The new year for brick-and-mortar retailers is picking up right where 2024 left off, as a slew of stalwart brands are set to shutter dozens of store locations amid shifting consumer patterns.

The latest crop of closures are being led by fabrics and crafts retailer Joann, which said this week it was shuttering 500 locations in 49 states as part of a second go-around in Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization.

“This was a very difficult decision to make, given the major impact we know it will have on our team members, our customers and all of the communities we serve,’ the company said in a statement. ‘A careful analysis of store performance and future strategic fit for the company determined which stores should remain operating as usual at this time. Right-sizing our store footprint is a critical part of our efforts to ensure the best path forward for Joann.”

Joann first filed for bankruptcy protection last March to address a heavy debt load, shrinking revenues and what it described as an “uncertain consumer environment.” It announced another Chapter 11 filing last month, this time with the goal of finding an entity to acquire all of its assets.

‘The last several years have presented significant and lasting challenges in the retail environment, which, coupled with our current financial position and constrained inventory levels, forced us to take this step,’ it said in a release accompanying its latest filing.

Meanwhile, JCPenney separately said this week it was closing a handful of stores, with an initial batch of eight to go under depending on “expiring lease agreements” and “market changes.” 

“While we do not have plans to significantly reduce our store count, we expect a handful of JCPenney stores to close by mid-year,” the company said in a statement.

JCPenney emerged from bankruptcy in 2020; last month, it announced it was merging with the group that operates other retail brands, including Aéropostale and Brooks Brothers.

In the first nine months of its current fiscal year, JCPenney’s adjusted earnings tumbled nearly 64% to $66 million.

Those results reflect an overall physical retail environment that continues to deteriorate. According to Coresight Research, as many as 15,000 retail locations could close this year, nearly doubling the count for 2024, which were already the most since 2020, the first year of the Covid-19 pandemic.

“Inflation and a growing preference among consumers to shop online to find the cheapest deals took a toll on brick-and-mortar retailers in 2024,” Coresight Research CEO Deborah Weinswig said in a release last month. “Last year we saw the highest number of closures since the pandemic. Retailers that were unable to adapt supply chains and implement technology to cut costs were significantly impacted, and we continue to see a trend of consumers opting for the path of least resistance.’

She said customers are running out of patience for stores that are ‘constantly disorganized, out of stock, and that deliver poor customer service.’

‘We have seen Shein and Temu capture market share as consumers choose to shop online to save time, money, and avoid frustration,’ she said.

In the first weeks of 2025, Coresight was already tracking about 30% fewer openings and more than triple the number of closures compared with the same period last year.

Other closures announced late last year or planned for 2025 include Party City, Big Lots, Kohl’s and Macy’s.

Breakfast specialists Denny’s will accelerate planned store closures in 2025 amid continued consumer shifts toward preferences for fast-food and take-out options.

On an earnings call Wednesday, CFO Robert Verostek said the closures would incorporate a mix of poorly performing restaurants and ones with expiring leases.

According to industry publication Restaurant Dive, the new closures represent about 30 more from a previously planned shuttering of 150 locations.

Denny’s remains publicly traded; today, its shares are worth less than $5, compared to the most recent high of about $24 seen in 2019.

The brand ended last year with 1,334 U.S. stores, with most located in Arizona, California, Florida and Texas.

An investor presentation by Denny’s in October showed ‘family dining’ options like Denny’s were losing more foot traffic than any other dining-out category.

Other brand-names in the family-dining group seeing declining fortunes include Applebee’s, Hooter’s, Outback Steakhouse and TGI Friday’s. Some notable exceptions include Chili’s and Texas Roadhouse, which analysts say have benefited from improved value perception and investments in customer service.

And even as it accelerates closures, Denny’s is still planning openings, with at least 14 slated for this year; as well as some location refurbishments.

Consumers sharply curtailed their spending in January, indicating a potential weakening in economic growth ahead, according to a Commerce Department report Friday.

Retail sales slipped 0.9% for the month from an upwardly revised 0.7% gain in December, even worse than the Dow Jones estimate for a 0.2% decline. The sales totals are adjusted for seasonality but not inflation for a month, in which prices rose 0.5%.

Excluding autos, prices fell 0.4%, also well off the consensus forecast for a 0.3% increase. A “control” measure that strips out several nonessential categories and figures directly into calculations for gross domestic product fell 0.8% after an upwardly revised increase of 0.8%.

With consumer spending making up about two-thirds of all economic activity in the U.S., the sales numbers indicate a potential weakening in growth for the first quarter.

Receipts at sporting goods, music and book stores tumbled 4.6% on the month, while online outlets reported a 1.9% decline and motor vehicles and parts spending dropped 2.8%. Gas stations along with food and drinking establishments both reported 0.9% increases.

Stock market futures held in slightly negative territory following the release, while Treasury yields lost ground. Traders raised bets that the Federal Reserve could cut interest rates again as soon as June.

“The drop was dramatic, but several mitigating factors show there’s no cause for alarm. Some of it can be chalked up to bad weather, and some to auto sales tanking in January after an unusual surge in December due to fat dealer incentives,” said Robert Frick, corporate economist with Navy Federal Credit Union. “Especially considering December was revised up strongly, the rolling average of consumer spending remains solid,” Frick added.

Inflation remains ahead of the Fed’s 2% goal. The consumer price index posted a 0.5% gain in January and showed a 3% annual inflation rate. However, the producer price index, a proxy for wholesale prices, showed some softening in key pipeline inputs.

In other economic news Friday, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that import prices accelerated 0.3% in January, in line with expectations for the largest one-month move since April 2024. On a year-over-year basis, import prices increased 1.9%.

Fuel prices increased 3.2% on the month, also the biggest gain since April 2024. Food, feeds and beverage costs rose 0.2% following a 3% surge in December.

