Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The Hidden Moral Cost of America’s Tariff Crisis

Opinion

The Hidden Moral Cost of America’s Tariff Crisis

Small business owner attaching permanent close sign on the shop door.

Getty Images, Kannika Paison

In the spring of 2025, as American families struggle with unprecedented consumer costs, we find ourselves at a point of "moral reckoning." The latest data from the Yale Budget Lab reveals that tariff policies have driven consumer prices up by 2.9% in the short term. In comparison, the Penn Wharton Budget Model projects a staggering 6% reduction in long-term GDP and a 5% decline in wages. But these numbers, stark as they are, tell only part of the story.

The actual narrative is one of moral choice and democratic values. Eddie Glaude describes this way in his book “Democracy in Black”: Our economic policies must be viewed through the lens of ethical significance—not just market efficiency. When we examine the tariff regime's impact on American communities, we see economic data points and a fundamental challenge to our democratic principles of equity and justice.


Far too often, the burden of such policies falls disproportionately on those who are least able to bear it. Black Enterprise reports that Black-owned businesses face a dual challenge: economic survival and preserving their role as community anchors. The average American household is preparing to shoulder an additional $3,800 annual costs. Still, this figure masks a more profound inequity—BIPOC communities and working-class families spend a higher percentage of their income on consumer goods, meaning they bear a disproportionate share of the tariff burden.

The state of our economic solvency is particularly crucial because it intersects with a concept known as the “value gap." The value gap is a premise that white(ness) lives are valued more than others, which Gluade argues remains embedded in our economic and legislative policies. Trump's enacted tariffs' disparate impact on ethnic and uniquely diverse-owned businesses isn't merely coincidental; it reflects more profound structural inequities in our financial system.

Small businesses, particularly those in marginalized communities, face existential threats. According to Small Business Majority, 53% of small companies are concerned about tariffs' negative impacts. These aren't just statistics—they represent community pillars, generational wealth builders, and engines of local economic mobility.

Adherence to a moral imperative requires us to move beyond purely economic calculations. It invites deeply reflective and prophetic questioning of ourselves and our systems. We must ask: What kind of society do we wish to be? How do our trade policies reflect our values? The answer lies not in protectionist rhetoric but in "democratic practices"—policies that strengthen communities rather than fracture them.

Many economists forecast that 72% of small businesses anticipate higher prices; we are not just seeing market dynamics at work. The country is witnessing the erosion of community resilience, the narrowing of economic opportunity, and the weakening of social bonds that sustain democratic life. Finding sound solutions requires reimagining our economic policies through a moral lens and prioritizing equity and community well-being. Hence, developing trade policies that:

  1. Recognize the interconnected nature of economic justice and democratic health
  2. Account for disparate impacts on marginalized communities
  3. Support rather than undermine local economic ecosystems
  4. Prioritize long-term community stability over short-term political gains

The potential impact of the proposed tariff on U.S. communities and consumers could not result in economic consequences. Such tariffs bring to bear a moral crisis that demands a response grounded in principled and practical solutions. Pathways forward are possible with increased economic adjustments; they fundamentally rethink how we value community, equity, and democratic participation in financial decisions. A democracy's economy ought to be more than just market efficiency. It should be morally courageous and committed to shared prosperity.

Fierce debate over Trump-era tariffs transcends mere spreadsheets and GDP calculations. It is not an argument about trade deficits or quarterly economic indicators—it's a mirror reflecting our national identity and core values. When leaders indiscriminately slap tariffs on steel from Canada or solar panels from China, we're not just adjusting numbers on a balance sheet but making profound statements about how we view our place in the global community. Unfortunately, protectionist policies often hit hardest in unexpected places: the main street's mom & pop shops, rural American manufacturers who can't afford higher material costs, the local farmer watching crops rot because their usual markets have vanished, or the single parent facing steeper prices at the grocery store.

