She acknowledged that the levies did raise government revenue. “Raise revenue for the government? Yes. Quite substantially. Borne almost entirely by US firms and passed on to US consumers. So, it has worked like a tax on US firms/consumers,” she wrote in her post.
But Gopinath also pointed out that the tariffs contributed to higher prices. She said, “Raise inflation? Yes, by small amounts overall. More substantially for household appliances, furniture, and coffee.”Gopinath’s analysis stated that the objectives behind the tariffs, which were strengthening the US trade balance and boosting manufacturing, had so far failed.
“Improve trade balance? No sign yet of that. Improve US manufacturing? No sign yet of that,” she wrote.
Summing up the impact, she concluded by saying, “Overall, the score card is negative.”
It is 6 months since “Liberation day” tariffs. What have US tariffs accomplished?
1. Raise revenue for government? Yes. Quite substantially. Borne almost entirely by US firms and passed on some to US consumers. So it has worked like a tax on US firms/consumers.
2. Raise… pic.twitter.com/KZG3UgKB3S– Gita Gopinath (@gitagopinath) October 6, 2025
Gopinath’s post attracted over 377k views and sparked a mix of agreement and disagreement among users.Some highlighted the broader economic consequences of the tariffs, with one saying, “The US [is] being seen as an unstable and unpredictable trading partner. The damage is long-term, and most people don’t understand the seriousness of the damage.”
The idea is to reduce trade and tax anyone that wants to sell in the US. Working exactly as planned
— drugranker (@drugrankings) October 7, 2025
Another user agreed with the negative short-term impact, writing, “Economists rightly predicted about no significant improvement in trade balances nor any significant success to onshoring manufacturing… The surging tariff revenue is, though, improving the fiscal deficits; the burden of it is squarely borne by American firms and households.”
Some users also questioned the ‘short-term’ nature of Gopinath’s assessment. One suggested that “manufacturing isn’t a magic switch” and “takes 2 years to gather steam.” According to the commenter, the real impact of the tariffs should be judged by how many new manufacturing plans are being initiated, as “that alone would determine if tariffs are a net positive or net negative.”
Another highlighted the potential for long-term gains, saying that “over the next 4 years, they might get huge foreign investments recharging their local manufacturing industry,” and that the US could manage the costs thanks to its substantial buying capacity.
Some users also highlighted the strategic goals of the tariffs, beyond short-term gains. One said, “The short-term scorecard may look negative, but tariffs are rarely about six-month wins—they’re about strategic leverage, industrial repositioning, and national resilience.”
Lol… Strategic leverage? How? India, Turkey, and the EU are not budging on Trump’s tariffs. Industrial repositioning is unlikely to occur due to the US labour market and the cost of production. And I don’t know how national resilience will be achieved by taxing its own people.
— Nᴀᴠɴᴇᴇᴛ Pᴀɴᴅᴇʏ (@inavneet_pandey) October 7, 2025
Donald Trump imposed high duties on imports from countries, including India and Brazil, with rates reaching up to 50% on certain goods and 100% on branded and patented pharmaceutical drugs.
