Few ideas unite economists across ideological lines more than this one: Tariffs are taxes. And like with most taxes, their real-world impact is felt far from the political podiums where they are announced.
As the Supreme Court considers the future of President Donald Trump’s tariffs, it is worth examining who is paying the price. The answer is not foreign governments. Tariffs are collected from U.S. importers the moment goods arrive at American ports. The cost is immediate and unavoidable. For small and midsize businesses, it can be devastating. As a business owner, I know firsthand. Many smaller companies import products that simply cannot be made in the United States due to supply chain realities, raw material constraints or production scale. These are not firms outsourcing jobs; they are businesses that operate entirely in the U.S. while relying on global trade to function.
They employ American workers in warehouses, distribution centers, logistics operations, sales teams and retail networks, often in smaller communities where job losses are deeply felt. Unlike large corporations, small and midsize businesses cannot absorb sudden cost increases or build domestic factories overnight. They lack the capital, scale, and political influence to secure carve-outs or exemptions.
The result is a quiet squeeze on the employers that sustain local economies. Money that once went toward wages, benefits and reinvestment is redirected to the federal government instead. Prices increase for consumers, hours are cut, and layoffs follow. My business, which sells hand-crafted items sourced from eight countries, employed 100 hard-working Mississippians in a town where jobs are important. We are now down to 70 due to tariffs.
If the president knew me and my business — started in a garage 40 years ago and built from the ground up — he’d see the American Dream in action. It’s the very kind of success story he points to at his rallies. And yet, we’ve become an unintended casualty of his tariff war.
Susan Williams, Jackson, Mississippi
The trillion worst things of 2025
Reading his two end-of-year columns, I was surprised Marc A. Thiessen expressed no concerns with the federal government spending well over $1 trillion a year more than it brings in and adding to the $38 trillion national debt. The only mention of U.S. spending in Thiessen’s Jan. 2 op-ed, “The 10 worst things Trump did in 2025,” was that the president “underfunded defense buildup.”
On Thiessen’s list of “The 20 best things Trump did in 2025” [op-ed, Jan. 4] was the president “dramatically” cutting taxes on tips, overtime and Social Security. Why stop there? Why not reduce or eliminate taxes for police officers, firefighters, emergency medical technicians and military personnel serving in combat? They put their lives on the line every day. And why stop even there?
The federal government is swimming in a sea of red ink, and any talk of tax cuts is madness.
Lee Hurwitz, Rockville
Three cheers for 2026
The Jan. 13 news article “We asked 1,000 Americans about their New Year’s resolutions. Here’s what they said.” found that 65 percent of folks age 70 and over don’t make resolutions. I’m 76, and though I typically don’t make resolutions, I did make a couple this year.
One, I resolved to vote a straight Democratic ticket in the November midterm elections. I’ve been voting for Democrats since the 1970s, so the only credible risk is whether I’ll be alive come Election Day.
That led me to my second resolution: to eat more fruit, vegetables and fish between now and Nov. 3.
I considered a third resolution: to drink less. But with the Trump administration implementing new cruelties on an almost daily basis, I knew I couldn’t keep such a resolution.
So I opened another beer and peeled another banana.
Ten months to go, and I’m feeling pretty good. Knock on wood.
Dan Adair, Knoxville, Tennessee
Sauce for the gander
In op-eds such as “Trump goes monster-hunting, untainted by a whiff of legality” on Jan. 4, George F. Will does what so few people do: hold all sides accountable. As a staunch conservative, he is not shy about criticizing those who carry the mantle of conservatism.
Where would we be if congressional Republicans stood up against President Donald Trump’s excesses? If congressional Democrats had stood up against President Barack Obama’s excesses? How many people think it’s okay for their side to be careless with classified information but it’s a shocking crime when the other side does it?
I am not denying the new level of horror that is the Trump administration, but part of how we got here is the bipartisan scourge of selective outrage. Right and wrong are not determined by political labels.
Ralph Jackson, Everett, Washington
Following Sarah Fletcher’s Jan. 4 Sunday Opinion essay, “The magic has gone out of flirting. Maybe this infamous book had a point.,” Post Opinions wants to know: What should flirting look like in 2026? Send us your response, and it might be published as a letter to the editor. wapo.st/flirting
The post I used to have 100 employees. Now I have 70. Thanks, Trump. appeared first on Washington Post.
