Category: Uncategorized

Former Health Secretary Sir Jeremy Hunt has warned that the UK risks “over-medicalising” everyday life events such as bereavement and job loss, cautioning against a growing trend of signing people off work with anxiety and depression.
Speaking at the Buxton Literary Festival, the former Chancellor said he believed the country had gone too far in medicalising normal human experiences, as welfare claims linked to mental health continue to rise.
“Everyone has trauma – bereavements, sometimes losing their jobs. That is not the same as mental illness,” Hunt said. “I think it’s immoral we are signing off 3,000 people a day saying they don’t have to look for work.”
Hunt, who served as Health Secretary from 2012 to 2018, highlighted that many of those receiving fit notes for mental health conditions would benefit more from social contact and routine than isolation.
“The majority of those have anxiety and depression, and the one thing they need is social contact. If you sign them out of the world of work, their anxiety is going to get worse rather than better.”
His comments come amid significant debate within Westminster over welfare reforms. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), the number of working-age adults in England and Wales claiming disability benefits has jumped by nearly 1 million since 2019, reaching 2.9 million—or 7.5% of the population aged 16 to 64.
Around 500,000 of those new claims are attributed to mental health conditions, particularly anxiety and depression.
The government has faced internal resistance over plans to tighten benefit assessments, with critics arguing that the NHS still lacks sufficient mental health resources to offer viable alternatives to work-related stress or burnout.
While Hunt supports greater openness around mental health, he warned that simply removing individuals from the workplace without adequate support was a disservice to both patients and the public purse.
“What we should be doing is increasing mental health provision on the NHS. For that individual, it’s far better—but it’s also better for Rachel Reeves when she’s trying to make the numbers add up for her budget.”
In a wide-ranging talk, the Godalming and Ash MP also gave his backing to Kemi Badenoch, the new leader of the Conservative Party, who succeeded Rishi Sunak after the Tories’ historic defeat at the last general election.
“We’ve had four leaders in four years. If changing leader was the answer, we’d be doing much better in the polls than we are doing.”
Hunt said Badenoch needed to “move on from contrition” and begin “offering solutions” to Britain’s economic and social challenges.
“There’s a football pitch-sized hole in politics for a party offering solutions. Labour is ducking decisions; Reform is not credible.”
Asked whether he might return to frontline politics, Hunt ruled out a permanent comeback but said he would support Badenoch “if it would help” ahead of any future election.
On a lighter note, the veteran MP joked that his poll ratings may have improved thanks to photographs of him with his family labrador, Poppy, outside Downing Street last July.
“Someone tweeted, ‘God, he’s got a labrador—can I change the way I voted?’ That’s the British public!”
Read more:
Jeremy Hunt: ‘We’re over-medicalising anxiety and depression with sick notes’

Aston Martin Lagonda, the iconic British carmaker known for outfitting James Bond, has announced the sale of its stake in the Aston Martin Aramco Formula One Team as part of efforts to shore up its struggling balance sheet.
The $146 million deal, revealed in a binding letter of intent this week, values the Formula 1 team at $3.2 billion. While the buyer has not yet been disclosed, the move sees Aston Martin offload its 4.6% stake in the team—meaning it never held majority control to begin with.
The transaction marks a significant shift in Aston Martin’s strategy, as the company faces deepening financial challenges. Shares have lost over 50% of their value in the past year, and second-quarter revenues dropped by 34%, driven by sluggish demand for high-performance models such as the Valkyrie and the delayed Valhalla hypercar.
Compounding the pressure is a newly implemented US–UK trade agreement, which reduces auto tariffs to 10%, but only for the first 100,000 vehicles annually. Once that quota is reached, tariffs snap back to a punishing 27.5%—a brutal prospect for low-volume luxury manufacturers like Aston Martin.
Although this represents an improvement on the previously flat 27.5% rate, it’s still well above historical norms, and introduces added volatility into Aston Martin’s most critical export market.
Ironically, while the Aston Martin F1 team has had an underwhelming season on track, the rising commercial value of the sport helped the carmaker command a premium for its minority stake. Back in March, the company had forecast a sale price closer to $100 million, but the final deal ended up being nearly 50% higher.
The team is controlled by Lawrence Stroll, the Canadian billionaire whose Yew Tree Consortium owns 33% of Aston Martin Lagonda. His son, Lance Stroll, races for the team. Existing branding agreements mean the Formula 1 outfit will continue under the Aston Martin name, even as the manufacturer exits its equity position.
Adrian Newey, widely regarded as the greatest designer in Formula 1 history, has joined Aston Martin as managing technical partner, with a mission to lead the team to a world championship.
Despite current performance woes, there’s reason for optimism in the F1 garage. The team has secured the services of Adrian Newey, the legendary engineer behind Red Bull’s recent dominance. Combined with new regulations arriving in 2026, the reshuffle could present an opportunity for Aston Martin’s racing arm to move up the grid.
With its back against the wall, Aston Martin Lagonda is now in cash preservation mode. The divestment is aimed at refocusing on its core automotive operations and securing capital to support upcoming model launches and electrification efforts.
While Formula 1 will remain a key branding tool, the company is clearly prioritising survival over sentiment—cashing in on its minority holding to generate short-term liquidity.
Read more:
Aston Martin sells F1 team stake for $146m amid financial struggles

