By Erica Caines & Musa Springer

What Are Tariffs and How Do They Affect Me?

Imagine you’re in real need of some new work boots, so you walk into your favorite discount clothing store to find a pair. Within minutes you see that the price of the “discount” clothing damn near costs the same as last year’s “luxury” clothing, with last year’s $40 work boots now hovering around $75. You increasingly realize that the costs of things you need—shoes, electronics, food, clothing, and more—have you pinching pennies. That’s one way tariffs can hit you, and it’s not just some abstract government policy. You’ve probably heard the word “tariffs” more than ever before in the last four months, and it can be confusing to understand what they are and how they impact you.

A tariff is a tax placed on goods coming into the U.S. from other countries. The companies importing the goods pay these taxes. But instead of taking the hit to their profits, they pass the cost down to you—the consumer.

The U.S. relies on a largely consumption-based economy, with relatively low levels of domestic manufacturing and production. This means it depends heavily on imported goods. Politicians like to say tariffs help American businesses by making imported products more expensive so we’ll buy from U.S. manufacturers. They also claim tariffs pressure big corporations to keep production, labor, and resource supplies within the country.

Tariffs on goods imported from China provide a clear example of how these taxes impact your wallet. For instance Apple, which manufactures most of its iPhones in China, would face increased costs due to Trump’s proposed tariffs on China. Apple would be forced to pay for higher tariffs on the good it manufactures and imports from China. Instead of absorbing those additional costs, Apple passed them on, driving up the price of devices like the iPhone and finding new ways to charge consumers. Nike, which similarly relies heavily on factories in places like Vietnam and Chinese to produce its sneakers and clothing, would see tariffs hike production costs. As a result, a pair of Air Jordans that used to cost $150 could now set you back closer to $195; a shirt that was perhaps $20 could now be $35. These examples may seem small, but they add up quick as our wages remain stagnant, and the cost of living steadily rises. These examples show how tariffs don’t just affect foreign producers—they make everyday items more expensive for you, while corporations protect their bottom line.

With electronics, for example, a huge portion of items like laptops, gaming items, smartphones, and TVs are made in China. Trump has specifically called for tariffs as high as 100% on imports from China. But these taxes didn’t hurt China; they hurt us. That $500 laptop you need for your first semester of college? It’s now $1,000 after the tariffs. You’ve been long overdue for a phone upgrade, and had your eye on a phone for $700? It’s now $1200, and the cell service costs go up too, since portions of the telecommunications infrastructure itself is also imported.

You’re forced to make tough choices at the checkout line, because the costs of fruits, vegetables, and packaged food — a large portion of which is imported in the U.S. — have risen significantly. Your child’s back-to-school shopping may have to turn into the same hand-me-down system that you grew up on, because the t-shirts, underwear, pants, and backpacks they like have all increased in cost by 55%.

This is the real catch with tariffs: they don’t just target corporations or foreign countries like capitalist politicians claim—they target us. And those of us who eek out the lower economic levels of society, overwhelmingly Black and Native peoples, will feel the struggle the hardest. Companies that import goods aren’t going to lose money paying tariffs when they can simply shift the cost to their products and make you pay more. So, while politicians argue that tariffs are a win for the economy, they’re really a semi-hidden tax on the working class, who can’t avoid paying higher prices for things they need.

What about the promises to bring jobs back to America? Those rarely pan out for communities already struggling, especially Black and colonized ones. While the Biden administration has facetiously boasted about “bringing over 800,000 new manufacturing jobs back to America”, the reality is that the scale of manufacturing in the U.S. pales in comparison to China, along with many other developed nations.

The factories that were closed down when production, manufacturing, and labor went international? They don’t reopen in places like Detroit, Atlanta, and Chicago, and wages certainly don’t rise for workers. Moreover, whatever manufacturing positions do return to the U.S., which is always shockingly low, the question of the quality of the job and the dignity of its pay is rarely discussed. Meanwhile, the ‘small businesses’ that politicians love to champion, that rely on imported goods to stay competitive, face higher costs as well, forcing many to shut down or pass expenses onto customers, setting the stage for massive corporations to take over the market. This helps push us further under capitalist monopoly power, allowing for massive corporations to usurp large portions of the labor and manufacturing market.

Tariffs are a perfect example of how the system works: it’s designed to look like it’s helping everyday people while making the rich even richer. The corporations that control our economy always find ways to profit, whether through tax breaks, loopholes, or passing costs onto consumers; politicians are very, very aware of this. And those same politicians who push tariffs will claim they’re protecting you, but all they’re really protecting is the budgets of the wealthy. It’s not just inflation. It’s capitalism, by design, and tariffs are just one more way it squeezes us.

