President Donald Trump’s trade policies and their effect on women have been one of the most contentious issues of the current administration. The administration’s decision to impose a 10% tariff on most trading partners has disrupted the global trade order, leading to unforeseen consequences for female consumers. According to a new report from Tariffs Hurt Women, women are particularly harmed by these tariffs, paying more than $2 billion a year as a result.
The U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) divides the majority of manufactured apparel and footwear according to gender. It establishes the exact tariff rate for every category of merchandise brought into the US from abroad. A recent study by Edward Gresser found that women are charged, on average, a dollar more per piece of clothing. This underscores the well-documented price gap for women’s clothing versus men’s. This gap is especially striking compared to how much the average household spends on clothing. Despite these higher costs, in 2023, consumers spent $655 on women’s clothing, compared to $406 on men’s clothing.
The tariff rates reflect this gender-based disparity. For instance, women’s suits faced a 15.1% tariff rate in 2017, compared to 13.3% for men’s suits. Similarly, women’s underwear was subjected to a 12.8% tariff, while men’s underwear faced an 8.6% tariff. On average, tariffs on women’s clothing were 16.7% in 2022, which is 2.9 percentage points higher than the 13.6% average tariff rate imposed on men’s clothing.
These tariffs harm female consumers directly, they lead to costlier economic impacts. Once again, as Trump puts these tariffs in place, he may inadvertently shrink the gender gap. By raising the tariffs on men’s clothing, he could raise prices for everyone. Yet the current policy, commonly known as “pink tariffs,” still unfairly increases the economic burden on women.
Steve Lamar, the president of the American Apparel & Footwear Association, criticized these measures:
“As he is instituting massive new tariffs, President Trump is missing a chance to tackle historically regressive and misogynistic traits.”
Furthermore, tariffs tend to have regressive economic effects. Economic impacts differ by income level. Gresser highlights that
“The cost increase will be higher at the low end than at the luxury end.”
Lower-income households spend a higher share of their household budgets on basic clothing needs. This is the case because, as small businesses, they will feel a larger impact from these debilitating tariffs.
U.S. textile and apparel manufacturers have focused a great deal of their lobbying resources on reducing tariffs and eliminating trade barriers exclusively on men’s apparel. They’ve failed to stand up and advocate for equitable treatment across sexes. Consequently, women’s clothing is subject to higher tariffs. There has been little organizing or advocacy directed at materially changing that fact.
The “Pink Tariffs Study Act,” introduced by Sen. It instructs the Treasury Department and other relevant agencies to analyze the impact of all tariffs on women and other groups of consumers. This legislative advance reflects an increasing understanding of the need for proactive policies that take gender disparities into account when addressing economic impacts.
This single comment reinforces conclusions in enacting tariff regimes, tariff regimes, Tariff regimes ultimately harm wage earners in the long term. This is especially worrisome for lower-income workers, who will be disproportionately affected by the increased costs.
“Hourly-wage America will be carrying a lot of the tariff burden.”
This comment highlights the potential long-term consequences of tariff policies on wage earners, particularly those in lower-income brackets who may find themselves increasingly squeezed by rising costs.
