Even on Pause, Trump's Trade War Runs Up a Big Price Tag
Predictions vary as to the ultimate cost, but there’s no doubt that tariffs create economic pain.

If you're keeping track—and economists are making their best efforts—President Donald Trump's trade war with the entire planet is running up quite a price tag. Even with a 90-day pause on some tariffs (except for China), the imposition or even just the threat of import taxes on goods from around the world and the inevitable retaliation by other countries is expected to take a bite out of the economy and people's prosperity. Figuring out how much of a bite it will take is a trick, but there's little doubt that it will be painful.
You are reading The Rattler from J.D. Tuccille and Reason. Get more of J.D.'s commentary on government overreach and threats to everyday liberty.
Trade War and Its Impact
The grimmest assessment of the trade war's impact so far may come from the Penn-Wharton Budget Model (PWBM). In an analysis considering costs of the Trump administration's tariff plans as of April 8, economists and data-crunchers Lysle Boller, Kody Carmody, Jon Huntley, and Felix Reichling warned that "many trade models fail to capture the full harm of tariffs." Using their own model, the authors project that tariffs announced so far "would reduce GDP by about 8% and wages by 7%" over time.
The tariffs, the PWBM team adds, affect the economy through three main channels: The tax on imported goods imposes costs on consumers and businesses in the United States, with consumers suffering the brunt of it in the longer term; the reduction in imported goods "means foreign businesses and governments will purchase fewer U.S. assets, including U.S. federal government bonds"; and increased economic policy uncertainty from the tariff announcements will reduce economic activity as businesses and individuals put off investment, hiring, and spending while they wait to see how matters shake out.
The PWBM analysis concluded that the tariffs would raise revenue roughly equivalent to increasing the corporate income tax from 21 percent to 36 percent, or $5.2 trillion over 10 years. "While raising the corporate tax rate is generally seen as highly economically distorting, tariffs would reduce GDP and wages by more than twice as much," the authors caution.
What that would mean in real terms for average Americans, they add, is that "a middle-income household faces a $58K lifetime loss."
The Tax Foundation has also been tracking the cost of the trade war in an ongoing analysis by Erica York, vice president of federal trade policy, and senior economist Alex Durante. As of April 11, they "estimate tariffs will cause imports to fall by slightly more than $800 billion in 2025, or 24 percent." Revenue-wise, they see tariffs raising $2.2 trillion over the next decade. Obviously, that big an effect on trade will also have an impact on the U.S. economy.
"We estimate that before accounting for any foreign retaliation, Trump's tariffs will reduce long-run US GDP by 0.8 percent," York and Durante warn. "As of April 10, threatened and imposed retaliatory tariffs affect $330 billion of US exports based on 2024 US import values; if fully imposed, we estimate they would reduce US GDP by 0.2 percent. Combined, the US-imposed tariffs and the threatened and imposed retaliatory tariffs reduce US GDP by 1.0 percent."
As does PWBM, the Tax Foundation expects the Trump administration's tariffs and resulting retaliation to hurt the U.S. economy. But there's a substantial difference between the Tax Foundation's negative forecast and the darker predictions of PWBM. The economists at PWBM already said they think other models underestimate the impact of tariffs. By email, I asked York for her take on the difference between her organization's calculations and the PWBM numbers.
"While tariffs are more economically harmful than a simple analysis suggests due to how they affect capital investment and productivity growth, PWBM's approach and findings seem very aggressive," she responded. She added that the grimmer predictions "are very far outside the range of what other modeling finds."
Overall, Economists Agree Tariff Uncertainty Causes Pain
That said, the disagreement between the two analyses is one of degree; both concur that a trade war will hurt Americans. Part of the difference is a matter of uncertainty over economic policy, foreign and domestic, which PWBM notes "generally depresses economic activity by prompting firms and households to postpone investment, hiring, and consumption decisions."
That point was emphasized by Minneapolis Federal Reserve President Neel Kashkari, who last week wrote, "the significant increase in economic uncertainty will likely reduce firms' desire to invest."
Agreeing with that point is Larry Fink, CEO of the financial firm BlackRock.
"I think you're going to see, across the board, just a slowdown until there's more certainty," Fink told CNBC on Friday. "And we now have a 90-day pause on the reciprocal tariffs—that means longer, more elevated uncertainty."
