Markus Andrews

On the campaign trail, President Donald Trump floated an “all tariff policy,” which he said would allow the U.S. to eliminate income tax.
However, some economic policy experts say there isn’t a big enough tax base from imported goods to replace revenue from individual income taxes.
“It’s just not a realistic proposal,” said Alex Durante, senior economist at the Tax Foundation.

A truck drives past shipping containers at the Port of Philadelphia, Nov. 6, 2024.
Bloomberg | Bloomberg | Getty Images

As President Donald Trump begins imposing tariffs on imported goods, some experts question his revenue expectations — including the possibility of replacing the federal income tax. 
During his presidential campaign, Trump floated an “all tariff policy” at a June meeting with Republican lawmakers, where he said the plan would allow the U.S. to eliminate income tax.

Some policy experts have been skeptical of the idea.  
“It’s just not a realistic proposal,” said Alex Durante, senior economist at the Tax Foundation, which analyzed the idea in June.  
More from Personal Finance:Stockpiling ahead of higher tariffs is a big mistake, experts sayAs markets absorb tariff news, it’s a wake-up call for investors, experts sayTariffs ‘slammed shut’ the window for interest rate cuts in 2025, economist says
While tariffs were a major source of federal revenue during the 19th century, U.S. spending levels have since increased significantly, Durante said.
The U.S. federal government in 2023 spent 22.7% of its gross domestic product, which is about 10 times the share of the economy compared with when tariffs were a primary source of revenue, according to the Tax Foundation analysis. 

“You can’t have 21st century government spending with a 19th century tax system,” Durante said.

‘The math doesn’t work’

Over the past 70 years, tariffs haven’t accounted for much more than 2% of total federal revenue annually, according to the Congressional Research Service.
During fiscal year 2024, U.S. Customs and Border Protection collected $77 billion in tariffs, which was roughly 1.57% of total federal revenue, the organization reported. 
However, the bigger issue is the relative size of the tax base from tariffs, compared with individuals paying income tax, according to the Tax Foundation analysis.  
The Trump administration did not respond to CNBC’s request for comment.

The math doesn’t work.

Erica York
Vice president of federal tax policy with Tax Foundation’s Center for Federal Tax Policy

“The math doesn’t work,” wrote Erica York, vice president of federal tax policy with the Tax Foundation’s Center for Federal Tax Policy.   
During tax year 2021, the IRS collected about $2.2 trillion from individual taxpayers, the latest IRS data shows. Replacing that would require “astronomically high tariff rates,” York wrote.
Plus, several factors, including noncompliance and consumers’ behavioral changes, could reduce the amount of tariff revenue collected.  
“Tariff rates would have to be implausibly high on such a small base of imports to replace the income tax,” wrote Kimberly Clausing and Maurice Obstfeld, fellows at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, who co-authored a June report on the topic. 
“As tax rates rose, the base itself would shrink as imports fall, making Trump’s $2 trillion goal unattainable,” they wrote.  More

President Donald Trump imposed a 10% additional tariff on imports from China. The nation retaliated with its own tariffs on the U.S., set to take effect Feb. 10.
Economists say a broader trade war could ensue if the U.S. puts tariffs on Canada, Mexico and the European Union, which Trump has threatened to do.
Something similar happened in 1930 after passage of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, which reduced global trade and exacerbated the Great Depression, economists said.

QINGDAO, CHINA – NOVEMBER 8, 2023 – Container ships frequently enter and exit the Qianwan Container Terminal of Qingdao Port in Qingdao, Shandong Province, China, Nov 8, 2023. (Photo by Costfoto/NurPhoto via Getty Images)
Nurphoto | Nurphoto | Getty Images

A trade war is brewing — and, if history is any guide, the U.S. economy may not be too happy about it.
President Donald Trump on Saturday levied a 10% additional tariff on all imports from China starting Tuesday. In response, China retaliated with its own tariffs of up to 15% on select U.S. imports, starting Feb. 10.

