Trump Tariffs to Cost U. S. Employers $82.3 Billion, Undermining Global Order
The news arrives packaged as a dollar amount: $82.3 billion. That’s the projected direct cost to a critical mass of American employers—those with $10 million to $1 billion in revenue—from President Trump’s tariff plans. But that’s the headline, not the story. The real story isn’t merely about economics; it’s about a deliberate dismantling of decades of painstakingly constructed global architecture and the question of what fills the void. It’s about replacing a system, however imperfect, with one seemingly based on the whims of a single actor and the erosion of predictability itself.
This $82.3 billion isn’t just evaporating. It’s getting redistributed, likely in ways that further concentrate wealth and power, accelerating existing inequalities. Some companies will absorb the costs through lower profit margins, squeezing already thin budgets. Others will pass it onto consumers, exacerbating inflationary pressures, particularly for lower-income households. Still others will resort to layoffs and hiring freezes, dampening economic activity and increasing inequality. These are not unintended consequences; they are predictable outcomes of a deliberate policy choice that favors disruption over stability.
The JPMorganChase Institute analysis, as reported by Khaosod, highlights the vulnerability of the retail and wholesale sectors, heavily reliant on imports from countries like China, India, and Thailand. What’s particularly damning is the contradiction of Trump’s claim that foreign manufacturers would bear the cost of tariffs. History, and basic economics, shows that import taxes are almost always paid by domestic consumers or businesses. Indeed, a 2019 study by the Congressional Budget Office estimated that Trump’s tariffs reduced U. S. real GDP by 0.1% and increased consumer prices by 0.3% in 2020.
Trump has indicated he’ll set tariff rates unilaterally, given the challenge of negotiating with so many nations. The rush to make deals is on. According to Trump’s social media, Vietnam will pay 20% tariff on all goods sent “into our Territory” and a 40% tariff on any transshipping, which usually means exports that come from China. In return, the U. S. will have “TOTAL ACCESS” to Vietnam’s market.
“Everything’s going well,” Trump says of the trade talks. But can “going well” really be defined by imposing tariffs to extract concessions?
The findings show clear trade-offs from Trump’s import taxes, contradicting his claims foreign manufacturers would absorb the costs of the tariffs instead of U. S. companies that rely on imports.
The problem here extends beyond the immediate economic impact. Trump’s trade policy operates on a flawed premise: that trade is a zero-sum game. He seems to view international relations as a series of bilateral power struggles, where the goal is to extract as much as possible from each individual nation. But this neglects the intricate web of interconnectedness that defines the modern global economy, and more importantly, the understanding that cooperation, even if imperfect, creates more surplus to be shared. It’s the difference between dividing a stagnant pie and baking a bigger one.
For decades, the United States championed a rules-based international order, built on principles of free trade, multilateralism, and cooperation. Even though those principles were rarely perfectly adhered to, they provided a stable framework for global commerce and investment. The World Trade Organization, for example, whatever its flaws, offered a mechanism for dispute resolution and a shared set of rules. By tearing up trade agreements and imposing tariffs seemingly at will, Trump is undermining that framework, and replacing it with… what, exactly? A system of ad-hoc deals dictated by the perceived leverage of the moment?
The implications are far-reaching. Investors, already jittery from years of uncertainty, are increasingly reluctant to commit to long-term projects. Global supply chains, painstakingly built over decades, are being disrupted, forcing companies to reassess their strategies and consider relocating production. The economic benefits of specialization and comparative advantage, the very engines of global growth, are being sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. But perhaps the most profound consequence is the erosion of trust in the system itself, a trust that took generations to build and can be destroyed in years.
Harvard economist Dani Rodrik, who has long studied the tensions between globalization and domestic politics, has argued that excessive globalization can erode social cohesion and undermine democratic governance. However, Rodrik is not necessarily opposed to globalization itself. Rather, he contends that an appropriate balance must be struck between global economic integration and domestic policy autonomy. He calls this the “globalization trilemma”: deep economic integration, national sovereignty, and democratic politics are mutually incompatible; we can only have two at a time. Trump’s approach doesn’t seem to acknowledge this nuance, favoring unilateralism at the expense of shared prosperity and stability.
Ultimately, the $82.3 billion price tag on Trump’s tariffs is a stark reminder that economic policy is not just about numbers. It’s about people, communities, and the choices that shape their lives. By dismantling the global trade order and embracing a confrontational approach to international relations, Trump is not only risking economic harm but also undermining the very foundation of trust and cooperation that underpins a stable and prosperous world. But even more fundamentally, it’s about whether we believe that global problems require global solutions, or whether a zero-sum, nation-first approach is the best path forward. That is the question that this $82.3 billion forces us to confront.
