Democrats Are Vulnerable on Tariffs. Here’s Why.

As we approach the 2026 midterms, Democrats are campaigning hard against Trump's tariffs. Their argument is that tariffs are a tax on American consumers and contribute to higher prices. They have also repeatedly characterized Trump’s tariff policy as being reckless, indiscriminate, and lacking in strategy.

I think they are correct on all points. But let’s be clear: this does not mean that they have experienced a newfound commitment to free-market principles that we might hope for. In fact, they are saying just the opposite. It isn’t tariffs that they oppose; it is Trump’s tariffs.

 In staking out a position based on opposition, not on economic theory, they have once again ceded the moral high ground. The same thing happened under the Biden administration and it undermined candidate Harris. Biden campaigned against Trump’s tariffs. In office, he maintained many of them and increased others. When Harris charged that the Trump tariffs were a tax on consumers, she was saddled with defending Biden’s duplicity.

 Democratic hedging now will play out in the same way and represents a huge missed opportunity. Without a stand based on principle, they will flounder over tariff policy. They will modify the current regime to protect their favorite industries and constituents, consumers will continue to pay the price, and economic growth will suffer.

What’s on the record?

First, let’s look at how several prominent Democrats have parsed the issue.

Gavin Newsom was recently asked on Canadian television whether Canadians could expect the tariffs to be reversed under a Democratic president. He answered that he could not guarantee it, only that nothing like the current approach would happen again. He went on to say that targeted tariff policy is an “industrial policy.”

Gretchen Whitmer, a harsh critic of Trump’s tariffs, in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, took a similar position, saying she’s not against tariffs outright, but considers them a blunt tool.

Bernie Sanders wrote in 2025 that “Targeted tariffs can be a powerful tool to stop corporations from outsourcing American jobs.”

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries promised recently that Democrats are “going to continue to press the case … to get rid of these Trump tariffs that are raising costs on everyday Americans by thousands of dollars per year.” At the same time, he has been clear that he is “supportive of tariffs when they’re used selectively and benefit American businesses and consumers.”

The current legislative proposals confirm this. The Reclaim Trade Powers Act, introduced by Tim Kaine and Raphael Warnock with 14 cosponsors, repeals Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, an authority permitting a tariff of up to 15 percent for up to 150 days. It leaves Section 232, which covers steel, aluminum, copper and auto parts. It also leaves Section 301, which covers China. Those two authorities were also outside the case the Supreme Court decided. I found no bill in this Congress that would remove them.

So, there you have it. Prominent Democrats are against Trump’s tariffs because they are reckless, not because they are against tariffs. Now let’s be clear about what that means. They are ok with a tax on American consumers, ok with raising prices on consumer goods, ok with protecting the businesses that they like, but not ok when Trump does it. When he does it, it is reckless and harmful.

The historical arc of the tariff debate

As a student of history, I never cease to marvel at the inability of people to study and learn from history. There is no greater truism than this: if you are ignorant of history, you are bound to repeat it. Tariffs are a prime example of the continuation of this folly.

The history of the tariff discussion is one of two separate and parallel paths.

On one path you have broad consensus among economists who understand that tariffs are harmful to free trade. By impeding the magic of comparative advantage, tariffs cause all consumers to pay more to protect the inefficient industry that the tariff is designed to shelter.

On the other path are political debates, much like the one we are having today, that ignore the economic theory and focus on using tariffs to benefit particular constituencies.

Unfortunately, from the beginning of the Republic, the political argument has generally defeated the economic one. The simple reality is that the uncompetitive steel plant that is in danger of closing makes a more compelling political argument for protection than do the millions of consumers who will pay for that protection through higher prices.

Highlights of the political argument

This argument is as old as the country itself. Alexander Hamilton called for protective duties and government bounties to build American industry. Thomas Jefferson opposed him, believing the country should focus on farming.

This division characterized much of the next century, as Northerners (later Republicans) were the high-tariff proponents to protect Northern manufacturers while Southerners (later Democrats) were advocates of low tariffs to enable foreign sales by Southern farmers.