Experts believe these are just the initial salvos of a broader trade war between the two nations. 
Meanwhile, the U.S. is on the precipice of a trade spat with Canada and Mexico. Trump has also threatened to impose tariffs on the European Union — and, if that happens, the nations have vowed retribution.
“I will never support the idea of fighting allies,” Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said Monday. “But of course, if the U.S. puts tough terms on Europe, we need a collective and robust response.”
More from Personal Finance:Trump moves to abolish the Education DepartmentThe Fed holds rates steady. What that means for youIRS announces the start of the 2025 tax season
The current animosity bears many similarities to an earlier episode in U.S. history — the Tariff Act of 1930 — which triggered an all-out trade war and exacerbated the Great Depression, according to economic historians. 

The law, known as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, was “one of the most controversial tariff acts ever enacted by Congress,” Doug Irwin, an economics professor at Dartmouth College and past president of the Economic History Association, wrote in 2020.
It was also the last instance of a trade war involving the U.S., prior to Trump’s first term, said Kris James Mitchener, an economics professor at Santa Clara University who studies economic history and political economy.
Smoot-Hawley sparked “the mother of all trade wars,” Mitchener said.

What was the Smoot-Hawley Tariff?

Rep. Willis Hawley, R-Ore., left, and Sen. Reed Smoot, R-Utah, in April 1929, shortly before the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act passed the House.
Source: Library of Congress

If the Smoot-Hawley Tariff sounds vaguely familiar, it may be thanks to pop culture: The 1986 movie “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off” has a memorable scene in which a high school teacher drones on in a crawling monotone voice about the tariffs.
Among Smoot-Hawley’s chief aims was to safeguard U.S. farmers, who had expanded agricultural production during WWI but suffered after the war as European production came back online and prices collapsed, Mitchener said.
However, Congress expanded the scope of the tariffs considerably, extending beyond agriculture to include all sectors of the economy. The law got its name from its chief Republican supporters in Congress: Rep. Willis Hawley of Oregon, chair of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, and Sen. Reed Smoot of Utah, who chaired the Senate Finance Committee.
Smoot-Hawley was “broad,” putting tariffs on roughly 25% of all goods imported to the U.S. — about 800 to 900 different types of goods, Mitchener said. 

If the U.S. puts tough terms on Europe, we need a collective and robust response.

Mette Frederiksen
prime minister of Denmark

President Herbert Hoover, who had run for the office on a platform of helping farmers with protective tariffs, signed the law in June 1930, ignoring a petition signed by more than 1,000 economists asking him to veto the bill.
The law raised dutiable tariffs — tariffs on goods subject to import duties — by about 6 percentage points, on average, Mitchener said.
While that may not sound like much, those duties sparked a trade war with major U.S. trading partners, which was perhaps their “most important ramification,” wrote Irwin of Dartmouth College. 

How did Smoot-Hawley provoke a trade war?

Smoot-Hawley raised the average tariff on dutiable imports to 47% from 40%, Irwin said. Depression-era price deflation ultimately helped push that average to almost 60% in 1932, he added.
Nine nations — Argentina, Australia, Canada, Cuba, France, Italy, Mexico, Spain and Switzerland — imposed retaliatory tariffs directed specifically at U.S. products, Mitchener said. 
“Canada, which was heavily dependent on the U.S. market, retaliated almost immediately and imposed tariffs significant enough to put a sizable dent into American exports,” Irwin wrote.
That “tit-for-tat response” with targeted tariffs is the hallmark of a trade war, Mitchener said.

Other nations formed trade blocs that excluded the U.S., Irwin wrote. Ultimately, 35 governments lodged official protests against Smoot-Hawley, Mitchener said. 
The result: Global trade collapsed, exacerbating the Great Depression, which was the worst economic downturn in U.S. history, economists said. U.S. exports to retaliating nations fell by about 28% to 32%, said Mitchener. Further, nations that protested Smoot-Hawley also reduced their U.S. imports by 15% to 23%.
It was “among the most catastrophic acts in congressional history,” according to a historical overview on the U.S. Senate website.

