Go to the U of M home page
  • One Stop
  • MyU
Gender Policy Report
  • About
    • Curators
    • Write For Us
    • Email Sign-Up
  • Research Areas
    • Gender, Race & Place in Minnesota
    • Built & Natural Environment
    • Criminal Legal System
    • Education
    • Health
    • Human Rights, Development & Security
    • Immigration & Refugees
    • Labor, Family & Economic Security
    • Leadership, Representation & Civil Rights
    • Violence
  • Dialogues
    • Dialogues Archive
  • Donate
  • Search
  • Menu Menu
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Mail

There’s a Demographic Pattern to Trump’s Tariff Threats

By Cosette Creamer | March 8, 2018

President Trump has taken many by surprise with his recent threats to impose global tariffs on steel and aluminum imports.  Presumably seeking to deliver policy goods to his political base, the remarks appear aimed to support the principally white male workers in the steel and aluminum industries.

But if these tariffs are imposed, negative consequences will hit a whole host of other workers, and women workers in particular. Trade, too, is a gendered policy area.

Trade issues formed a central pillar of Trump’s campaign promises, which emphasized re-negotiating multilateral and bilateral trade agreements and increasing tariffs on imported goods from specific countries (China, Mexico) as well as across the board. These promises appealed to voters who saw globalization generally and free trade deals in particular as detrimental to American jobs and workers.

Now Trump appears to be making good on this promise, even if we have few details.  His statements followed the Department of Commerce’s release of reports under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. This section authorizes the Department of Commerce to investigate the impact of imports–in this case of steel and aluminum–on U.S. national security. In these reports, Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross recommended that the President consider a number of remedies to address the national security problem posed by steel and aluminum imports, including global tariffs on both. The administration has not yet officially adopted any specific remedy or released any specific proposal. Still, President Trump’s statements floating the idea of a global tariff of 25% on steel imports and 10% on aluminum imports alarmed many at home and abroad.

While Trump appears to be catering to one group of workers and their bosses, other groups will likely directly suffer.

Research demonstrates that tariffs tend to place a heavier burden on certain categories of consumers–namely single parents–and many goods that women overwhelmingly purchase (such as women’s clothing) have historically faced higher tariffs than goods typically consumed by men. Tariffs on steel and aluminium will hit broad US manufacturing sectors that depend on these inputs — from beer breweries to the aerospace industry. It will also affect household consumers as they absorb the increased costs of a soup can, the pot the soup might be cooked in, and aluminium foil.  

Perhaps more detrimental, there is the risk that the imposition of such high global tariffs could lead to trade retaliation (which the EU –among others– has already threatened against American bourbon and bluejeans) or a full-blown trade war.

In evaluating the impact of such a scenario on the U.S. economy, one study found that while sectors that produce capital goods are likely to be the most intensely affected, the largest absolute number of job losses would occur in non-trade service sectors.

These sectors include wholesale and retail distribution and sales, restaurants, healthcare, and temporary employment agencies, sectors that tend to disproportionately employ women, and are also among the primary employers for women of color.  According to the most recent American Community Survey (2016), while 16% of white men worked in service or sales, 24% of white women, 31% of African American women and 27% of Latinas (16 and over) worked in these occupations.

Tariffs and trade wars may be good for a handful of principally white male workers and CEOs.  But the ripple effects will be negative for the rest of us, and harshest for women of color and those with lower economic means.

— Cosette Creamer is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Minnesota and affiliated faculty at the University of Minnesota Law School

— Photo by Chris Goldberg

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Recent Posts

  • Preventing Human Trafficking
  • What’s Wrong with the US Federal Response to “Sex Trafficking”?
  • How to End Violence Against Sex Workers
  • Disability and Economic Precarity
  • The Future of the Indian Child Welfare Act
  • Driving Toward Labor and Disability Justice

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommerical-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

HUMPHREY SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

130 Humphrey School
301 19th Avenue South Minneapolis MN 55455
612-626-8910
hhh.umn.edu

Center on Women, Gender, and Public Policy

Illuminating gender-based disparities through research, teaching, and public engagement. cwgpp.umn.edu

Most Popular Posts

  • What Causes the Wage Gap?
  • Bicycles, Gender, and Risk: Driver Behaviors When Passing Cyclists
  • Addressing Gun Violence by Reimagining Masculinity and Protection

Quick Links

  • About
  • Write for Us
  • Donate
  • Email Sign-Up

Write For Us

  • Click to Learn More

Social Media

Twitter   Facebook   Facebook

E-News

Sign-up to receive the lastest news from the Gender Policy Report.

© 2023 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. The University of Minnesota is an equal opportunity educator and employer. Privacy Statement
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Mail
Scroll to top