President Donald Trump is using tariffs to disrupt nearly everything about the global trade order. Except for a tariff policy that favors men over women. For decades, the US tariff system has taxed women’s clothing more heavily than men’s. Tariffs on women’s clothing are currently about three percent higher than men’s, a policy that’s known as “pink tariffs” — similar to the “pink tax” that makes the same products for women more expensive than men’s. That means women pay an average extra dollar per garment compared to men, costing them more than $2 billion a year, according to research by Edward Gresser, vice president and director for trade and global markets at the Progressive Policy Institute, a left-leaning think tank. And with Trump imposing 10% tariffs on most trading partners, with even higher levies for Canada, Mexico and China, the cost for women could easily go higher. “As he is instituting massive new tariffs, President Trump is missing a chance to tackle historically regressive and misogynistic traits” of the global free trade system, said Steve Lamar, the president of the American Apparel & Footwear Association. Most manufactured apparel and footwear are classified by gender in the US Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS), which sets out the tariff rates for all categories of merchandise imported into the United States. Tariff rates on women’s clothing were, on average, 16.7% in 2022 — 2.9 percentage points higher than the 13.6% average tariff rate for men’s clothing, according to Gresser. Breaking it down to individual items: Women’s suits in 2017, for example, were subject to a 15.1% tariff rate, while men’s suits were subject to a 13.3% tariff. Women’s underwear was hit with a 12.8% tariff, while men’s underwear had an 8.6% tariff. There’s no single reason why tariffs on women’s clothing are higher than men’s, but the policy has taken shape over decades. During the 1930s and 1940s, when America helped design the global free trading system, women’s clothing production was a smaller industry while men’s clothing was a major source of employment and an economic driver. US textile and apparel manufacturers at the time were more focused on lobbying to lower tariffs and end trade barriers on men’s clothing, trade experts say. The current tariff gap is a relic of that old trade regime. Companies have attempted to end the gender bias in tariff rates. Steve Madden, Asics, Columbia Sportswear and other companies sued the government in 2007 to strike down the tariff policy, but the suit failed because courts ruled that the tariff gaps were not designed to be discriminatory. There also has been little movement from the federal government to fix the policy. But this year, two Democratic lawmakers, Rep. Lizzie Fletcher of Texas and Rep. Brittany Pettersen of Colorado, introduced legislation known as the “Pink Tariffs Study Act” that would direct the Treasury Department and other agencies to examine the impact of tariffs on women and other consumer groups. Trump’s tariffs could unintentionally narrow the gender gap by raising the floor of tariffs on men’s clothing, however, said Lori Taylor, a professor in the department of public service and administration at Texas A&M who studies trade policy. But Trump’s tariffs will ultimately impact women more than men because women spend more money on average on clothing. In 2023, household spending on women’s apparel averaged $655, compared with $406 for men’s apparel, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. “My policy preference would have been to lower tariffs for both men’s and women’s clothing” to reduce the gap, Taylor said. Hitting low-income families hardest Trump’s tariffs will have an outsized impact on clothing because nearly all clothing sold in the United States is imported. Consumers immediately will face 64% higher apparel prices from Trump’s tariffs, according to the Yale Budget Lab. Tariff disparities aren’t just between women and men. Tariffs will hurt lower-income households and the goods they rely on more than wealthier households. That’s because lower-income consumers spend a greater share of their income on basic clothing and necessities than higher-income consumers. Tariffs also tax cheap, mass-market goods at higher rates than luxury items. Socks, underwear, t-shirts, sneakers and other clothing basics have higher tariff rates than luxury items because tariffs vary by fabric content, said Sheng Lu, a professor of fashion and apparel studies at the University of Delaware. High-end fabrics such as wool, cashmere and silk have lower tariff rates than the cotton, polyester and nylon used to manufacture inexpensive clothing and sneakers. Prices for clothing basics will also rise more quickly than luxury items because of Trump’s tariffs, trade experts say, because basics typically have little markup. That leaves companies with less room to absorb higher costs. “The cost increase will be higher at the low end than at the luxury end,” Edward Gresser said. “Hourly-wage America will be carrying a lot of the tariff burden.”