Tariffs leading up to Trump

The U.S. reversed course after realizing how tariffs can fuel foreign policy issues and contribute to world wars, said Scott Lincicome, vice president of general economics at the Stiefel Trade Policy Center of the CATO Institute.
The global economy is “like an intricate choreographed dance,” Lincicome said. “Tariffs are just kind of throwing a wrench in that dance.”
The average tariff rate for dutiable imports cratered from about 59% in 1932 to roughly 13% in 1950, and fell below 5% from the mid-1990s to 2015, according to a 2024 analysis by the CATO Institute. 
Meanwhile, the average tariff rate across all imports — which include products not subject to tariffs — fell from about 20% in 1933 to below 2% from 2000 to 2019.
While presidents who preceded Trump, as well as President Joe Biden, have also used tariffs, they were enacted for different reasons and at different magnitudes, experts say.

These have not been rationales used for tariffs in the past.

Brett House
professor of professional practice in the economics division at Columbia Business School

Historically, “tariffs have been typically invoked by U.S. administrations when domestic industry has complained about competition from foreign suppliers,” said Brett House, professor of professional practice in the economics division at Columbia Business School.
For instance, during President Barack Obama’s second administration in 2013, the International Trade Commission issued “anti-dumping duties,” or a form of tariff, on washing machines specifically from Mexico and South Korea.
Years later, during his first term, Trump issued a tariff on washing machines as well, but it was global instead of narrowing it to specific countries. At the same time, Trump imposed other tariffs, such as costs on steel and aluminum. 
Other presidents, including George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon, had also put tariffs on steel, an industry that’s historically received federal protection, Irwin told CNBC. But Trump’s second term is unique in that he’s using tariffs in a “broad brush” manner — applied to all of a nation’s goods, for example — something “no president in recent memory” has done, Irwin said.
Additionally, “what is very distinct about Trump’s tariff policy is the supposed justification for it, which is to try to discipline Canada and Mexico for the flow of illegal drugs and undocumented people across their borders,” House said.
“These have not been rationales used for tariffs in the past.” 

Will history repeat?

The Smoot-Hawley-induced spat resembles today’s trade environment in a few key ways — including prominent trade partners calling for retaliation against U.S. policy, economists said. 
For example, before reaching 11th-hour deals to delay 25% tariffs for one month, officials in Canada and Mexico vowed to fight back.
Canadian President Justin Trudeau on Saturday warned that his country would implement a 25% tariff on about $107 billion of U.S. goods. They included duties on meat, dairy, produce and other food products, and beer, wine and spirits.

China said it will impose 15% tariffs on coal and liquefied natural gas imports from the U.S., and 10% on American crude oil, agricultural machinery and certain cars.
“We’re already seeing a trade war unfold,” Irwin told CNBC.
Proposed tariffs on Canada, China and Mexico would shrink U.S. economic output by 0.4 percentage points and increase taxes on Americans by $1.1 trillion between 2025 and 2034, before accounting for any retaliation, according to an estimate by the Tax Foundation.
Of course, “whether it becomes a trade war and history repeats in that [Smoot-Hawley] dimension depends on the response of our trade partners and/or whether Trump is bluffing to get some sort of concession,” Mitchener wrote in an e-mail. More

The Trump administration is looking for ways to partially or completely eliminate the U.S. Department of Education.
Here’s what that could mean for the more than 42 million Americans with federal student loans.

An American flag and a U.S. Department of Education flag fly outside the US Department of Education building in Washington, D.C., U.S., Feb. 1, 2025. 
Annabelle Gordon | Reuters

With the Trump administration looking for ways to close parts or all of the U.S. Department of Education, many of the country’s 42 million federal student loan borrowers are likely feeling on edge.
One of the Education Department’s functions is underwriting the loans that enable millions of people each year to attend college and graduate school. It also administers the country’s $1.6 trillion outstanding education debt tab.