Export prices also increased, rising 1.3%.

Egg rationing is here.

With prices rising rapidly and showing no signs of slowing anytime soon, some of the nation’s biggest grocery store chains — including Trader Joe’s, Walmart and Costco — have begun limiting the amount of eggs individual consumers can buy.

This time last year, the average price for a dozen eggs was around $3, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. By last month, it had risen to around $5.

And egg prices are expected to climb this year by 20.3 percent, according to the latest outlook from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

Market analysts blame the price hikes on the highly infectious bird flu that has decimated the chicken population and reduced egg supplies during the winter holiday season, when the demand is strong. More than 13 million hens have been lost or slaughtered since December as a result of the bird flu outbreak, according to the Agriculture Department’s latest Egg Markets Overview.

Trader Joe’s is dealing with the shortages by limiting the amount of eggs customers can buy.

“Due to ongoing issues with the supply of eggs, we are currently limiting egg purchases to one dozen per customer, per day, in all Trader Joe’s stores across the country,” a spokesperson said in a statement. “We hope these limits will help to ensure that as many of our customers who need eggs are able to purchase them when they visit Trader Joe’s.”

Walmart is limiting bulk buyers to two 60-count cartons per purchase “to help ensure more customers can have access to eggs,” a spokesperson said.

“Although supply is very tight, we’re working with suppliers to try and help meet customer demand, while striving to keep prices as low as possible.”

There are no restrictions on purchasers of smaller quantities of eggs, the spokesperson said.

At Sam’s Club, purchasers are allowed to buy two cartons of each brand of eggs on the shelves, a spokesperson said.

But at Kroger and Aldi there is a two dozen eggs per trip limit, while Whole Foods and Costco are capping egg purchases at three one-dozen cartons per person in select stores.

Meanwhile, the White House found itself taking flak again from Democrats demanding that President Donald Trump fulfill his campaign promise to immediately start reducing the price of groceries.

“Over the last several weeks, you have done nothing to address these rising costs,” the Congressional Dads Caucus said in a letter Thursday to Trump. “Moreover, your flurry of executive actions has hampered the government’s response to effectively address the underlying causes of this crisis. Eggs are a basic necessity for families in our districts, and the financial burden caused by these surging prices must be resolved.”

In some areas of New York, “the average price of a dozen eggs has reached more than $8 in some stores,” said Tony Hernandez, spokesperson for Rep. Jimmy Gomez, D-Calif., who leads the group that fired off the letter.

In response to the harsh criticism from congressional Democrats, a White House spokesperson, Anna Kelly, blamed the egg crisis on the ‘Biden Administration’s slow and ineffective response to the bird flu outbreak, which began in 2022.’

“Moms and dads across the country gave President Trump a mandate to take every action to drive down costs, and he is delivering,’ Kelly said in emailed statement.

Trump and Brooke Rollins, who is the president’s pick to head the Agriculture Department, ‘will refocus the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) on its core mission: protecting the health of the United States’ plants, animals, and natural resources,’ Kelly wrote.

In New York City, some bodegas have taken to selling eggs one at a time because their customers can’t afford to shell out $10 or more to buy a dozen eggs, a price that is not unusual in the very expensive city.

“These people don’t have enough money to buy a dozen eggs, so I have to sell them separately,” Fernando Rodriguez, 62, owner of Pamela’s Green Deli in The Bronx, told the New York Post.

Fragrance brand Brown Girl Jane’s perfume bottles sit on shelves at Sephora near some of the most storied labels in the fashion and beauty world, including Prada and Dior.

For the Black-owned brand, getting a retailer to bet on it was just the start, Brown Girl Jane CEO and co-founder Malaika Jones said. She said Sephora has supported the company so it can better compete with well-known brands with huge marketing budgets and glossy celebrity endorsements.

Brown Girl Jane got a $100,000 grant last year to help grow its business through Sephora’s Accelerate program, which aims to boost founders who are people of color. Sephora spotlighted the fragrance brand in an email to customers in early February, putting it in front of potential shoppers who don’t know its name. Brown Girl Jane’s sales more than doubled after Sephora began carrying the company’s fragrances online and at select stores about a year ago.

While Sephora has put its weight behind its brand incubator, much larger retailers like Walmart and Target recently scaled back similar efforts focused on finding and funding more brands founded by people of color. Without that support from the retailers themselves, brands like Brown Girl Jane could face a tougher time getting on shelves — and succeeding once they get there.

“For small brands, but for any brands, really, it’s a constant fight for relevance and for visibility,” Jones said. “And so when you don’t have that commitment or even that understanding from the retailer side, it becomes quite difficult for small brands to survive — even when they’ve made it on shelves.”

When retailers launched supplier diversity programs — many of them in the months after police killed George Floyd in 2020 — top industry leaders including Walmart CEO Doug McMillon and Target CEO Brian Cornell spoke out about the institutional barriers that people of color face, including when financing their businesses. Now, as more retailers drop diversity, equity and inclusion programs, Black-owned brands may find it harder to clear those hurdles.

In January, Target dropped specific DEI pledges that it made four years ago after Floyd was murdered a short distance from its Minneapolis headquarters. Among those goals, the big-box retailer had committed to adding products from more than 500 Black-owned brands to its shelves or website and spending $2 billion with Black-owned businesses by 2025.

Late last year, Walmart confirmed that it was ending key diversity initiatives, including winding down the Center for Racial Equity, a nonprofit that the retailer started and funded with $100 million to tackle racial inequities. It had chosen finance as one of those focus areas, noting the gap in funding for Black entrepreneurs.

Gutting those efforts could jeopardize a valuable pathway for Black founders to build their businesses and reach the millions of shoppers who browse the websites and aisles at the nation’s largest and best-known retailers.

