Here's what tariffs are and how they work
Tariffs are typically charged as a percentage of the price a buyer pays a foreign seller. In the United States, tariffs are collected by Customs and Border Protection agents at 328 ports of entry across the country.
U.S. tariff rates vary: They are generally 2.5% on passenger cars, for instance, and 6% on golf shoes. Tariffs can be lower for countries with which the United States has trade agreements. Before the U.S. began imposing 25% tariffs on good from Canada and Mexico as of Tuesday, most goods moved between the United States and those countries tariff-free because of President Trump's U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement.
Mainstream economists are generally skeptical about tariffs, considering them an inefficient way for governments to raise revenue.
Trump is a proponent of tariffs, insisting that they are paid for by foreign countries. In fact, it is importers — American companies — that pay tariffs, and the money goes to the U.S. Treasury. Those companies typically pass their higher costs on to their customers in the form of higher prices. That's why economists say consumers usually end up footing the bill for tariffs.
Still, tariffs can hurt foreign countries by making their products pricier and harder to sell abroad. Foreign companies might have to cut prices — and sacrifice profits — to offset the tariffs and try to maintain their market share in the United States.
Yang Zhou, an economist at Shanghai's Fudan University, concluded in a study that Trump's tariffs on Chinese goods inflicted more than three times as much damage to the Chinese economy as they did to the U.S. economy.
Trump has said tariffs will create more factory jobs, shrink the federal deficit, lower food prices and allow the government to subsidize childcare.
'Tariffs are the greatest thing ever invented,'' Trump said at a rally in Flint, Mich., during his presidential campaign.
During his first term, Trump imposed tariffs with a flourish — targeting imported solar panels, steel, aluminum and pretty much everything from China.
'Tariff Man,' he called himself.
The United States in recent years has gradually retreated from its post-World War II role of promoting global free trade and lower tariffs. That's generally a response to the loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs, widely attributed to unfettered free trade and and China's ascent as a manufacturing power.
By raising the price of imports, tariffs can protect home-grown manufacturers. They may also serve to punish foreign countries for unfair trade practices such as subsidizing their exporters or dumping products at unfairly low prices.
Before the federal income tax was established in 1913, tariffs were a major revenue source for the government. From 1790 to 1860, tariffs accounted for 90% of federal revenue, according to Douglas Irwin, a Dartmouth College economist who has studied the history of trade policy.
Tariffs fell out of favor as global trade grew after World War II. The government needed vastly bigger revenue streams to finance its operations.
In the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, the government collected around $80 billion in tariffs and fees, a trifle next to the $2.5 trillion that comes from individual income taxes and the $1.7 trillion from Social Security and Medicare taxes.
Still, Trump favors a budget policy that resembles what was in place in the 19th century.
Tariffs can also be used to pressure other countries on issues that may or may not be related to trade. In 2019, for example, Trump used the threat of tariffs as leverage to persuade Mexico to crack down on waves of Central American migrants crossing Mexican territory on their way to the United States.
Trump even sees tariffs as a way to prevent wars.
'I can do it with a phone call,'' he said at an August rally in North Carolina.
If another country tries to start a war, he said, he'd issue a threat:
'We're going to charge you 100% tariffs. And all of a sudden, the president or prime minister or dictator or whoever the hell is running the country says to me, 'Sir, we won't go to war.' '
Tariffs raise costs for companies and consumers that rely on imports. They're also likely to provoke retaliation.
The European Union, for example, punched back against Trump's tariffs on steel and aluminum by taxing U.S. products, including bourbon and Harley-Davidson motorcycles. Likewise, China has responded to Trump's trade war by slapping tariffs on American goods, including soybeans and pork, in a calculated drive to hurt his supporters in farm country.
A study by economists at MIT, the University of Zurich, Harvard and the World Bank concluded that Trump's tariffs failed to restore jobs to the American heartland. The tariffs 'neither raised nor lowered U.S. employment'' where they were supposed to protect jobs, the study found.