In 1909, the Payne-Aldrich Tariff Act protected Eastern woolen manufacturers and was opposed by Western woolgrowers and Midwestern farmers.

In 1930, Smoot-Hawley began as a singular proposal to protect farmers. By the time the lobbying was over and the bill was signed into law, several other industries had been added.

Even George H.W. Bush didn’t sell NAFTA based on economic theory. He sold it as a benefit to American companies. By “leveling the playing field” American companies would be able to sell more abroad. Clinton negotiated labor and environmental side agreements to garner Democratic votes.

In 2002, the Bush steel tariffs protected steel producers in Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia and were opposed by the manufacturers who buy steel in Michigan and Tennessee. All three protected states were swing states.

In 2021, after running against them, Biden kept every China tariff imposed by Trump and later added more on electric vehicles, batteries, solar cells and semiconductors.

In 2025, after imposing his Liberation Day tariffs almost universally, Trump lifted them from hundreds of products after intense lobbying from the disadvantaged industries and complaints about rising consumer prices.  

Highlights of the economists’ argument

The academic argument is present in every elementary economics textbook on the planet. On a couple of notable occasions, economists gathered to make their views clear while the political debate raged.

One was in 1930 when 1,028 economists signed a letter to President Hoover urging him not to sign Smoot-Hawley.

Here is the critical excerpt from the letter.

“The undersigned American economists and teachers of economics strongly urge that any measure which provides for a general upward revision of tariff rates be denied passage by Congress, or if passed, be vetoed by the President.

We are convinced that increased protective duties would be a mistake. They would operate, in general, to increase the prices which domestic consumers would have to pay. By raising prices they would encourage concerns with higher costs to undertake production, thus compelling the consumer to subsidize waste and inefficiency in industry. At the same time they would force him to pay higher rates of profit to established firms which enjoyed lower production costs. A higher level of protection, such as is contemplated by both the House and Senate bills, would therefore raise the cost of living and injure the great majority of our citizens.”

(For the entire letter, click here.)

Again in 2018, more than 1,100 economists, including 15 Nobel laureates, signed a letter to President Trump urging him not to impose new tariffs. To make a point, they repeated the beginning of the 1930 letter verbatim.

“We are convinced that increased protective duties would be a mistake. They would operate, in general, to increase the prices which domestic consumers would have to pay. A higher level of protection would raise the cost of living and injure the great majority of our citizens. 

 Few people could hope to gain from such a change. Construction, transportation and public utility workers, professional people and those employed in banks, hotels, newspaper offices, in the wholesale and retail trades, and scores of other occupations would clearly lose, since they produce no products which could be protected by tariff barriers.”

(For the entire letter, click here.)

More recently, economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York expressed the reality of tariffs quite succinctly: “Tariffs are taxes on imports that can raise the cost of inputs used to produce domestic goods and services. Indeed, recent research has shown that nearly 90 percent of the economic burden of tariffs has fallen on U.S. firms and consumers.”

The bottom line and a missed opportunity

 Democrats have a historical opportunity to reframe the traditional debate about tariffs from a debate over who benefits to one based on the principle of free trade. Free trade is a fundamental building block of a true, pro-growth agenda. You cannot run on abundance while at the same time protecting unproductive companies or labor with taxes on consumers. If Democrats are serious about lowering prices, they need to be serious about creating the conditions for greater output. That means eliminating tariffs. They should not shrink from promising on day one to challenge every trading partner to lower mutual tariffs to zero.

 They also need to be honest with the American people about the reality of the global marketplace that we compete in. Rather than complain and seek government protection when we fail to be competitive, we need to work harder and compete by adding greater value at the lowest possible price. Only by climbing the value chain can you deliver higher wages. High wages don’t come from commodity business, they come from high value-added businesses.

 This is a message that Americans will welcome and embrace because in their hearts they know there is no free lunch.