The U.S. has one of the most dynamic broadband networks in the world. Providers have poured more than $500 billion into building and upgrading broadband networks since 2019. The price of internet access has dropped 10% over the past 10 years, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, even while the overall price level has soared. All together, the share of consumer spending going to telecom, broadband and related services fell from 3% in 2014 to 2.4% in 2024. Moreover, many providers offer robust, low-cost services for economically disadvantaged populations.
But a piece of legislation under consideration by the California State Assembly, AB 353 could derail this success story in the nation’s largest state. It would require California internet providers to offer “eligible households” internet at $15 or less per month (inclusive of any recurring taxes and fees) with at least 100 megabits per second downstream and 20 megabits per second upstream. “Eligible household” means at least one resident of the household participate in a long list of qualified public assistance programs.
This type of regulatory burden — actually writing a price ceiling into law — is likely to impede investment and expansion by both new and existing providers. If there’s anything that economics teaches us, it’s that price ceilings result in less service and fewer competitors rather than more.
California already has one of the most competitive broadband markets in the country, with multiple providers offering a wide range of products, services and price points. This includes many that already offer low-cost services for families in need. Heavy-handed regulation will only serve to scare away investment and competitors, as recently seen in New York State.
From this perspective, AB 353 is a bad idea. However, if it is the intent of the legislature to proceed with some form of this bill, several commonsense changes should be made. These include narrower qualification standards, greater flexibility in speed requirements, and tying the price of the low-income service to the CPI. Additionally, to ensure a level playing field, the requirements of the legislation should apply to all broadband providers, regardless of whether they are public or privately owned. All of these would reduce the financial risk to providers, and thus not shut off the flow of future investment.
Former Lithuanian foreign minister Gabrielius Landsbergis sums up his concerns about NATO with an image borrowed from quantum mechanics: Schrödinger’s cat.
“We’re in an ambiguous position,” Landsbergis explained in an interview last week. President Donald Trump makes inflammatory statements about the alliance, threatening to walk away unless Europe steps up to carry more of the cost. But then Secretary of State Marco Rubio appears in Brussels or some other forum and calms Europe down—Landsbergis calls it “normalizing the situation.” The upshot: confusion and uncertainty. “NATO is challenged and not challenged at the same time,” the former diplomat says. And in his view, this creates a perfect, bone-chilling opportunity for Russian strongman Vladimir Putin.
It isn’t hard to imagine how the scenario would play out. If Putin can convince the White House that the U.S. will benefit from a better relationship with Moscow—as he apparently has—Trump may hesitate to jeopardize the opportunity, even if a NATO ally is attacked.
WASHINGTON — A new report from the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) unpacks competition in U.S. parcel shipping. The report looks at growth in e-commerce, the role of the legacy UPS-FedEx duopoly in the parcel shipping market, and the importance of entry and expansion to keep prices down for consumers and businesses. The report, “Unpacking the Shake-Up in Parcel Shipping Competition,” authored by Diana Moss, Vice President and Director of Competition Policy, and Andrew Fung, Senior Economic & Technology Policy Analyst, details how smaller and innovative carriers are eroding the duopoly — but barriers remain.
“The UPS-FedEx duopoly still has an outsized influence in the parcel shipping market,” said Moss. “More competition is needed by disruptive business models to deliver the economic benefits that businesses and consumers have come to expect from e-commerce.”
The report documents a surge in parcel shipping volumes — up 95% over the past eight years, largely to support burgeoning e-commerce. But much higher unit costs for UPS and FedEx, and parallel price increases are shining a light on the importance of smaller and more innovative carriers that compete hard on lower prices, faster delivery, and more flexibility.
Key findings in the report include:
Retailing is a vitally important sector of the U.S. economy and the e-commerce channel is growing rapidly, more so than the brick-and-mortar channel. As a percentage of total retail, e-commerce could top 30% by the late 2020s. Parcel shipping is a critical infrastructure that supports this growth.
UPS and FedEx together command roughly 65% of total revenue in parcel shipping, despite handling less than 40% of total package volume. Their per-package costs are far higher than those of Amazon Logistics and smaller players such as OnTrac, which are a leading source of competition that challenges the UPS-FedEx duopoly.