Instead of retreating behind economic walls, policies that match the complexity of our times are essential—policies that protect American workers while staying true to our traditions of innovation, fair play, and economic opportunity for all. We are left to choose between continuing in a direction that exacerbates economic inequality and community fragmentation or embracing a vision of monetary policy as a moral practice that strengthens our democratic fabric while ensuring no community bears an unjust burden in our pursuit of economic security.

Rev. Dr. F. Willis Johnson is a spiritual entrepreneur, author, scholar-practioner whose leadership and strategies around social and racial justice issues are nationally recognized and applied.

Read More

The baking isn’t done only by elected officials. It’s done by citizens​

a view of the capitol building

The baking isn’t done only by elected officials. It’s done by citizens​

In November, eight Senate Democrats voted with Republicans to end the longest government shutdown in history, with little to show for the 43-day closure.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), who was not one of the eight, told discouraged Democrats, “We need to remember the battle we’re in….[We need to continue the fight] to defend our country from Trump and MAGA. Two things coming up that are really important,” Whitehouse said, “1) In December, there will be a vote on extending the Affordable Care credits we fought for. That gives us…weeks to hammer the Republicans so hard that we actually get a good Affordable Care credits bill.

Keep ReadingShow less
The baking isn’t done only by elected officials. It’s done by citizens​

a view of the capitol building

The baking isn’t done only by elected officials. It’s done by citizens​

In November, eight Senate Democrats voted with Republicans to end the longest government shutdown in history, with little to show for the 43-day closure.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), who was not one of the eight, told discouraged Democrats, “We need to remember the battle we’re in….[We need to continue the fight] to defend our country from Trump and MAGA. Two things coming up that are really important,” Whitehouse said, “1) In December, there will be a vote on extending the Affordable Care credits we fought for. That gives us…weeks to hammer the Republicans so hard that we actually get a good Affordable Care credits bill.

Keep ReadingShow less
Is Politico's Gerrymandering Poll and Analysis Misleading?
Image generated by IVN staff.

Is Politico's Gerrymandering Poll and Analysis Misleading?

Politico published a story last week under the headline “Poll: Americans don’t just tolerate gerrymandering — they back it.”

Still, a close review of the data shows the poll does not support that conclusion. The poll shows that Americans overwhelmingly prefer either an independent redistricting process or a voter-approved process — not partisan map-drawing without voter approval. This is the exact opposite of the narrative Politico’s headline and article promoted. The numbers Politico relied on to justify its headline came only from a subset of partisans.

Keep ReadingShow less
Trump's Deregulation Lure: A Wage Squeeze for the Global South
person using black laptop computer
Photo by Kanchanara on Unsplash

Trump's Deregulation Lure: A Wage Squeeze for the Global South

When Colm Kelleher, chairman of UBS, sat down with Scott Bessent in recent months to discuss uprooting the bank's headquarters from Zurich to New York, it was more than corporate maneuvering. It was a signal flare for the financial world under Donald Trump's second term. Bessent promised a regulatory bonfire that could slash compliance costs and open the floodgates for American finance. The reported talks underscore a broader shift: the United States is apparently positioning itself as the unassailable hub of global capital, drawing in institutions like UBS with tax breaks and lighter oversight. Yet this allure comes at a steep price for emerging markets, where wage growth is already fragile. What looks like a boom for American workers masks a quiet trap, one that could deepen the divide between rich nations and the rest.

Bessent's vision, laid out in private conversations and public hints, paints a picture of American exceptionalism reborn. He has warned of a "perfect storm" of inherited inflation and supply disruptions from the Biden years, now to be tamed by aggressive deregulation and targeted tariffs. In one recent interview, he blamed soaring beef prices on a mix of migrant-driven cattle issues and lingering policy failures, framing Trump's agenda as the corrective force. The rhetoric is folksy, but the policy is sharp: roll back rules that hobble banks, lure foreign firms stateside, and shield domestic industries with import duties. UBS's flirtation with relocation fits neatly here. Across the Atlantic, Trump offers relief: no more endless stress tests, faster mergers, and a friendlier tax code. If UBS moves, it could save hundreds of millions annually in regulatory overhead, funneling those gains into higher bonuses for its New York traders.

Keep ReadingShow less