One entrepreneur’s supply-chain odyssey shows just how difficult it is to quit China

Fortune
Shawn Tully
Updated
0

Michael Einhorn wanted to quit China. He really did. He supports the Trump agenda that champions fewer regulations, a lower tax burden for businesses, and elimination of environmental mandates that inflate energy prices. He founded Dealmed on a shoestring in 2006; today it’s one of the two biggest privately owned, non-private-equity-held manufacturers and distributors of medical supplies in the New York–New Jersey–Connecticut tristate market. And he largely buys Trump’s argument that China is cheating on trade. So when the POTUS announced his “Liberation Day” tariffs of 135%, Einhorn figured there must be some decent alternatives to source the 10,000 products including masks, gauze, testing equipment, and gowns that he sells to clinics and health care facilities all over the U.S.

And this wouldn’t even be the first time Einhorn had weaned his company off China. During COVID, when Trump’s first set of tariffs had made importing more costly, Einhorn had pieced together a patchwork of suppliers that had squeezed the Chinese share of his company’s imports down to 15%. How hard could it be to repeat that strategy again?

Nearly impossible, as he found out. Over just five years the manufacturing world has changed so dramatically, that things that seemed possible then no longer make any financial sense. “China dominates the world in most health care manufacturing,” Einhorn tells Fortune. “Their automation, quality, pricing is just superior. I acknowledge the problems with China’s trade practices, but in the lane I play in, it’s just reality. China’s so far ahead of the curve I won’t hurt myself by moving away.”

His odyssey is instructive because it shows how quickly Chinese manufacturing has advanced; how few viable alternatives there are in certain sectors; and ultimately, how even after factoring in tariffs, many businesspeople who want to move away from China, can’t. Says Einhorn: “The administration can scream and yell, but how do you replicate what the Chinese are exporting into the U.S.? It’s just not happening.”

China ramps up

Einhorn’s trade saga starts in the early 2010s, when Dealmed was purchasing only around 15% of what it sold from China, mostly basic stuff such as adhesive tape and paper products such as surgical gowns. In those days, China’s quality for more upscale offerings didn’t match the norm for the U.S. and Europe, notes Einhorn. In 2014, Einhorn made a major pivot from distributor-only to doubling as a manufacturer. Dealmed was buying from wholesalers that purchased the goods from Chinese producers and shipped them from U.S. ports of entry to their own storage facilities and on to Dealmed’s warehouses. Dealmed then provided the final leg of the journey by handling sales to its widely dispersed health care customers served by its corps of reps. Einhorn determined that Dealmed could make more money by eliminating the middlemen, and making the same goods itself, by outsourcing the production to Chinese plants, many of which were churning out the stuff it was getting from the wholesalers. It first moved standard fare such as face masks and washcloths to the contract manufacturing model, then, as the Chinese upped their game, added on-site testing gear and other sophisticated wares.

By 2018, the thriving enterprise was importing 80% of its Dealmed-branded, outsourced products from China. All told, that new business accounted for around 30% of its revenues, and alongside its traditional franchise distributing Chinese brands for wholesalers, its total made-in-China sales contributed 45% of the total top line.

Then Trump’s tariff barrage pushed Einhorn to marshal the first of two dramatic course reversals. In September of 2019, the administration slapped 10% duties on selected Chinese medical exports, and in 2020, raised the levies to 25% on a far longer list. “The first round applied to only a small percentage of our imports from China due to so many exemptions. But the second 25% tariffs hit half of those imports,” recalls Einhorn. The growing antagonism toward China from both political parties, he reckoned, meant the big tariffs were now a lasting fixture of the trade landscape.

Dealmed swapped its purchases of paper for surgical gowns and operating table coverings to the U.S., even though they cost 15% more to make here than in Shenzhen or Nanjing, and relocated its testing-product output stateside as well. By the close of 2019, Dealmed’s glove-making had moved from majority-sourced from China to mainly fabricated in Malaysia. It also found new suppliers in Mexico, Canada, Vietnam, and India. Just before the pandemic struck, Dealmed was collecting just 15% of its revenues from Chinese imports, down two-thirds from its peak two years earlier. “The goal then,” says Einhorn, “was to pull all production out of China.”