Disruptive competitors are making incursions into parcel shipping, particularly in last-mile delivery. These firms are capitalizing on demand for alternatives to the legacy carriers and providing competition that will keep shipping prices down, spur quality improvements, and benefit businesses and consumers.
The report urges policymakers to recognize the central role parcel shipping plays in the retail e-commerce channel. “Parcel shipping isn’t just about logistics — it’s the critical infrastructure behind the e-commerce economy,” said Moss. “Fostering more competition is essential for keeping the cost of living, and the cost of doing business, down.”
Founded in 1989, PPI is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Find an expert and learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org. Follow us @PPI.
###
Media Contact: Ian O’Keefe – iokeefe@ppionline.org
The rise of e-commerce in the 1990s signaled a shift in how consumers buy consumables and even some durable products. Today, the online shopping channel parallels “brick and mortar” retailing and is expected to make further incursions into total retail sales as shopping platforms such as Amazon, eBay, Walmart, and Target drive expansion. Without the shipping logistics networks to deliver smaller parcels to the doorsteps of businesses and consumers, however, innovation and growth in e-commerce would not be possible.
Many consumers take the speed and efficiency of today’s sophisticated national, regional, and “last-mile” parcel delivery networks for granted. But it is not lost on them that for as many options as they have in online shopping, competition in parcel shipping matters just as much. Indeed, the e-commerce and parcel shipping markets are inextricably linked and over the last several years, they have undergone significant change. Carriers now compete on multiple fronts — shipping rates, speed and tracking capability, ease of claims resolution, and choice in carriers for delivery, especially in the harder-to-reach, rural parts of the U.S. Competition in parcel shipping directly affects the prices that consumers ultimately pay for delivered e-commerce goods.
The injection of competition in parcel shipping in the U.S. has come not from the largest legacy carriers, UPS and FedEx, or the U.S. Postal Service, which has a universal service obligation. Rather, competition has been spurred by smaller or disruptive players like DHL, OnTrac, Veho, and Amazon. This transformation has chipped away at the market power of the UPS-FedEx duopoly. Nonetheless, this two-firm stronghold still accounts for a substantial share of the parcel shipping market, elevating the importance of competition to benefit consumers and spur innovation and growth.
This Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) report unpacks the state of competition in the parcel shipping market. It reveals changes over time that parallel the rise of e-commerce. The analysis reveals market dynamics associated with a concentrated market that features the UPS-FedEx duopoly of legacy parcel carriers. After setting the table on the state of competition, the analysis takes up novel questions, including the benefits of expansion by non-traditional business models that can deliver benefits to consumers, and keep prices down in the important e-commerce retail channel.
The idea of taxing online services goes back about 15 years, according to Ed Gresser, who worked at the office of the U.S. Trade Representative during the Clinton, Obama, Trump and Biden administrations.
Gresser said that Trump strongly opposed the tax in his first term and launched investigations into DSTs adopted by EU countries, Canada, Brazil and others. The Biden administration reversed course, he said, “basically saying a lot of regulatory policies in the EU were not meant to be discriminatory.” Meanwhile, countries in the OECD tried to negotiate a global agreement on digital taxes that could replace country-by-country policies, though that effort has stalled over disagreements.
Bashing digital services taxes seems to be a rare point of D.C. bipartisan consensus. Rep. Adrian Smith (R-Neb.), chair of the House Ways and Means trade subcommittee, said in an email that he “would like to see the U.K. be a willing partner to reset global digital rules in a way which does not target American companies and restrict innovation.”
Senate Finance ranking member Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said via email that he too opposed “discriminatory foreign taxes that unfairly target U.S. companies, including the U.K. DST.” However, he said he had “no confidence that Donald Trump’s chaotic, unfocused trade policy will deliver any meaningful wins to bring down trade barriers.”
Gresser said U.S. pressure on London to roll back its DST could be a signal to other nations.