Not every major retailer has dropped DEI initiatives. Sephora, Costco and E.l.f. Beauty, among others, have reaffirmed their commitments. And the most prominent effort to increase the share of Black-owned brands on retail shelves, the 15 Percent Pledge, still has major backers.

Companies from Google to Ford and Tractor Supply have rolled back their initiatives to boost representation of people of color, women and LGBTQ+ people, as political backlash and pressure from conservative activists has intensified. The trend only accelerated after President Donald Trump issued an executive order banning DEI programs in the federal government and describing the efforts as “dangerous, demeaning, and immoral race- and sex-based preferences.”

It’s a sharp change from about five years ago, when companies released a wave of announcements committing to fighting inequity. They made bold pledges to add more diversity to their workforces and C-suites, seek out Black and minority vendors and donate to philanthropic causes that fought racism and supported expanded opportunities for marginalized groups.

Fear of litigation, activist investor scrutiny and political pressure has caused companies to backpedal or keep their initiatives below the radar, said Jon Solorzano, an attorney at Vinson & Elkins who advises companies on DEI.

One of those lawsuits targeted The Fearless Fund, an Atlanta-based venture capital fund dedicated to awarding grants to businesses founded by Black women to bridge a longstanding funding gap. Only 1.3% of the more than $345 billion raised by venture-backed startups in 2021 went to Black founders, according to Deloitte and Venture Forward’s 2023 report. About 2.4% went to startups led by female founders and 2.1% of that total went to startups led by Hispanic founders.

American Alliance for Equal Rights, a conservative group founded by Edward Blum, sued The Fearless Fund in 2023, accusing it of discriminating against non-Black business owners. Blum previously fought against race-based college admissions, a campaign that led to the Supreme Court’s ruling that affirmative action policies are unconstitutional — which some companies cited last year in ending their DEI initiatives.

As part of a settlement reached last year, The Fearless Fund shut down its grant program.

Solorzano said that lawsuit had a chilling effect and will “seriously undermine some of these [supplier] initiatives.” He said he expects more corporations to scrub numbers from their diversity programs, including supplier programs focused on increasing Black- and minority-owned brands on shelves.

Yet ending or scaling back efforts to seek out merchandise that reflects the diversity of U.S. consumers could put a company at risk, too, he said. Not only could companies face boycotts, but also they could miss out on fresher items and brands that help them stand apart from competitors.

Even as some retailers walk back diversity pledges, Sephora, Costco and E.l.f. Beauty, have doubled down on those efforts not as a feel-good move, but as a meaningful part of their business strategies.

Sephora, a 15 Percent Pledge member which is owned by LVMH, has increased the percentage of Black-owned brands on its shelves from 3% in 2020 to about 10% as of 2025, said Artemis Patrick, CEO of Sephora North America. In its hair category, 15% of the brands are Black-owned.

Sephora started Accelerate in 2016 with a focus on female founders. The six-month incubator helps mentor business owners, connects them to investors and gives them the opportunity to launch at Sephora.

The retailer pivoted the program in 2020 to focus on Black and other minority founders to address “the need of the evolving consumer and where we truly did feel like we had an assortment gap,” Patrick said.

So far, more than 33 Black- and minority-owned brands have gone through the incubator, she said.

“Our business is really good and the fact that we’ve been really focused on diversifying our assortment, I think there’s a strong correlation,” she said.

She added “it would be very strange in a beauty category to not be driving diversity in your assortment that meets the needs of your clients.”

At Costco’s annual meeting last month, 98% of shareholders rejected a proposal that requested a report on the risk of Costco maintaining diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.

In a proxy statement ahead of the meeting, the warehouse club’s board of directors said diversity benefits its business and helps it better serve a wide range of customers.

“Among other things, a diverse group of employees helps bring originality and creativity to our merchandise offerings, promoting the ‘treasure hunt’ that our customers value,” it wrote.

Costco’s board added that diversity across its suppliers “fosters creativity and innovation in the merchandise and services that we offer our members.”

Tarang Amin, CEO of popular Gen Z makeup brand E.l.f. Beauty, called the company’s diversity “a key competitive advantage in terms of our results” in an interview with CNN earlier this month. He said the company’s employees are 74% women, 76% Gen Z and millennial and over 44% diverse and “reflect the community we serve.”

Nearly five years ago, Aurora James challenged companies in an Instagram post to dedicate more of their shelf space to Black-owned businesses. That idea, which she proposed days after Floyd’s murder, started the 15 Percent Pledge.

“So many of your businesses are built on Black spending power,” she wrote at the time. “So many of your stores are set up in Black communities. So many of your posts seen on Black feeds. This is the least you can do for us. We represent 15% of the population and we need to represent 15% of your shelf space.”

Sephora was the first company to sign the pledge. About 22 companies are active participants in the pledge, including Macy’s and Nordstrom, according to the nonprofit. The 15 Percent Pledge has a directory of Black-owned brands on its website. It also awards grants to businesses and raises money to back Black-owned businesses through an annual gala, which drew celebrities, actors and business leaders including Kim Kardashian, Kelly Rowland and Jesse Williams earlier this month.

Some of the changes inspired by the pledge are visible on shelves.

Sephora has more than tripled the Black-owned brands on its shelves in the past five years. In the email to customers, it noted that number had spiked from eight to 30 since it took the Fifteen Percent Pledge in 2020.

Those brands include makeup, shampoos and more backed by small entrepreneurs and celebrities, including Fenty Beauty by Rihanna, Pattern by Tracee Ellis Ross and Sienna Naturals, which was co-founded by Hannah Diop and actress Issa Rae.

Nordstrom, which also signed on to the 15 Percent Pledge, has now added more Black-owned brands, too, including Buttah Skin, Briogeo and Honor the Gift.