Despite Trump's 2018 taxes on imported steel, for example, the number of jobs at U.S. steel plants barely budged: They remained right around 140,000. By comparison, Walmart alone employs 1.6 million people in the United States.
Worse, the retaliatory taxes imposed by China and other nations on U.S. goods had 'negative employment impacts,'' especially for farmers, the study found. These retaliatory tariffs were only partly offset by billions in government aid that Trump doled out to farmers. The Trump tariffs also damaged companies that relied on targeted imports.
If Trump's trade war fizzled as policy, though, it succeeded as politics. The study found that support for Trump and Republican congressional candidates rose in areas most exposed to the import tariffs — the industrial Midwest and manufacturing-heavy Southern states like North Carolina and Tennessee.
Wiseman writes for the Associated Press.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Boston Globe
2 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Gutting EPA climate rules will put lives at risk
Removing the greenhouse gas regulations will increase extreme weather and pollution, which will put lives at risk, hurt the economy, and increase Americans' health costs by shifting costs to lost productivity and lost income. Advertisement The very real impact of extreme weather is hard to miss. Brutal heat is becoming the norm. Take last month, when Advertisement Further, an estimated But beyond the headlines of death and destruction, extreme weather is also having an impact on daily lives. Climate change compromises livelihoods, particularly for the millions who work outdoors. If it's too hot to harvest a crop or work on a construction site, it will impact workers' incomes as well as the bottom line for businesses. Extreme heat causes In the agriculture sector, extreme heat drives up food prices, because there are fewer days when food can be harvested — a Cutting regulation isn't saving ordinary Americans money; it's saving big business money. The EPA Advertisement The sad truth is the administration is abandoning its responsibility to act, and American citizens and people around the globe will pay the price. Denying the incontrovertible truth about climate change risks more death and damage to property and business. Further, under the guise of deregulation, the administration is strategically undermining the authority of scientists and the public's access to facts on how greenhouse gas emissions will impact lives and livelihoods. White House officials will not back down. Instead Congress and state and city officials, as well as courts, must block the plan. Otherwise, we risk deepening misunderstanding with the public, economic damage, more loss of life, and putting our long-term prosperity at risk. This isn't giving Americans more choice, it's stripping them of their right to clean air, safe communities, and a secure job.


Hamilton Spectator
2 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
College isn't in the plans for many rural students despite stepped-up recruiting efforts
PERRY, N.Y. (AP) — As a student in western New York's rural Wyoming County, Briar Townes honed an artistic streak that he hopes to make a living from one day. In high school, he clicked with a college-level drawing and painting class. But despite the college credits he earned, college isn't part of his plan. Since graduating from high school in June, he has been overseeing an art camp at the county's Arts Council. If that doesn't turn into a permanent job, there is work at Creative Food Ingredients, known as the 'cookie factory' for the way it makes the town smell like baking cookies, or at local factories like American Classic Outfitters, which designs and sews athletic uniforms. 'My stress is picking an option, not finding an option,' he said. Even though rural students graduate from high school at higher rates than their peers in cities and suburbs, fewer of them go on to college. Many rural school districts, including the one in Perry that Townes attends, have begun offering college-level courses and working to remove academic and financial obstacles to higher education, with some success. But college doesn't hold the same appeal for students in rural areas where they often would need to travel farther for school, parents have less college experience themselves, and some of the loudest political voices are skeptical of the need for higher education. College enrollment for rural students has remained largely flat in recent years, despite the district-level efforts and stepped-up recruitment by many universities. About 55% of rural U.S. high school students who graduated in 2023 enrolled in college, according to National Clearinghouse Research Center data. That's compared to 64% of suburban graduates and 59% of urban graduates. College can make a huge difference in earning potential. An American man with a bachelor's degree earns an estimated $900,000 more over his lifetime than a peer with a high school diploma, research by the Social Security Administration has found. For women, the difference is about $630,000. A school takes cues from families' hopes and goals A lack of a college degree is no obstacle to opportunity in places such as Wyoming County, where people like to say there are more cows than people. The dairy farms, potato fields and maple sugar houses are a source of identity and jobs for the county just east of Buffalo. 