“A lot of countries are experimenting with this,” he told POLITICO. “I think this is sort of a transitional period where countries are thinking about ‘if we’re going to have a sales and consumption tax, how do you integrate that into the digital world?’”
IS DONALD TRUMP GOING TO WALK AWAY from Ukraine? Who knows—only a fool would try to predict. His strategy, if we can call it that, changes from day to day, and his true motives, particularly with regard to Russia, are inscrutable. But all signs suggest that he may be about to give up on his oft-repeated promise to end the war.
As Trump finally recognized and admitted last week on a phone call with European leaders, Vladimir Putin isn’t ready to stop fighting. The Kremlin proved this and then some over the long weekend, hitting Ukrainian cities with nearly a thousand missiles and drones, among the worst attacks of the war. Arrogant and ill-informed, the Russian strongman thinks he’s winning.
The latest burst of Russian violence prompted Trump to criticize Putin: “He has gone absolutely CRAZY! He is needlessly killing a lot of people, and I’m not just talking about soldiers.” But the president also scolded Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky: “Likewise, President Zelensky is doing his Country no favors by talking the way he does. Everything out of his mouth caused problems.” And nothing suggests that Trump is likely to re-engage with the peace process. With no deal in sight, the White House says it’s going to take a back seat as low-level Russian and Ukrainian diplomats launch pro forma talks at the Vatican.
Some Ukrainians will breathe a sigh of relief. Most are tired of fighting, eager to end the war and get on with rebuilding their battered country. But no peace is better than a bad settlement—and what Trump has been pushing for the last few months often struck Kyiv as deeply unfair and unsustainable.
Europe has declared itself open for business — unless you’re actually trying to do business there. The European Commission’s latest €500 million fine against Apple, levied under the new Digital Markets Act (DMA), is not only a staggering penalty; it’s a signal flare to global investors that Europe is no longer a place of rule-based predictability, but one where political agendas override legal clarity, engagement, or fairness.
Apple’s offense? Attempting — repeatedly — to comply with a complex, evolving law while facing a Commission that gave them the silent treatment. According to correspondence reported by Politico, Apple spent the better part of 2024 making proposals, requesting guidance, and asking for confirmation that it was on the right side of the law. The Commission’s response: Delay, obfuscation, and ultimately, a massive fine that had seemingly been predetermined months in advance.
Let’s call this what it is: regulatory ambush.
In the Commission’s own words, “it is the sole responsibility of the gatekeepers to come up with product changes.” But how can companies do that when the Commission refuses to say what would or would not be compliant? When Apple proposed rolling back some of its rules, the Commission told them to wait for developer feedback. That feedback came from critics — Spotify, Epic, Match Group — and shortly after, Apple began to suspect, correctly, that it was being set up for a fall.
WASHINGTON — Today, Ed Gresser, Vice President and Director for Trade and Global Markets at the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), issued the following statement on President Trump’s latest tariff orders — 50% on EU goods and 25% on iPhones:
“Mr. Trump’s erratic and destructive tariff campaigns show why the Constitution assigns the power over ‘Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises’ to Congress rather than the president. Granting any single individual personal power to set rates for tariffs or any other tax is an open invitation to abuse of power, corruption, and impulse-driven policy decisions.
“This morning’s outbursts underline the Constitution’s wisdom. Mr. Trump’s tariff program has already done immense harm to the American economy, and to those of America’s neighbors and allies. As his February 1 and April 2 decrees did, this morning’s threat of a 50% tariff on European goods will raise the cost of living for American families, damage American industry and agriculture through higher costs and lost export markets, and further corrode prospects for growth and macroeconomic stability for the United States and its European allies and friends. His accompanying attempt to personally micromanage smartphone assembly is as destructive as it is ludicrous. And both are powerful and unfortunate reminders to foreign governments considering trade talks with the U.S. of the personalization and instability of this administration’s agreements and policies.
“The bright spot: Congress can act. Lawmakers have a constitutional duty to check this overreach. Recent resolutions from Senators Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Ron Paul (R-Ky.), and a bill by Rep. Linda Sánchez and Ways and Means Democrats, would terminate Trump’s February and April tariffs, and restore Congress’ Constitutional authority over the tariff system. It is time for Speaker Mike Johnson and Senator John Thune to join in these efforts to ‘support and defend the Constitution,’ halt the economic harm, and reaffirm the separation of powers.”
