The alarming consequences of President Trump’s tariff agenda, marketed as a bid for patriotic self-reliance but operating in practice as a regressive tax, are becoming unmistakable. His revived tariff crusade, in motion since his January inauguration, has propelled the average US tariff rate to 17.3 percent – its highest since the protectionist misadventures of 1935, according to Yale’s Budget Lab. What began as a targeted assault on Chinese imports has swelled into a global broadside, the latest salvo, duties of up to 41 percent, taking effect on August 7 under the banner of “Liberation Day” tariffs.
The rhetoric is familiar: tariffs will spur domestic production, create jobs, and loosen foreign dependencies. The reality is harder to spin. The June Consumer Price Index showed a 3.2 percent year-on-year rise, with food prices climbing at twice the 20-year average. Goldman Sachs now expects core inflation to peak at 3.8 percent before the year ends, as the impact seeps into every aisle and checkout counter.
An AP-NORC poll finds half of Americans naming grocery prices as a major source of stress; among households earning less than $30,000, that figure climbs to two-thirds. The victims are not only shoppers. Small businesses, supposedly the prime beneficiaries, are finding themselves cornered. Dusty Kenney, who sells baby spoons and lunch boxes sourced from China, faces a 34 percent rise in material costs because tariffs on plastics have no viable domestic workaround.
The American Toy Association notes that four-fifths of US toys are Chinese-made, ensuring that tariffs ricochet straight onto store shelves. Even corporate giants are straining. Many of them have substantially raised prices on a quarter of its product lines, because tariffs on the food and household items are beyond what can be “absorbed.”
Economists have long dismissed the fiction that tariffs are paid by foreign producers. They are importer taxes, passed on to consumers. Yale estimates the short-term price bump at 1.8 percent, stripping an average of $2,400 a year from each household’s budget, rising to $3,800 once higher apparel and footwear costs are factored in. Morgan Stanley projects a decade-long $2.7 trillion drain on household incomes. Retail sales in June dipped 0.33 percent, core sales by 0.32 percent. GDP forecasts for 2025 have been shaved by half a percentage point, with a stubborn drag predicted into subsequent years. The Tax Foundation calls it what it is: a $1,300 annual tax increase per household in 2025 in the United States.
And this is not merely an American problem. When the world’s largest importer raises its drawbridge, the ripples are global. The August 7 measures have hit goods from Canada, Mexico, and Europe, inviting inevitable retaliation. Canadian lumber, Mexican avocados, European steel – all face price pressure, either from higher duties or from exporters swallowing losses. In developing economies dependent on US markets, the shock can be severe. Tariffs on Chinese aluminium have even pushed the founder of Arizona Iced Tea to consider ending his brand’s famous 99-cent price, a small but telling symbol of commodity strain.
On August 11, Trump extended a 90-day tariff truce with China for the second time, suspending a planned rate hike while preserving a 10 percent reciprocal duty – a gesture framed as negotiation space. Yet this respite is narrowly focused; levies on other trading partners continue. Beijing, in turn, has urged its firms to ditch US chips, intensifying a tech decoupling likely to raise electronics costs worldwide. US tariff revenues tripled in June to $28 billion, padding Washington’s coffers at the expense of global trade flows. For exporters in South Asia or Africa – Pakistan’s textiles, India’s grains – the combination of lost access and retaliatory barriers spells both inflation and unemployment.
There is a historical echo here, and it is not flattering. The Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930 was meant to protect US jobs; instead, it helped deepen the Great Depression by triggering retaliatory tariffs and collapsing trade. Today’s “reciprocal” strategy risks replaying that sequence on a 21st-century scale. More than 90 percent of US importers are small enterprises, without the capital or infrastructure to bring supply chains home overnight. For a time, warehouse stockpiles softened the blow. But as they run down, cars, clothes, and coffee queue up for their turn at higher prices.
Seen from outside the United States, this is more than economic miscalculation – it carries the whiff of imperial entitlement. For decades, Washington preached the virtues of free trade, prising open markets in the Global South to benefit US exporters. Now, when the winds shift, the same superpower erects barriers with little regard for those caught in the crossfire. The result is a form of fiscal extraction: billions flowing into US tariff revenues, while the costs are borne disproportionately by poorer consumers at home and abroad.
The fragility of the current economic order is laid bare. In theory, tariffs could be a tool for strategic realignment, helping critical industries and rebalancing trade. In practice, they have become a political talisman, rallying nationalist sentiment at the expense of economic common sense. The wage gains touted by the administration are quietly eaten away by supermarket bills and utility charges. Abroad, the same measures feed a broader pattern of stagflation: growth slowing even as prices rise.
Families in the U.S. feel it in the lighter weight of their shopping carts; in Dhaka, Lagos, or Bogotá, households feel it in dearer imports and scarcer jobs. And all this in a global economy already strained by climate shocks, debt crises, and technological disruption.
The lesson, as ever, is that protectionism is easy to proclaim and hard to contain. History’s warnings are not distant relics but living signals. The longer tariffs are wielded as blunt instruments of political theatre, the more they risk carving deep and lasting scars.
The checkout line may seem an unlikely front line for an economic battle, but in a globalised marketplace, it is precisely where policies meet people. Before that line becomes a fault line, at home and abroad, Washington might consider whether this is a war worth waging.
Dear reader,
Opinions expressed in the op-ed section are solely those of the individual author and do not represent the official stance of our newspaper. We believe in providing a platform for a wide range of voices and perspectives, even those that may challenge or differ from our own. We remain committed to providing our readers with high-quality, fair, and balanced journalism. Thank you for your continued support.