“The anxiety levels are pretty high for borrowers right now,” said Betsy Mayotte, president of The Institute of Student Loan Advisors, a nonprofit that helps borrowers navigate the repayment of their debt.
Closing the agency would require an act of Congress, experts say.
Still, Trump administration officials are considering an executive order that could halt parts of the agency, The Wall Street Journal reported Monday. On the campaign trail, President Donald Trump said shuttering the department would be a priority.
“The President plans to fulfill a campaign promise by revaluating the future of the Department of Education,” said a White House spokesperson.
More from Personal Finance:How tariffs may impact U.S. consumersThe Fed holds rates steady. What that means for youIRS announces the start of the 2025 tax season

Former President Jimmy Carter established the U.S. Department of Education in 1979. Since then, the department has faced other existential threats, with former President Ronald Reagan calling for its end and Trump, during his first term, attempting to merge it with the Labor Department.
Efforts by the Trump administration to dismantle the Education Department likely will face criticism.
To that point, 61% of likely voters say they oppose the Trump administration’s use of an executive order to abolish the Education Department, according to a poll conducted by Data for Progress on behalf of the Student Borrower Protection Center and  Groundwork Collaborative. Just 34% of respondents approve of such a move. The survey of 1,294 people was conducted Jan. 31 to Feb. 2.
Here’s what the possible changes to the department could mean for student loan borrowers.

What would happen to my student loans?

Even if the Education Department no longer existed, student loan debt would still be due, Mayotte said.
“Just because the entity that manages the loan changes, it in no way changes the terms [of the loan],” she said.
For example, mortgages often get sold to other companies, and millions of student loan borrowers have recently had their accounts transferred to another servicer, Mayotte added.
The Treasury Department would be the next most logical agency to administer student debt, Mayotte said.
It’s also possible that the Justice Department or the Department of Labor could carry out some of the Education Department’s functions, according to a blog post by The National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators.
Meanwhile, some Republicans have expressed interest in privatizing the federal student loan system, higher education expert Mark Kantrowitz said. This prospect worries consumer advocates, who point out that students need extra protections that are not required of private lenders.

The federal student loan system is already plagued by problems, said Michele Shepard Zampini, senior director of college affordability at The Institute For College Access and Success. Transferring the loan accounts of tens of millions of people to another agency would only make things worse, she said.
“Borrowers and students need more stability, and this would create chaos,” Shepard Zampini said.

Financial aid for new and current students could be delayed

New and current students who rely on financial aid for college would likely experience delays if the Education Department is partially or fully shut down, Shepard Zampini said.
That would be a major problem for families, she said.
“People can’t go to college without student loans, unfortunately,” Shepard Zampini said.

Students prepare for lecture at the University of Texas at Austin on February 22, 2024 in Austin, Texas. 
Brandon Bell | Getty Images

Kantrowitz agreed.
“Disruption is bad, very bad,” Kantrowitz said. “During a transition, federal student aid might not become available for weeks or longer.” More

Tariffs could make many imported goods more expensive.
While it may make sense to buy certain big-ticket items now, stockpiling is rarely a good idea.
Experts weigh in on how the urge to hoard certain products ahead of potentially higher prices can backfire.

Many consumers are rightfully concerned about escalating trade tensions.
President Donald Trump on Saturday said he would impose 25% tariffs on goods from Mexico and Canada, and 10% tariffs on goods imported from China. He also signaled that tariffs on the European Union could be next. 

While Trump has agreed to halt the implementation of tariffs against Canada for at least 30 days and he paused the duty on Mexican goods for one month, China already retaliated with additional tariffs of up to 15% on some U.S. imports.
A recent consumer survey found that 86% of Americans said tariffs are likely to hit their wallets and 12% are already stockpiling items over potential tariff concerns. 
More from Personal Finance:Tariffs are a wake-up call for individual investorsHow tariffs on Canada, China and Mexico may impact youTariffs ‘slammed shut’ the window for interest rate cuts in 2025
Many businesses will funnel those extra costs to customers — either directly or indirectly — which is why tariffs generally trigger higher prices for consumers, economists say.
Specifically, higher tariffs on goods traded between China and the U.S. may lead to higher prices on apparel, appliances, toys and electronics. Meanwhile, Mexico and Canada tariffs could put pressure on already high grocery prices, which are up 28% over the last five years, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