“On January 12, the week before the inauguration in January, PPI outlined four key principlesfor responding to tariff-driven economic isolationism. Additionally, PPI has warned of the economic risks posed by Trump’s tariff policies in a recent report and detailed these concerns in testimony before Congress and in PPI’s own coverage. For further context on the Constitution over tariffs and taxation and how the legislative, not executive branch, has the authority, see the full text of the U.S. Constitution.”
Founded in 1989, PPI is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Find an expert and learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org. Follow us @PPI.
Washington, D.C. — Today, Will Marshall, President of the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), issued the following statement in response to yesterday’s Supreme Court decision about religious charter schools:
“Yesterday’s Supreme Court deadlock is a welcome outcome that upholds the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s decision: Charter schools cannot be religious institutions. This result preserves the integrity of the public school choice movement and reaffirms a foundational American principle — that the government should not fund religious proselytizing. Upholding this principle has helped the United States avoid the sectarian strife that has marred the politics of many other nations.
“Charter schools are showing the way forward because they offer a powerful formula: autonomy for schools, accountability for results, and parental choice among diverse educational models tailored to the unique learning styles of children. Yesterday’s decision ensures that this innovative public school model remains focused on serving all students, not advancing religious doctrine.”
As we approach Memorial Day, it is sobering to recognize that today’s young people are unlikely to respond as enthusiastically to a call to serve their country as members of the World War II generation did 80 years ago. Young people do not exhibit the high levels of patriotism and commitment to democracy found among earlier generations. However, I don’t blame young people.
Each generation must be taught, by word and deed, the genius of American democracy, and those of us who are older have failed to do so.
During World War II, Americans rallied around Franklin D. Roosevelt’s call to make America the “Arsenal of Democracy,” providing war materials to confront Adolf Hitler. Young men and women ultimately came forward to serve in U.S. military forces that would change history by defeating Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.
Today, pride in America and belief in democracy are much lower among young people than among older Americans. In a 2023 Gallup poll, only 18 percent of 18- to 34-year-olds said they were “extremely proud to be American,” compared with 50 percent of adults over 55.
President Trump’s startling win in 2016 ushered in a new era of economic populism. Ever since, both parties have been vying to offer a new economic deal to blue-collar Americans, whose earning power had been declining for decades.
They could use a new deal. According to the Federal Reserve, real median earnings for non-college workers fell 14 percent over the past 40 years, while those for workers with a bachelor’s degree or higher have grown by 14 percent.
Opportunity in America looks very different to people on opposite sides of the diploma divide. Whereas non-college workers contend with downward mobility, the highly educated rise into tonier precincts of upper-middle-class affluence.
This disparity disfigures our society, and populists across the political spectrum are right to want to redress it. Unfortunately, they have proved better at posturing as working-class tribunes than at tangibly improving their lives.
From our Budget Breakdown series highlighting problems in fiscal policy to inform the 2025 tax and budget debate.
This piece originally appeared in Forbes and was written by PPI’s Ben Ritz.
House Republicans passed their “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” early Thursday morning in defiance of several warnings that it would have big negative consequences for the United States: bigger budget deficits, bigger borrowing costs, and bigger regressive wealth transfers than any other partisan reconciliation bill in history.
The bill would add more than $3 trillion to budget deficits over the next decade — a figure that would swell to more than $5 trillion if the nominally temporary policies within it are made permanent, as leading Republicans have made clear they intend. The timing could hardly be worse: Just last week, Moody’s became the final major credit-rating agency to downgrade U.S. government debt. Their rationale was clear: Washington’s failure to “reverse the trend of large annual fiscal deficits and growing interest costs” has eroded confidence in America’s long-term fiscal trajectory. Since the announcement, yields on 20- and 30-year Treasury bonds even reached 5% —a threshold rarely seen over the past few decades.