'College has never really been, I don't know, a necessity or problem in my family,' said Townes, the middle of three children whose father has a tattoo shop in Perry. At Perry High School, Superintendent Daryl McLaughlin said the district takes cues from students like Townes, their families and the community, supplementing college offerings with programs geared toward career and technical fields such as the building trades. He said he is as happy to provide reference checks for employers and the military as he is to write recommendations for college applications. 'We're letting our students know these institutions, whether it is a college or whether employers, they're competing for you,' he said. 'Our job is now setting them up for success so that they can take the greatest advantage of that competition, ultimately, to improve their quality of life.' Still, college enrollment in the district has exceeded the national average in recent years, going from 60% of the class of 2022's 55 graduates to 67% of 2024's and 56% of 2025's graduates. The district points to a decision to direct federal pandemic relief money toward covering tuition for students in its Accelerated College Enrollment program — a partnership with Genesee Community College. When the federal money ran out, the district paid to keep it going. 'This is a program that's been in our community for quite some time, and it's a program our community supports,' McLaughlin said. About 15% of rural U.S. high school students were enrolled in college classes in January 2025 through such dual enrollment arrangements, a slightly lower rate than urban and suburban students, an Education Department survey found. Rural access to dual enrollment is a growing area of focus as advocates seek to close gaps in access to higher education. The College in High School Alliance this year announced funding for seven states to develop policy to expand programs for rural students. Higher education's image problem is acute in rural America Around the country, many students feel jaded by the high costs of college tuition. And Americans are increasingly skeptical about the value of college, polls have shown, with Republicans, the dominant party in rural America, losing confidence in higher education at higher rates than Democrats. 'Whenever you have this narrative that 'college is bad, college is bad, these professors are going to indoctrinate you,' it's hard,' said Andrew Koricich, executive director of the Alliance for Research on Regional Colleges at Appalachian State University in North Carolina. 'You have to figure out, how do you crack through that information ecosphere and say, actually, people with a bachelor's degree, on average, earn 65% more than people with a high school diploma only?' In much of rural America, about 21% of people over the age of 25 have a bachelor's degree, compared to about 36% of adults in other areas, according to a government analysis of U.S. Census findings. Some rural educators don't hold back on promoting college In rural Putnam County, Florida, about 14% of adults have a bachelor's degree. That doesn't stop principal Joe Theobold from setting and meeting an annual goal of 100% college admission for students at Q.I. Roberts Jr.-Sr. High School. Paper mills and power plants provide opportunities for a middle class life in the county, where the cost of living is low. But Theobold tells students the goal of higher education 'is to go off and learn more about not only the world, but also about yourself.' 'You don't want to be 17 years old, determining what you're going to do for the rest of your life,' he said. Families choose the magnet school because of its focus on higher education, even though most of the district's parents never went to a college. Many students visit college campuses through Camp Osprey, a University of North Florida program that helps students experience college dorms and dining halls. In upstate New York, high school junior Devon Wells grew up on his family farm in Perry but doesn't see his future there. He's considering a career in welding, or as an electrical line worker in South Carolina, where he heard the pay might be double what he would make at home. None of his plans require college, he said. 'I grew up on a farm, so that's all hands-on work. That's really all I know and would want to do,' Devon said. Neither his nor Townes' parents have pushed one way or the other, they said. 'I remember them talking to me like, `Hey, would you want to go to college?' I remember telling them, 'not really,'' Townes said. He would have listened if a college recruiter reached out, he said, but wouldn't be willing to move very far. ___ The Associated Press' education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at . Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .

