Have the tariffs in the US had a positive impact on Americans or American businesses?
Executive summary
The tariffs enacted in 2025–26 produced measurable revenue gains for the federal government but generated clear economic costs that fell largely on American consumers and businesses, with growing evidence that GDP and employment were weakened and price levels pushed higher [1] [2] [3]. Whether any Americans benefited depends on which groups are considered: some producers and political objectives gained protection or leverage, but the broader economy and most consumers faced higher prices, slower growth, and increased uncertainty [4] [5].
1. GDP and macroeconomic drag: a net negative on aggregate output
Multiple modeling exercises and mainstream research conclude that the tariff program reduced U.S. GDP: the IMF warned a uniform 10% U.S. tariff plus retaliation could cut U.S. GDP by about 1% through 2026 [6], the Tax Foundation projects a 0.5% GDP reduction before retaliation [1], and Yale’s Budget Lab finds U.S. real GDP growth lower in 2025 and 2026 with a persistently smaller economy in the long run from the 2025 tariffs [2]. The Congressional Budget Office and related analyses also estimate higher price indices and output costs attributable to tariffs [3], painting a consistent picture of macroeconomic drag rather than net economic stimulus.
2. Consumers paid the price: tariffs as a hidden tax on households
Research and commentary emphasize that tariffs operate like a domestic tax that raises consumer prices; studies cited by The Fulcrum and the Tax Foundation show the burden falls overwhelmingly on American households and imply large average household cost increases in 2026 [7] [8]. The CBO quantified tariff-driven price increases—projecting consumer price indexes modestly higher—and news outlets reported that initial firm absorption of costs may not persist, risking larger price effects in 2026 [3] [9] [10].
3. American businesses: winners are narrow, losers broader
Some domestic manufacturers in protected sectors may gain short‑run relief or higher margins from reduced import competition, but broader business effects are negative: tariffs raise input costs for firms that rely on global supply chains, prompt firms to complain about higher prices and labor impacts (Equitable Growth; U.S. Chamber), and risk downstream job losses as companies reoptimize or cut headcount [11] [4] [12]. Reports indicate many firms absorbed costs in 2025, but that strategy has limits and could lead to price pass‑through or reduced hiring in 2026 [9] [10].
4. Government revenue vs. economic costs: a mixed accounting
Tariffs materially increased projected federal receipts—estimates range into the trillions over the 2026–35 window on a conventional basis—but dynamic scoring that accounts for economic feedback reduces those figures substantially (Tax Foundation; Yale) and the long‑term output loss partly offsets revenue gains [1] [2]. Harvard Kennedy School analysis underscores the debate over who actually bears tariff costs, noting revenue goals can conflict with the economic harm tariffs impose [5].
5. Retaliation, exports and political leverage: second‑order harms
Broad tariffs invite retaliation and damage export markets; the U.S. Chamber warns retaliation harms American workers and exporters [4], while Yale’s modeling shows sizable export declines and long‑run output losses after accounting for retaliatory measures [2]. Proponents argue tariffs provide leverage on issues like supply‑chain reshoring or geopolitical aims, but economic analyses suggest these benefits are concentrated and offset by wider trade damage [5] [6].
6. Uncertainty and reoptimization: hidden costs for investment and hiring
Rapid policy shifts and legal uncertainty—now reaching the Supreme Court—have raised compliance costs and hindered business planning, with firms flagging tariff volatility as a significant headwind heading into 2026 [13] [11]. Commentators and corporate filings suggest many effects have been delayed rather than avoided, meaning further price and labor disruptions could materialize as firms stop absorbing costs or restructure supply chains [9] [14].
7. Verdict: limited winners, broader costs — overall not a clear positive for Americans
Taken together, the evidence in independent economic studies and business reporting points to tariffs producing narrow, sectoral gains and substantial government receipts at the expense of higher consumer prices, reduced GDP, potential job and export losses, and elevated business uncertainty—an outcome that cannot be characterized as broadly positive for Americans or American businesses as a whole [1] [2] [7] [4]. The debate remains over strategic, non‑economic aims where proponents claim leverage or industrial policy benefits [5], but empirical estimates consistently flag net macroeconomic and distributional harms concentrated on consumers and many firms [3] [8].