Rising yields have big consequences for the federal budget. Already, the federal government spends more on interest payments than on Defense or Medicare, making it the second-biggest line item in the budget after Social Security. If the “One Big Beautiful Bill” becomes law, interest costs over the next decade could be roughly $2.7 trillion bigger than the official scorekeepers at the Congressional Budget Office currently project. Within 30 years, not only would interest costs more than double as a share of economic output, but the national debt would grow to levels so big that CBO’s economic forecasting model could no longer function.
The effects on federal finances aren’t the only “big” problems with this bill. The bill’s main offsets come from big cuts to spending on anti-poverty programs, such as Medicaid and SNAP. Earlier this week, the Congressional Budget Office published an analysis showing the bill would increase after-tax incomes for people in the top 10% by roughly the same proportion as it would cut after-tax incomes for people in the bottom 10% —a big regressive transfer of wealth from the poorest Americans to the richest.
If the No Tax on Tips Act that passed the Senate this week becomes law, it could cost around $120 billion over 10 years — freeing up Republicans to enact more tax cuts for the rich of equal size in their “One Big Beautiful Bill” without paying for it. Furthermore, the bill would only provide a tax cut for the 2% of households that have a tipped job, while doing nothing for the millions of working-class families that don’t (besides saddling them with the costs).
House Republicans passed their “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” early Thursday morning in defiance of several warnings that it would have big negative consequences for the United States.
The “biggest” thing about the bill (beyond its 1,118-page length) is the more than $3 trillion that the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates it would add to budget deficits over the next decade. That figure would swell to more than $5 trillion if the nominally temporary policies within it are made permanent, as leading Republicans have made clear they intend. No matter which measurement is used, this bill would be — by far — the biggest deficit increase in a partisan bill passed through the budget reconciliation process in U.S. history.
The timing could hardly be worse. Just last week, Moody’s became the final major credit-rating agency to downgrade U.S. government debt, following similar actions by S&P in 2011 and Fitch in 2023. Their rationale was clear: Washington’s failure to “reverse the trend of large annual fiscal deficits and growing interest costs” has eroded confidence in America’s long-term fiscal trajectory and they “do not believe that material multi-year reductions in mandatory spending and deficits will result from current fiscal proposals under consideration.”
As we near President Donald Trump’s July 4 goal to have his big, beautiful bill, there has been plenty of debate and pushback within the republican party regarding how to handle Medicaid and state and local tax (SALT) deductions. In stark contrast, Republicans — outside of Senator Susan Collins calling them “very troubling” — have been nearly silent regarding the president’s proposed cuts to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and cancer research. It appears Republicans will acquiesce to the president on these cuts and, a half-century after President Richard Nixon declared a war on cancer, Republicans will surrender that war.
In 1937, the U.S. formally declared its intent to be a leader in cancer research when President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the National Cancer Act, which created the National Cancer Institute (NCI). In the succeeding nearly 90 years, presidents and Congresses led by both Democrats and Republicans have recommitted to the promise of finding a cure for cancer. This consistent bipartisan support has created better diagnostic tools to find cancer sooner, a better understanding of how cancer metastasizes, and how to target different cancers. Since the early 1990s, the U.S. has made major strides in survival rates of cancer. In addition, the U.S. has increased access to palliative care to treat the whole person, not just the disease, and introduced concurrent care for children to ensure patients, families, and communities are supported through a cancer diagnosis. Much of these improvements in care were from U.S. innovation through partnerships between academic centers, life sciences companies, private foundations, and the federal government. The majority of the support is through funding from the NIH and NCI which has made the U.S. the international leader in funding cancer research.
Regardless of improved prognosis and better support, we are still in search of a cure for cancer so a diagnosis remains scary. The U.S. needs to continue to push forward with innovative treatments and research. However, President Trump has repeatedly committed to cutting science and innovation funding at the NIH, NCI, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This is in addition to the devastating and haphazard cuts to NIH grants by Elon Musk and DOGE. These federal cuts to cancer research have already stopped current research and will cause the U.S. to lose its place as the leader in cancer research. Where are the Congressional Republicans to push back on the cuts to NIH and NCI? Do they not realize this research helps all Americans, including them, their staff, and their constituents? Cancer does not discriminate based on political party, being a leader in cancer research is good for all Americans.
