Introduction
A recent Washington Post article reports that former President Donald Trump is pushing for broad tariff increases — possibly impacting over 90% of imports — as part of his “Liberation Day” trade strategy. With claims ranging from job restoration to economic revitalization, readers, including our user, question whether these tariffs could actually help the economy, especially amid rising concerns about recession risks and market volatility. We fact-checked some of the article’s central claims to clarify the policy impacts and public narratives surrounding this issue.
Historical Context
Tariffs have long been a political and economic tool in U.S. history. In the 19th century, they were a primary revenue source and a protector of domestic industries. However, in modern globalized economies, broad-based tariffs have often led to retaliatory trade wars. During Trump’s first term (2017–2021), tariffs were a central component of his “America First” strategy, targeting countries like China and industries such as steel and aluminum. Those moves sparked both praise from protectionist circles and criticism from economists warning of consumer price hikes and strained international relations.
Fact-Checking Specific Claims
Claim #1: Tariffs will raise “trillions of dollars” in revenue for the U.S. government
The article states that Trump believes tariffs will fill federal coffers with “trillions of dollars” in new revenue. However, this claim significantly overstates the potential income. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), total tariff revenue for fiscal year 2023 was $79 billion — far short of even one trillion. Even with new, broader tariffs in place, historically, tariffs have never generated trillions, and doing so would require an unprecedented tax burden on imports and subsequently consumers.
Tariffs are paid by importers — typically U.S. companies — and often passed on to consumers through higher prices, not foreign governments. The Tax Foundation has consistently reported that tariffs function more like a consumption tax than foreign payments. Thus, while modest tariff revenue can be achieved, the claim that trillions would be raised is categorically false.
Source:
Congressional Budget Office, 2023 Budget Outlook
Claim #2: Trump’s 25% auto tariff will bring jobs back by encouraging Americans to “buy American”
The assertion that higher prices on imported cars will lead Americans to only buy domestic vehicles oversimplifies both consumer behavior and market reality. Economic studies, such as a 2018 report from the Peterson Institute for International Economics, found that a 25% auto tariff would cost consumers an average of $1,400 per vehicle and could eliminate up to 195,000 U.S. jobs due to retaliatory tariffs and higher production costs.
While protective tariffs might result in some domestic manufacturing upswing, economists overwhelmingly agree that the net effect of broad auto tariffs would hurt consumers and limit market choice, particularly for lower-income buyers. Moreover, U.S.-assembled cars also contain many foreign parts and components, meaning they too could be subject to price increases.
Source:
Peterson Institute for International Economics, 2018
Claim #3: The stock market is reacting negatively to the tariff announcement
This claim is accurate. The article notes that all three major U.S. stock indices dropped sharply on the Friday prior to publication. Financial outlets including Bloomberg and CNBC confirmed that markets declined amid investor concerns over escalating trade tensions and their economic consequences. The S&P 500 fell 2.1%, the Nasdaq dropped 2.8%, and the Dow Jones Industrial Average shed over 600 points. Analysts explicitly linked the drop to fears that aggressive tariffs could trigger inflation and dampen economic growth.
This immediate market response underscores widespread financial unease with protectionist trade measures, particularly when implemented on the scale being proposed.
Sources:
CNBC Market Recap, March 28, 2025
Claim #4: Tariffs are key to restoring American manufacturing and long-term economic strength
This is a mixed claim that lacks adequate context. While tariffs can protect struggling sectors temporarily, economists largely agree that structural changes — like infrastructure investments, workforce development, and innovation — are more effective at revitalizing American manufacturing. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank have found that prolonged tariffs often lead to retaliation, supply chain disruptions, and reduced industrial output over time.
In fact, following Trump’s 2018 tariffs on steel and aluminum, studies showed negligible improvements in U.S. manufacturing job numbers, while costs rose for domestic industries dependent on inputs like aluminum cans and machinery parts.
Although some firms may reshore operations due to long-term tariff threats, applying widespread duties without clear industrial policy goals risks economic harm more than rejuvenation.
Source:
Brookings Institution
Conclusion
While the Washington Post article accurately reports on the internal debates and public rhetoric surrounding Trump’s proposed tariffs, it lacks nuance in contextualizing the economic effects of such policies. The article quotes various advisers and economists expressing concern, which balances some of the administration’s more optimistic forecasts. However, claims about “trillions” in revenue and tariffs being a “win-win” tool misrepresent economic consensus and empirical evidence.
The article could benefit from more analysis on the long-term economic consequences of such aggressive trade measures and clearer distinctions between political messaging and factual outcomes. Overall, it provides a mostly factual recount of events, though some claims put forward by Trump are misleading or exaggerated and were insufficiently challenged within the piece.
Take Action Against Misinformation
The truth matters. Download the DBUNK app today for real-time fact checks on articles and claims that impact you. Stay informed, fight misinformation, and help restore trust in media.
Read the original Washington Post article here.
