Businesses and consumers in the U.S. shouldered roughly 90% of the costs associated with President Donald Trump’s extensive tariffs last year, which goes against his consistent assertions that foreign nations are footing the bill. This information comes from a recent study conducted by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
In the first eight months of 2025, a staggering 94% of the tariff costs were attributed to U.S. businesses and consumers. This percentage dipped slightly to 92% in September and October, and further decreased to 86% in November, indicating that foreign exporters were absorbing a slightly greater share of the costs, as noted in the report.
The study’s authors stated in a blog post, “Our results indicate that the majority of tariffs will continue to fall on U.S. businesses and consumers. They will bear most of the economic burden from the high tariffs imposed in 2025.”
Trump has maintained that foreign countries are primarily responsible for these expenses. In fact, he boldly claimed in an August post on Truth Social, “Billions of dollars will begin to flow into the United States, primarily from countries that have long exploited and laughed at the United States.”
In response to the findings from the New York Fed, White House press secretary Khush Desai told the Financial Times, “Average U.S. tariffs have risen nearly sevenfold over the past year, yet inflation has subsided and corporate profits have increased.” She emphasized that Trump’s economic policies, which encompass tax cuts, deregulation, tariffs, and energy wealth, are effectively reducing costs and spurring economic growth.
This report emerged as Trump contemplates lifting certain tariffs on steel and aluminum, facing increasing political pressure as the midterm elections loom in November.
Last summer, hefty tariffs of up to 50% were placed on metal imports, later expanding to include various metal-made products like home appliances and cars. Administration officials are now evaluating which items might be exempt from these tariffs, while further extension of the tariff list is expected to be paused. Instead, a more concentrated national security investigation will guide future decisions regarding these measures.
The imposition of these metal tariffs has elevated average U.S. import tariffs to their highest levels in decades, drawing resistance from some Republican lawmakers who, alongside Democrats, are advocating for the repeal of specific tariffs.
While the Supreme Court is currently assessing Trump’s tariffs, there are reports that the White House is preparing a Plan B to maintain these tariffs if the current administration’s legal stance is deemed unconstitutional.
Supporters of the tariff approach underscore the significant rise in federal revenue as a noteworthy achievement. For instance, in January alone, the U.S. collected $30 billion in tariffs, pushing the total for the fiscal year to $124 billion, which reflects a substantial 304% increase from the previous year.
In fact, tariff collections for all of 2025 are projected to reach $287 billion, nearly three times the prior year’s figure, while the Tax Foundation anticipates collections of $171.1 billion in 2026—marking the largest tax increase since 1993.
Notably, the deficit in January shrank by 26% compared to the same month last year, with the year-to-date difference declining by 17%, showcasing the tariffs’ effects on profitability.
Advocates of the tariffs argue they also promote domestic investment and the diversification of supply chains. Stellantis has committed $13 billion over four years for its U.S. operations, while Toyota promised $10 billion across five years, and Mercedes has shifted production of its SUVs to Alabama. Companies like Apple and TSMC are making significant investments in the U.S., indicating a broader trend of capital being redirected domestically.
Furthermore, China’s share of U.S. imports is set to drop from nearly 25% in 2017 to below 10% by 2025, as countries like Mexico and Vietnam rise in prominence. Some advocates argue that this shift will lessen reliance on a single foreign supplier.
The newspaper has reached out to the White House for additional commentary.