Representative Sean Casten (D-Ill.) recently spoke on the House floor about the federal cuts to research after hearing from a constituent whose son is fighting cancer. Casten was appropriately indignant when he stated: “Republicans fear Trump more than they fear cancer.” At first, this statement seems incredulous since cancer’s impact touches so many, it is hard to find an American who has not been impacted — whether experiencing it themselves, by their family, or in their community. Approximately 40% of people will be diagnosed with cancer in their lifetimes and, in 2024 alone, almost 15,000 children were diagnosed with cancer. Surely, Republicans do not fear losing their job more than cancer, right?
Although private foundations and the life science industries may increase their funding of cancer research, it will not be enough to make up for the nearly $8 billion the federal government provides. Nor will this replace the unique and necessary perspective of the federal government. So who picks up the mantle and leads in this space? On May 5, the European Union and France announced an over half-billion-dollar initiative to do just that. French President Emmanuel Macron and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced the initiative would fund research and bring foreign scientists to Europe. American scientists have already signaled they are likely to take advantage of an opportunity like this. This investment as the U.S. divests from research is going to have devastating impacts on generations of Americans. Americans will no longer be the first to access groundbreaking treatment or better diagnostics and once scientists leave the U.S. for other opportunities it is going to take a herculean effort to convince them to return.
Waiting until 2026 or 2028 for a Congress or administration who believes in science again is not enough as every day nearly 5,500 Americans are diagnosed and 1,600 die from cancer. They need the trials and research to continue now and in their communities. For individuals enrolled in the trials stopped or delayed by Trump and DOGE, I imagine they would not say they “didn’t get anything out of it,” as Trump indicated. If Congressional Republicans acquiesce to Trump and further cut research, Representative Casten will be completely right about them fearing Trump and losing their job more than they fear cancer. They will have surrendered the war on cancer and that will be devastating for all Americans.
FACT: Polling: U.S. public is against Trump tariffs by about 60%-36%.
THE NUMBERS: Negative/positive* views of Trump administration tariffs in recent polls –
Negative
Positive
CNN/SRS (April 17-24)
55
28
New York Times/Siena (April 21-24)
55
40
NPR/Marist (April 21-23)
58
34
Washington Post/ABC News (April 18-22)
64
34
Fox News (April 18-21)
58
33
NBC News (April 11-20)
61
39
Pew Center (April 7-13)
59
39
Economist/YouGov (May 9-12)
53
30
* Topline averages across all respondents. Polling questions differ slightly: Pew, Fox, NBC, NPR/Marist, and Washington Post/ABC ask whether respondents “approve” or “disapprove” of Mr. Trump’s handling of tariffs. CNN asks whether respondents view the tariff increases as “good policy” or “bad policy,” NYT/Siena whether respondents “support” or “oppose” the tariff increases, and Economist/YouGov about whether tariffs will hurt or help the U.S. economy.
WHAT THEY MEAN:
The Tariff Act of 1930, nicknamed “Smoot-Hawley” for the Congressional authors Reed Smoot and Willis Hawley, passed in June, during the second year of the Herbert Hoover presidency. The oldest living American — Pennsylvanian Naomi Whitehead, planning for her 115th birthday this fall — was then nineteen. A few thousand more Americans aged 105 years and above join her with personal memories of the event. No one else remembers a general U.S. tariff increase — so for the other 337 million Americans, the experience is new.