‘Tariffs are taxes paid by Americans’

“Tariffs are taxes paid by Americans, and any new tariff tax increases should be methodically and effectively deployed toward only the most strategic goods,” David French, the National Retail Federation’s executive vice president of government relations, said in a statement.
This also comes at a time when many households already feel financially stretched.
Five years after Covid’s supply-and-demand logistics crisis drove up prices for many consumer staples, many Americans are still wrestling with higher costs.
Overall, the U.S. economy has notched steady progress in lowering inflation. The consumer price index, a key inflation measure that tracks average prices across a broad basket of consumer goods and services, increased 2.9% in December relative to a year earlier, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That’s down from a pandemic-era peak of 9.1% in June 2022.
But in most cases price increases are only slowing — not falling outright. 

Why stockpiling can backfire

“Sudden surges in demand can disrupt supply chains, leading to shortages and hoarding behavior — issues we experienced firsthand during the pandemic,” said Amir Mousavian, professor of supply chain management at the University of New England’s College of Business.
“The psychological impact of such behavior ripples through the supply chain, reinforcing inefficiencies rather than addressing them,” Mousavian said.
Any potential consumer savings from stockpiling now would likely be insignificant in the long run, he explained.
“Moreover, the overall harm to the majority of consumers — caused by disruptions, shortages, and likely artificially inflated prices due to shortages — far outweighs the potential minimal savings that some individuals may experience by stockpiling,” Mousavian added.

How to save money as prices rise

There are, however, savings benefits to buying in bulk, said Steven Conners, founder and president of Conners Wealth Management in Scottsdale, Arizona. 
“Anything imported could be more expensive in the future,” he said. “If you have expenditures that are larger in nature, you might want to do that now as opposed to delaying.”
But, “stockpiling is another story,” he added. “Having healed so much of the supply chain, this could throw us back.”

In many cases, stockpiling just isn’t practical, added Sunderesh Heragu, president-elect of the Institute of Industrial and Systems Engineers and a professor at Oklahoma State University.
“It is not easy for individual consumers or households to stockpile,” he said.
Goods that will see a significant price increase quickly are groceries, electronics, cars and gas, according to Heragu.
“Consumers may want to consider purchasing big ticket items such as electronics and automobiles, but the prices of these may already have gone up,” he added.

A person shops at a Whole Foods Market grocery store in New York City on Dec. 17, 2024.
Spencer Platt | Getty Images

And still, it’s too soon to tell how the looming tariffs on Canada, China and Mexico will play out, experts say.
“There is so much uncertainty in the system,” Heragu said. “Are the tariffs a threat? A negotiating tactic? Will they become a reality and if so, to what extent?”
According to Mousavian, “President Trump’s administration uses tariffs as a negotiation tool, as seen in cases like Colombia.”
President Trump had threatened tariffs and sanctions on Colombia but later pulled back after the South American nation agreed to accept military flights carrying deportees as part of the White House’s immigration crackdown.
While some tariff increases may occur, the likelihood of substantial, lasting tariffs at this moment remains low, Mousavian said.
Further, if inflation continues its downward trend, there is also the possibility that prices for many consumer staples could fall in the year ahead, Heragu said.
Subscribe to CNBC on YouTube. More

President Donald Trump signed an executive order that outlines plans for a government-run sovereign wealth fund to serve as an economic development tool and perhaps be used to buy TikTok.
Though the idea of such a U.S. fund has been brought up before, they are generally used by smaller nations with vast natural resources as well as fiscal surpluses to deploy.

US President Donald Trump speaks to reporters in the Oval Office of the White House on Feb. 3, 2025, in Washington, DC. 
Jim Watson | AFP | Getty Images

President Donald Trump on Monday signed an executive order that outlines plans for a government-run sovereign wealth fund to serve as an economic development tool and perhaps be used to buy TikTok.
Among the aims for the fund would be developing infrastructure such as airports and highways, and it could help the U.S. extend its influence in areas such as Panama and Greenland.

