Tariffs, Truth, and Partisanship: How Americans See Trump’s Trade War
The Trump administration’s assertive stance toward trade partners has kept tariffs at the center of economic debate and the news cycle. With insights from Occam, we analyze how Americans perceive the administration’s approach to tariffs – who bears the costs, the impact on prices and economic well being, the efficacy of the tariff negotiation tactics, which countries deserve tariffs, and the impact on business investment. Importantly, we focus on how views differ by political affiliation, and uncover a sharp partisan divide that shows how political identity can color interpretations when facing the same economic facts. By examining the perceptions of both consumers and business decision-makers, we consider how the U.S. tariff policies might influence economic behavior over the coming months.
May 7, 2025
Who Pays for Tariffs?
Consumer Bears the Burden
- Most respondents correctly recognize that Americans will bear the primary cost of tariffs imposed on imports, a perspective supported by the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, which concludes that tariffs are predominantly passed onto consumers through higher prices, with retailers and importers bearing a secondary burden.
Partisan Split on the Payer
- Interestingly, significantly fewer Republicans (43%) than Democrats (68%) believe that American consumers bear the primary cost of the tariffs.
Demographic Differences
- College graduates and older respondents are significantly more likely to believe that tariffs will be borne primarily by the consumer.
Partisan Support and Opposition
Backing the President
- 88% of Democrats oppose the Trump administration’s approach to tariffs, but only 16% of Republicans do. Independents skew towards the Democrat view with 52% expressing opposition.
Perceptions of Economic Impact
Unpredictability as harm?
- Democrats (67%) are far more likely than Republicans (5%) to call Trump’s tariff unpredictability “very harmful” to the U.S. economy.
- Older and higher-income respondents are far more likely than their younger or lower-income peers to call Trump’s tariff unpredictability “very harmful” to the U.S. economy.
Unpredictability as an Asset?
- 51% of Republicans see Trump’s unpredictability as an asset in negotiations with trade partners, compared to just 10% of Democrats—with Independents (20%) leaning closer to Democrats.
Tariffs and Price Anxiety
- It’s striking that Democrats (83%) are far more likely than Republicans (28%) to express high concern (“very concerned” or “extremely concerned”) about tariffs significantly driving up prices, despite both groups viewing the same economic facts.
- A surprising 59% of Democrats expect tariffs to raise their household costs a year from now by 10% or more, while only 25% of Republicans hold this expectation.
Groceries as a Pain Point
- Respondents most frequently identify groceries as a category where they’re already noticing price increases they believe to be tariff-related. Democrats are about twice as likely as Republicans (66% vs. 33%) to report observing these increases.
Gain or Pain for U.S. Labor?
- 61% of Republicans believe Trump’s tariffs will ultimately help U.S. workers come out ahead, versus 5% of Democrats and 18% of Independents.
Describing the Tariff Negotiations
- Negative descriptors dominate, with almost 40% labeling Trump’s tariff approach as “reckless” (40%), or “harmful” (38%).
- Many fewer choose positive terms like “strong” (23%), “strategic” (22%), or “effective” (18%).
- While 12% of respondents overall say Trump’s approach is “genius,” we again see a partisan divide with 29% of Republicans choosing this descriptor, compared to just 0.5% of Democrats (not shown).
- The West South Central Division stands out – here, 36% describe Trump’s tariff approach as “strategic,” which is notably higher than in other regions.
Tariff Support by Country
- Respondents are easily the most supportive of placing tariffs on imports from China (32%).
- Somewhat surprisingly, those with a college degree (not shown) are meaningfully more supportive of tariffs on China (38%) when compared with those without a college degree (29%).
Business Response to Tariffs
Investment and Hiring Plans
- Nearly half (47%) of business decision-makers say tariff uncertainty hasn’t changed their investment or hiring plans, while roughly equal minorities are either scaling back (23%) or ramping up (22%) their business activities. This is a more neutral and encouraging result than we expected.
Long-Run Impact of Tariffs
- Despite nearly half of business decision-makers saying tariff uncertainty hasn’t impacted their immediate plans (above), a larger share anticipates that in the long run, Trump’s tariffs will have a negative effect (34%) rather than a positive one (22%).
Countering the Costs
- While 25% of businesses don’t anticipate cost increases from tariffs, most expect they will make adjustments to adapt to higher costs.
Perception of Tariff Policy by Select Social Media Platforms
There are distinct differences in how the users of the major social media platforms view Trump’s approach to tariffs.
- X (Twitter) users were the most likely to choose positive adjectives to describe Trump’s tariff approach, calling it “genius” 40% more often than the general public.
- TikTok users were the least likely to select positive adjectives.
These variations may reflect the political leanings of each platform’s audience.
Source: Analysis based on occam™ proprietary AI-enhanced research platform with various data sources, including a wide range of questions asked to over 1000 respondents per day with over three years of history. Information is census-balanced and uses occam’s™ proprietary AI algorithm that ensures minimal sampling bias (<1%). Contact us for more info.
DISCLAIMER : This material is provided for informational purposes only and nothing herein constitutes investment, legal, accounting or tax advice, or a recommendation to buy, sell or hold a security. This material is general in nature and is not directed to any category of investors and should not be regarded as individualized, a recommendation, investment advice or a suggestion to engage in or refrain from any investment-related course of action. Investment decisions and the appropriateness of this material should be made based on an investor's individual objectives and circumstances and in consultation with his or her advisors. Information is obtained from sources deemed reliable, but there is no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, completeness or reliability. All information is current as of the date of this material and is subject to change without notice. Any views or opinions expressed may not reflect those of AlphaROC as a whole. Third-party economic or market estimates discussed herein may or may not be realized and no opinion or representation is being given regarding such estimates. This material includes estimates, outlooks, projections, and other “forward-looking statements.” Due to a variety of factors, actual events or market behavior may differ significantly from any views expressed. Investing entails risks, including possible loss of principal.
AlphaROC occam case studies are for illustrative purposes only. This material is not intended as a formal research report and should not be relied upon as a basis for making an investment decision. The firm, its employees, data vendors, and advisors may hold positions, including contrary positions, in companies discussed in these reports. It should not be assumed that any investments in securities, companies, sectors, or markets identified and described in these case studies will be profitable. Investors should consult with their advisors to determine the suitability of each investment based on their unique individual situation. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
AlphaROC occam case studies are for illustrative purposes only. This material is not intended as a formal research report and should not be relied upon as a basis for making an investment decision. The firm, its employees, data vendors, and advisors may hold positions, including contrary positions, in companies discussed in these reports. It should not be assumed that any investments in securities, companies, sectors, or markets identified and described in these case studies will be profitable. Investors should consult with their advisors to determine the suitability of each investment based on their unique individual situation. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.