Millions of car buyers who were hoping for compensation over mis-sold motor finance have been denied redress following a significant ruling by the UK Supreme Court, in a partial victory for lenders that reins in what could have been a multibillion-pound scandal.
The decision overturns core elements of a 2023 Court of Appeal judgment that had favoured consumers in cases against lenders MotoNovo and Close Brothers, which analysts warned could expose the industry to up to £44 billion in compensation liabilities—rivalled only by the historic PPI scandal.
While the ruling curbs the legal precedent that consumer rights groups hoped to rely on, it does not spell the end of potential payouts. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) is continuing its own wide-ranging investigation into discretionary commission arrangements on at least 14.6 million car finance deals struck between 2007 and 2021.
The FCA is expected to announce its next steps within six weeks of the Supreme Court’s decision.
At the heart of the issue are “secret” or undisclosed commissions paid by lenders to car dealerships for arranging finance. Under so-called discretionary commission arrangements, dealers were allowed to set interest rates on loans—earning more commission the higher the rate, which critics say incentivised inflated borrowing costs for consumers.
These practices were banned by the FCA in January 2021 due to the clear conflict of interest. However, between 2007 and 2020, around 25.9 million car finance agreements were made—14.6 million of which involved discretionary commissions worth an estimated £8.1 billion.
The FCA’s intervention in early 2023 prompted a surge in complaints from affected borrowers, alongside a rise in claims management firms and legal teams offering to pursue compensation.
In October 2023, the Court of Appeal found that car dealers—acting as credit brokers—owed a fiduciary duty to their customers and ruled that undisclosed commissions could render finance agreements unfair and invalid. The judgment applied not only to discretionary commissions but also all forms of commission where transparency was lacking.
The decision sparked alarm across the financial services sector, raising concerns that the ruling could affect other industries with similar brokered commission models, such as insurance and energy.
Both MotoNovo and Close Brothers appealed to the Supreme Court, which reviewed the cases in April 2024. On Friday, the court overturned some of the most far-reaching elements of the earlier ruling—delivering a reprieve for lenders and limiting the likelihood of widespread litigation.
However, the court did uphold one of the original cases, specifically relating to partial commission disclosures—leaving the door open for more narrowly framed complaints to succeed.
Despite the Supreme Court’s decision, the FCA remains the central player in determining whether the motor finance industry will be forced to pay compensation.
The regulator is conducting a comprehensive review of historic car finance deals involving discretionary commissions and has previously signalled that an industry-wide redress scheme is likely. The FCA said it would issue a statement within six weeks outlining its response.
The government, concerned by the potential knock-on effects of mass compensation payouts on the UK’s financial sector, had earlier considered intervening in the legal process. With the Supreme Court now ruling in favour of lenders, the pressure on ministers to legislate may temporarily ease.
However, campaigners have warned that justice for affected consumers should not be swept aside.
While Friday’s ruling narrows the legal path for consumers to claim in court, it does not prevent regulatory action—and all eyes are now on the FCA’s next move.
What does the car finance ruling mean for consumers?
The issue centres on undisclosed commissions paid by lenders to car dealers for arranging finance deals. Under discretionary commission arrangements (used from 2007 to 2021), dealers could set interest rates and earn more commission by charging higher rates—often without telling the customer.
Why were consumers expecting compensation?
In 2023, the Court of Appeal ruled that dealers owed customers a fiduciary duty, meaning they should act in the borrower’s best interest. It also found that any commission not disclosed could make the loan unfair—potentially entitling millions of people to compensation.
What did the Supreme Court decide?
On Friday, the Supreme Court overturned the fiduciary duty finding and limited the scope of the previous ruling—meaning millions of potential claims based on that legal precedent will now fail. However, one case was upheld, suggesting some narrower claims may still succeed.
Does this mean compensation is off the table?
Not entirely. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) is still investigating 14.6 million finance deals involving discretionary commissions. It is expected to announce within six weeks whether it will order an industry-wide compensation scheme.
What should affected car buyers do now?
• Wait for the FCA’s update on possible redress.
• Check your finance agreement: If you had a loan between 2007 and 2021 arranged by a dealership, especially with high interest rates, you may have been affected.
• Avoid unregulated claims firms and seek advice from trusted sources like the FCA, Citizens Advice, or regulated law firms.
Read more:
Supreme Court ruling blocks car finance payouts for millions of consumers