How COVID spurred China to get ahead

The “downsize China” gambit proved a winner. The sudden, sweeping outbreak in the nation that birthed COVID shuttered China’s entire export sector in early 2020. By diversifying supply chains to Vietnam, Malaysia, and the U.S., Dealmed succeeded in filling a far bigger share of orders to doctors’ offices and clinics than its still mostly China-dependent rivals. But once the Chinese manufacturers rebooted in the spring of 2020, Einhorn witnessed up close the gigantic profits they reaped both from super-high, shortage-induced prices charged for normally routine stuff, and the surge in volumes for medical supplies the U.S. eventually imported to fight the scourge. He relates that Dealmed was still buying most of its face masks from China in the spring of 2020—and for months it was paying $2 per flimsy cloth covering, seven times the pre-pandemic charge.

The U.S.-China “Phase One” agreement signed that year effectively ended the big duties on medical imports—except for remaining levies on active ingredients in pharmaceuticals—as it turned out, for the next half-decade. Still, Einhorn’s customers suffered greatly from the Chinese shutdown early in the crisis and feared the return of tariffs. Dealmed led the industry in limiting risks by shunning the world’s biggest exporter and widening its global network. Einhorn reckoned that clinics and hospitals would deem Dealmed’s broad diversification a major advantage over its rivals that mainly remained China-centric.

That’s not what happened. “At first, our customers said, ‘We can’t rely on China,’” Einhorn recalls. “They encouraged us to diversify. We told them we were the best positioned because we had the widest global sourcing. Then, our customers quickly forgot about the COVID disruptions caused by China.” He recounts that the group purchasing organizations (GPOs) that negotiate contracts with manufacturers for equipment sales to hospitals and clinics, and medical practices that deal directly with insurers, dropped their brief enthusiasm for diversifying the supply chain, and sought the best prices, no matter where the gauze, face masks, or devices came from. “It was sad,” declares Einhorn. “Being the most diversified didn’t matter to our customers as memories of the pandemic receded. The insurers would only reimburse the providers based on the lowest cost. It was all about price. You couldn’t get the business by saying the product was made in the U.S. or Malaysia or Vietnam.”

As U.S. health care scoured the globe for the best bargains in the aftermath of COVID, the Chinese medical supplies sector embarked on an enormous expansion in scope and expertise. The impetus: the huge profits generated during the crisis. “The Chinese did a fabulous job building out their manufacturing capacity by reinvesting the big money they made during COVID,” says Einhorn. A prime example: INTCO Medical in Shandong province on China’s east coast. In 2020 INTCO multiplied its operating income sixfold over the previous year, and rechanneled the bonanza into building a web of plants that now covers five cities in its home nation, and a big factory in Vietnam, as well as planting sales organizations in the U.S., Canada, Germany, and Japan. INTCO’s sudden rise reportedly made its founder a billionaire.

The immense improvement in China’s medical-industrial engine triggered another U-turn for Dealmed. “We were growing rapidly and added a couple of hundred new products that we manufactured in the two years after COVID,” says Einhorn. “Some drifted back to China. I’d move a product from China to Vietnam, then a new product would go to China. As that happened, we realized that the best source was China. Its manufacturers became more aggressive post-COVID. They doubled down and invested in their products. Their quality became superior to everyone else’s in the world. No other country could match their automation, their capacity. They became very sophisticated.” Most of all, China offered the lowest prices that fit the U.S. providers’ jump from briefly wanting to widely disperse their purchases to grabbing the cheapest deals.

No better options

In 2024 the Biden regime launched a crackdown on the Chinese tech sector, especially targeting Beijing’s semiconductor industry. The mini trade war spilled over into medical equipment. Between late September 2024 and Jan. 1, 2025, the administration imposed “Section 301” duties of 25% on face masks and respirators, 50% on surgical gloves, and 100% on syringes and needles. “The Chinese saw what was going to happen a couple of years before and started building plants in Vietnam,” says Einhorn. “We shifted some of our production to Vietnam. But the companies were backed by companies in China.” Many items including paper products and testing equipment that Dealmed mainly ferried from China, didn’t get pounded by the 301 levies. But even for syringes and other targeted items, Einhorn found that after tacking on the tariffs, he could sell the Chinese products at the same or lower prices than the same goods made anywhere else. “Despite the 301 tariffs, we mainly stayed with China,” he says.