Tariffs in the Case of Haiti & The Clintons

The story of Haiti’s rice industry in the 1990s serves as a harrowing case study of how U.S. imperialism, wielding trade policies as economic weapons of subjugation, undermines the sovereignty and development of nations. We know that tariffs are taxes that a government places on imports, like rice, to make imported goods more expensive than what local farmers grow. For small Caribbean nations like Haiti, tariffs may offer crucial market protections for local agriculture, by making sure large, foreign, agricultural corporations cannot flood the market with cheaper options. This is exactly why in the past, Haiti used tariffs to protect its rice farmers from foreign competition.

But in the 1990s under the guise of promoting so-called “free trade”, President Bill Clinton and the U.S. pressured Haiti to slash its tariffs on imported rice from 50% to just 3%. This was sold as part of a “free trade” deal, but it really opened the floodgates for cheap, heavily subsidized U.S. rice—nicknamed “Miami rice”—to take over Haiti’s markets. Haitian farmers couldn’t compete with the low prices, and most were forced out of business. A country that used to be self-sufficient in growing most of its own rice became dependent on imports to feed its people. This not only forces a dependency of the Haitian people on the U.S. and Western agricultural corporations, but shows that the role of the U.S. government under imperialism is to force new markets of exploitation and accumulation for capitalists. 

This wasn’t just about rice; it was about power, and the economic sabotage was not an unintended side effect but a deliberate design. The U.S. didn’t act alone—it worked through global organizations like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. These institutions give “loans” to underdeveloped countries like Haiti with attach strings, requiring them to make changes like lowering tariffs or cutting government social programs. This is called “structural adjustment,” and it’s sold as a way to help countries grow their economies; in reality, it usually benefits foreign corporations and hurts local communities.

These institutions are fundamentally influenced by the interests of U.S. capitalists, if not fully dictated by those interests, and agreed to imposed strict conditions for Haiti to access funding in a time of crisis. The U.S. framed this as a necessary step for Haiti to participate in global trade, but in reality, it was a calculated move to create a market for U.S. agribusiness. If Haiti didn’t comply, it faced being cut off from essential international loans and aid, which would have further destabilized the already fragile nation, and the U.S. even hinted at the possibility of Haiti facing sanctions. This economic blackmail forced Haiti’s hand, leaving it no choice but to dismantle its own protective measures, effectively sacrificing its rice industry to the lowest tariffs in the Caribbean at the time to satisfy foreign powers.

When Haiti cut its tariffs, it didn’t just lose its rice farmers; it lost some of its ability to decide how its economy should work. That’s a big deal because a country’s sovereignty—its ability to make its own decisions—is tied to controlling its resources and industries, especially land and food production.

The situation was intensified in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and the timeline of these economic pressures is closely linked to the U.S.-backed ousting of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide. After his initial election in 1990, Aristide, a left-leaning popular president, was overthrown in a CIA-backed coup in 1991. Following the 1991 coup, the U.S. used the notion of ‘allowing Aristide to return’ as a bargaining chip to further coerce Haiti into privatization and slashed tariffs. The U.S. would also play a chief role through the Organization of American States (OAS) in his return to power in October 1994 through ‘Operation Uphold Democracy’, but this reinstatement came with conditions. The Clinton Administration would be granted power to preside over Haiti’s change of authority and the re-constitution of the Haitian state alongside Aristide, and immediately tried to enforce the implementation of neoliberal economic policies such as tariff reductions.

Aristide fought against the Western privatization of Haiti’s economy, and fought against the lack of sovereignty his people faced against imperialism. Aristide’s resistance to further neoliberal reforms, and especially his focus on social programs during his second term led to growing tensions with U.S. interests. In 2004, amid escalating political unrest and U.S.-supported opposition, Aristide was ousted again in what can only be described as a U.S.-led coup, resulting again in his forced exile. All of this was the underlying context as the U.S. and international financial institutions demanded further tariff reductions as a condition for financial aid: facing the threat of withheld aid and even more political instability as Haitian civil society continued to divulge into unrest, Haiti acquiesced.

At the same time we must look at this dialectically. That is, not just the Haitian tariffs reduction, but also the U.S. government subsidies for its own rice industry. Subsidies are financial support that governments give to certain industries (corporations) to make their products cheaper to produce and sell. These government subsidies often cover the entire production cost, as can be seen with the massive payouts to weapons manufacturers, profiting immensely from the genocide in Gaza, proxy conflict in Ukraine, and elsewhere. In Haiti’s case, the U.S. government gave large subsidies to its corporate farmers in places like Arkansas, where President Clinton was from and in fact friendly with many rice producers. With the U.S. government writing million-dollar subsidy checks, this allowed them to sell rice to Haiti at prices very far below what it actually cost to grow. Haitian farmers, who did not (and literally, could not) receive similar support from their government, were completely undercut by this artificially cheap U.S. rice. The U.S. subsidies for its rice industry created a starkly uneven playing field, where American agribusiness reaped immense profits while Haitian agriculture faced economic obliteration.