President Donald Trump has signed an executive order to eliminate the long-standing de minimis tariff exemption for low-value imports into the United States—significantly increasing costs for UK exporters, global e-commerce sellers, and American consumers buying inexpensive goods from overseas.
From 29 August 2025, all goods entering the US valued under $800 will be subject to full duties, based on the country of origin and product category. The exemption, which previously allowed duty-free import of low-value packages, was a cornerstone of cross-border e-commerce and streamlined global trade.
Over the past decade, the number of low-value parcels entering the US has surged by more than 600%, according to US Customs and Border Protection. Shipments rose from 139 million in 2015 to over 1.36 billion in 2024, fuelled by the rise of e-commerce platforms like Temu and Shein, which rely on low-cost, high-volume delivery models.
The White House described the de minimis provision as a “catastrophic loophole” that enabled tariff evasion and the import of unsafe or below-market goods, including counterfeit products and synthetic opioids.
“We are ending this abuse of America’s trade laws and putting American jobs and safety first,” said a White House spokesperson.
While the order takes effect this summer, it will be made permanent on 1 July 2027 as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which aims to reshape US trade policy under Trump’s broader “America First” agenda.
The decision has sparked concern among UK exporters, particularly SMEs and e-commerce retailers, who rely on the de minimis route to ship low-cost goods into the lucrative US consumer market.
Marco Forgione, Director General of the Chartered Institute of Export & International Trade, called the move “deeply unsettling” for British businesses.
“Thousands of UK firms now face immediate new costs when trading into the US. This removes one of the few simple, low-friction routes into the American market,” he warned.
“We’re seeing a deliberate and muscular campaign by the US to rewrite the rules of global trade. From blanket tariffs to regulatory shocks, it’s becoming a riskier and more uncertain environment.”
Forgione added that UK policymakers must now consider how to defend access and competitiveness for exporters, and ensure any future review of de minimis thresholds supports jobs and protects supply chains.
Wednesday’s executive order was part of a wider set of tariff announcements by the Trump administration:

A 50% tariff on imported copper
A 25% tariff on India for purchasing Russian oil
A 40% tariff on Brazil, citing trade imbalances and unfair practices

This follows earlier moves to exclude China and Hong Kong from de minimis eligibility, in an attempt to curb the influence of Chinese e-commerce platforms and reduce reliance on overseas manufacturing.
Pharmaceutical firms have also come under pressure, with the White House reportedly writing to industry leaders demanding additional price cuts—signalling a full-spectrum trade strategy spanning tech, energy, health, and manufacturing.
What’s next?
Although the Biden administration had previously sought to limit low-cost imports through new regulations, Trump’s move is a more sweeping reform with immediate consequences for importers, retailers, and logistics providers.
UK exporters are now urged to reassess their supply chain strategies and prepare for new customs barriers. Meanwhile, industry bodies are calling for a coordinated international response to preserve the rules-based trade system and protect access for smaller businesses.
While American travellers will still be able to bring back $200 of personal items duty-free, and gifts valued under $100remain exempt, the days of effortless cross-border shopping may be numbered.