‘Pink tariffs’ cost women more than $2 billion a year
TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:
"Analysis Reveals Gender Disparity in U.S. Tariff Rates on Clothing"
CNN
7.5
TruthLens AI Summary
The U.S. tariff system has historically imposed higher taxes on women's clothing compared to men's, a policy referred to as 'pink tariffs.' Currently, tariffs on women's clothing average 16.7%, which is 2.9 percentage points higher than the 13.6% average for men's clothing. This gender-based disparity in tariff rates costs women over $2 billion annually, as women pay approximately an extra dollar per garment. The situation is exacerbated by President Trump's recent tariff increases, which could further elevate costs for women. Trade experts have noted that the U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedule classifies most apparel by gender, resulting in higher rates for items such as women's suits and underwear. The origins of this tariff gap can be traced back to the 1930s and 1940s when the U.S. was shaping the global trade system, focusing more on male clothing, which was a significant economic driver at the time. Efforts to challenge these tariff rates have been made by companies, but legal attempts to rectify the gender bias have largely failed due to courts not recognizing the disparity as discriminatory.
Recent legislative efforts, such as the 'Pink Tariffs Study Act' introduced by Democratic lawmakers, aim to investigate the impact of these tariffs on women and other consumer groups. While Trump's tariffs could inadvertently narrow the gap by raising men's clothing tariffs, they are still predicted to impact women more severely due to their higher average spending on apparel. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2023, households spent an average of $655 on women's clothing compared to $406 on men's. Additionally, the tariffs will disproportionately affect lower-income families, who spend a larger share of their income on basic clothing necessities. This is because tariffs tend to be higher on mass-market goods than on luxury items, leading to a greater price increase on everyday clothing essentials. Consequently, lower-income consumers will bear a heavier burden from these tariffs, as their purchasing power for basic clothing diminishes.
TruthLens AI Analysis
The piece highlights an economic disparity in the U.S. tariff system, specifically how it adversely affects women by imposing higher tariffs on women’s clothing compared to men’s. This analysis reveals the implications of such a policy in the broader context of gender equality and economic fairness.
Economic Impact on Women
The article outlines that the "pink tariffs" lead to an additional financial burden on women, costing them over $2 billion annually. This economic factor is crucial as it emphasizes how systemic inequalities persist in seemingly neutral policies like tariffs. By presenting data from credible sources, the article aims to raise awareness about the long-standing implications of gendered tariff rates.
Social and Political Ramifications
By highlighting President Trump's tariff policies, the article critiques the current administration's failure to address gender biases within trade practices. It suggests that the focus on tariffs could be a chance to rectify historical injustices. This framing not only appeals to feminist sentiments but also aligns with broader social justice movements advocating for equal treatment in economic policies.
Concealed Narratives
While the article primarily focuses on gendered tariffs, it might indirectly downplay other economic issues stemming from the broader trade policies enacted by the Trump administration. By concentrating on this specific aspect, there’s a risk of diverting attention from other significant economic consequences of tariffs on various sectors.
Manipulative Elements
There is a persuasive tone in the article that emphasizes the unfairness of the existing tariff structure. While it effectively draws attention to a critical issue, the language used may evoke emotional responses, which could be seen as a form of manipulation. This approach aims to galvanize public sentiment against existing policies, pushing for reform.
Credibility and Reliability
The article references research from the Progressive Policy Institute, lending it credibility. The statistics provided, coupled with expert opinions, strengthen the validity of the claims made about the economic impact of tariffs on women. However, the framing of the discussion around the Trump administration may introduce bias, particularly among those with opposing political views.
Potential Societal Effects
This article could mobilize public opinion and pressure policymakers to revisit tariff structures, potentially leading to legislative changes. If successful, it may contribute to a broader discourse on gender equity in economic policies and could impact voting behavior in upcoming elections.
Target Audience
The piece likely resonates with feminist groups, progressive individuals, and those concerned about economic justice. By addressing an issue that directly affects women, it seeks to engage those who advocate for equal rights in various sectors.
Market and Economic Implications
The discussion of tariffs could have implications for the stock market, particularly for companies in the apparel and retail sectors. Investors might react to the potential for increased costs and changing consumer behaviors resulting from these tariffs.
Geopolitical Context
Although the article is centered on domestic policy, it reflects broader global trade dynamics and the ongoing conversation about gender equity in international economic practices. This relevance to current events amplifies its significance in today's political discourse.
In conclusion, the piece serves to highlight an important economic inequality while also critiquing current policies. The blend of factual data and emotive language aims to foster a call to action for reform in tariff practices affecting women.