And Macy’s, another 15 Percent Pledge participant, has had an accelerator for over a decade which was launched to support underrepresented brand owners and founders. The Workshop, which started in 2011, offers grant funding and education for companies seeking to make it on retailers’ shelves and websites.

James, who herself is a Black founder of a luxury brand called Brother Vellies, said she’s disheartened to see companies back away from supporting smaller Black- and minority-owned suppliers.

“The idea is not about giving preferential treatment,” she said. “The idea is about making sure that we cast our net wide enough that we’re not just looking at the obvious channels.”

By relying more on big conglomerates, retailers miss out on funding smaller U.S. business that create jobs and stimulate the local economy, she said.

“In a time when I think small business all across America is suffering, to specifically target groups of founders and say, ‘You can’t get access or opportunity,’ just feels like a blow to all small businesses across America,” she said.

She said the reversal of DEI by some companies show their commitments never ran deep.

“Target never took the pledge. Walmart never took the pledge,” she said. “I don’t think that they were ever really that serious about what they were doing.”

Not every company has stuck with the pledge. Gap did not renew with the group late last year — but said in a statement that it’s not backing away from DEI efforts. Over the past year, the company has gone through major changes as part of a turnaround led by Richard Dickson, its new CEO.

In a statement, the denim and apparel retailer, which also includes Old Navy and Athleta, said the pledge looked different for the company because it sells and manufacturers its own brands. It said it “joined the pledge with the goal of increasing our diverse access and pipeline programs, and we met and exceeded that goal.”

A Gap spokesman declined to share specific goals, but said they focused on recruiting talent from diverse backgrounds.

This week, Gap rolled out a limited-time initiative to support Black businesses by selling shirts and hoodies from six Black designers from Harlem’s Fashion Row online and in select stores.

Walmart and Target have downplayed concerns that they will start to carry fewer Black-owned brands. A Walmart spokesperson pointed to the company’s Supplier Inclusion Program, which focuses on adding products from smaller vendors. She said the company also works with banks and lenders to expedite payments for orders or connect suppliers to loans.

Even as Target phases out DEI goals for Black-owned businesses, the discounter will keep offering Black-owned and minority-owned brands, a spokesman said. On its website, it’s promoting its collection of Black History Month items. He said Target will offer its Forward Founders program two times per year, which is designed for early-stage consumer packaged goods companies across categories including beauty, food and pets.

When Target launched Forward Founders in 2021, the company said the program was “designed to help Black-owned businesses increase their potential for long-term success in retail.”

Since last year, Target’s website has said the program is “evolving” — noting that founders no longer fill out an application for programs and Target will reach out to them if they’re “a strategic fit.” A spokesman said the company’s changes to its DEI initiatives do not affect its programs to boost founders, but did not offer more detail.

Some Black founders have warned against boycotting Target and other retailers that have walked back DEI efforts, saying it could further hurt Black-owned businesses.

In an Instagram post, social media personality, actress, and entrepreneur Tabitha Brown said “it’s definitely heartbreaking to feel unsupported.” But Brown, who has an active contract with Target, encouraged shoppers to use their dollars strategically when shopping Target’s shelves.

She’s developed merchandise with Target, including a collection of clothing, swimwear and home decor. Target also carries Donna’s Recipe, a haircare brand she co-founded.

“You can still go into those stores, if you choose to, and buy specific brands that you want to support. And let the other things not get your money,” she said.

She said if sales of Black-owned brands fall, retailers will remove them from their shelves.

“And then what happens to all the businesses who worked so hard to get where they are?” she said.

Handbag designer Brandon Blackwood said he worries that it will be harder for the next founder like him to get picked up by a major retailer.

His brand took off in 2020 during the Black Lives Matter movement, after he made a tote decorated with three words instead of a logo: “End Systemic Racism.” The bag gained traction through social media.

Yet he said major retailers that picked up handbags from his brand at the time, including Neiman Marcus, Bloomingdale’s and Nordstrom, “helped put my product in front of a lot of people that wouldn’t necessarily have seen it.”

“That really helped us and that really helped our brand awareness,” he said.

If retailers drop supplier diversity initiatives, he said it will thin out choices for customers.

For Brown Girl Jane, winning the confidence and business of major retailers — and particularly, Sephora — has been game changing, said Jones, the company’s co-founder and CEO. The brand got picked up first by Nordstrom in 2021. Now, Macy’s, Saks Fifth Avenue and Bloomingdale’s also sell its fragrances.

Sephora is its the biggest wholesale deal so far: The beauty retailer carries some exclusive scents, including Carnivale, a fragrance that sells for $102 and blends together juicy mango, sandalwood and creamy vanilla.

Jones said the company’s annual revenue is now in the $5 million to $7 million range. Roughly half of the company’s sales come from wholesale.

She described getting picked up by Sephora last year as a “vote of confidence,” but said they’ve also been “the biggest champion and a true partner of the brand.”

And she said that customers of all races desire her brand — and others from Black founders. About 40% of Brown Girl Jane’s customers are white, she said.

By backing away from DEI, she said companies also send a message to their buyers that casting a wide net for new brands doesn’t matter.

“It’s one thing to say ‘Ok, yeah. They [buyers] can still find who they find,’” she said. “But we know that without intentionality, a lot of these brands are just going to be overlooked.”

DETROIT — As President Donald Trump threatens to further increase tariffs on U.S. trading partners, the greatest impact for the auto industry outside of North America would be additional levies on South Korea and Japan.

The East Asian countries produced a combined 16.8% of vehicles sold last year in the U.S., including a record 8.6% from South Korea and 8.2% from Japan, according to data provided to CNBC by GlobalData.

They were the largest vehicle importers to the U.S. outside of Mexico — and they have little to no duties compared with the 25% tariff Trump has threatened imposing on Canada and Mexico.