From a trade perspective, it's good that tariffs have been partially paused—again, except for China. But a 90-day pause isn't a cancellation of the trade war; it just kicks the can down the road. Until people know whether tariffs will eventually be hiked, and the degree to which other nations will retaliate, many would-be investors are likely to sit on their hands, businesses will hold off on committing to deals, and consumers will put off purchases. The almost certain result is a big hit to the economy.
"I think we're very close, if not in, a recession now," Fink added.
Predicting the Precise Outcome of Bad Policy Is Less Important Than Knowing It's Bad
It's probably a mistake to look to economic models for precise crystal-ball gazing. When it comes to this trade war—or most economic policies—the economists are better pointing to a direction rather than a specific destination.
"Economics is not about forecasting," comments economist and Hoover Institution senior fellow John Cochrane. "Most of what happens comes from external shocks. Economics is better at cause and effect—what is the effect of tariffs?"
And most economists agree on the effects of tariffs in general, the protectionist measures imposed by both the first Trump and subsequent Biden administrations, and the draconian trade barriers now championed by the second Trump administration. They'll hurt the U.S. economy and make us poorer.
It may be too soon to forecast the precise costs of protectionism and of starting a trade war with the entire world, but we can be sure that it will run up an enormous price tag.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"Economics is not about forecasting," comments economist and Hoover Institution senior fellow John Cochrane.
Nuh, uh. Economics is the science of explaining why your predictions were wrong.
And why you will be right next time.
Maybe Reason should look at tariffs from the other side. What is happening there? Sure, it sucks to be an American consumer of foreign goods today, but why don't we ever hear about what's going on in other countries due the these tariffs?
Trump has two very powerful things: the military and the economy. He will use both to threaten anyone globally. Why? Because his perception—right or wrong—is that America has portrayed itself as weak. He's taking a page from Putin's book and showing a force of strength against everyone.
Both Putin and Trump take a page from Sun Tzu: When you are strong, make your enemies think you are weak; when you are weak, make your enemies think you are strong. It s a very effective strategy.
When you have the most powerful military and economy in the world, the rest of the world will walk on eggshells if you flex. That's all this is: a Trump flex. It's part of a strategy of hard negotiation. If you have the upper hand in a negotiation, why would you acquiesce?
So you're saying, Trump is acting like we are strong although we are weak? That checks out. What Trump revealed to everyone with the bond market drop last week and his sudden pause on reciprocal tariffs is the the US economy is vulnerable.
To add to the trouble, China is a major holder of US debt and can basically collapse the US economy, or at least the US/world monetary system.
<It's part of a strategy of hard negotiation. If you have the upper hand in a negotiation...
Whether Trump has the upper hand is questionable, certainly considering he took on the entire world.
You are correct that China holds a good amount of US debt. However, they are not the largest holder, Japan takes that title. Additionally, China and Japan are reducing their ownership of US debt, so that ability to influence the US is diminishing. It is still substantial, but I don't think there is a long-term concern. If China wants to screw US debt, there are significantly more holders who more than likely would want to protect that investment.
Here's a good link: https://usafacts.org/articles/which-countries-own-the-most-us-debt/
Here's a good link too:
China's trade war weapons: Rare earth ban and US debt dump could cripple American economy and defense
Excellent article, but like JT's article, it really only speaks to the US side. Yes, rare earth metals imports would be affected, but China isn't the only supplier. If you cut off supplies to the biggest buyer, that buyer will seek alternatives. Additionally, I can see the Trump administration declaring a national emergency and hoarding all rare earth metals for the military. It may also expedite reclaim and recovery in the US.
China has serious economic problems. Most local governments are under water with their debt burden, and his national government is bailing them out. Consumers in China were adversely affected by the housing boom and bust that is currently going on. Their economy isn't growing and Xi recently acknowledged that consumer consumption may be a way out (it's actually the only way out, but I digress...). But with consumers holding and not spending, that affects their economy.
The trade deficit is in China's favor. That means their economy is more dependent on the US than we are on theirs. Yes, we are dependent on their manufacturing to whet our appetite for consumption, but if Americans are unsure about the economy and prices for Chinese goods are more expensive, it means less consumer consumption and less revenue for China. This exasperates their economic pressure significantly.
