is evidence that his tariff policies have hurt his chances. Steel and agriculture are important industries in the state and billions of dollars have been lost due to tariffs.

In March 2018, the Trump administration imposed a 25% tariff on steel in order to protect American steel mills from foreign competition. The tariffs decreased demand for steel from the auto industry and other consumers, hurting steel plants.

Great Lakes Works, one of the largest mills in Michigan, laid off 1,250 workers in June and shut down steelmaking operations. The plant is owned by Pittsburgh-based U.S. Steel.

A Reuters analysis reveals that Michigan steelmakers have issued layoff notices to 2,000 workers since the tariffs were implemented. 

The trade war has also hurt Michigan farmers. When Trump announced new tariffs on $60 billion of Chinese imports in May 2019, some farmers spoke out against the move. 

“The noose is getting tighter,” president of the Michigan Agri-Business Association Jim Byrum told the Detroit Free Press that month. “We have lost market opportunities. We’re not shipping soybeans around the world like we normally would. We’re not shipping them to China. China was our biggest soybean consumer, and they’re not moving.”

The Agriculture Department launched the Market Facilitation Program (MFP) to help farmers in 2019. The program distributes payments to farmers negatively impacted by the trade war. 

A report by the Government Accountability Office published in September found Michigan farmers received less on average from the MFP than farmers in other states.

Tariffs Hurt the Heartland notes that Americans have paid over $60 billion in tariffs since the trade war began. In Michigan, more than $2 billion in tariffs have been paid by taxpayers while 1.1 million jobs in the state are supported by

By Sarah White and Jessica DiNapoli

PARIS/NEW YORK (Reuters) – A war of words between LVMH and Tiffany escalated on Tuesday with the French group describing Tiffany’s prospects as “dismal” and the U.S. jeweller accusing LVMH of improperly trying to renegotiate a takeover deal.

The Louis Vuitton owner’s $16 billion purchase of Tiffany <TIF.N> came close to collapse this month after LVMH <LVMH.PA> said it could not complete the deal by a Nov. 24 deadline, triggering a legal battle.

LVMH cited an official foreign ministry request to delay closing the deal to January, following trade tensions with the United States and worsening business conditions at Tiffany because of the coronavirus emergency.

Tiffany, in turn, sued LVMH in a Delaware court, accusing it of deliberately stalling completion of the deal, which was agreed last year before the pandemic emerged. It is seeking a court order to force LVMH to honour the original deal and a four-day trial is scheduled to begin on Jan. 5.

On Monday, LVMH filed its countersuit, detailing its accusation that Tiffany was mismanaged during the pandemic.

It described the U.S. jeweller’s prospects as “dismal” and said its decision to cut marketing expenses, take on additional debt and pay regular dividends despite the crisis meant it was a different company from the one LVMH had agreed to buy.

“The business LVMH proposed to acquire in November 2019 -Tiffany & Co, a consistently highly-profitable luxury retail brand, no longer exists,” LVMH said in the document.

LVMH’s argument is that the pandemic provides a “material adverse effect” allowing it to walk away from the contract.

It also said Tiffany stands to profit “far more” if the deal proceeds than as a standalone company. Tiffany’s top five executives are in line to receive at least $100 million in total compensation if

By Sarah White and Jessica DiNapoli

PARIS/NEW YORK (Reuters) – A war of words between LVMH and Tiffany escalated on Tuesday with the French group describing Tiffany’s prospects as “dismal” and the U.S. jeweller accusing LVMH of improperly trying to renegotiate a takeover deal.

The Louis Vuitton owner’s $16 billion purchase of Tiffany

came close to collapse this month after LVMH

said it could not complete the deal by a Nov. 24 deadline, triggering a legal battle.

LVMH cited an official foreign ministry request to delay closing the deal to January, following trade tensions with the United States and worsening business conditions at Tiffany because of the coronavirus emergency.

Tiffany, in turn, sued LVMH in a Delaware court, accusing it of deliberately stalling completion of the deal, which was agreed last year before the pandemic emerged. It is seeking a court order to force LVMH to honour the original deal and a four-day trial is scheduled to begin on Jan. 5.

On Monday, LVMH filed its countersuit, detailing its accusation that Tiffany was mismanaged during the pandemic.

It described the U.S. jeweller’s prospects as “dismal” and said its decision to cut marketing expenses, take on additional debt and pay regular dividends despite the crisis meant it was a different company from the one LVMH had agreed to buy.

“The business LVMH proposed to acquire in November 2019 -Tiffany & Co, a consistently highly-profitable luxury retail brand, no longer exists,” LVMH said in the document.

LVMH’s argument is that the pandemic provides a “material adverse effect” allowing it to walk away from the contract.

It also said Tiffany stands to profit “far more” if the deal proceeds than as a standalone company. Tiffany’s top five executives are in line to receive at least $100 million in total compensation if the deal