Ms. Whitehead’s “greatest generation” concluded in the early 1930s that tariff increases had been a bad idea, and their decision guided policy for the next 80 years. What are the other 337 million 21st-century Americans thinking now, as they monitor administration tariff decrees and revisions, assess its various slogans — “new golden age,” “Production Society,” “Liberation Day,” “two dolls are enough for a girl,” “WalMart should eat the tariffs” — and look for local price and employment impacts? A stream of major media April polls provides an interim snapshot as their opinions form:
The polls — CNN/SSRS, Fox News, Washington Post/ABC News, New York Times/Siena, Pew Center, NBC News, NPR/Marist, Economist/YouGov — suggest three areas of broad consensus: high awareness of the tariff increases; an overall negative view of them; and alarm about the cost of living. The “crosstabs” and “internals,” meanwhile, suggest convergence among some groups whose views on trade policy have differed in previous 21st-century polls — college and non-college, urban and rural, high- and low-income — and apparently widening opinion gaps by race and ethnicity, and by political affiliation. A summary:
Consensus 1: Wide Opposition to Tariff Increases. Averaging the polls, about 60% of the public is negative about the Trump administration’s tariff increases, and 36% is positive. Results vary a bit by poll, but not drastically: the Washington Post/ABC’s 64%-33% split is the most negative response, and the New York Times/Siena 55%-40% division least.
Consensus 2: Prices and Cost of Living are a Top Concern. The polls likewise agree on the high priority the public currently places on prices and cost of living. In CNN/SSRS, for example, 58% of respondents cite cost as the “biggest economic problem facing [my] family,” and 9% mention tariffs specifically. NBC News likewise, asking respondents which economic problem they consider most serious, finds 44% citing “inflation and the cost of living,” while “taxes and take-home pay” and “jobs and unemployment” trail behind at 10% and 7%. Economist/YouGov has an additional insight: asking whether tariffs will help or hurt the U.S. economy in general, and then the respondent’s own personal finances, they get a 53%-30% hurt/help judgment for the national economy, and a sharper 53%-16% divide on personal finance. And a different sort of survey, last Friday’s University of Michigan consumer confidence report, shows very high awareness of tariffs and their link to price increases:
“Tariffs were spontaneously mentioned by nearly three-quarters of consumers, up from almost 60% in April; uncertainty over trade policy continues to dominate consumers’ thinking about the economy.”
Narrowing Gap: Education.Earlier 21st-century polling typically found college-educated Americans more “pro-trade” and high-school diploma holders less. The gap remains in these polls, but has narrowed as non-college Americans (especially African Americans and Hispanic) shift toward a more negative view of tariffs. NPR/Marist’s college-educated Americans, for example, disapprove of Trump’s handling of tariffs by 67% to 32%, and their non-college respondents agree by a somewhat smaller 57% to 43%. In CNN/SSRS likewise, college-educated Americans consider the tariffs “bad policy” by 64-23% and non-college by a smaller 50%-30% margin.
Widening Gap: Race and Ethnicity. On the other hand, past polls rarely showed wide racial and ethnic differences on trade (though Hispanic and Asian Americans at times seemed more “pro-trade” than white and African American respondents). In April’s polls, white respondents are somewhat less negative about Trump administration tariffs than other Americans (though majorities still oppose), and African American opinion is intensely critical. Fox News, for example, has white respondents opposing 56%-35%, African Americans 71%-21%, and Hispanics 60%-31%. Washington Post/ABC likewise finds white Americans disapproving 56%-42%, African Americans 86%-13%, and Hispanics 72%-26%. New York Times/Siena is the outlier, with white respondents opposing by only a small 49%-46% plurality, while African Americans oppose by 75%-16%, Hispanics by 61%-28%, and “other” (presumably combining Native American and Asian American opinion) by 61%-31%.
Widening Gap: Political. The partisan divide in these polls, on the other hand, is much wider than before. Previous 21st-century trade polls did usually find Democrats and liberals more “positive” about trade than Republicans and conservatives — i.e., either more likely to support trade liberalizing agreements and WTO rules, or more negative about tariffs and protectionism — but the April polls report much larger gaps. Democrats oppose the Trump administration’s tariffs overwhelmingly and in some polls almost unanimously, while Republicans favor them by somewhat smaller margins. Political independents are much closer to Democrats. A four-poll comparison:
Washington Post/ABC: Democrats “disapprove” of Mr. Trump’s tariffs by 96% to 4% and independents by 70%-28%, while Republicans “approve” by a 74% to 25% margin. Also note: 83% of Republicans “approve” of Mr. Trump’s policies overall and 15% “disapprove,” suggesting less enthusiasm for the tariffs than for other administration policies.
