American consumers bear 96% of costs from U.S. tariffs

Most of the expenses tied to higher tariffs in the past year landed on American buyers and businesses bringing goods into the country, a recent study indicates. Nearly all financial pressure stayed within domestic borders. A fresh report from Germany’s Kiel Institute for the World Economy reveals changes in global commerce . Trade patterns shifted sharply when U.S. tariffs rose. Data pulled from $4 trillion in international deliveries, spanning early 2024 to late 2025, shows just how deep the ripple effect went. U.S. tariffs make American consumers pay more for everyday goods Most of the financial weight from U.S. tariffs landed on households and companies inside America, a team of analysts found after sifting through mountains of shipping records. They followed the numbers, tracking almost $4 trillion in worldwide freight moving from port to port between early 2024 and late 2025. By watching how often cargo left docks, how many invoices changed, and where routes bent toward new destinations, patterns emerged. These shifts revealed whether overseas sellers cut rates to stay competitive or if buyers here simply faced steeper bills once containers reached American shores. Around 4% of what buyers had to pay went to foreign suppliers; small price cuts covered that, though they hardly matched the new U.S. taxes . Keeping profits safe mattered more than dropping rates, so firms overseas held back. That pushed nearly all the weight (96%) onto American import businesses and people buying things at home. Fees climbed when shipments crossed borders, factories using outside parts spent more, then quietly, each step along the way passed charges forward until families felt it while shopping. Even though prices climbed, most of the impact landed inside the U.S. system. When imports became more expensive due to border fees, firms bringing them in faced higher costs; these added expenses moved slowly through each stage, first hitting middlemen, then store owners, finally reaching shoppers. Money didn’t flow from overseas sellers into American pockets. Instead, it redirected within the country, from households and local operations toward federal accounts. The total weight on the economy stayed much the same, just carried by different hands. Who bore the charge changed, not how heavy it felt. Julian Hinz, an economist involved in the analysis, questioned long-held assumptions about who bears the burden of U.S. trade taxes. Not foreign sellers, but domestic buyers absorbed nearly all of the $200 billion in tariff income collected over the past year. Though overseas suppliers made minor price changes, their contribution remained minimal. Instead, it’s American households and businesses importing goods that face the financial impact. As these added expenses ripple across markets, family spending may tighten without relief. Evidence suggests revenue gains for the state stem not from abroad, but from internal cost increases passed down locally. Foreign sellers ship fewer goods instead of lowering their prices Fewer goods crossed borders when tariffs climbed, yet prices stayed firm because overseas companies preferred selling less rather than shrinking their margins. With steeper duties in place, suppliers abroad had to decide: drop costs to stay competitive here or hold pricing and pull back exports; the evidence points to them pulling back. Rather than slash rates to cover the tariff hit, many held the line on costs, letting shipments shrink instead. This shift meant fewer imports reached U.S. shores, but what arrived didn’t get any cheaper. What stood out most happened in India. There, sellers kept prices steady as U.S. duties rose. Instead of cutting costs to balance the new charges, they shipped fewer items across the Atlantic. Movement dropped 18% to 24% versus trade flows to places like Europe, Canada, or Australia. That gap suggests it wasn’t a shrinking world appetite behind the fall. It was the steeper U.S. levies that made America a harder place to sell, while other regions stayed price-stable. One reason stood out: shifting shipments abroad helped shield earnings, so steep discounts weren’t needed. Instead of cutting prices, firms relied on access to markets beyond American borders. Waiting paid off for some; hopes of softer trade rules kept pricing steady amid uncertainty. Dropping rates by half? That kind of slash would’ve erased gains fast. Rather than bleed money per sale, pulling back volume made more sense under heavy duties. Old ties between companies slowed down shifts in trading habits. Because American buyers usually stick to long-term contracts, switching suppliers takes time. Foreign sellers might hold back on lowering costs for customers they’ve known for a long while. When prices stay steady, sending fewer goods becomes the easier move. How things were done before shapes what happens now. Don’t just read crypto news. Understand it. Subscribe to our newsletter. It's free .