Key Change
Impact on UK Exporters

End of $800 de minimis threshold
All shipments to US now subject to import duties, regardless of value

New duties on all low-value imports
UK firms face higher costs to reach American consumers

Exemption suspended for China and Hong Kong
Popular low-cost routes like Temu or Shein excluded

Permanent change from July 2027
Businesses must prepare for permanent tariff regime

Personal and gift allowances remain
Travellers can still bring back $200 personal goods; $100 gifts remain exempt

Higher compliance costs for SMEs
Small firms must absorb or pass on new administrative and duty costs

Greater customs friction and delays
Longer customs processes likely for all parcels under $800

Risk to e-commerce business models
Online retailers reliant on high-volume, low-cost US sales under pressure

Export competitiveness impacted
Reduced price advantage may lower demand from US buyers

Read more:
Trump ends de minimis tariff exemption, hitting UK exporters and global e-commerce

Jeremy Clarkson has revealed a bovine tuberculosis (TB) outbreak has struck his Diddly Squat Farm in Oxfordshire, leaving him and his team “absolutely devastated.” The infection, which affects cattle and not humans, will force the culling of at least three animals, including a cow currently pregnant with twins.
The 65-year-old broadcaster-turned-farmer shared the news on social media, writing: “Bad news from Diddly Squat. We’ve gone down with TB. Everyone here is absolutely devastated.”
When asked by a fan if his prized Aberdeen Angus bull, Endgame, had tested positive, Clarkson said the result was “inconclusive,” adding: “I couldn’t bear it if we lost him.”
The infected cow, he confirmed, was pregnant with twins. Under current UK regulations, infected cattle must be culled to prevent further spread of the disease. “They have to be culled. It’s the law,” Clarkson responded to one follower hoping for a recovery.
Bovine TB remains a persistent issue in parts of England, particularly the South West and West Midlands. Between April 2024 and March 2025, more than 21,000 cattle were slaughtered following TB outbreaks.
Clarkson has spoken out before about the devastation caused by TB, and about badgers’ role in spreading the disease. In previous series of Clarkson’s Farm, he criticised wildlife protection laws, describing badgers as “b*****ds” responsible for spreading TB and devastating farmers’ livelihoods.
Kaleb Cooper has now updated his followers on those cows, three of which have contracted Bovine Tuberculosis, which is an infectious disease of cattle caused by the bacterium Mycobacterium bovis
“I actually called them b*****ds and showed people what they actually do. It’s truthful,” he said in 2023. “Do not be fooled by Brian May. This is how much heartache they’re causing to people who’ve worked for generations to build up a farm that’s been wiped out by badgers.”
In the same year, Clarkson admitted to shooting badgers on his farm under licence. After activists reported blocked badger setts, police visited the farm. Clarkson said he told them: “I’ve shot all the badgers on the farm so why would I want to fill in their setts?” – insisting the action was legal.
The emotional toll of TB on farmers was also highlighted last year by Clarkson’s Farm co-star Kaleb Cooper, who shared on Instagram that three of the 21 dairy cows he co-owns had tested positive for TB. Holding back tears, Cooper said: “I don’t really know how to describe the emotion… It’s hard.”
The latest outbreak marks a fresh setback for Clarkson and his Diddly Squat team, whose efforts to manage a working farm have become a national talking point through the Amazon Prime documentary series.
Read more:
Jeremy Clarkson devastated as Diddly Squat Farm hit by TB outbreak

Residential property transactions rose in June 2025, providing a welcome boost to Chancellor Rachel Reeves and signalling growing confidence in the housing market.
According to HMRC’s latest monthly property statistics, 95,080 residential properties were sold in June, with commercial transactions also showing an upward trend at 10,190 sales. The figures suggest activity in both sectors is returning to normal levels after recent volatility.
Heather Powell, Head of Property at leading advisory firm Blick Rothenberg, described the figures as “much-needed good news” for the Chancellor, noting that both residential and commercial sales are approaching the average monthly totals seen over the past three years—once the artificial peaks and troughs caused by changes to Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT) are stripped out.
“Property transactions are a good barometer of the health of the economy,” Powell said. “Both businesses and individuals commit to major transactions when they are feeling confident and optimistic about the future. The Chancellor will be hoping that this trend will continue, and the other economic statistics will follow.”
The increase in transactions comes amid a broader narrative of tentative economic recovery, supported by improving mortgage conditions and growing buyer interest in key urban areas. The government will be watching closely in the months ahead to see whether this upward trend in property sales translates into a sustained rise in tax receipts and economic momentum.
Read more:
UK property sales rise in June, offering boost to Chancellor Rachel Reeves

