For most US small businesses, Trump’s tariffs aren’t the big issue they were

According to The Guardian, the latest U.S. tariff round is drawing a more muted response from many small and medium-sized businesses than earlier measures. The reported rates generally range from 10% to 12.5%, below prior levels cited by the paper, although some products and countries face higher levies. For New York City nonprofits, the relevant issue is not headline tariff policy but exposure embedded in procurement, facilities, and program delivery.

The cost signal is narrower, not absent

The source characterizes the new round as disruptive but less consequential for many businesses than previous actions.

That distinction matters for nonprofit operating models. A direct-importing organization may face a clear customs cost. Most organizations will instead encounter second-order effects: supplier price revisions, changed lead times, or substitutions in goods used for operations and services. The available reporting does not establish the scale of those effects for New York City nonprofits.

The practical error is treating a lower general rate as zero exposure. The article notes that higher rates still apply to certain products and countries, and that exemptions are already being created. Exposure therefore remains category-specific.

Refunds and litigation alter the planning baseline

The Guardian reports that approximately $122 billion in refunds from the prior tariff attempt have been accepted and are due to be paid. It also reports that some small businesses have filed lawsuits challenging the latest levies.

Neither development should be entered as operating revenue by a nonprofit unless its own customs and accounting records establish eligibility. A refund process may improve cash positions for affected importers, but the source describes it as bureaucratic and not yet covering all tariffs paid.

The litigation signal has a separate planning use. It increases policy uncertainty. Procurement teams should avoid embedding a temporary tariff assumption into multiyear budgets, fixed-price vendor agreements, or restricted-grant spending plans without a revision mechanism.

Build a procurement exposure map

For most nonprofits, the appropriate response is a compact compliance and cost review rather than a sector-wide alarm. Start with contracts that purchase physical goods, not every vendor relationship.

• Query vendors: Identify suppliers that import goods directly or source imported equipment, furnishings, technology hardware, or program materials.
• Tag the cost base: Separate contract price, shipping, customs-related charges, and possible supplier surcharges.
• Check contract language: Locate price-adjustment clauses, notice requirements, and fixed-price commitments.
• Protect grant budgets: Flag restricted budgets where a materials-cost increase cannot be absorbed through unrestricted funds.
• Track exemptions and refund eligibility: Maintain documentation where an organization has directly paid relevant duties.
• Reforecast selectively: Update only the affected procurement lines; do not inflate organization-wide overhead ratios without evidence.

The available evidence supports a narrower conclusion: tariffs remain an operational variable, but their fiscal weight appears uneven. For nonprofit finance teams, the next useful dataset is not a national tariff headline. It is a vendor-level inventory of where imported goods enter the organization’s cost structure.