adam posen

On Tuesday morning, all eyes on Wall Street seemed glued to the nearest screens in expectation that the Supreme Court would finally disgorge its opinion on the legality of President Trump’s tariffs.

It had been a long wait: The Court heard oral arguments on the issue Nov. 5, when questions from the justices suggested that a majority was prepared to strike the tariffs down.

But the wait isn’t over. No tariff decision came down Tuesday. With the Court about to start a four-week recess, that means that a ruling on the tariffs won’t come before late February, leaving Trump’s most impactful economic policy in limbo for at least another month.

But verdicts on the tariffs are flowing in from elsewhere, and from the standpoint of American consumers, they’re ugly in the extreme.

One finding comes from the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, a respected German economic think tank. Contrary to Trump’s insistence that the tariffs are paid by foreign countries — more precisely by their exporters — Kiel’s study finds that the tariffs are almost entirely paid by American importers and their domestic customers.

In 2025, Kiel wrote, the $200 billion that the U.S. treasury collected from Trump’s tariffs was tantamount to a $200-billion consumption tax on Americans.

“The tariffs are, in the most literal sense, an own goal,” Kiel’s researchers wrote. “Americans are footing the bill.”

A second opinion may be even more frightening. It’s that inflation is likely to take off in 2026, driven by tariffs and other ill-considered economic policies emanating from the Trump White House. That’s the view of economists Peter Orzsag, chief executive of the investment firm Lazard; and Adam Posen, president of the Peterson Institute for International Economics.

“Inflation rising above 4 percent by the end of 2026 is not only plausible,” they write, “but arguably the most likely scenario.” That would be a big jump from the most recent government estimate of a 2.7% annual rate in December.

The gist of the forecast by Orszag and Posen is that Americans were living in a dream world throughout 2025, when a muted inflation increase led even many experts to conclude that the Federal Reserve Board had “largely won its inflation battle,” notwithstanding higher tariffs.

U.S. importers had absorbed most of the cost of tariffs through 2025, Orszag and Posen concluded. “That will change in the first half of 2026,” they write. “Historical evidence shows that tariff pass‑through tends to be gradual, with consumer prices rising only as firms revise pricing with a lag.”

American importers were able to absorb tariff costs in part because they had stockpiled inventories in anticipation of the higher duties. Wary of imposing one-time price increases, businesses chose to raise prices in smaller steps and over a longer period, Orszag and Posen observe. But that relief is likely to be exhausted by the middle of this year.

None of these findings has had any effect on the White House position on tariffs.

“The average tariff imposed by America has increased by almost tenfold under President Trump, and inflation has continued to cool from Biden-era highs,” White House spokesman Kush Desai told me by email. “The Administration has consistently maintained that foreign exporters who depend on access to the American economy, the world’s biggest and best consumer market, will ultimately pay the cost of tariffs, and that’s exactly what’s playing out.”

Yet red lights are flashing as Trump intensifies his use of tariffs as an instrument of a personal foreign policy, almost entirely divorced from their traditional economic role in trade relations.

Over the last week, Trump has threatened European countries with higher tariffs because of their efforts to thwart his determination to take over Greenland. On Monday, he threatened to impose 200% tariffs on French wines because French President Emmanuel Macron balked at joining Trump’s “Board of Peace,” a body he proposes to address global conflicts.

Let’s take a closer look at the latest tariff analyses.

The Kiel study was based on shipment records covering more than 25 million transactions valued at nearly $4 trillion, as well as on case studies of how Indian and Brazilian exporters responded to sharp tariff increases Trump imposed on those countries last year.

The broader statistics, Kiel reported, indicated that 96% of all tariffs were passed through to Americans. As Kiel observed, by claiming that foreign countries pay tariffs, Trump was able to frame them as “a tool to extract concessions from trading partners while generating revenue for the US government — at no cost to American households.”

The truth is that American consumers and importers bore 96% of all the costs, Kiel calculated. That’s not a novel phenomenon. As the Kiel study noted, during the 2018-19 US-China trade war — also instigated by Trump — “US import prices rose nearly one-for-one with the tariffs, while Chinese export prices remained largely unchanged.”

With the latest round of tariff increases, Kiel found, exporters have not cut prices to maintain sales,” which would be tantamount to their paying the tariff costs. Instead, foreign exporters “are accepting reduced market share in the United States while maintaining their profit margins.”

That was notably the case with India, where the value and quantity of exports to the U.S. fell by as much as 24% relative to other export destinations after Trump hit India with a 25% tariff Aug. 7 and raised it to 50% later in the month. “Indian exporters responded to US tariffs by shipping less, not by cutting prices.”

The Kiel researchers conjectured that exporters didn’t absorb the tariff costs for three main reasons. First, they had recourse to alternative markets such as Europe and Asia: “The United States is a large market, but it is not the only market.”

Second, the tariffs were so large that cutting prices to absorb them would make many exports unprofitable. “Given the choice between maintaining margins on reduced sales or slashing margins to maintain volume,” the Kiel researchers wrote, “most exporters apparently prefer the former.”

Finally, many U.S. importers did not have a choice in sourcing goods. That gave existing exporters the upper hand: Exporters know that U.S. importers can’t easily find alternative suppliers, “so they face less competitive pressure to cut prices.”

Tariff costs percolate through to American consumers in numerous ways — through higher prices on imported goods, higher prices on domestic goods produced with imported parts and a narrowed variety of goods on the shelves. Meanwhile, importers have to shoulder the cost adjusting to tariffs by seeking out untariffed suppliers.

“These ‘deadweight’ losses are pure economic waste,” the Kiel researchers concluded — “costs borne by Americans with no offsetting benefits.”

In sum, “tariffs do not transfer wealth from foreigners to Americans. They transfer wealth from American consumers to the US Treasury.” Think about that when Trump or Cabinet members such as Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick or Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent crow about how much money is flowing into the Treasury due to higher tariffs.

Tariffs won’t be the only drivers of inflation through this year, Orszag and Posen acknowledge. But the other drivers are also Trump policies.

These include mass deportations of foreign-born workers. “When deportation effects fully materialize,” they write, “labor shortages in migrant-dependent sectors will intensify, forcing wage increases that feed into services inflation — home health care costs are already rising at a 10 percent annual rate, near decade highs.”

Orszag and Posen also warn that the price shocks sustained by American consumers through 2025 and into this year could have lasting effects on consumer behavior, and therefore on the broader economy, even if statistics show inflation declining.

“Lived experience with inflation has lasting effects on expectations,” they observe. “Households remember salient price increases — eggs, meat, child care, home repairs — far more vividly than aggregate statistics. These memory effects persist for years or even generations.”

As Trump marks the first anniversary of his second term, the U.S. economy is showing its strain. As long as tariffs remain in Supreme Court limbo, there aren’t any signals that things will get better.