The 301 blow, however, proved relatively mild versus the Trump fusillade to come. Trump started at a 10% levy in February that he raised to 25% in early March, before uncorking the notorious 135% Liberation Day “reciprocal” load on April 9. That fresh heap got stacked atop the 301 duties, bringing the all-in for needles and syringes, for instance, to 235%. The Jenga-like tower of tariffs caused a serious but little reported problem for importers such as Dealmed. “This created a difficult dynamic for managing cash flow,” explains Einhorn. “When a container of syringes hit a U.S. port, I would have to pay the 235% tariff before the product hit the shelves. I would have been laying out enormous amounts of money in advance for a product that wouldn’t be sold for two or three weeks.”

To avoid the huge upfront cash payments, Einhorn severely slowed shipments from China. But he was also wagering that the initial, virtually embargo-sized levies wouldn’t last. His Chinese suppliers designed an elegant solution. “They were very savvy,” recalls Einhorn. “They said, ‘We’ll cut your prices by 10%. We’ll make the product for you, and store it for you, at no charge for three to four months.’ In effect, we were both hedging that the Trump tariffs wouldn’t stay at anything like those triple-digit levels.” When Trump announced the 90-day suspension of the reciprocal tariffs on May 12, the rate on Dealmed’s purchases dropped, from 235% for syringes and 160% on face masks to 130% and 55%, respectively. Einhorn then took delivery, enabling him to sidestep the cash-drain problem, and offer far lower prices to his customers.

For Einhorn, the Trump 30% extra tariffs are far from a deal killer for buying Chinese. “I’ll move some products away, but we’ll stay with China for now as the main supplier,” he declares. Even the total 130% duties aren’t stopping him from successfully selling syringes and needles to U.S. customers. All told, Dealmed’s not planning to backtrack on all the production it restored to China, as its manufacturing improved so notably following the pandemic. The overwhelming majority of gloves and paper contract-manufacturing that went from China to Malaysia, and to the U.S. and Canada, respectively, is now back in the nation where Dealmed debuted its outsourcing model. He finds that Vietnam and other Asian rivals to China not only generally charge somewhat higher prices, but lack China’s quality, range of products, and giant infrastructure that fosters superior economies of scale and guarantees that its manufacturers can meet sudden surges in orders by delivering huge quantities.

Einhorn avows that his company is getting over 40% of its revenues from products made in China, roughly back to the summit of 2018—and a much bigger number in dollar terms, since Dealmed has grown so much in those seven years.

Judging from what he’s seen firsthand, the Trump trade war won’t succeed at its objective. “It’s a misconception that the U.S. can extract ‘burden sharing’ by getting Chinese and other foreign companies to absorb the tariffs,” he says. He sees every day that hospitals and clinics, not the Chinese exporters, are paying the tariffs and passing the costs along to insurers, and hence the individuals and companies that pay the premiums.

He doesn’t have all the answers. “I’d rather do business in the U.S.,” he says. But he notes that issues ranging from extremely high workers’ compensation costs to mandated purchases of high-cost electricity handicap U.S. players on the world stage. “There have to be a series of incentives to lower costs for U.S. manufacturers,” he says. “Unless we can match the quality and pricing of China, my customers won’t pay more because it’s made in the U.S.” For now, he says, it comes down to this: “Cutting out China is not an option.”

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

Trump's 'Liberation Day' Tariffs After A Year: Why The Promised Manufacturing Boom, 'Economic Independence' Never Arrived

Benzinga
Rishabh Mishra
0

A year after President Donald Trump proclaimed a "golden age" of growth after introducing ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs, a new Cato Institute study reveals that his sweeping duties have delivered higher consumer prices and bureaucratic chaos rather than the promised “economic independence.”

