America's tariff experiment, now nearly a year old, is proving more painful than its architects anticipated. What began as a bold stroke to shield domestic industries and force concessions from trading partners has instead delivered a slow-burning rise in prices, complicating the Federal Reserve's battle against inflation. As the policy grinds on, economists warn that the real damage lies ahead, with consumers and businesses absorbing costs that erode purchasing power and economic momentum. This is not the quick victory promised but a protracted burden that risks entrenching higher prices just as the economy seeks stability.
The tariffs, rolled out in phases since early March 2025, have jacked up the average import duty from 2 percent to around 17 percent. Imported goods prices have climbed 4 percent since then, outpacing the 2 percent rise in domestic equivalents. Items like coffee, which the United States cannot produce at scale, have seen the sharpest hikes, alongside products from heavily penalized countries such as China. Retailers and importers, far from passing all costs abroad as hoped, have shouldered much of the load initially, limiting immediate sticker shock. Yet daily pricing data from major chains reveal a creeping pass-through: imported goods up 5 percent overall, domestic up 2.5 percent. Cautious sellers absorb some hit to avoid losing market share, but this restraint is fading as tariffs are embedded in supply chains.
Academic tracking of over 350,000 products underscores the pattern. Prices for tariff-hit imports have risen, though below the full duty rates, indicating partial absorption by foreign exporters and U.S. firms. This near-complete pass-through to U.S. importers - who then relay it to buyers - is creating a tangible drag on households already strained by post-pandemic finances. By August, tariffs accounted for 0.5 percentage points of headline personal consumption expenditures inflation and 0.4 points of core, explaining nearly 11 percent of the year's headline rise. Small and medium-sized businesses, surveyed through mid-year, report doubling their effective tariff payments from 6.5 percent in January to 11.4 percent by July, with expectations of enduring 25 percent rates fueling plans for broader price adjustments.
This domestic sting contrasts sharply with the White House narrative. Officials insist foreign producers will eat the costs to cling to America's vast market, preserving U.S. leverage without pain at home. Reality tells a different story. Total tariff costs could hit $1.2 trillion this year, with consumers footing $592 billion in higher prices. Goldman Sachs pegs the consumer share at 55 percent now, potentially climbing to 70 percent in 2026 as inventories deplete and contracts renegotiate.
The Federal Reserve finds itself caught in the crossfire. Tariffs complicate its dual mandate, injecting upside risks into inflation just as rate cuts aim to spur growth. Projections now see 2025 core personal consumption expenditures inflation at 3.1 percent, up 0.3 points from pre-tariff forecasts, with headline at 2.7 percent. Policymakers have paused easing, with one fewer cut eyed for 2026, as tariff-driven pressures on durables like appliances and electronics add 0.33 percentage points to core goods prices alone. A back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests a 0.75 percent bump in core consumer prices from direct import effects, excluding knock-on effects from input costs. Investment goods face steeper price increases: a 25 percent across-the-board tariff could lift their prices by 9.5 percent, compared with 2.2 percent for consumer items, curbing business spending and amplifying slowdowns.
Global ripples compound the trouble. Retaliatory measures from Canada, Mexico, and the European Union have trimmed China's growth forecast to 4.4 percent, dragging U.S. exports and supply chains. The dollar's 7 percent slide since December offers scant buffer, as it further raises import bills. Early dynamics mimic a demand shock, with pullbacks in spending temporarily easing inflation, but models predict a rebound: unemployment ticks up initially, then activity recovers amid stickier prices. For consumers, this means less variety on shelves, from apparel to electronics, as retailers prune options rather than absorb endless costs.
The irony runs deep. Tariffs were sold as a tool to revive manufacturing, yet they now fuel the very inflation they were meant to counter. To address this, we must move beyond rhetoric and toward concrete civic solutions. We need to mandate a bimonthly, non-partisan audit of the tariff’s costs to the American public. This audit should include an automatic "trigger" for Congressional review if the data shows the "sting" on consumers - measured by price pass-through and impact on the Fed's inflation mandate - has become too high.
