The Washington Center for Equitable Growth recently hosted a webinar examining the economic, fiscal, and labor‑market effects of evolving U.S. tariff laws and regulations, particularly in the wake of the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. While those tariffs were struck down, uncertainty remains as the Trump administration seeks to replace them with tariffs enacted under alternative authorities—notably, Section 301 investigations that historically have been used by the U.S. Trade Representative to protect domestic industries from unfair trade practices.
Opening the event, Equitable Growth President and CEO Shayna Strom emphasized that tariffs’ “impacts on jobs, prices, and economic growth not only [aren’t] going away, they’re getting even more confusing.” The purpose of the event, she said, was to ground the debate in evidence rather than rhetoric.
Equitable Growth researcher Chris Bangert‑Drowns then presented the organization’s updated tariff data project, which estimates tariff‑related input costs across U.S. economic sectors, industries, and geographies using real effective tariff rates rather than statutory ones. He showed that nearly every U.S. sector experienced sharp tariff cost increases in 2025, often in multiple waves, and that the impacts of the tariffs vary widely.
“Almost every U.S. economic sector experienced two rounds of tariff growth last year—in some cases explosive tariff growth,” Bangert‑Drowns noted. While manufacturing does not always appear as the most exposed industry when looking only at tariff rates, it becomes the most affected sector by the Trump administration’s tariff policies once imported inputs are considered in the context of all input costs. “When you combine tariff rates with import shares,” he explained, “we find manufacturing actually is the most impacted sector in the U.S. economy.”
The updated data also allow for detailed geographic analysis of tariff impacts across the country. Midwestern and southern states face particularly high tariff exposure due to their concentration of manufacturing employment. These patterns, Bangert‑Drowns suggested, matter not just economically but also politically, given how narrowly recent presidential elections have been decided.
Following the presentation, Associated Press journalist Josh Boak moderated a panel discussion with Elena Patel of The Brookings Institution, Carola Binder of the University of Texas at Austin, Riley Ohlson of the AFL‑CIO, and Bangert‑Drowns.
Patel focused on tariffs as a source of federal revenue and a tool of economic policy. While the Trump administration may succeed in reimposing similar tariffs through Section 301, she argued that tariffs are an unreliable solution to the budget deficit. “Can this solve our deficit problem? The answer is probably not,” Patel said, pointing out that tariffs only raise revenue if imports continue. Higher tariffs, by design, shrink the import tax base over time.
Patel also warned about legal and administrative uncertainties. “There’s $200 billion right now that is in question about how this is going to be refunded and to whom it’s going to be refunded,” she said of the recently overturned IEPA tariffs, calling it “a really complicated question.”
Binder addressed the inflation fears that followed initial tariff announcements in 2025. While tariffs deliver inflationary supply shocks, she explained that uncertainty can suppress demand, offsetting some price pressure as the economy contracts. “Policy uncertainty … reduces aggregate demand,” Binder said, making the net inflation effect smaller than many predicted. Looking ahead, however, she raised concerns about Federal Reserve policymaking. “If they’re concerned about inflation expectations becoming unanchored,” Binder warned, “then they might have to respond by raising interest rates, which would have pretty bad consequences for the real economy.”
From the labor movement’s perspective, Ohlson emphasized that not all tariffs are alike. “If you’re looking at sectoral‑based tariffs … where there is idle capacity, we do see positive outcomes,” he said. But broad, rapidly changing tariffs create instability. “You’re not going to reline a blast furnace,” he explained, “if the tariff could change in the next three months, or three weeks, or three days.”
Ohlson stressed that tariffs must be paired with industrial policies that benefit workers. “[Tariffs] need to be strategic, they need to be thoughtful, they need to be paired with industrial policy,” he said, warning that uncertainty itself is a major drag on investment and wages.
Panelists broadly agreed that tariff costs are largely passed on to U.S. firms and consumers, not foreign exporters. Bangert‑Drowns pointed to existing research showing that “most of the tariff costs faced by businesses are being passed down to their business clients or to consumers.” He also highlighted that small businesses are more vulnerable to tariff impacts than large firms, which have greater capacity to manage compliance and absorb temporary losses.
The discussion also addressed claims that tariffs have single‑handedly revived U.S. manufacturing or generated trillions of dollars in new investment, to which the panel expressed skepticism. “It’s very hard … to say this is because of policy X or tariff Y,” Patel said, noting that businesses’ major investments are typically years in the making and influenced by many factors.
In closing, the speakers emphasized that tariffs are a blunt instrument. Patel cautioned against distorting trade laws beyond their intended purpose, while Binder summed up the macroeconomic view bluntly: “Tariffs are not a good tool for macroeconomic policy.” Ohlson stressed the risk of swinging back to an equally damaging status quo, arguing instead for targeted trade enforcement combined with sustained investment in workers.
Across perspectives, the central message was consistent: U.S. trade policy must be predictable, targeted, and paired with broader economic strategies if it is to support economic growth, policy credibility, and working‑class prosperity.
This article was drafted with assistance from Microsoft Copilot.
Did you find this content informative and engaging?
Get updates and stay in tune with U.S. economic inequality and growth!
Stay updated on our latest research
The post Equitable Growth event covers tariffs, tariff uncertainties, and the limits of U.S. trade policy appeared first on Equitable Growth.
