Tarifflation Fallout: 39% of Global
Consumers Rethink Travel
BELLEVUE, Wash. -- (BUSINESS WIRE) -- 7/8/2025 -- Rising costs driven by tariffs are reshaping how global consumers live, shop, and engage with brands, according to a new study released recently by UserTesting. Conducted in partnership with Talker Research, the study surveyed 4,000 consumers across the U.S., U.K., and Australia and revealed that a growing number of people are scaling back spending, switching brands, and rethinking long-standing habits—from summer travel to everyday purchases.
Tariffs are no longer background noise, they’re triggering real lifestyle changes. Consumers across the globe are actively cutting back:- 42% are buying fewer products overall
- 27% are switching to generic or store-brand alternatives
- 18% are shopping second-hand more often
- 20% are traveling less
- And notably, 39% say tariffs caused them to reconsider their summer travel plans entirely
Price hikes are especially visible: 72% of U.S. consumers, 55% of Australians, and 68% of Brits report noticing tariff-related increases. Many are voting with their wallets—nearly half of U.S. and U.K. consumers who noticed these hikes say they’ve already switched away from their favorite brands to find better value.
As tariffs push prices upward, many consumers are reassessing where their products come from—bringing new awareness, and in some cases, a preference for domestically made goods. 54% of U.S. respondents, 61% of U.K. respondents and 64% of Australians reported they would be more likely to buy domestically manufactured products due to tariffs. Day-to-day, a majority of global respondents (53% across all three regions) show a preference for domestic brands, with only a small fraction preferring international alternatives. This suggests that tariffs aren’t just shaping wallets, but may be actively transforming how consumers think about product origin and brand loyalty.
The impact of tariffs goes far beyond bank accounts. Across all three regions surveyed, consumers report a growing sense of emotional strain—from stress and anger to sadness and feeling overwhelmed—as rising costs disrupt not just their budgets, but their sense of control.
In the U.S., the emotional weight appears to be hitting hardest. Over one-third of Americans say tariffs leave them feeling stressed (37%), with nearly a quarter feeling overwhelmed (23%) when hearing about economic changes tied to trade policy. Emotions are just as raw in other regions, with anger and frustration rising sharply in both Australia and the U.K.
Notably: - 31% of Australians and Brits alike say tariffs make them feel angry
- 26% of U.K. consumers report feeling sad about the current economic outlook, the highest across regions
As economic uncertainty stretches on, brands are now navigating an increasingly emotionally charged marketplace, where trust, tone, and transparency matter as much as price.
While many brands have raised prices, most consumers aren’t automatically assigning blame, yet. In fact, 54% (U.S.), 65% (Australia), and 55% (U.K.) say their perception of brands hasn’t changed.
The deciding factor? Honesty.- 72% of Americans,
- 82% of Australians, and
- 80% of Brits say that transparent communication about pricing changes is essential to maintaining their trust.
“Whether tariffs remain or not, it’s clear they’ve already reshaped consumer habits,” said Bobby Meixner, VP of Solution Marketing at UserTesting. “Consumers understand that price hikes may be out of a company’s control. What they’re looking for is honest, upfront communication—and they’re making purchase decisions based on it.”
A Global Shift in Sentiment- 78% of Australians and 62% of Brits believe U.S. tariff policy has negatively impacted their national economies.
- More than 25% of global respondents believe their country’s economy will never return to pre-tariff conditions.
- In the U.S. and U.K., a majority of consumers expect at least 19 months before they’ll see economic recovery.
- And 19% of consumers in the U.S. and U.K. say they’re considering a second job, side hustle, or longer hours just to keep up.
About the Study
The study was commissioned by UserTesting and conducted by Talker Research. A total of 4,000 consumers were surveyed between June 4 and June 12, 2025, including a nationally representative sample of adults (18+) across the United States (2,000), Australia (1,000), and the United Kingdom (1,000).
For more insights and the full report, click here.
Missouri's Abortion Bans Blocked
By Preliminary Injunction
Kansas City, Mo. (ACLU) – 7/6/2025 – A Jackson County circuit court judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking the enforcement of Missouri’s abortion bans and several targeted regulations of abortion providers. The new preliminary injunction clears the way for Missouri’s Planned Parenthood members to again provide procedural abortion care.