If Xi sells bonds he's shooting himself in the foot. A weaker dollar just makes Chinese imports that much higher, justifying less US consumer spending.
Xi is in a bad spot because he's told his underlings never to back down. He's playing chicken with Trump, and Xi is incredibly ignorant when it comes to economics. It might not end well for China. And it's for this reason I'd like Reason to start looking at the effects these policies have on the targeted countries. It's complicated, but Reason seems to only want to focus on the US and bellyache over what's happening here.
If Xi sells bonds he's shooting himself in the foot. A weaker dollar just makes Chinese imports that much higher, justifying less US consumer spending.
I agree with what you say above. All other things being equal, Trump has much in his favor, but Xi has one thing over Trump, and it's a game changer. Complete control of his population. Xi can make moves that are extremely harmful to China's commoners and stick it out. Trump can't. Americans will only take so much before they turn on Trump and his trade war. It's already poorly well below half of Americans in favor.
Americans consume 40% of all Chinese exports. You are correct that the perception is that he has total control over his population. He does until he doesn't.
Congress will blink before Trump does, and constitutionally they have the power to do that. It also allows Trump to scapegoat Congress for being spineless. That puts a lot of Congresspeople and Senators on notice in MAGA states. It is a very, very complicated game of chicken being played out on multiple fronts.
The #1 thing that people don't give Trump credit for is being an excellent marketer and spinster. THAT is his killer app. He is absolutely playing the populist game, let's see if his marketing chops can outlast China and Congress.
Larry Fink
Man, just when I thought this rag couldn't sink lower, they straight up listen to this Bond villain.
I can't wait for Koch to die, this website will go fast.
I am still curious to the Reason crowd:
If tariffs are so horrible, why does EVERY COUNTRY in the world use them against the United States.
Tariffs must be a pretty awesome trade tactic for EVERY COUNTRY in the world to use them.
why does EVERY COUNTRY in the world use them against the United States.
Because governments do stupid things, hence why we are libertarians.
Tariffs are terrible economics but they're great politics.
They're great politics because they're an excellent way to bestow political favors on industries.
They're terrible economics because protected industries stagnate without competition.
They're great politics because they prop up protected industries that would have gone without protection.
They're terrible economics because they ignore comparative advantage and create opportunity costs.
They're great politics because their costs are dispersed while their benefits are concentrated.
They're terrible economics because they raise costs for everyone.
Finally they're often used by countries with small governments because they're relatively easy to collect compared to something like an income tax.
If they’re so terrible, Sarc, then why do so many countries have tariffs on our goods?
Even the countries with much "lower labor" costs have them. Why would they need them? Based on the economics of sarcasia they would be redundant.
Because Socialists are economic morons.
So is Trump and his defenders.
So is your mom.
Mom jokes never get old.
You're just going to keep committing to this nonsense, aren't you.
The masks are important!
He's is the picture of health, strength and mental cognition!
She is articulate and well-spoken!
They're not pedophiles targeting children!
The terrorists are the real victims here!
Like, you're just going to go full-tilt towards everything everyone knows is false.
Funny how burning cities for a lie is an unalloyed good to Toosilly but the steps required to get towards free trade are a bridge and cost too far. Fuck off you proggy leftist.
These tariffs are not a step to free trade, and Trump doesn't want free trade. Trump thinks that trade deficits are a loss and he wants to get rid of them, because he's economically illiterate when it comes to macroeconomics. That is the goal of his tariffs - eliminate trade deficits. I mean, how fucking stupid is that? And how fucking stupid are the people who go along with that?
Unilateral trade is not free trade no matter how many times you lie about it.
“Everybody expects that the 10 percent baseline tariff is going to be the baseline and it’s gonna take some kind of extraordinary deal for the president to go below there,” --Hasset
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/10/trump-baseline-tariffs-staying-033077
Funny how that isn't responsive in the slightest to the double standard and dishonesty that is the original point. I guess you exemplify the point, so congrats on that I guess.
I was addressing that free trade is not the goal.
1. Yes, we know. We know tariffs are painful. But the US is a massive market and the pain is greater for those selling to us than us.
2. Stock market is relevant to who though? I don't have stonks. Kids are whining they can't afford a house. Who is being hurt by stock devaluation? People who can afford to "trade* stonks. Fuck 'em. We're in this mess because of them.