“We’re going to stand this thing up within the next 12 months. We’re going to monetize the asset side of the U.S. balance sheet for the American people,” U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said during a media parley. “There’ll be a combination of liquid assets, assets that we have in this country as we work to bring them out for the American people.”
There were no other details for a fund Trump said during his campaign could back “great national endeavors.” He has said tariffs could help provide funding. Other nations use taxes on natural resources, financial transactions and carbon use as funding mechanisms.
A discussed deal in which the U.S. would become a partner in social media platform TikTok would be one potential use, Trump said. The app was taken offline briefly amid security concerns, but Trump signed an order allowing it back for a 75-day period during which it likely will have to divest itself of Chinese interests.
Though the idea of such a U.S. fund has been brought up before, the vehicles are generally used by smaller nations with vast natural resources as well as fiscal surpluses to deploy — unlike the U.S., which has been running massive budget deficits.
Nations with the funds include China, Norway and Singapore. A U.S. fund could help it compete with those countries and might make the government less dependent on issuing Treasury debt to raise money.

The executive order says the fund’s purpose is to “promote fiscal sustainability, lessen the burden of taxes on American families and small businesses, establish economic security for future generations, and promote United States economic and strategic leadership internationally.”
Bessent and Commerce Secretary nominee Howard Lutnick are tasked with developing a strategy within 90 days on how the fund will operate.
Norway has the largest sovereign wealth fund, with more than $1.7 trillion in assets, according to the Sovereign Wealth Fund Institute. The China Investment Corp follows with $1.3 trillion.
These funds are involved in global financial markets through investments in stocks, bonds and real estate, along with stakes in infrastructure and private equity. Critics say a lack of transparency can lead to conflicts and corruption if there are not strict governance rules. More

Plans for tariffs on goods from Canada and China and Mexico prompted markets to temporarily fall on Monday.
The news is a wake-up call for individual investors to revisit their portfolios and household budgets, experts say.

Trump administration tariffs set to begin on February 4th would affect prices and the availability of some products at grocery stores. 
Nick Lachance | Toronto Star | Getty Images

President Donald Trump’s new executive order issuing tariffs on goods entering the U.S. from Canada, China and Mexico sent markets falling early Monday.
By midday, the markets rebounded on news of a one-month pause on Mexico tariffs.

The events are a reminder that two forces drive the markets — underlying fundamentals and sentiment, according to Larry Adam, chief investment officer at Raymond James.
When it comes to fundamentals — the factors that determine a stock’s worth — there’s been no definitive change, Adam said.
But when it comes to sentiment, this may be a wake-up call for investors who came into the year thinking the threat of tariffs was not a realistic risk, he said.
“We’re not changing our forecast,” Adam said, which includes a year-end 6,375 target for the S&P 500. As of Monday afternoon, the index was hovering around 6,000.
More from Personal Finance:How tariffs may impact U.S. consumersThe Fed holds rates steady. What that means for youIRS announces the start of the 2025 tax season

The total revenues companies in the S&P 500 receive from Canada and China and Mexico are fairly small, he said, with 1% coming from both Mexico and Canada, and 7% from China.
“It’s not as big to the S&P 500 as it is to the bigger economy,” Adam said of the tariffs’ effects.
For individual investors who are wondering what, if anything, to do next, “this is where the value of an advisor truly shines,” said Cathy Curtis, a certified financial planner and founder and CEO of Curtis Financial Planning, who is also a member of the CNBC FA Council.
“President Trump has consistently used tariffs as a negotiating tool, and we can expect this pattern to continue,” Curtis said she is telling clients.
Curtis said she’s urging clients to focus on the long-term gains they may see by staying the course, rather than overreact based on short-term headlines.
For individuals, the threat of tariffs has implications for both their investment portfolios and everyday household budgets.

Investors may want to rethink their strategy

Even in the face of sudden market volatility and uncertainty, financial advisors say it’s best not to make any sudden moves with your portfolio.
“Reacting to short-term news by trying to time the market is not a winning strategy,” Curtis said.
Still, sudden market volatility may be a wake-up call to some investment strategy adjustments that need to happen, advisors say.
That starts with a gut check to see whether you’re comfortable with your equity allocations in the event of steep losses.
Don’t invest more than you can handle financially or psychologically, CFP Carolyn McClanahan, founder of Life Planning Partners and a CNBC FA Council member, said she advises clients.