Automakers such as General Motors and South Korea-based Hyundai Motor export vehicles tariff-free from South Korea. The country overtook Japan and Canada last year to become the second-largest exporter of new cars to the U.S., based on sales.

It trails only Mexico, which represented 16.2% of U.S. auto sales in 2024, GlobalData reports.

“Obviously Hyundai has a massive amount of exposure. Behind it is GM … with relatively large volume models,” said Jeff Schuster, global vice president of automotive research at GlobalData. “There’s a lot of risk potentially here, but it’s limited, really limited, to those two players.”

Imports from Japan are currently subject to a 2.5% tariff for automakers such as Toyota Motor, Nissan Motor and Honda Motor. Vehicles from Japan represented about 1.31 million autos sold last year in the U.S.

Japan’s percentage of sales has actually decreased in recent years, while South Korea’s exports and sales have continued to rise from less than 845,000 in 2019 to more than 1.37 million in 2024.

South Korea has 0% tariffs on cars despite Trump renegotiating a trade deal with the country during his first term in 2018. That accord was touted for improving vehicle imports to South Korea, but it did little to address vehicle exports to the U.S.

The deal also has done little for increasing automotive exports to South Korea, according to data from the International Trade Commission. U.S. passenger vehicle exports to South Korea have actually decreased by roughly 16%.

Separate from cars, tariffs on trucks exported from South Korea and Japan to the U.S, as well as elsewhere, are 25%.

A tariff is a tax on imports, or foreign goods, brought into the United States. The companies importing the goods pay the tariffs, and some experts fear the companies would simply pass any additional costs on to consumers — raising the cost of vehicles and potentially reducing demand.

South Korea-based Hyundai is the largest exporter of vehicles to the U.S., followed by GM and then Kia Corp., a part of Hyundai that largely operates separately in the U.S.

GM has notably increased its imports from South Korea in recent years. Its U.S. sales of South Korean-produced vehicles — largely entry-level models — have risen from 173,000 in 2019 to more than 407,000 last year, according to GlobalData.

GM is the largest foreign direct investor in Korea’s manufacturing industry, according to the automaker’s website. It has invested 9 trillion South Korean won (roughly $6.2 billion) since establishing the operations in 2002.

GM produces its Buick Encore GX and Buick Envista crossovers, as well as the Chevrolet Trailblazer and Chevrolet Trax crossovers, at plants in South Korea. The company has touted the vehicles as being a pinnacle for the automaker’s profitable growth in lower-margin, entry-level vehicles.

“We’re taking out costs of programs, improving profitability and creating vehicles that customers love, like the new Chevy Trax and the Buick Envista,” GM President Mark Reuss said during the company’s investor day in October. “Trax and Envista have helped raise our share of the U.S. small SUV market to its highest level since 2007.”

Hyundai did not immediately respond when asked about potential tariffs on South Korea. GM and Kia declined to comment.

Terence Lau, dean of the College of Law at Syracuse University who previously worked as a trade expert for Ford Motor, said the automotive industry is built on free trade. If tariffs are implemented, the industry can adjust, but it takes time.

“The car industry can adjust to anything. Really, it can. It’s always going to make product that customers want to buy, because personal mobility and transportation is a human need all around the world,” he said. “What the car industry cannot do well is pivot on a dime.”

Lau argued that a single-digit tariff can be a “nuisance,” but once they hit 10% or more, that’s when additional costs can really began eating into the margin or products.

Ford Motor CEO Jim Farley last week argued that if Trump is going to implement tariffs affecting the automotive industry, it should take a “comprehensive” look at all countries to even the playing field in North America.

Farley singled out Toyota and Hyundai for importing hundreds of thousands of vehicles annually from Japan and South Korea, respectively.

“There are millions of vehicles coming into our country that are not being applied to these [incremental tariffs],” Farley said during the company’s fourth-quarter earnings call with investors. “So if we’re going to have a tariff policy … it better be comprehensive for our industry.

“We can’t just cherry-pick one place or the other because this is a bonanza for our import competitors.”

The White House did not respond for comment on potential tariffs on South Korea.

Trump on Thursday signed a presidential memorandum laying out his plan to impose “reciprocal tariffs” on foreign nations, but did not go into detail regarding what countries could be targeted.

As a presidential candidate, Trump floated the possibility of imposing across-the-board tariffs on all U.S. imports. But he also advocated for Congress to pass what he called the “Trump Reciprocal Trade Act,” which would empower him to slap tariffs on the goods of any country that has higher tariffs on U.S.-made goods.

— CNBC’s Kevin Breuninger contributed to this report.

Last week, White House crypto czar David Sacks held his first press conference to discuss the future of crypto policy coming out of the Trump administration.

While that will include stablecoin legislation and digital asset regulation, Sacks told CNBC that a top agenda idea is also evaluating “whether it’s feasible to create either a bitcoin reserve or some sort of digital asset stockpile.”

But will the momentum around bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies carry over to corporate America more broadly, appearing on balance sheets?

To date, companies with exposure to bitcoin in their business operations have been the first movers in this space, in many cases, to show their support and buy-in to the industry. According to the bitcoin tracking website Bitcointreasuries, 79 public companies currently hold bitcoin, with some of the largest holders being companies like Riot Platforms, Coinbase and Block. 

Strategy, the company formerly known as MicroStrategy, and its co-founder, Michael Saylor, have been the champion of this approach as the largest corporate holder of bitcoin. On its third-quarter earnings call earlier this month, the company said it holds 471,107 bitcoins on its balance sheet, about 2% of the total supply and worth roughly $45.2 billion.

Also on the list of crypto industry companies holding bitcoin on the balance sheet is Moonpay, a venture-backed financial technology company that builds payments infrastructure for crypto. The company has added bitcoin to its balance sheet equal to 5% of its operational cash, according to CEO Ivan Soto-Wright.