Donald Trump’s sweeping tariff regime is set to face a crucial legal test on Thursday morning, just hours before a major wave of new import duties is scheduled to take effect. The case could determine whether the former president’s aggressive trade policy, justified under emergency powers, can legally stand.
In an extraordinary full-bench hearing, all 11 judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington D.C. will review whether Trump overstepped his authority by invoking the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to justify broad “reciprocal” tariffs on dozens of countries.
The case stems from a May ruling by a three-judge panel of the Court of International Trade, which found Trump’s invocation of emergency powers under the IEEPA unjustified and blocked the tariffs. However, that ruling has been stayed pending Thursday’s appeal hearing, meaning the tariffs can still go into force if upheld.
Trump, posting on his Truth Social platform, called it “America’s big case,” claiming: “If our country was not able to protect itself by using TARIFFS AGAINST TARIFFS, WE WOULD BE ‘DEAD,’ WITH NO CHANCE OF SURVIVAL OR SUCCESS.”
The lawsuit has been brought by a coalition of five small U.S. businesses and 12 Democrat-led states. Their argument centres on the original intent of the IEEPA, which allows presidents to respond to “unusual and extraordinary threats” during national emergencies. The plaintiffs contend that Trump’s use of the statute to justify retaliatory tariffs—based on the trading policies of other nations—does not meet the legal threshold.
They are represented by the Liberty Justice Center, a libertarian public interest law firm with financial backing from conservative megadonors Robert Mercer and Richard Uihlein—ironically both major supporters of Trump’s presidential campaigns.
At stake is a central pillar of Trump’s economic policy. The reciprocal tariff programme imposes duties of up to 30% on a range of imported goods and has already provoked retaliatory measures from the European Union, China, and other major trading partners.
If the court sides with the plaintiffs, it could force a dramatic rollback of the policy, delivering a major blow to Trump’s efforts to reframe America’s global trade relationships. Conversely, a win for Trump would enshrine broad presidential powers over trade, significantly weakening the role of Congress in shaping tariff policy.
The appeals court’s ruling is expected in the coming days, but with the tariffs due to take effect at midnight, today’s hearing is widely seen as a last-minute battleground in a politically explosive case with wide-ranging implications for U.S. trade, law, and executive power.
Read more:
Trump’s tariffs face pivotal court test hours before scheduled rollout

The US Federal Reserve held interest rates steady on Wednesday, resisting intensifying political pressure from President Donald Trump, even as new economic data revealed stronger-than-expected headline growth.
The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) voted to keep its benchmark rate in the range of 4.25 to 4.5 per cent, a level it has maintained since December. While widely expected, the decision drew immediate fire from Trump, who had earlier urged the central bank to cut borrowing costs following a 3% annualised GDP rebound in the second quarter.
Using his favoured nickname for Fed Chair Jerome Powell, Trump posted on social media: “WAY BETTER THAN EXPECTED! ‘Too Late’ MUST NOW LOWER THE RATE. No Inflation! Let people buy, and refinance, their homes!”
The Fed’s post-meeting statement reiterated its data-dependent approach, stating it would adjust monetary policy if necessary to “impede the attainment of the committee’s goals.” It acknowledged moderating growth, persistent inflation concerns, and global developments as key inputs to future decisions.
While the headline GDP figure appeared strong, analysts were quick to note that much of the gain was due to a sharp drop in imports, which flattered the overall number. Measures of consumer spending and business investment, by contrast, slowed significantly. A separate Commerce Department gauge of core domestic demand fell from 1.9% to 1.2%, raising concerns that the economy is losing momentum beneath the surface.
“Beneath the topline figure, the economy is switching to a lower gear but not going in reverse,” said Bernard Yaros, lead US economist at Oxford Economics. “The Fed can afford to wait and see how tariffs play out before moving.”
Still, cracks are beginning to appear in the Fed’s consensus. For the first time since 1993, two members of the FOMC dissented, favouring a 0.25 percentage point cut, a sign that internal pressure to ease is mounting.
Nigel Green, CEO of financial advisory firm deVere Group, said the pause had been expected but was likely a prelude to a rate cut in September.
“The Fed has likely just bought itself eight more weeks before a pivot,” Green said. “The case for cutting isn’t built on fear—it’s built on realism. Growth isn’t reversing, but it is thinning out.”
He noted that while the GDP number looked impressive, it was driven largely by trade distortions, not broad-based expansion. Consumer behaviour, he added, is starting to shift.
“We’re seeing a transition. People aren’t panicking, but they’re hesitating. They’re thinking harder about where and how they spend,” Green said. “Smart investors will adjust early.”
The Fed’s decision to hold steady also came as inflation ticked up for a second consecutive month in June, adding to the bank’s caution. Still, with inflation trends softening overall and global growth moderating, the Fed appears to be edging closer to a policy shift.
Isaac Stell, Investment Manager at Wealth Club, said the Fed was balancing robust data with signs of deceleration.
“Hot on the heels of stronger-than-expected GDP, the Fed held rates steady for a fifth consecutive meeting,” Stell said. “But the fact that two governors broke ranks is significant. It signals the internal debate is heating up.”
Despite Trump’s public lobbying, Powell has so far stuck to the Fed’s independent mandate, resisting calls for immediate monetary easing. With a presidential election on the horizon and trade tensions weighing on sentiment, the stakes are rising.
As central banks in the UK, Canada and Europe have already begun cutting rates in response to falling inflation, the Fed’s next move is under increasing scrutiny. Many analysts now expect the first US rate cut to arrive in September, especially if incoming data continues to show weakening domestic demand and cautious consumer behaviour.
For now, the Fed remains in wait-and-see mode—but the wait may not last much longer.
Read more:
Federal Reserve defies Trump and holds rates steady as signs of economic slowdown emerge