6 minutes ago
After a reference to Trump's impeachments is removed from a history museum, complex questions echo
NEW YORK -- It would seem the most straightforward of notions: A thing takes place, and it goes into the history books or is added to museum exhibits. But whether something even gets remembered and how — particularly when it comes to the history of a country and its leader — is often the furthest thing from simple. The latest example of that came Friday, when the Smithsonian Institution said it had removed a reference to the 2019 and 2021 impeachments of President Donald Trump from a panel in an exhibition about the American presidency. Trump has pressed institutions and agencies under federal oversight, often through the pressure of funding, to focus on the country's achievements and progress and away from things he terms 'divisive.' A Smithsonian spokesperson said the removal of the reference, which had been installed as part of a temporary addition in 2021, came after a review of 'legacy content recently' and the exhibit eventually 'will include all impeachments.' There was no time frame given for when; exhibition renovations can be time- and money-consuming endeavors. In a statement that did not directly address the impeachment references, White House spokesperson Davis Ingle said: 'We are fully supportive of updating displays to highlight American greatness.' But is history intended to highlight or to document — to report what happened, or to serve a desired narrative? The answer, as with most things about the past, can be intensely complex. The Smithsonian's move comes in the wake of Trump administration actions like removing the name of a gay rights activist from a Navy ship, pushing for Republican supporters in Congress to defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and getting rid of the leadership at the Kennedy Center. 'Based on what we have been seeing, this is part of a broader effort by the president to influence and shape how history is depicted at museums, national parks, and schools,' said Julian E. Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. 'Not only is he pushing a specific narrative of the United States but, in this case, trying to influence how Americans learn about his own role in history.' It's not a new struggle, in the world generally and the political world particularly. There is power in being able to shape how things are remembered, if they are remembered at all — who was there, who took part, who was responsible, what happened to lead up to that point in history. And the human beings who run things have often extended their authority to the stories told about them. In China, for example, references to the June 1989 crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators in Beijing's Tiananmen Square are forbidden and meticulously regulated by the ruling Communist Party government. In Soviet-era Russia, officials who ran afoul of leaders like Josef Stalin disappeared not only from the government itself but from photographs and history books where they once appeared. Jason Stanley, an expert on authoritarianism, said controlling what and how people learn of their past has long been used as a vital tool to maintain power. Stanley has made his views about the Trump administration clear; he recently left Yale University to join the University of Toronto, citing concerns over the U.S. political situation. 'If they don't control the historical narrative,' he said, 'then they can't create the kind of fake history that props up their politics.' In the United States, presidents and their families have always used their power to shape history and calibrate their own images. Jackie Kennedy insisted on cuts in William Manchester's book on her husband's 1963 assassination, 'The Death of a President.' Ronald Reagan and his wife got a cable TV channel to release a carefully calibrated documentary about him. Those around Franklin D. Roosevelt, including journalists of the era, took pains to mask the impact that paralysis had on his body and his mobility. Trump, though, has taken it to a more intense level — a sitting president encouraging an atmosphere where institutions can feel compelled to choose between him and the truth — whether he calls for it directly or not. 'We are constantly trying to position ourselves in history as citizens, as citizens of the country, citizens of the world,' said Robin Wagner-Pacifici, professor emerita of sociology at the New School for Social Research. 'So part of these exhibits and monuments are also about situating us in time. And without it, it's very hard for us to situate ourselves in history because it seems like we just kind of burst forth from the Earth.' Timothy Naftali, director of the Richard M. Nixon Presidential Library and Museum from 2007 to 2011, presided over its overhaul to offer a more objective presentation of Watergate — one not beholden to the president's loyalists. In an interview Friday, he said he was 'concerned and disappointed' about the Smithsonian decision. Naftali, now a senior researcher at Columbia University, said museum directors 'should have red lines' and that he considered removing the Trump panel to be one of them. While it might seem inconsequential for someone in power to care about a museum's offerings, Wagner-Pacifici says Trump's outlook on history and his role in it — earlier this year, he said the Smithsonian had 'come under the influence of a divisive, race-centered ideology' — shows how important those matters are to people in authority. 'You might say about that person, whoever that person is, their power is so immense and their legitimacy is so stable and so sort of monumental that why would they bother with things like this ... why would they bother to waste their energy and effort on that?' Wagner-Pacifici said. Her conclusion: 'The legitimacy of those in power has to be reconstituted constantly. They can never rest on their laurels.'