Such reform would ensure that protectionism remains a calculated strategy rather than a blind burden. As 2026 looms, with pass-through accelerating, the policy's flaws stand exposed. Reversing course would be admitting defeat; doubling down invites a recession. Ultimately, these safeguards are necessary because, as the current data proves, protectionism's bill always arrives at the domestic door, paid in full by those least able to afford it.
Imran Khalid is a physician, geostrategic analyst, and freelance writer.




















President Donald Trump says Americans’ financial struggles matter “not even a little bit” as inflation rises, gas prices surge, and a controversial $1.7 billion taxpayer-funded compensation plan for political allies emerges.
Trump Says Americans’ Pain ‘Doesn’t Matter’ as $1.7B Aids His Allies
Perhaps the most effective ad in the 2024 campaign was “Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you.” Since that ad ran, the American people have learned that it is anything but true.
With gas prices having surged 28% in two months, inflation climbing to a three-year high of 3.8%, and the average family is spending an estimated $5,000 more this year than last due to rising costs across the board, a reporter asked Trump a simple question: To what extent are Americans’ financial situations motivating him to reach a deal to end the war in Iran?
Trump's answer was startling in its candor.
“Not even a little bit,” the President said. “The only thing that matters when I'm talking about Iran — they can't have a nuclear weapon. I don't think about Americans' financial situation. I don't think about anybody.”
But perhaps the most clarifying lens through which to view those words is what emerged just days later: Trump was suing the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for $10 billion in damages over an IRS contractor’s leak of his tax returns but is now expected to drop that $10 billion lawsuit, not because justice has been served, but in exchange for the creation of a $1.7 billion fund to compensate his political allies.
The money would come not from any congressional appropriation but from the Treasury Department's Judgment Fund, a public fund funded by taxpayers that exists to pay legitimate court judgments against the federal government.
Under the proposed terms, a five-member commission with total authority to disburse that $1.7 billion would operate with no obligation to disclose its procedures or decision-making. Trump himself would retain the power to remove commission members without cause.
The beneficiaries? Among them: the nearly 1,600 individuals charged in connection with the January 6 Capitol attack, some of whom pleaded guilty, and people Trump already pardoned upon returning to office, as well as allies who claim they were targets of “weaponization” of the legal system under former President Joe Biden. Entities associated with Trump himself are not explicitly barred from filing claims.
The contrast here is not subtle. When asked directly whether the financial pain of working Americans factors into his decision-making, the president answers “not even a little bit.”
Yet within the same week, a deal surfaces in which $1.7 billion in public funds could flow to Trump allies, Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, and potentially Trump-linked entities — all under a commission the president controls, with no transparency requirements.
While ordinary Americans are losing ground financially, the president himself is doing remarkably well — and the numbers are staggering.
According to Forbes, Trump's net worth jumped from roughly $2.3 billion when he returned to the White House in January 2025 to an estimated $6.3 billion by April 2026 — nearly tripling his fortune in little over a year.
A New York Times investigation found that he personally gained approximately $1.4 billion in 2025 alone, a single-year increase that approaches the combined net worth of every other U.S. president while in office throughout American history.
The primary engine of that growth has not been real estate, the business that built his brand over five decades, but rather cryptocurrency ventures, meme coins, and media deals, all industries he has simultaneously deregulated from the Oval Office.
The American people are not the constituency this president governs for. The data bears that out. Real wages are losing ground as energy costs surge. The personal savings rate has dropped to 4%. Small businesses have shed hundreds of thousands of jobs under the weight of tariffs. Gas sits at over $4 a gallon. And the president's answer to the question of whether your financial pain is even in his mind is: no.
There is, of course, an argument to be made that preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon is a legitimate and serious national security priority that may justify some economic disruption.
But that argument is entirely separate from whether a president should care about the daily financial suffering of the people he was elected to serve. One can hold two things in mind at once. Trump apparently cannot — or will not.
We clearly have a portrait of a president whose conception of governance begins and ends with him and his loyalists. And when ordinary Americans ask if their struggles even register, they get the most honest answer this administration has offered: not even a little bit.
Lynn Schmidt is a columnist and Editorial Board member with the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. She holds a master's of science in political science as well as a bachelor's of science in nursing.