A Stalled ‘Golden Age’

When President Trump unveiled his global "reciprocal" tariffs twelve months ago, he championed a rebirth of American industry. However, the data paints a starkly different reality.

According to the Cato Institute, the promised manufacturing boom never arrived. Instead, manufacturing employment continued to struggle and overall economic growth slowed, despite strong tailwinds from the booming artificial intelligence sector.

Don't Miss:

Rather than lowering costs, the duties undeniably inflated prices. Economic research shows that up to 96% of the higher costs from the tariffs were passed directly onto American consumers, keeping prices elevated across major U.S. retailers.

Tariffs increased prices for American importers and consumers. Economists have calculated significant increases in the prices of imported and domestic products.

Learn more from Cato's @scottlincicome, @AlfredCObregon, and Chad Smitson:https://t.co/5GV64aPIVr pic.twitter.com/gpOxyR9ViA

— Cato Institute (@CatoInstitute) April 8, 2026

Loopholes And Lobbying

The administration's firm stance on a universal tariff wall quickly crumbled. The Cato report notes that the "global" tariffs became “riddled with exemptions,” dropping the applied reciprocal tariff rate from 21.5% down to 13.6%. Today, up to 64% of U.S. imports are completely exempt from the replacement tariffs.

This environment of selective loopholes triggered an unprecedented rush on Washington. Tariff-related lobbying activity exploded, with registered clients jumping by 218%—the biggest year-on-year change since 2018.

Trending: This Startup Thinks It Can Reinvent the Wheel — Literally

Simultaneously, the U.S. tariff schedule underwent 50 changes in a single year, creating an opaque, complex system that disproportionately harmed small businesses.

Record Deficits And Legal Fallout

The primary goal of reducing the U.S. trade deficit also failed; the deficit actually reached an all-time high in real terms last year.

Furthermore, the administration’s prediction of a massive surge in foreign direct investment fell flat, with 2025 totals dropping below previous years’ averages.

Today, the fallout continues in the courts. Following a landmark Supreme Court ruling striking down the tariffs, more than 2,000 importers are suing the federal government to reclaim over $160 billion in collected duties.

Ultimately, "Liberation Day" left the U.S. trading system more uncertain, expensive, and globally isolated.

See Also: Most Investors Can't Access These Real Estate Deals — But Accredited Investors Can

How Have Markets Performed In 2026?

The S&P 500 index has declined 1.10% year-to-date. Similarly, the Nasdaq Composite index was down 2.58%, and the Dow Jones tumbled 0.98% YTD.

The SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust and Invesco QQQ Trust ETF, which track the S&P 500 and Nasdaq 100 indices, respectively, closed higher on Wednesday. The SPY was up 2.55% at $676.01, while the QQQ advanced 2.97% to $606.09.

Meanwhile, Dow tracker, State Street SPDR Dow Jones Industrial Average ETF Trust, rose 2.85% to close at $479.16 on Tuesday.

Read Next: It’s no wonder Jeff Bezos holds over $250 million in art — this alternative asset has outpaced the S&P 500 since 1995, delivering an average annual return of 11.4%

Photo courtesy: Shutterstock

"ACTIVE INVESTORS' SECRET WEAPON" Supercharge Your Stock Market Game with the #1 "news & everything else" trading tool: Benzinga Pro - Click here to start Your 14-Day Trial Now!

Get the latest stock analysis from Benzinga:

© 2026 Benzinga.com. Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved.

Ford Is Taking Lemons in the World's Largest Auto Market and Making Lemonade

The Motley Fool
Daniel Miller, The Motley Fool
0

Key Points

  • A saturated new-energy vehicle market and competitive landscape have created a price war in China.

  • China's auto exports are surging as automakers turn it into a low-cost export hub.

  • Ford and Kia were leading the strategic shift, enabling them to keep doing business in the region.

As recently as a decade ago, foreign automakers were planning on China's massive and growing automotive industry to turn into a second pillar of profitability, standing next to North America, to support long-term growth.