While Soto-Wright said some of the thought process is that “we’re only going to succeed if bitcoin succeeds,” he believes there is a growing argument to include bitcoin in any company’s treasury strategy.

“It’s really detached both from interest rates and equity market movements, so you could see it from that perspective,” he said. “You could also see it from the perspective of an inflation hedge .. in terms of large money movement, it’s incredibly efficient so you could argue it’s a better version of gold.” 

That is one of the arguments that Saylor has made, and one he repeated while making one of the most high-profile pushes to spur a major U.S. company to add bitcoin to its balance sheet, appearing at Microsoft’s annual meeting to speak on behalf of a shareholder proposal that called on the company’s board to evaluate holding bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies.

Saylor doubled down on that message at the ICR conference earlier this year, where in a presentation he said that companies can either “cling to the past” and continue to buy Treasury bonds, execute buybacks and dividends, or “embrace the future” by using bitcoin as digital capital.

“It works for any company,” Saylor said in the retail conference’s keynote speech. “We’re the people building with steel and they’re building with wood.”

At least in the short-term, it can look good, too. Tesla, one of the few non-crypto-focused companies to hold bitcoin on its balance sheet, showed the positive side of this in its most recent quarter when it marked a $600 million profit due to the appreciation of bitcoin. The Financial Accounting Standards Board adopted a new rule for 2025 that mandates that corporate digital asset holdings be marked to market each quarter. 

But so far, the message and broader movement has not spread much wider than the crypto industry. Just 0.55% of votes at Microsoft’s annual meeting supported the plan. Microsoft, as well as proxy advisors Glass Lewis and Institutional Shareholder Services, had all suggested shareholders reject the proposal ahead of the vote.

Microsoft said in an October proxy filing that its treasury and investment services team previously evaluated bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies to fund the company’s operations and reduce economic risk, adding that it “continues to monitor trends and developments related to cryptocurrencies to inform future decision making.”

At Microsoft’s annual meeting, CFO Amy Hood said: “it’s important to remember our criteria and our goals of our balance sheet and for the cash balances, importantly, is to preserve capital, to allow a lot of liquidity to be able to fund our operations and partnerships and investments .. liquidity is also a really important criteria for us, as well as generating income.”

The lack of adoption so far isn’t discouraging proponents of companies holding bitcoin on the balance sheet. Ethan Peck, the deputy director of the Free Enterprise Project, which is part of conservative think tank National Center for Public Policy Research, filed the shareholder proposal at Microsoft and said he plans to file similar proposals during the upcoming proxy season at other large companies. In all, it has been recently estimated that the S&P 500 universe of companies collectively holds over $3.5 trillion on balance sheets, though the figure changes quarter-to-quarter.

While Peck said he is not advocating for companies to take as aggressive of a stance as Strategy has, “Companies should consider holding a couple percent of bitcoin in order to negate or offset the base of your cash holdings because you’re losing your shareholders’ money.”

“The bond yields are not outpacing real inflation, so you’re losing money,” Peck said.

The performance of bitcoin over the past five years. Bitcoin has vastly outperformed cash equivalents, though with much greater volatility.

However, that debate is far from decided in corporate America, according to Markus Veith, who leads Grant Thornton’s digital asset practice, especially as bitcoin has reacted more in line with the broader stock market than inflation over the last year or so, and volatility is still high — something that Microsoft’s board also pointed out in its rejection of that shareholder proposal.

Veith said regulation might also be holding companies back. The SEC rescinded SAB 121 in January, a rule that required banks to classify cryptocurrencies as liabilities on their balance sheet, creating a capital requirement burden that kept many banks from providing custody for crypto assets.

That’s a change that could lead banks, including Goldman Sachs, to revisit the issue. CEO David Solomon told CNBC at Davos last month that “At the moment, from a regulatory perspective, we can’t own” bitcoin, but he added that the bank would revisit the issue if the rules changed. Much of Wall Street is also starting to at least cautiously sing a different tune, with Morgan Stanley CEO Ted Pick and Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan both telling CNBC while at Davos last month that their institutions could allow broader adoption if the regulatory environment changes. 

But regulation can’t solve the issue of crypto’s extreme volatility, and the concern that there may be another downturn at some point. “What do you do if there’s going to be another crypto winter, and the price goes down and you’re sitting for a prolonged basis on a big stash of bitcoin and the price keeps going down? How do you explain that to your stakeholders, shareholders, or board? That’s probably what is hindering more companies from going into this space,” Veith said. 

The most recent CNBC CFO Council quarterly survey, taken in December, is a reflection of that risk assessment: 78% of the CFO respondents to the survey said bitcoin is a highly speculative asset class, while 7% said it is a credible store of value. Furthermore, 11% said it is a fraud, though that latter view has come down over time in the quarterly CFO survey.

As the Trump administration continues to embrace crypto, the crypto view from within corporate America could change more.

Asked if he thinks companies are reassessing the things they once assumed about crypto, Soto-Wright pointed to the overtures coming out of Washington, D.C., and the potential for a national reserve and additional regulation changes.

“If you look at the general trends, it’s becoming more adopted by institutions as there’s more circulation, as there are more products that come to market, and as it starts to develop its statute and stance as a truly diversified, uncorrelated financial instrument,” he said.

“I think you’ll start to see more and more companies recognize that in their treasury portfolio management strategy, this is another asset that is legitimized,” Soto-Wright said.

When the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau made an appearance in the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 blueprint, the conservative group’s plan was simple: Abolish it entirely.

Now, with a Project 2025 co-author in charge of the bureau, that idea looks like a real possibility.