By dismantling protective tariffs, Haiti’s agricultural economy was laid bare to exploitation. The ripple effects were devastating: rural livelihoods were destroyed, poverty deepened, food insecurity surged, dependency became de facto, and Haiti’s capacity to govern its own economy was severely undermined. This is a textbook example of imperialism in practice—where economic dominance is employed to force weaker nations into dependency, transforming their economies into little more than markets for U.S. corporate interests. Clinton years later admitted that the policy was a mistake and “apologized” for his actions, but by then, the damage was irreparable, and Haiti’s reliance on imported food was firmly entrenched.

Think about what this means in practice: instead of being able to grow and eat its own rice, which they’d done for decades, Haiti had to import food from the U.S. This made the country dependent on foreign trade for the basic act of feeding its people, which is incredibly dangerous. If prices go up or imports are disrupted, people suffer, left at the whims of Western capital. This kind of dependency is exactly what imperialism creates, and is one a foundation for the colonial underdevelopment that historian Walter Rodney details. Imperialism is not just about military invasions, and underdevelopment is not just about “primitive accumulation” or outright theft: it’s about a dominant power using economic tools, coercion, and weapons to dictate the economy and politics other countries. The U.S. pushed Haiti into this situation to benefit its own corporations while leaving Haitian people to deal with the fallout. It’s the same dynamic as colonialism, just with different tools. And the effects don’t just disappear when the policy stops—they last for decades.

Haiti’s experience also underscores the insidious and seemingly more ‘subtle’ nature of imperialism, where interventions are framed as “development aid”, “free trade”, or “trade liberalization” but simply serve to entrench dependency. By undermining domestic production capacities, the U.S. and other imperialist powers create captive markets for their surplus goods. This is not just the story of the introduction of Haiti’s “Miami rice”, but a pattern of calculated strategy to destroy local competition and secure long-term profit streams for U.S. corporations that we’ve seen across the Global South many times. This economic dominance uses the exploitative dynamics of colonialism, albeit under the guise of ‘globalization’, as a tool for imperialist development. Haiti’s inability to rebuild its agricultural sector highlights how imperialist policies structurally lock nations into economic underdevelopment. As historian Walter Rodney teaches us, imperialism is ‘development by underdevelopment’.

The tragedy of Haiti’s rice industry is a stark reminder of the multifaceted nature of imperialism. Beyond the visible violence of military interventions, CIA coups, rebel militia backings, carpet bombing, occupations, and assassinations, the U.S. also exerts control through economic mechanisms such as sanctions and tariffs that are no less destructive. Haiti’s loss of agricultural sovereignty is emblematic of how imperialist policies disrupt local economies, exacerbate poverty, and erode national self-determination. These policies are not accidental missteps but deliberate acts of economic warfare, designed to ensure that the Global South remains a subordinate provider of raw materials and markets to the capitalists of the Global North. As such, Haiti’s experience should serve as a clear cry for resistance against imperialism and a call for solidarity with nations striving to reclaim their sovereignty against U.S. imperialist ‘gangsterism’ and bullying.

Tariffs As the Trump Era’s Default Economic Weapon?

U.S. President Donald Trump’s use of tariffs as a tool of economic statecraft reflects a broader shift toward economic nationalism and unilateralism. Trump threatened Canada and Mexico with a 25% across-the-board tariff on all goods unless they controlled the flow of illegal drugs, particularly fentanyl, and illegal migrants across the border. This approach is consistent with his long-standing support for tariffs against U.S. trading partners Trump views as adversarial and advantageous. Tariffs, historically serving dual purposes: raising revenue and protecting domestic industries by making foreign products more expensive, have been repurposed under Trump as instruments of geopolitical coercion, aiming to address trade imbalances, protect American jobs, and counter unfair practices like intellectual property theft. 

The U.S.-China trade (cold) war exemplified the consequences of using tariffs as economic weapons. During his first term, The Trump administration imposed tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars worth of Chinese goods to pressure Beijing into reforming its trade practices, such as forced technology transfers and state subsidies. The economic impact has been counterproductive. American businesses reliant on Chinese imports faced higher costs, which were frequently passed on to consumers. U.S. exporters, particularly farmers, suffered from China’s retaliatory tariffs, leading to significant losses in agricultural markets and necessitating billions in government bailouts. Rather than bolstering the U.S. economy, the trade (cold) war created uncertainty, disrupted global supply chains, and undermined economic growth.

The Trump administration’s use of tariffs extended beyond adversarial nations to traditional allies, further complicating its economic and diplomatic objectives. For instance, tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from the European Union, justified under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 on national security grounds, strained transatlantic relations. By alienating Europe, the Trump administration undermined the multilateral frameworks that have historically underpinned global trade, opting instead for a unilateral approach leaving the U.S. isolated.