Unfortunately, China's automotive market pushed the boundaries of electric vehicles (EVs) more quickly than anticipated, and created a market that was roughly 50% new-energy vehicles -- and a market that foreign automakers such as Ford Motor Company (NYSE: F) struggled to compete in.

Will AI create the world's first trillionaire? Our team just released a report on the one little-known company, called an "Indispensable Monopoly" providing the critical technology Nvidia and Intel both need. Continue »

When life gives you lemons, you know what to do -- and Ford is leading the charge.

Lots and lots of lemons

Many investors following the automotive industry understand that China's auto industry has been stuck in a brutal price war, driven by an influx of competitors trying to carve out their niche in the growing EV market. That said, more data is coming in that emphasizes just how brutal this price war has been on profits.

Rows of vehicles in a parking lot.
Rows of vehicles in a parking lot.

Image source: Getty Images.

More than half of China's car dealerships became unprofitable just last year, with 56% of dealerships booking losses in 2025, up significantly from 42% in 2024, according to the China Automobile Dealers Association. However, when accounting for the number of dealerships merely breaking even, it looks even worse, with only 24% of dealers in China reporting a profit. The price war has forced 82% of dealerships to retail new vehicles at prices below wholesale, an unsustainable metric.

With the price war showing no signs of abating anytime soon, automakers were forced to switch gears, and quickly.

Making lemonade

With foreign automakers struggling to compete with domestic rivals in China, many have begun to switch to turning the country into a low-cost vehicle export hub, sometimes partnering with local producers to send outgoing vehicles with some of China's latest software and tech. Ford is one of the leaders in this shifting of gears.

In fact, just about a year ago, Ford CEO Jim Farley gave investors a glimpse at the difference the shift in priorities has made. After six straight annual losses in China, its operations turned a profit in 2024. While Ford long ago stopped being as transparent with data out of China, it's not too difficult to see what helped this profit boost. In 2024, Ford exports from China surged 60% to roughly 170,000 vehicles, compared to its wholesale deliveries with joint venture Changan Automobile Co. rising only 6% to 247,000 vehicles.

At the end of the day, it's unfortunate for long-term investors that China is highly unlikely to ever become the second pillar of global profitability for automakers. The silver lining is that Ford has been able to not only shift gears to exports and turn around losses, but it was one of the first automakers to pioneer this strategy. This is helpful for long-term investors because it buys Ford time to become more competitive with EV development and costs, which it could gain from valuable partnerships in the country.

Hopefully, one day Ford can boast a rebound in its domestic China sales, but until then, exports are turning around losses and turning lemons into lemonade.

Should you buy stock in Ford Motor Company right now?

Before you buy stock in Ford Motor Company, consider this:

The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and Ford Motor Company wasn’t one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years.

Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $555,526!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,156,403!*

Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 968% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 191% for the S&P 500. Don't miss the latest top 10 list, available with Stock Advisor, and join an investing community built by individual investors for individual investors.

See the 10 stocks »

*Stock Advisor returns as of April 11, 2026.

Daniel Miller has positions in Ford Motor Company. The Motley Fool has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

This coat cost $248 in illegal tariffs. Will he ever get the money back?

BBC
Natalie Sherman - Business reporter
0
Alex Grossomanides has brown hair, brown eyes and a beard. He is wearing an olive green puffer coat and looking at the camera while standing in front of a white wall indoors.
The tariffs on Alex Grossomanides's French down jacket totalled almost as much as the purchase itself

Alex Grossomanides thought he had scored a deal last year on a down jacket from France - until he received a bill for more than $400 (£298) in tariffs and processing fees - nearly as much as the cost of the coat.

It was far higher than he had anticipated in part because the parka was, unbeknownst to him, made in Myanmar, then facing a tariff rate of 40%, which stuck him with $248.04 in charges.

The Supreme Court has since declared that duty, and dozens of others that US President Donald Trump unveiled last year, invalid, setting in motion a refund process that is poised to be the biggest repayment programme in US history.

But even before refunds have started, many of those hit with tariff costs, like Alex, are expecting to be left out.

That's because the ruling only applies to importers who paid the tariffs directly, raising questions about how to address the grievances of those who shouldered the duties in more roundabout ways, such as higher prices, fees and other charges.