In May, the Missouri Supreme Court clarified the state’s legal standard for issuing a preliminary injunction, forcing the circuit court to temporarily vacate its original orders, and effectively implement a de facto abortion ban.
"While the clarification on the standard is welcome, its immediate consequence temporarily pulled back implementation of Missourians’ constitutional right to access abortion care and providers’ right to offer that care,” said Gillian Wilcox, Director of Litigation at the ACLU of Missouri. “This critical win begins to restore abortion access in our state, but Missourians must be vigilant and defeat the attacks on the constitutional rights that we secured at the ballot box last November.”
The order did not address the pending request to enjoin other targeted restrictions that are preventing medication abortion access from being restored in Missouri. Previously, both Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains and Planned Parenthood Great Rivers-Missouri submitted complication plans to satisfy the existing requirements to allow them to offer medication abortions. The Department of Health and Senior Services failed to respond to either affiliates’ submissions or follow-up inquiries for several weeks. Instead, the department manufactured an “emergency rule” that resembled many of the court-blocked regulations and cited it as the reason for refusing the submitted plans.
“Abortion is legal again in Missouri because voters demanded it and we fought for it. Care starts again on Monday in Kansas City. We’re not stopping until every Missourian can get the care they need, close to home.” said Emily Wales, president and CEO, Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains said. “
“We are grateful that procedural abortion can resume in the state of Missouri, just as voters demanded last November. However, the whiplash has created immense confusion for patients in Missouri,” said Margot Riphagen, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Great Rivers. “This decision is a step forward toward fully realizing Missourians' right to reproductive freedom, and the staff at our Central West End health center in St. Louis will work as quickly as possible to resume scheduling abortion appointments."
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains and Planned Parenthood Great Rivers-Missouri, who are represented by attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri, the American Civil Liberties Union, Crowell & Moring, and Planned Parenthood Federation of America. The full case is currently slated for trial in January 2026. (press release date: 7/3/2025)
Christian Nationalism
and the Rationalization
of Discrimination and Violence
Four Perspectives on the Dangers
6/19/2025
Center for American Progress
Christian Nationalism Is ‘Single Biggest Threat’ to America’s Religious Freedom - Center for American Progress
Religious liberty is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, yet the meaning of this core American value has been debated throughout the nation’s history. Today, conflicts most often arise from Christian nationalism, the anti-democratic notion that America is a nation by and for Christians alone. At its core, this idea threatens the principle of the separation of church and state and undermines the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. It also leads to discrimination, and at times violence, against religious minorities and the nonreligious.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Doubter's Parish
How the Religious Right Gets It Wrong and What to Do About It
By Martin Thielen
See: Doubter's Parish
Today, many (although not all) religious right Christians believe Jesus dislikes LGBTQ persons, immigrants, liberals, elites, science, welfare, MSNBC, wokeness, critical race theory, Joe Biden, non-Christians, and Democrats. On the other side of the ledger, they believe Jesus loves America, churchgoers, capitalism, the military, conservatives, Fox News, guns, MAGA Republicans, aggressive masculinity, and Donald Trump. The fact that the life, teachings, and example of Jesus challenge these assumptions doesn’t deter religious right Christianity one iota.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Lutheran Confessions
Why Conservative Christians Hate CompassionBy Clint Schnekloth
See: Lutheran Confessions
In recent years, conservative Christian voices have been on a tear, decrying compassion as a threat to traditional Christian values. The argument is that compassion—especially when it extends to marginalized groups—gives progressive Christians leverage to dismantle conservative moral teachings. . . . At the root of this backlash lies something far simpler than theological analysis: homophobia.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Christians Against Christian Nationalism
Statement from Christians Against Christian Nationalism
See: Statement
As Christians, our faith teaches us everyone is created in God’s image and commands us to love one another. As Americans, we value our system of government and the good that can be accomplished in our constitutional democracy. Today, we are concerned about a persistent threat to both our religious communities and our democracy — Christian nationalism.
