Tariffs have emerged as a defining element of President Donald Trump’s vision for revitalizing the American economy, and a recent Epoch Times poll reveals widespread support for this approach among readers. While respondents view tariffs as an important tool for boosting U.S. manufacturing and strengthening the nation’s global economic position, concerns about price increases, supply chain disruptions, and trade wars also came to light.
An online survey of 19,291 readers of The Epoch Times shows a majority of respondents agreeing that tariffs can bolster domestic manufacturing, strengthen America’s economic position globally, and safeguard national interests, with overwhelming agreement on the strategic importance of tariffs, particularly in relation to China.
During his first term, Trump often leveraged tariffs to renegotiate trade deals he viewed as unfavorable to the United States. Then, in his 2024 presidential campaign, he took his affinity for tariffs further, proposing an ambitious “all tariff policy” that could replace income tax with tariff revenue.
Strong Support for Tariffs, Especially Targeting China
The poll highlights strong consensus on the strategic significance of tariffs, especially when it comes to China.
Beyond targeting China, tariffs are broadly seen as a tool to revitalize American industry. Sixty-one percent of respondents strongly agree that tariffs encourage domestic manufacturing, with another 29 percent agreeing. Furthermore, 60 percent strongly believe—and another 26 percent agree—that tariffs will benefit the U.S. economy in the long term.
Eighty-four percent see tariffs as strengthening America’s global economic position, while 16 percent disagree with this view.
These results align closely with Trump’s vision for tariffs, which he has championed as a means of economic self-reliance, as well as a way to correct trade imbalances and bolster national security.
Tariffs as Negotiation Tool
Another key takeaway from the poll is the perception of tariffs as a negotiation tool.
Forty-three percent of respondents strongly agree that Trump’s tariff threats are intended primarily to leverage better trade deals or win other policy concessions rather than for outright implementation, while another 35 percent agree. This could reflect confidence in Trump’s strategy of using tariffs to extract concessions from trading partners.
Respondents also voiced support for escalation if current tariffs fail to meet their objectives. Thirty-four percent strongly agree, and 32 percent agree, that the United States should impose additional tariffs if initial measures do not yield desired results.
Furthermore, in a sign that respondents see the tariffs against Canada and Mexico as primarily about national security, 64 percent agreed or strongly agreed that new tariffs on Canada and Mexico should be postponed indefinitely if those nations take steps to address the fentanyl crisis. Twenty-two percent disagreed, and 14 percent strongly disagreed.
Recently, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said that Trump was pursuing different strategies with different tariffs. Threats of tariffs against Canada and Mexico were aimed at spurring those countries to take action on non-trade issues like immigration, he said.
Overall, however, Bessent said that Trump’s tariffs are focused on helping reestablish manufacturing in the United States in key sectors. Then, as production comes back, taxes raised from corporate activity will allow tariffs to be reduced.
Concerns About Price Increases, Trade Disruptions
While support for tariffs is robust, the poll reveals concerns about their potential side effects.Sixty-two percent agreed or strongly agreed that tariffs on auto parts would raise car prices, while 56 percent said tariffs would increase the cost of consumer goods overall. Furthermore, nearly 50 percent of respondents believe that tariff-related price hikes will influence their purchasing habits.
Respondents also flagged broader economic risks. Fifty-seven percent agreed or strongly agreed that industries dependent on imports and exports could face supply chain disruptions and higher costs. Similarly, 56 percent expressed concern that Beijing’s retaliatory tariffs would harm U.S. exports to China.
Skepticism also remains about the extent of risks on the international level. For example, 68 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed that tariffs would lead to trade wars, and 66 percent don’t believe tariffs would strain international relationships. This suggests that while respondents recognize potential challenges, they remain optimistic about the strategic benefits.
Trump has said there might be short-term burdens to bear from the tariffs, but that their long-term impact would be beneficial.
Trade Agreements, Retaliatory Tariffs, and Industry Subsidies
The poll also highlighted readers’ opinions on whether tariffs should take precedence over trade agreements, as well as views on retaliatory tariffs and potential subsidies for affected industries.Seventy-three percent of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with the idea that the United States should prioritize trade agreements over tariffs, with just 26 percent expressing some degree of agreement. This may reflect the belief that tariffs are a more direct and effective mechanism for achieving economic goals, along with wariness of past lopsided trade deals that left the United States vulnerable to unfair trade practices and failed to protect domestic jobs.
Concerns about retaliatory measures also surfaced in the poll, with 32 percent agreeing or strongly agreeing that tariffs would likely provoke trade wars. At the same time, the vast majority of respondents—79 percent—disagreed with the idea of government subsidies for industries affected by such retaliation, indicating a preference among readers of The Epoch Times for market-based solutions rather than state intervention.
Overall, the poll paints a picture of strong public support for tariffs, particularly as a means of addressing trade imbalances and promoting American industry. Respondents largely agree that tariffs can bolster the economy, strengthen the United States on the global stage, and serve as a powerful negotiation tool.