Grossomanides, who paid the tariff via shipping firm DHL, says he would like to believe he will get his money back, but has not heard from the company and is not holding his breath.

"They should be refunding people," the 37-year-old personal trainer from Massachusetts says. "It's all my money and I took the hit for it, which I don't think is fair."

The US Court of International Trade in March ordered customs officials to refund the more than $160bn (£121bn) the government had collected, putting roughly 330,000 importers in a position to potentially win back some money.

Fears that the government would fight the decision have not materialised.

Customs officials working on the issue have said the refund system should be ready to launch this month. They are due to update the Court of International Trade on their progress on 14 April.

'I have no hope' of a refund

But fully turning the clock back will be well-nigh impossible. Economic studies suggest that importers have already passed on the majority of the tariff costs in the form of higher prices - an issue that is not tackled in the court rulings.

Sue Johnson, owner of Sue Johnson Lamps in Berkeley, California has short white hair and glasses. She is wearing a puffy vest, blue shirt and necklace and is surrounded by different kinds of lamps
Sue Johnson, owner of Sue Johnson Lamps in Berkeley, California

Lamp-maker Sue Johnson says her small California business has been hit hard by tariffs, which prompted her supplier to roughly double the price of mica, a material she uses in her Art Deco-inspired designs.

But she expects no relief from the Supreme Court decision.

"Maybe they'll get repaid, but I have no hope they're going to refund me," she says.

'Orchestrated theft'

Importers say the issue is complicated. Though many raised prices, they often did not increase them by enough to fully offset the tariff expense.

The tariffs also often triggered other kinds of costs, forcing businesses to take on debt to pay for the duties and leading to harder-to-quantify hits like lost sales.

"Even if we do get refunds, we are still not going to be made entirely whole," Kacie Wright of Houghton Horns, a small Texas-based business that imports musical instruments, said during a forum hosted by We Pay the Tariffs, a small business advocacy group.

She said just making sure her business was lined up to receive a refund has been costly, requiring more than six months of back-and-forth with customs officials to properly register in the agency's online system.

Customs has placed the burden on firms to assemble information to make claims, says lawyer Jared Slipman, chair of the tax department at Obermayer, which has been advising businesses on the process.

He says some businesses, especially smaller ones, may look at the requirements and decide that the potential "juice is not worth the squeeze". He expects others may eventually have to turn to litigation to fully recoup what they believe they are owed.

Consumers, he adds, "get the worst of it".

"It may very well be the case that this is an orchestrated theft from the American consumer... and that would be very unfortunate," Slipman says.

James Tak believes money paid by consumers for the tariffs should be refunded

James Tak, who was hit with a $24 tariff charge from UPS last year after receiving a gift of video games from a friend in Japan, says he understands that managing refunds for the millions of people like him is likely to be messy.

He would still like his funds back.

"I just think it's money I shouldn't have to pay," says the 41-year-old, who lives in Washington.

Some shipping firms, such as FedEx, have said they intend to return whatever refund they receive to consumers and businesses.

But many importers have limited their promises, especially companies that passed on the tariff costs in less clear-cut ways.

The debate has sparked class-action lawsuits against several businesses, including retailer Costco, RayBans-maker EssilorLuxottica and Fabletics, the clothing brand founded by Kate Hudson, which at one point broke out tariff costs on its receipts.

Those suits accuse the firms of being poised to be in a position of "unjust enrichment", getting money back from the government even though they had already passed on the costs.

Government watchdogs like the Federal Trade Commission often pursue consumer issues. But in this scenario, in which government policies are implicated, private pressure is likely the only way to make firms respond, says Adrian Bacon, head of litigation at the Law Offices of Todd Friedman, which brought the case against Fabletics and is investigating other firms.

That has not stopped Trump officials from weighing in on the fight.

US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer last month urged companies that score a refund "windfall" to give it to workers in the form of bonuses. In February, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, suggested it was unlikely consumers would benefit.

"I got a feeling the American people won't see it," he said.

From Our Partners

Advertisement