Who is being hurt by stock devaluation?
The MAGA right is the new left.
The sad fact is: if you had assumed a bit of risk and traded, you'd probably be able to help your kids buy a house at this point. It really shouldn't be that way since buying a house is a rather low bar, but your resentment toward people who played smarter than you is pretty emblematic of the whole political age we're in. Folks expect great success after doing the bare minimum and grow angry after waking up to the real odds. No one screwed you -- you, along with ~40% of the population, just missed a boat that had been waiting for decades for you to hop on. Let's at least establish responsibility on that side of the ledger before blaming an entire system that allowed the rest of us to make it.
So, if the stock market fails let's say because of tariffs and fear and then folks who expected great success lose substantial parts of those monies you are also ok with that because in your words of the ability to establish responsibility and the system that allowed them to see those losses right?
Yes, absolutely. All investment involves risk, especially crypto. A market crash is only fatal for folks who put all their eggs in one basket.
You need a better understanding of investing. Did you put any margin calls over the past two weeks? Did you not see that it was a short-seller's paradise, and then folks who took positions when it dropped significantly made bank when the market spiked after the dip.
Any seasoned investor knew this was going to occur. Most people have a 401K or some other retirement account and have no idea what's going on in there. Other folks, who are educated and study the market, made a ton of money over the past couple of weeks by setting up positions that made them money.
How do you feel about people who invest in crypto?
Hilarious comment given the house buying metrics decreases substantially by generation under the economics of false free unilateral trade.
You're kinda right. You're a failure because you have the freedom to waste your life away commenting on a trivial forum all day, when really you need government to hold your hand. It's pretty obvious that you play the game of life poorly
He said to the guy that was just promoted to prime minister.
*self-appointed Prime Minister of the rats*
Yikes.
And yet . . . here you are, in the mid with the rest of us.
You're making a lot of assumptions about me.
First of all, my kids already have houses. Houses they bought themselves without help.
Secondly, I have three of my own.
So I'm doing fine, just fine, thank you, without having to play the market because I assumed risk in a different area.
Since the government began it's policy of destruction of the currency pretty much everybody has been forced into the market. Every 401k, pension, IRA or any other retirement is invested in it.
There's an old saying in finance, "if you want a half dozen economic forecasts, ask two economists."
Economic forecasts are just mathematical formulas, and the math is just math. The problem with economic models, though, is that they rely on an assumption that consumers and producers will both react rationally to economic influences. Too bad that's rarely the case.
This. Arguing (or writing stories) about models and projections means deliberately ignoring what is really happening NOW. Even if what Trump is doing is merely a negotiation strategy, it has already had an immediate impact that is not included in models.
He announces tariffs on everyone and everything then postpones some of them - but the result is that someone is puking Treasuries and equities and the dollar, buying gold, canceling shipping entirely, etc. THOSE actions are what have consequences not some model with parameters set in stone long before anything was even announced. And not mere rhetoric by an orangish blowhard.
For the China stuff which isn't postponed, Trump announced tech/electronics exemptions. Those exemptions have an impact and it sure doesn't mean any tech stuff is moving to the US. Some Apple lobbyist (and the techbro billionaires at the inauguration) clearly earned paychecks/donations. As always Reason will ignore cronyism and corruption, but what is the impact of that exemption on the negotiation strategy? Has Trump already backed down on IP theft by China or is the strategy to ensure that China stops stealing IP related to darning socks? Is the goal to rendustrialize America via textiles?
1. They started it, Trump is just finally fighting back.
2. We don't HAVE to buy the same stuff, we can buy cheaper stuff from other places, including the USA.
3. The stock market is already back.
But think of the poor, struggling WEF globalist billionaires, and all their dedicated "citizens of the world" minions!
Tariffs hurt consumers. They are considered a regressive tax because of the disproportionate affect on the poor and middle class.
Fuck the people.
You’re an idiot.
2022: BIDENFLATION IS KILLING AMERICA!
2025: Shut up about higher prices already!
That’s a shitty attempt to troll with a crappy false equivalency, Sarc.
What higher prices? Have they grown by 21%?
Duh. There is no way to decouple from China without paying a price, and that is a price that must now be paid. It's way past time.
Not as costly and painful as the income tax!
Not even close. These tariffs are just a small consumption tax.