Most proposed affordability measures like tax credits or subsidies offer only micro-level relief to households and won't change the broader economy. Tariff policy is the significant exception. Lowering tariffs would have a sustained impact by directly reducing inflation, supporting real income growth, and potentially enabling the Fed to cut interest rates.

Related Insights

Both Democrats and Republicans avoid the boring, complex solutions to inflation—like housing density, healthcare reform, and aggressive antitrust. Instead, they opt for politically palatable but ineffective measures like tariffs (Republicans) or short-term subsidies (Democrats), ensuring the core problems remain unsolved.

Meaningful affordability cannot be achieved with superficial fixes. It requires long-term, structural solutions: building 5-10 million more homes to address housing costs (40% of CPI), implementing universal healthcare to lower medical expenses, expanding public higher education, and aggressive antitrust enforcement to foster competition.

Former Fed Vice Chair Alan Blinder suggests businesses were hesitant to pass tariff-related costs to consumers because of constant policy changes. This uncertainty over the final tariff rate, while bad for investment, paradoxically suppressed the immediate inflationary impact many economists expected.

Instead of immediately passing tariff costs to consumers, US corporations are initially absorbing the shock. They are mitigating the impact by reducing labor costs and accepting lower profitability, which explains the lag between tariff implementation and broad consumer inflation.

The Fed expects inflation from tariffs to be a temporary phenomenon, peaking in Q1 before subsiding. This view allows policymakers to "look through" the temporary price spike and focus on what they see as a more pressing risk: a cooling labor market. This trade-off is described as the "cost of providing insurance to the labor market."

The economic impact of tariffs is not an immediate, one-time price adjustment. Instead, Boston Fed President Collins characterizes it as a "long one-off" process where the full effect can take months or even a year to filter through the economy. This prolonged adjustment period extends uncertainty and complicates inflation forecasting.

Given a tight legislative calendar and procedural hurdles in Congress before an election, sweeping legislation is improbable. The administration is more likely to rely on executive actions, like agency directives and tariff policy changes. These tools can be implemented quickly and unilaterally to provide voters with a tangible impact ahead of November.

The administration's policies, including tariffs and deregulation, form a cohesive strategy to spark nominal growth. This supply-side approach is considered the only politically and economically feasible way to manage the massive national debt burden built over decades, avoiding direct spending cuts.

While a single tariff hike is a one-time price shock, a policy of constantly changing tariffs can become a persistent inflationary force. The unpredictability de-anchors inflation expectations, as businesses and consumers begin to anticipate a continuous series of price jumps, leading them to adjust wages and prices upwards in a self-reinforcing cycle.

Contrary to popular belief, tariffs can be disinflationary by forcing foreign producers to absorb costs to maintain volume. They also function as a powerful national security tool, compelling countries to negotiate on non-trade issues like fentanyl trafficking by threatening their core economic models.