Over the weekend, Russ Vought, President Donald Trump’s pick to head the powerful Office of Management and Budget, took over as de facto head of the agency and subsequently ordered all nonessential work there to stop. Vought is one of more than 30 co-authors of Project 2025, the conservative policy blueprint for the Trump administration’s agenda, though he did not write the section on the CFPB.

“The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is arguably the most powerful and unaccountable regulatory agency in existence,” the report states.

Whether the bureau is rendered toothless by its new leadership or abolished by congressional action, its emergence as a target for conservative ire has been years in the making, boosted most recently by technology executives including Elon Musk and venture capitalist Marc Andreessen. Created by Democrats, led by Sen. Elizabeth Warren, of Massachusetts, in the wake of the Great Recession, the CFPB lodged steady but largely unglamorous wins for consumers. 

Yet all the while, it faced a drumbeat of opposition from small-government conservatives and business interests who challenged not only its regulations and enforcement actions, but its very basis for existing. Consumer complaints about corporate misbehavior have by some measures reached all-time highs.       

“This is an agency that has an incredible amount of responsibility for regulating in the financial services sector,” said Julie Margetta Morgan, a former associate director at the bureau who started there in 2022 and resigned right after Trump’s second inauguration. She added, “There are a number of big bank lobbyists who have had it out for the CFPB from Day 1.”

But most recently, some in the tech world — including those who have become particularly influential with the Trump administration — have been its loudest critics.

Musk, who leads the administration’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) effort, posted “RIP CFPB” on X on Sunday. Andreesen, co-founder of venture capital firm Andreesen Horowitz, said on a podcast last year that the agency had been “terrorizing financial institutions.” Part of his criticism has centered around “debanking,” something that the CFPB itself also tried to stop. (In 2021, the CFPB shuttered a lending startup backed by Andreessen Horowitz.) 

“The CFPB works for regular people that don’t run in Elon’s circle,” said one current CFPB employee, who was granted anonymity out of fear of reprisal. “Elon doesn’t know single mothers whose cars break down and are scammed by predatory car lenders. He doesn’t know what it’s like to be driven into debt by overdraft fees. He doesn’t have a mortgage he is struggling to pay off. So he can’t understand why the CFPB is so important to protect regular folks from being scammed.”

Compared with the vast resources historically commanded by the Justice Department’s antitrust division, not to mention the Federal Trade Commission — the agency traditionally tasked with enforcing consumer regulations — the CFPB’s remit was always relatively limited in scope. Notably, its annual budget has never exceeded $1 billion.  

It is thus perhaps not surprising that it never landed a proverbial knockout blow that would stick in the minds of the American public. Still, it steadily gained a favorable reputation. In 2015, Time magazine devoted a major feature to the bureau under the headline, “The Agency That’s Got Your Back.”   

Margetta Morgan, the former CFPB associate director, said eliminating medical debt from credit reports has been particularly significant.

“When CFPB started digging in on medical debt, it was astounding to see the extent to which consumers had inaccurate medical debt on their credit reports and then were being hounded by debt collectors over them,” she said. “I think the medical debt rulemaking was huge, and we saw that when we spoke to individual consumers.”

Yet as early as 2017, conservatives were charting a path to end the agency altogether. An article that year published by the Heritage Foundation — the group whose Project 2025 now appears, despite some Trump assurances to the contrary, to be driving much of his second administration’s rollout — laid out the case against the CFPB’s very existence.

“The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is arguably the most powerful and unaccountable regulatory agency in existence,” the article’s authors wrote, arguing that its rulemaking ultimately restricted Americans’ access to credit while “eroding their financial independence” and posing concerns about due process and separation of powers. 

Instead, they said, consumers would enjoy the same protections if the agency’s powers were swept back into the Federal Trade Commission and if existing state and local laws were enforced, they said.   

One of the authors, Norbert Michel, today a vice president at the pro-free-market Cato Institute, told NBC News that assuming that malfeasance is taking place — something he said there is often disagreement about — enforcement powers already exist at multiple government agencies, not to mention at the state level, to address it.

“In one sense, you’ve given a new federal agency extreme discretionary power — and in other sense, done nothing new,” Michel said. “So somewhere in there you have an increase in government authority that’s not necessary.”

Still, the agency persisted and became particularly active under Rohit Chopra, a Biden appointee, who helped bring actions against many major lenders, as well as financial technology firms and loan servicing groups. 

Chopra’s largest action came against Wells Fargo, which paid a $1.7 billion penalty over accusations it improperly repossessed cars and froze customers’ accounts. Chopra also engineered a settlement with Navient, formerly among the nation’s largest student-loan servicers, over allegedly abusive practices.    

Yet it was the agency’s recent work around so-called financial technology enterprises that may have created the conditions for its demise. In 2023, it sought to subject large fintech players like PayPal and Venmo to the same supervisory examination process as banks.

Since that time, Musk has made clear he hopes to turn X into a payments platform. X recently announced a deal with Visa to begin processing payments. 

“You have Silicon Valley VCs not wanting any oversight of their businesses, many of which are premised on the idea that [financial technology] somehow is new and different and thus not subject to traditional consumer protections,” said another current CFPB employee who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Last year, the Supreme Court heard the first challenge to the CFPB’s very existence — and decided in its favor, with Justice Clarence Thomas, viewed as among the court’s most conservative members, writing for the 7-2 majority that Congress had been clear in setting up its funding mechanism as a body of the Federal Reserve. 

That did not stop the chorus of voices calling for the agency to be reined in. Notably, the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 referred to the CFPB as little more than “a shakedown mechanism to provide unaccountable funding to leftist nonprofits politically aligned with those who spearheaded its creation.”

“The CFPB is a highly politicized, damaging, and utterly unaccountable federal agency,” Robert Bowes, an official in Trump’s first administration, wrote. “It is unconstitutional. Congress should abolish the CFPB.” Consumer protection functions, he said, should be returned to banking regulators and the Federal Trade Commission.