It is also important to be mindful of your portfolio’s international exposure, which could be affected by tariffs, said CFP Marguerita Cheng, CEO of Blue Ocean Global Wealth. Cheng is also a member of the CNBC FA Council.
Retirement savers ought to take a look at their target-date funds — investments that automatically adjust to an anticipated retirement date — to make sure they’re not exposed to more international investments than they want, Cheng said.
Current retirees should make sure they have enough money in cash and stable value fund to ensure they can fulfill their required minimum distributions and other immediate needs without having to sell their investments at an inopportune time, she said.

Consumers may feel ‘pain’ from trade war

Consumer prices on everything from produce and liquor to medications and homes may increase with the implementation of tariffs. Consequently, consumer who have faced years of higher prices due to elevated inflation may now want to reassess their household budgets once again.
Meanwhile, Trump on Sunday said Americans could feel “pain” in the trade war.
“I think it’s highly likely that there will be some pain,” said Lee Baker, a CFP and president of Claris Financial Advisors.

To get ahead of those potential cost increases, it helps to evaluate how much you’re spending. Forgoing a vacation, extra items at the grocery store or additional trips in the car can help save money now in the event higher costs hit later, Baker said.  
“A little forethought in planning might help you avoid the sticker shock that could come from your grocery bill or particular items that are being threatened with tariffs,” said CFP Douglas Boneparth, president and founder of Bone Fide Wealth.
Baker and Boneparth are both members of the CNBC FA Council. More

On Saturday, Trump slapped 25% tariffs on imports from Mexico and Canada and a 10% levy on those from China.
Although the tariffs on Mexico were delayed for a month early Monday, the levies are expected to make foreign steel more expensive in the United States.
U.S. companies hope the result will be a boost in U.S. production and an opportunity to raise prices.

Bundles of steel from Nucor Corporation sit for sale at Thompson Building Materials in Lomita, California, on Aug. 30, 2012.
Patrick Fallon | Bloomberg | Getty Images

U.S. steelmakers should be beneficiaries of President Donald Trump’s new tariffs, but Wall Street warned that there are some risks in the longer term.
On Saturday, Trump slapped 25% tariffs on imports from Mexico and Canada and a 10% levy on those from China. On Monday, the U.S. agreed to pause tariffs on Mexico for one month in return for President Claudia Sheinbaum sending troops to northern border.

Those decisions reversed the stock market’s early slide. The Dow Jones Industrial Average was recently lower by about 100 points after buckling 600 points as the trading day began.
Steel stocks waffled, after seeing some gains in the premarket. Nucor shares were up about 2% and U.S. Steel moved 1% higher in morning trading, while Steel Dynamics was lower.

Stock chart icon

Nucor shares over the past year.

The levies are expected to make foreign steel more expensive in the United States. Companies hope U.S. production will rise as a result, and give them an opportunity to raise prices.
The industry has been battling cheap foreign imports for years, thanks to illegal dumping into the U.S. market, Nucor CEO Leon Topalian said in an interview with CNBC’s “Mad Money” last Tuesday. Dumping refers to when a foreign country exports products at a lower price than in its home market or below production costs.
“It’s the illegal dumping, the subsidization of steels and the currency manipulation that creates a very unbalanced and unlevel playing field that has hurt the steel industry for decades,” Topalian told Jim Cramer.

Canada is the top steel exporter into the U.S., while Mexico is the third largest, according to the Census Bureau. The countries were initially targeted in the first Trump administration’s tariffs, but eventually reached a trade deal that included an exemption.
Morgan Stanley sees a direct impact on the pricing power for U.S. steel companies.
“We believe prices are beginning to recover after a challenging 2024, supported by protectionist trade measures,” analyst Carlos De Alba wrote in a note Monday. “We project prices to improve further in 2026 as tariff implications flow through the U.S. economy.”
However, those price increases will be tempered by limited dampened demand. The Wall Street investment bank anticipates “modest” steel demand growth of 1.6%.
In addition, De Alba downgraded U.S. Steel, saying he no longer sees meaningful upside to his price target, assuming U.S. Steel remains independent and isn’t acquired. His target of $39 per share implies 6% upside from Friday’s close.