NPR/Marist: Democrats disapprove 90% to 7% and independents 64%-28%; Republicans approve by 73% to 20%.
Fox News: Democrats disapprove 88%-7%, and independents 73%-19%: Republicans approve 63%-23%.
CNN/SRS: Democrats consider the tariffs “bad policy” by 90%-3% and independents 58%-18%; Republicans “good policy” by 64%-16%.
So: As to whether this generation of Americans will draw the same conclusions that Ms. Whitehead’s reached in the 1930s, it’s still probably too early to tell. Democrats do seem to have made up their minds, but more general opinion may not set hard until late summer or fall. But as people ponder the first general tariff increase since the Hoover era, and watch its price, employment, and other local impacts, polling does make two things pretty clear: (1) the initial judgment is quite negative, and (2) with the administration’s “new golden age,” “production society,” and “Liberation Day” rhetoric having failed, its ‘window’ to shape opinion may soon close.
FURTHER READING
PPI’s four principles for response to tariffs and economic isolationism:
Defend the Constitution and oppose rule by decree;
Connect tariff policy to growth, work, prices and family budgets, and living standards;
Youth v. Age: Pre-2025 trade polling typically found younger people more “pro-trade” than their elders. This hasn’t changed in April polls, though no age group supports the tariffs. NBC News has 18-29-year-olds “disapproving” by 72%-28%, and over-65s by 57%-44%. New York Times/Siena finds nearly identical splits of 71%-28% for youth and 54%-38% for age.
“Economics of place”/regions. Past trade polls typically found regional and community divisions, with Northeastern and Western Americans more “pro-trade” than Southern and Midwestern respondents. These gaps seem to have diminished but haven’t disappeared. NYT/Siena finds Western opposition to tariffs are especially strong — 62%-28% — and Northeastern respondents oppose by 55-39%, while Midwesterners oppose by a less decisive 52%-42% and Southerners 52%-44%. NPR/Marist has stronger midwestern opposition: 63%-33% negative in the west, 60%-34% in the northeast, 61%-31% in the Midwest, and 53%-37% in the south.
“Economics of place”/community type. Likewise, past polling found some divergences by community type, with urban America somewhat more “pro-trade” than rural communities. (A bit surprising as rural America is especially export-reliant.) This gap, at least for now, is much smaller than before. NPR/Marist has rural America negative by 53%-39%, urban Americans by 63%-30%, and suburbanites by 57%-33%. Fox News finds somewhat less division: in the cities, 54% think the tariffs will “hurt” the American economy, while the countryside splits 52%-34%; suburbanites are a bit more negative, at 57% “hurt” and 30% “help.”
ABOUT ED
Ed Gresser is Vice President and Director for Trade and Global Markets at PPI.
Ed returns to PPI after working for the think tank from 2001-2011. He most recently served as the Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Trade Policy and Economics at the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR). In this position, he led USTR’s economic research unit from 2015-2021, and chaired the 21-agency Trade Policy Staff Committee.
Ed began his career on Capitol Hill before serving USTR as Policy Advisor to USTR Charlene Barshefsky from 1998 to 2001. He then led PPI’s Trade and Global Markets Project from 2001 to 2011. After PPI, he co-founded and directed the independent think tank ProgressiveEconomy until rejoining USTR in 2015. In 2013, the Washington International Trade Association presented him with its Lighthouse Award, awarded annually to an individual or group for significant contributions to trade policy.
Ed is the author of Freedom from Want: American Liberalism and the Global Economy (2007). He has published in a variety of journals and newspapers, and his research has been cited by leading academics and international organizations including the WTO, World Bank, and International Monetary Fund. He is a graduate of Stanford University and holds a Master’s Degree in International Affairs from Columbia Universities and a certificate from the Averell Harriman Institute for Advanced Study of the Soviet Union.
Ben Ritz, Director of Progressive Policy Institute’s Center for Funding America’s Future, joins the show to discuss the Moody’s downgrade, how Congress avoids tough choices on debt and deficits, and whether there is a possibility of bipartisan action to address the national debt.