For consumer advocates, such an outcome would be cataclysmic for everyday Americans.  

“The CFPB protects real people from financial companies ripping them off,” said Erin Witte, director of consumer protection at the Consumer Federation of America, a nonprofit group. “If your car has been illegally repossessed by a bank, or if you’ve been the victim of a predatory student loan servicer, or ever had to pay junk fees, the CFPB steps up to make sure a company can’t rip you off.”

Its potential elimination, Witte said, will have “disastrous consequences” and should be “infuriating” to almost everyone.

The U.S. spirits industry maintained its market share leadership over beer and wine for a third straight year in 2024, even as revenues slid, according to new data released Tuesday.

Spirits supplier sales in the U.S. fell 1.1% last year to a total of $37.2 billion, while volumes rose 1.1%, according to the annual U.S. economic report from the Distilled Spirits Council, a leading trade organization.

That is the first time revenue for the spirits category has fallen in more than two decades. Despite a return to more typical buying patterns after a pandemic boom, spirits revenues have grown an average 5.1% annually since 2019. Between 2003 and 2019, the average annual growth rate was 4.4%.

“While the spirits industry has proven to be resilient during tough times, it is certainly not immune to disruptive economic forces and marketplace challenges, and that was definitely the case in 2024,” said DISCUS President and CEO Chris Swonger.

Tequila and mezcal remained a bright spot for the year as the only spirits category showing sales growth, as revenue climbed 2.9% to $6.7 billion.

Premixed ready-to-drink cocktails grew double digits, but the category includes various types of mixed spirits including vodka, rum, whiskey and cordials.

Mexican spirits and beer have grown more popular with consumers for over two decades, and tequila and mezcal sales outpaced American whiskey for the first time in 2023.

The road ahead for the Mexico-based products remains uncertain. The Trump administration earlier this month delayed imposing tariffs on imports from Mexico — which would include distinctive products such as mezcal and tequila — by one month while tariff negotiations continue.

“These tariffs have wreaked havoc on our craft distilling community,” said Sonat Birnecker Hart, president and founder of KOVAL Distillery in Chicago. “Many craft distillers have expended great time, effort and resources to expand into international markets only to see their dreams shattered by tariffs that have absolutely nothing to do with our industry,” Hart added.

Swonger also noted that tariffs would be a “catastrophic blow” to distillers and only add to the pressure higher interest rates have put on the industry’s supply chain, as wholesalers and retailers continue to deplete inventory buildups and cautiously restock products.

“Consumers were contending with some of the highest prices and interest rates in decades, which put a strain on their wallets and forced many to reduce spending on little luxuries like distilled spirits,” said Swonger. 

“Our sales dipped slightly but consumers continued to choose spirits and enjoy a cocktail with family and friends,” he said.

The U.S. is facing a power capacity crisis as the tech sector races against China to achieve dominance in artificial intelligence, an executive leading the energy strategy of Alphabet’s Google unit said this week.

The emergence of China’s DeepSeek artificial intelligence firm sent the shares of major power companies tumbling in late January on speculation that its AI model is cheaper and more efficient. But Caroline Golin, Google’s global head of energy market development, said more power is needed now to keep up with Beijing.

“We are in a capacity crisis in this country right now, and we are in an AI race against China right now,” Golin told a conference hosted by the Nuclear Energy Institute in New York City on Tuesday.

Alphabet’s Google unit embarked four years ago on an ambitious goal to power its operations around the clock with carbon-free renewable energy, but the company faced a major obstacle that forced a turn toward nuclear power.

Google ran into a “very stark reality that we didn’t have enough capacity on the system to power our data centers in the short term and then potentially in the long term,” Golin said.

Google realized the deployment of renewables was potentially causing grid instability, and utilities were investing in carbon-emitting natural gas to back up the system, the executive said. Wind and particularly solar power have grown rapidly in the U.S., but their output depends on weather conditions.

“We learned the importance of the developing clean firm technologies,” Golin said. “We recognized that nuclear was going to be part of the portfolio.”

Last October, Google announced a deal to purchase 500 megawatts of power from a fleet of small modular nuclear reactors made by Kairos Power. Small modular reactors are advanced designs that promise to one day speed up the deployment of nuclear power because they have smaller footprints and a more streamlined manufacturing process.

Large nuclear projects in the U.S. have long been stymied by delays, cost overruns and cancellations. To date, there is no operational small modular reactor in the U.S. Google and Kairos plan to deploy their first reactor in 2030, with more units coming online through 2035.

Golin said the project with Kairos is currently in an initial test-pilot phase with other partners that she would not disclose. Kairos received permission in November from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build two 35-megawatt test reactors in Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

The goal is to get buy-in from partners like electric utilities to create an approach that can broadly deploy the technology, Golin said.

The nuclear industry increasingly views the growing power needs of the tech sector as a potential catalyst to restart old reactors and build new ones. Amazon announced an investment of more than $500 million in small nuclear reactors two days after Google unveiled its agreement with Kairos.

Last September, Constellation Energy said it plans to bring the nuclear reactor at Three Mile Island near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania back online through a power purchase agreement with Microsoft.

Golin said nuclear is a longer-term solution, given the reality that power capacity is needed now to keep up with China in the artificial intelligence race. “Over the next five years, nuclear doesn’t play in that space,” she said.

President Donald Trump declared a national energy emergency through executive order on his first day in office. The order cited electric grid reliability as a central concern.

Trump told the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland that he would use emergency powers to expedite the construction of power plants for AI data centers.

Secretary of Energy Chris Wright issued an order on Feb. 5 that listed “the commercialization of affordable and abundant nuclear energy” as a priority.