Adidas has confirmed it will raise prices for customers in the United States after warning that new tariffs imposed by the Trump administration will add an additional €200 million (£173 million) to its costs this year.
The German sportswear giant said nearly half its products are manufactured in Vietnam and Indonesia, which were both recently targeted in new trade agreements that impose 20% and 19% tariffs respectively on goods shipped to the US. The company warned that these tariffs will directly increase the cost of Adidas products in the American market.
“The tariffs will directly increase the cost of our products for the US with up to €200 million during the rest of the year,” said Bjorn Gulden, chief executive of Adidas. “We still don’t know what the demand impact will be if these tariffs cause major inflation.”
The impact of tariffs is already being felt by Adidas, which joins a growing list of global companies forced to pass higher supply chain costs onto consumers. Nike, one of Adidas’s key rivals, raised prices in June and warned the tariffs could add $1 billion (£730 million) to its own costs.
Adidas, known for popular trainer lines like the Gazelle and Samba, has said it is unable to produce most of its products in the US, making it particularly vulnerable to Washington’s shift toward protectionist trade policies. The company’s reliance on Asian supply chains—27% of Adidas products are made in Vietnam and 19% in Indonesia—has left it heavily exposed to the new levies.
Despite the tariff pressures, Adidas reported a strong first half, with sales rising 7.3% to €12.1 billion and pre-tax profits nearly doubling from €549 million to €1 billion. Footwear sales increased by 9%, while clothing revenue surged 17% in the second quarter.
The trade backdrop has grown more tense in recent weeks, with President Trump sealing a 15% tariff deal with the European Union, covering all imports, including cars. The agreement, which will take effect on August 1, is seen as a step back from Trump’s earlier threats of 30% tariffs on EU goods, but has still drawn criticism from European leaders.
Germany’s Chancellor Friedrich Merz has warned that the deal could cause “considerable damage” to Germany’s economy and ultimately harm the US as well.
This week, German carmakers Mercedes-Benz and Porsche outlined the financial toll of Trump’s trade measures. Mercedes said it expects €420 million in tariff-related costs this year, contributing to a 70% drop in second-quarter profits, while Porsche said it had raised prices by up to 3.6% to absorb the added expense.
Aston Martin and Stellantis have also cited US tariffs as significant headwinds. Stellantis, which owns brands including Vauxhall, Jeep and Peugeot, estimated that tariffs have already cost the group €300 million.
With Adidas now raising prices and more companies expected to follow, the broader impact of US trade policy is becoming increasingly visible—not just for businesses managing squeezed margins, but for consumers facing rising costs on everything from trainers to luxury vehicles.
Read more:
Adidas to raise prices as US tariffs add €200 million to costs