Which demographic groups saw the biggest gains or losses under Trump's recent policies?
Executive summary
Pricing, trade and deregulation under the second Trump administration have produced uneven winners and losers: broad tariffs and trade restrictions hit consumers and some firms through higher import costs and disrupted supply chains [1] [2] [3], while deregulatory moves and a large slate of executive orders have benefited certain industries (energy, fossil fuels, business-facing sectors) and ideological allies inside government [4] [5] [6]. Critics and some analysts warn these policies raise macroeconomic risks—higher inflation, lower investor confidence and possible job cuts—while supporters argue they restore industry flexibility and national sovereignty [7] [8] [3].
1. Tariffs and consumers: higher prices and uncertain job gains
President Trump’s 2025 tariff campaign—described as sweeping and frequently changing—has directly raised costs for importers, retailers and consumers and is already disrupting global trade; observers at CNBC and Investopedia report the tariff wave is creating “economic risks for consumers, businesses, and investors” and could lead some companies to cut U.S. head counts in 2026 [1] [2]. The Peterson Institute’s modeling shows high tariffs plus retaliation could depress growth, raise prices and increase risks to U.S. assets—outcomes that typically hit lower- and middle-income households most because they spend a larger share of income on goods [3].
2. Industry winners: energy, business and deregulation beneficiaries
Brookings’ regulatory tracker and legal-watch summaries show a rapid deregulatory push across environment, labor and health rules in the administration’s first year back, benefiting fossil-fuel producers, extractive industries and other business sectors facing regulatory constraints [4] [5]. Holland & Knight and other trackers document executive orders targeting energy, trade and federal workforce policy—changes that generally reduce compliance costs for firms and expand operational leeway for industries prioritized by the administration [6] [5].
3. Federal workforce and contracting: staff cuts and program eliminations
Congressional and congressional-staff trackers report buyout offers for federal employees and sharp cuts in some agency programs: roughly 77,000 federal workers accepted voluntary buyouts (about 3.2% of the federal workforce) by February 2025, and USAID program eliminations were reported at an 83% reduction in one administration account, shifting remaining operations to State [9]. Those moves create concentrated losses for federal employees and communities dependent on public-sector jobs and aid programs [9].
4. Social policy and marginalized groups: Project 2025’s shadow and reproductive policy risk
Analyses of Project 2025 and House Democratic material indicate proposals to restrict abortion, fertility services and contraception, and to centralize federal authority—measures that would disproportionately affect women, low-income people and LGBTQ+ communities in states with limited protections [10] [11] [12]. Congressional Democrats frame these proposals as eroding rights; coverage of Project 2025 shows many executive actions mirror its agenda, a point noted by Time and summarized in reporting on the plan’s influence [11] [12].
5. Macroeconomic confidence and markets: reputational and inflationary risks
Multiple policy observers tie the administration’s fast pace of executive action and tariff unpredictability to higher policy uncertainty and market risk. CEPR and Chatham House flag elevated uncertainty—CEPR noting an unusually large number of early executive orders—and Chatham House warning that shocks to governance and tariffs raise inflationary pressures and could slow growth [7] [8]. PIIE’s scenario work shows tariffs could trigger dollar depreciation and broader economic spillovers [3].
6. Competing narratives and political framing
Supporters argue these moves restore American industry, cut burdensome regulation and reassert sovereignty in trade—claims reflected in law-firm and administration trackers that catalog policy intentions [5] [6]. Critics and independent economists counter that the costs fall unevenly on consumers, workers exposed to disrupted global supply chains, federal employees and vulnerable populations reliant on federal programs; they point to litigation, injunctions and international retaliation as evidence of downside risks [7] [9] [3].
Limitations and missing evidence: available sources document the policy tools, sectoral impacts and modeling scenarios but do not provide a single, consolidated breakdown quantifying “biggest gains or losses by demographic group” in dollar or employment terms; targeted, empirical estimates by demographic (race, age, income) are not found in current reporting and would require microdata analysis not present in these sources (not found in current reporting).