Stocks most affected by tariffs showed a muted reaction to a pending Supreme Court decision. This suggests investors believe the executive branch could use other authorities to maintain tariffs and that any potential refunds from an overturn would take years to materialize, diminishing the news's immediate market impact.
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 current US-India tariff situation is a stable deadlock. The US can easily replace Indian imports, and India can absorb the minor GDP impact (30-80 basis points). This lack of urgency on either side suggests a prolonged standoff rather than a quick resolution.
Given that trade policy can shift unpredictably, rushing to execute multi-year supply chain changes is a high-risk move. According to Flexport's CEO, staying calm and doing nothing can be a radical but wise action until the policy environment stabilizes and provides more clarity.
The inflation market's reaction to tariff news has fundamentally shifted. Unlike in the past, recent tariff threats failed to raise front-end inflation expectations. This indicates investors are now more concerned about the negative impact on economic growth and labor markets than the direct pass-through to consumer prices.
The inflationary impact of tariffs is appearing slower than economists expected. Companies are hesitating to be the first to raise prices, fearing being publicly called out by politicians and losing customers to competitors who are waiting out the trade policy uncertainty.
The negative economic impact of tariffs was weaker than forecast because key transmission channels failed to materialize. A lack of foreign retaliation, a depreciating dollar that boosted exports, and a surprisingly strong stock market prevented the anticipated tightening of financial conditions.
The market will likely ignore deteriorating fundamentals until a non-economic catalyst forces a repricing. A constitutional crisis, such as the Supreme Court striking down Trump's executive actions on tariffs, could be the event that shatters market sentiment and triggers a sharp correction.
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.
The impending 107% tariff on Italian pasta is based on legally sound anti-dumping laws targeting a specific product. This is distinct from Trump's broader, country-specific tariffs, which were enacted via a national emergency declaration and are more likely to be struck down by the Supreme Court. This signals a key legal risk difference for global businesses.