Stock chart icon

U.S. Steel

The planned acquisition of U.S. Steel by Japan’s Nippon Steel was blocked by the Biden administration in January. Nucor is now partnering with Cleveland-Cliffs in a potential bid for U.S. Steel, sources recently told CNBC’s David Faber.
Meanwhile, UBS also sees higher steel prices if the tariffs are imposed and kept.
“Trade disruption should drive prices higher in the near term and support U.S. steel equities, but low demand and capacity additions will offset these gains in major products in the medium term in our view,” analyst Andrew Jones wrote in a note Monday.
Bank of America Securities also highlighted future headwinds, despite the benefit the steelmakers will see from more expensive imports.
“Longer term, we see downside risk to the US steel stocks from the potential for materially reduced auto production, around 25% of U.S. steel demand,” analyst Lawson Winder wrote in a note Monday.
Correction: Carlos De Alba is an analyst at Morgan Stanley. An earlier version misspelled his name.

Don’t miss these insights from CNBC PRO More

Tariffs on imports would likely raise inflation and keep interest rates higher for longer, if they take effect, economists predict.
Over the weekend, President Donald Trump signed orders to put tariffs on Canada, China and Mexico starting Tuesday.
However, Trump said on Monday that the tariffs on Mexico would be delayed a month.

A truck drives on its way to enter the United States at a border crossing at the Canada-U.S. border in Blackpool, Quebec, Canada, on Feb. 2, 2025.
Andrej Ivanov | Afp | Getty Images

‘A lot of uncertainty’ on Trump tariff policy

Of course, the situation is fluid, making a precise assessment a near impossibility, economists said.
For example, Trump said on Monday he’d pause a 25% tariff on Mexico from taking effect for a month after Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum agreed to immediately send 10,000 soldiers to her country’s border to prevent drug trafficking.

It appears, for now, that tariffs on Canada and China will take effect Tuesday as planned.
“There’s a lot of uncertainty about how policies unfold,” Susan Collins, president the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, told CNBC Monday.

How tariffs may impact inflation, interest rates

Tariffs on Canada, China and Mexico — if enacted on a long-term basis — are estimated to increase U.S. inflation by 0.5 to 1 percentage points through 2026, according to Joe Seydl, senior markets economist at J.P. Morgan Private Bank.
Those estimates are for “core” prices (which strip out energy and food costs) as measured by the Personal Consumption Expenditures Price Index, the Fed’s preferred inflation gauge.
That’s important because the Fed uses interest rate policy to keep inflation and the labor market in check. Elevated inflation would, all else equal, be expected to keep interest rates higher for longer.

Tariffs on Canada, China and Mexico “would push up” PCE inflation by roughly 0.7 percentage points, relative to a no-tariff baseline, to around 2.8% in the fourth quarter of 2025, according to a note published Tuesday by Evercore ISI.
“That would knock out at least one and plausibly both remaining Fed cuts this year,” the Evercore note said.
In December, Fed officials forecast they’d cut interest rates twice in 2025.
“Obviously there is some uncertainty about whether these tariffs will go ahead or not, given the one-month pause of the Mexico one announced today,” Stephen Brown, deputy chief North America economist at Capital Economics, wrote in an e-mail. “If the tariffs go ahead, it’s unlikely that the Fed will cut again.”

While some have suggested that tariffs may push the central bank to raise interest rates again, Brown thinks that’s unlikely. Tariffs would likely be a drag on the U.S. economy, he said.
Likewise, J.P. Morgan projects that proposed tariffs would reduce U.S. gross domestic product — a measure of economic output — by 0.5 to 1 percentage point through 2026, Seydl said.
That economic drag could outweigh the inflationary impact of tariffs and eventually lead the Fed to cut rates, he said. More