Rick Rosner On, 20: Trump’s Tariffs, Consumer Costs, Border Policy, and Economic Claims
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Personal SubStack
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2026/07/07
In this interview, Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner examine the economic and political consequences of President Trump’s tariff policies, arguing that consumers ultimately bore higher costs while corporations benefited from tariff refunds. Rosner contends the tariffs weakened job growth, increased household expenses, and are unlikely to withstand legal scrutiny. They also assess claims regarding border security, crime reduction, and declining fentanyl deaths, distinguishing long-term trends from policies they believe can be directly attributed to the administration.
Thanks for reading! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
Rick Rosner: On April 2, 2025, Trump announced sweeping tariffs on imports from nearly every major U.S. trading partner. The list controversially included remote territories such as the uninhabited Heard Island and McDonald Islands. There is no established evidence that artificial intelligence generated the list. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick denied that AI had been used.
Trump said the tariffs would revive American manufacturing and create jobs. Employment growth subsequently became very weak, although it would be too simplistic to attribute the entire slowdown to tariffs alone. Revised Bureau of Labor Statistics figures show that payroll employment grew by an average of only 15,000 jobs per month in 2025. Employment improved during parts of 2026, including gains of 179,000 in April and 172,000 in May, before slowing to 57,000 in June.
In February 2026, the Supreme Court invalidated a substantial portion of Trump’s tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. By the end of July, the government had processed approximately $100 billion in refunds to importers, representing about 60 percent of the roughly $166 billion collected under the invalidated tariffs. Apple reported receiving approximately $2.2 billion.
These refunds are being paid to the importers that legally paid the duties, not automatically to the consumers who may have faced higher prices. Apple has said it plans to reinvest its refund in American manufacturing rather than distribute it directly to customers. Amazon, which received approximately $600 million, has said it will refund customers in the limited cases in which it can identify tariff charges that were passed directly to them.
Tariffs are taxes on imported goods. The importer pays the government, but some portion of the cost may then be absorbed by the importer, passed to other businesses, or passed to consumers through higher prices. It is therefore inaccurate to say that consumers necessarily pay the entire tariff, although economic research indicates that American consumers and businesses bear much of the burden.
Trump’s tariffs were imposed unlawfully under the emergency authority used by the administration. He has since pursued tariffs under other statutory authorities. Those newer measures are being challenged in court, but it would be premature to state as fact that they will also be struck down.
The tariffs have imposed measurable costs on households. Estimates differ according to which tariffs and economic assumptions are included. After the Supreme Court ruling, Yale’s Budget Lab estimated that the remaining tariffs would raise short-term consumer prices by approximately 0.6 percent, costing the average household about $800 in 2025 dollars. Other estimates have placed the annual household burden at approximately $1,000 to $1,400.
The government received tariff revenue while the duties remained in force, but much of the revenue collected under the invalidated emergency tariffs must now be returned to eligible importers. The policy nevertheless imposed administrative costs, disrupted trade, and left consumers with no general mechanism for recovering price increases they may have paid.
This is one way Trump has damaged the economy.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How many Americans were affected by this?
Rosner: Most households purchase goods whose prices can be influenced directly or indirectly by tariffs. The effect varies considerably according to what a household buys. Lower-income households tend to experience a greater burden as a percentage of their income because they devote more of their budgets to goods rather than services. Yale’s Budget Lab estimated that the tariff burden, measured as a share of income, was roughly three times greater for households in the bottom income decile than for those in the top decile.
Gasoline itself was not uniformly subject to the same tariff treatment as ordinary manufactured imports. Tariffs on steel, aluminum, machinery, and other inputs can raise costs for energy infrastructure, refining, transportation, and construction. However, it would be difficult to isolate how much, if any, of a particular increase in gasoline prices was caused by the tariffs.
It can be defensible to impose costs on households when a policy produces larger or longer-term public benefits. In this case, however, the evidence for broad consumer benefits remains weak.
Jacobsen: We can start with the basics. What has been a positive story from the Trump administration this month?
Rosner: I can answer that because someone told me directly. I said, “Trump has done virtually nothing for Americans.” A Trump supporter replied, “No tax on tips or overtime, border secure, crime down, fentanyl down 80 percent.”
That, according to a Trump supporter, is the list of what he has accomplished.
Trump signed tax provisions allowing eligible workers to deduct certain tip and overtime income. The phrase “no tax” is misleading because these are limited federal income-tax deductions, not complete exemptions from every tax. The deduction for qualified tips is capped at $25,000 annually and phases out at higher incomes. The overtime deduction is capped at $12,500 for an individual or $25,000 for a married couple filing jointly, and it generally applies only to the premium portion of qualifying overtime pay. Payroll taxes may still apply.
The provisions may benefit some workers, but the total effect depends on their income, occupation, reporting practices, and amount of qualifying compensation. It is therefore too early to dismiss the policy as having no effect, but it is also inaccurate to describe all tips and overtime as entirely tax-free.
The border is more secure, at least when measured by unauthorized crossings between ports of entry. Crossings had already begun declining before Trump returned to office, but they fell dramatically after his administration introduced stricter enforcement measures. Border Patrol recorded 7,181 apprehensions along the southwest border in March 2025 and 8,725 in May, levels far below those recorded during the peak years of the Biden administration.
Of everything Trump has done, this is probably the issue on which his supporters can make their strongest empirical argument. The border has not literally been “shut down,” but unauthorized crossings have fallen to historically low levels. Whether the enforcement methods are lawful, humane, or proportionate is a separate question.
Crime is down. However, the decline did not begin with Trump’s second administration. FBI data show that violent crime fell by an estimated 4.5 percent in 2024, including a 14.9 percent decline in murder, while Biden was still president. Preliminary FBI figures indicate that violent crime then fell by a further 9.3 percent in 2025. Trump can reasonably claim that crime continued to fall during his presidency, but he cannot credibly claim sole responsibility for a decline that was already underway.
The claim that street crime has declined primarily because people remain at home, use the Internet, and carry less cash is speculative. Those factors may affect certain offences, particularly robbery, but crime trends are influenced by many conditions, including demographics, policing, incarceration, economic conditions, drug markets, firearm availability, social services, and changes in reporting.
Crime rose sharply during the COVID-19 period, particularly homicide, but researchers have not identified a single cause. The subsequent decline began before Trump returned to office and continued during his administration. He is therefore benefiting politically from a trend that he did not initiate.
Fentanyl is not “down 80 percent” under the most relevant national measure. According to figures cited by the White House, deaths involving synthetic opioids, principally fentanyl, declined by approximately 22 percent from 2024 to 2025, from 48,913 to 38,084. Total overdose deaths declined by approximately 14 percent. The fall in overdose mortality began before Trump returned to office, so attributing the entire decline to his administration would also be misleading.
Jacobsen: Thank you very much for the opportunity and your time, Rick.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