Frequent shifts in policy, such as abrupt escalations and de-escalations of tariffs, have created an environment of uncertainty for businesses and investors. This unpredictability undermines the stability that trade policy is allegedly meant to provide. The reactive nature of these measures, often driven by political rhetoric rather than economic logic, further diminishes their effectiveness.

The Trump administration’s heavy-handed and reactionary approach was starkly illustrated in its recent response to Colombia. After Colombian President Gustavo Petro blocked two U.S. military flights carrying undocumented immigrants, Trump retaliated with aggressive economic measures. In his social media platform, Truth Social, Trump threatened to impose emergency tariffs of 25% on Colombian goods, with the possibility of raising them to 50%, and announced plans to revoke visas for Colombian government officials. Additionally, Trump threatened enhanced Customs and Border Protection inspections of Colombian nationals and cargo, invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to justify these actions. This escalation only underscores the Trump administration’s willingness to use economic tools as weapons to enforce compliance with its policies and assert U.S. dominance.

In response, Colombia organized a repatriation effort for 110 of its citizens deported from the U.S., sending a Colombian Air Force plane to San Diego to ensure their rights were respected. This move underscored the escalating tensions between the U.S. and Latin America, as well as the broader implications of Trump’s aggressive trade and immigration policies. While mainstream media has framed this as a setback for Colombia, it has inadvertently galvanized the global south to unite against such actions. Colombian President Petro has urged citizens to prepare for potential U.S. economic retaliation by boosting domestic production to offset the costs of imported U.S. goods. Meanwhile, Honduran President Xiomara Castro has called for an emergency CELAC summit to reassess diplomatic strategies with the U.S., signaling a growing regional pushback against perceived aggressions.

At their core, the Trump administration’s actions are only a continuation of precedent set forth by previous administrations. For instance, both the Trump and former President Barack Obama administrations shared the same fundamental aim: to stabilize and expand U.S. hegemony and influence within the framework of global imperialism, driven by the pursuit of profits in service to capitalism. While their methods differed, their objectives were aligned. Obama’s Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) was designed to limit China’s trade penetration in the Pacific region by establishing a U.S.-led economic bloc. Similarly, Trump’s aggressive tariff strategy sought to counter China’s growing economic power, particularly in sectors like steel, where he accused China of dumping cheap products to undermine U.S. industries. Both approaches, though distinct in style, were rooted in the same goal of maintaining U.S. hegemony in a rapidly shifting global order. The continuity of U.S. imperial aims across administrations—whether through Obama’s multilateral trade agreements or Trump’s aggressive tariffs—has only highlighted the persistence of a system designed to maintain American hegemony.

The Trump administration’s use of tariffs and economic sanctions as tools of coercion reveals the inherent pitfalls of such measures, particularly in a growing multipolar world where alternatives to U.S. dominance are increasingly visible. The heavy-handed implementation of these policies, often driven by unilateralism and economic nationalism, not only failed to achieve their intended goals but also exposed the contradictions and vulnerabilities of U.S. imperial strategies. By alienating allies, disrupting global supply chains, and creating economic instability, the administration’s reliance on tariffs as sanctions only underscores the limitations of coercive economic tools in an interconnected world.  As rising powers in the Global South and regional blocs offer alternative economic and political frameworks, the U.S.’s reliance on punitive measures like tariffs is increasingly seen as anachronistic and counterproductive. This approach lays bare the contradictions of U.S. “gangsterism”—a system that demands compliance while offering diminishing returns in an era of shifting power dynamics. In a multipolar world, the failure of tariffs as economic sanctions serves as a stark reminder that coercive strategies will not continue to have the same effects. 

Tariffs, subsidies, and trade rules might sound boring, but they illuminate a bigger fight over who gets to control resources, economies, and even people’s lives. Most importantly, they reveal the tactical weapons the U.S. deploys against the economies of the Global South. The contestation now over China and the tariffs that we hear so much about, is simply about ensuring that foreign competitors cannot disrupt the market monopolies that U.S. corporations have. For Haiti, losing its rice industry wasn’t just an economic problem; it was an attack on its independence and dignity as a nation, one that also helps us to understand why the collective West is so determined to occupy and control Haiti today. Examining the recent imperialist playbook, the imperialists are clearly prepared to employ a similar strategy, with a desire for the same outcomes for other nations across the Global South. 

When we talk about resisting imperialism, we need to be scientific and rigorous in our understanding of the perhaps ‘less sexy’ aspects of its violence. Because when we’re talking about fighting these systems of exploitation and standing in solidarity with countries like Haiti, China, Colombia, or elsewhere, we are talking about a struggle to claim a nation’s right to self-determination— where they can control their own futures without being crushed by the weight of imperialist economic policies.