Christian nationalism seeks to merge Christian and American identities, distorting both the Christian faith and America’s constitutional democracy. Christian nationalism demands Christianity be privileged by the State and implies that to be a good American, one must be Christian. It often overlaps with and provides cover for white supremacy and racial subjugation. We reject this damaging political ideology and invite our fellow Christians to join us in opposing this threat to our faith and to our nation.
Oklahoma Supreme Court Decision
Called a Win for Academic Speech
OKLAHOMA CITY (ACLU) -- 6/18/2025 -- The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled on July 17 that the state’s 2021 classroom censorship law does not apply to academic speech in higher education. The decision also leaves in place a preliminary injunction that prevents the enforcement of vague and borderline nonsensical prohibitions on instruction in K-12 schools. The suit was originally filed in 2021 on behalf of a diverse group of plaintiffs in K-12 and higher education.
“Almost four years since the initial filing, students and professors at Oklahoma’s universities and colleges have a clear answer: HB 1775 does not apply in Oklahoma’s higher education classrooms,” said Adam Hines, legal fellow at the ACLU of Oklahoma. “For far too long our educators have felt the impact of HB 1775 and its attempt to censor discussions about race and gender in the classroom. But the government is certain to appeal this victory, and parts of HB 1775 remain in effect in K-12 schools. We will continue to fight for the rights of Oklahoma’s K-12 students and families to receive an equitable education where they can freely learn and talk about the history, experiences and viewpoints of all marginalized communities in this country.”
Last year, a lower court also blocked the enforcement of two provisions restricting K-12 instruction because they are vague, fail to let educators know what course material is prohibited, and could prevent discussions of a wide variety of ideas, including those that are the subject to current political debates. These provisions remain enjoined. The state Supreme Court did not weigh in on the constitutionality of any of the provisions.
“This decision provides needed clarity to Oklahoma’s higher education instructors, and we are pleased with the outcome,” said Emerson Sykes, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “Students in higher education expect to be challenged and to debate difficult ideas, and they expect their instructors to help them learn and grow – not stick to government-approved talking points.”
The lead authors of the law in the state House and Senate declared the intent behind HB 1775 was to prohibit conversations related to “implicit bias,” “systemic racism,” and “intersectionality,” among other concepts. In the lawsuit, the groups argue that HB 1775 unlawfully silenced students’ and educators’ speech through its vague and overbroad terms. It also intentionally targeted and denied access to equitable, culturally relevant teaching and ideas that reflect the history and lived experiences of students of color, LGBTQ students, and young women and girls.
The case will now go back to federal court where a partial preliminary injunction is in place. Cross-appeals have been filed in the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit which are expected to proceed shortly.
“This ruling is another significant victory in the fight to end classroom censorship in Oklahoma” said Douglas Koff, partner at pro-bono cocounsel Schulte Roth & Zabel. “By confirming that HB 1775 does not apply to the higher education classroom, this decision allows Oklahoma’s college students and professors to have open and honest conversations about their history. We look forward to working alongside the ACLU, ACLU-OK, and Lawyers’ Committee in the continued fight to invalidate this law.”
“Today's decision ensures that at colleges and universities in Oklahoma, teachers can teach and students can learn about our country's history in full – including topics like systemic racism, gender inequality and LGBTQ+ rights,” said Maya Brodziak, senior counsel with the Educational Opportunities Project at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. “Our country needs to acknowledge and reckon with its history of systemic racism — this includes being able to teach and talk about these concepts in our schools. A prohibition on talking honestly about issues of race and racism hurts all students and society.”
The lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Oklahoma, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and pro bono counsel Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP on behalf of plaintiffs the Black Emergency Response Team (BERT); the University of Oklahoma Chapter of the American Association of University Professors (OU-AAUP); the Oklahoma State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP-OK); the American Indian Movement (AIM) Indian Territory on behalf of itself and its members who are public school students and teachers; a high school student; and Oklahoma public high school teachers Anthony Crawford and Regan Killackey.
For more information about the lawsuit, please see here.
ABOVE: Samuel Clemens, aka Mark Twain, was cemented as a premier writer of late 19th century America with his works "The Adventures of Tom Sawyer" and "Adventures of Huckleberry Finn." Find out more about his life and writing in this video.
