The Middle Column
No side. Just the record.
No side taken · Sources attached · Corrections public
Home HOME-0001 · Standing topic · Exhibit MC-0001 · Exhibit version 4.0 draft · Home version 1.0
Jurisdiction and deciding body: United States. Deciding body: Not stated in the record.
Instrument: Instrument text not yet certified
Decision date: Not stated in the record. Lifecycle stage: Open file.
Validation: Last validated 2026-10-28. Next review date: Not stated in the record.
Filed under: Money and taxes. Entered by the Clerk. Stamped: record checked, October 28, 2026.
Tariffs charge the foreign countries that make money from exports to the United States, so those countries pay America, and tariffs reduce American dependence on foreign manufacturing.
Stated in its common form. This claim circulates in many wordings, and it is rephrased here so that no one person's exact words are singled out.
Tariffs are a tax paid entirely by American consumers, and they are wrecking the economy.
Stated in its common form. This claim circulates in many wordings, and it is rephrased here so that no one person's exact words are singled out.
What follows is the record underneath both claims.
The record, in brief: The duty is collected from the American importer, and it is not collected from the foreign country. Most of the cost lands in the United States, and not all of it lands here, because foreign exporters absorbed a share of it as the year went on. The measured damage is real, and it is a drag on the economy rather than a wreck of it.
What follows from the record: The duty is collected from the American importer of record by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and it is not collected from the foreign country. Nearly 90% of the tariffs' economic burden fell on U.S. firms and consumers through November 2025, and foreign exporters absorbed a growing share as the year went on. (Federal Reserve Bank of New York, February 2026.) U.S. Customs collected $194.9 billion in duties in fiscal 2025, paid by U.S. importers of record. (U.S. Treasury data via USAFacts.) The 2025 goods trade deficit reached a record $1.24 trillion, while the bilateral goods deficit with China shrank to $202 billion, the smallest in over 20 years. (U.S. Commerce Department.) The average household cost of the tariffs was about $1,000 in 2025 and is estimated at about $700 in 2026 under the tariffs that remain. (Tax Foundation.)
What does not follow from the record: It does not follow that foreign countries pay the duty, because the American importer pays it and about 90% of the burden stays in the United States. It does not follow that American consumers pay the cost entirely, because foreign exporters absorbed a measurable share that grew during 2025. It does not follow that the tariffs wrecked the economy, because the measured effects describe a real cost and a drag on growth rather than a collapse. It does not follow that the overall trade deficit shrank, because the goods deficit set a record as the deficit moved to other countries.
The next data point that could change the record: A further Federal Reserve measurement of the burden share and the pass-through rate under the tariff set that remains in place, extending the measurement that now runs through November 2025. Expected date: Not stated in the record.
No projection filed. Too many other decisions sit between this subject and any outcome we could measure, so the record does not support a projection.
What is true in the Exhibit 1: the goods deficit with China shrank to $202 billion, the smallest in over 20 years.
What is true in the Exhibit 2: Americans bear most of the burden, at roughly 90 cents of every tariff dollar.
Last validated 2026-10-28. Filed updates: 0. Latest: none filed.
Both claims are stated in their common form. Each circulates in many wordings, in Michigan and across the country, and each is rephrased here accurately and in the same way, so that no one person's exact words are singled out. The first claim holds that tariffs charge exporting countries and reduce dependence on foreign manufacturing. The second claim holds that tariffs are paid entirely by American consumers and are wrecking the economy. Both claims are repeated constantly, at work, at family tables, and in comment threads across the country. This brief checks them against the record, figure by figure, and then leaves the part that is genuinely debatable where it belongs, which is with the reader.
This is a standing topic, so this section states the questions that bound it rather than an instrument.
The question the record can settle: who is charged the duty and who bears its cost, what the trade deficit did in 2025, what the tariffs cost an average household, and which tariff authorities remain in place after the Supreme Court ruling of February 20, 2026.
The question the record cannot settle: whether a deliberate cost, paid mostly at home, is worth paying for industrial independence and leverage abroad. The exhibit identifies that as a question of values and strategy, and the record leaves it with the reader.
The definitions that bound the topic, as the exhibit states them: Tariff incidence means who actually bears the cost of a tariff after prices adjust, which is a different question from whoever hands the money to Customs. The importer of record is the U.S. company legally responsible for the duty when goods enter the country, and the duty is owed before the goods are released. A trade deficit is the amount by which imports exceed exports in a period, a flow of trade and not a debt notice. The exhibit distinguishes the two legal authorities for the tariffs: the Supreme Court ruled on February 20, 2026 that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs, and the IEEPA tariffs were struck down, while the Section 232 tariffs, covering steel, aluminum, autos, and other goods, were not before the Court and remain in place.
Underneath both claims sits one question, and it is whether a deliberate cost, paid mostly at home, is worth paying for industrial independence and leverage abroad. That is a question about values and strategy, and reasonable people answer it differently. Who writes the check to Customs is not a values question, and neither is what the trade deficit did, or what the tariffs cost a household. Those are in the record, and the record is below.
The first claim holds on China, because the bilateral deficit narrowed to its smallest in over twenty years, and the concern about depending on a strategic rival for essential goods is a serious position with evidence behind it. The claim breaks on the mechanics of payment, because foreign countries do not pay the duty, the American importer pays it, and about 90% of the burden stays in the United States. The manufacturing sentence breaks as well, because the United States is second in the world in manufacturing output, even though its share of global output has fallen over the decades. A further claim made in the same post, that other countries have not been willing to contribute to military defense, is out of date, because in 2025 every NATO ally is expected to meet or exceed the 2% of GDP target for the first time, up from three allies in 2014. (NATO, August 2025.)
The second claim holds on the central mechanics, because a tariff is a tax collected from Americans, and its cost appears in American prices, including on goods that never cross a border, such as a car built in Michigan with tariffed steel. The claim breaks at the word "entirely," because foreign exporters absorbed a measurable share of the burden, and that share grew as 2025 went on. The claim also breaks at the word "wrecking," because the measured effects, a price level roughly 1% higher, household costs in the low thousands of dollars, and long-run GDP about 0.3% smaller in the Yale model, describe a real cost and a drag on growth. They do not describe a collapse.
Strip both claims down and they share a skeleton. Tariffs cost money. Tariffs change behavior, for countries and for companies. And the country has to decide what it is buying with them. The record answers the first two parts. The third part is the actual debate, and it cannot be settled by a dataset, including this one.
90%. The first claim, taken at full strength, needs the figure to be 0%, because it says the exporting countries pay. The second claim, taken at full strength, needs the figure to be 100%, because it says American consumers pay all of it. The Federal Reserve measured the figure, and the measured figure is about 90%.
No projection filed. Too many other decisions sit between this subject and any outcome we could measure, so the record does not support a projection.
The factual part settles with a stated goal and a stated price. If the goal was a smaller deficit with China, the deficit narrowed, at a measured household cost of about $1,000 in 2025 and about $700 in 2026 under the tariffs that remain. If the goal was a smaller overall deficit, the record shows that it did not happen, because the deficit moved to other countries and the goods deficit set a record. What the record cannot settle is whether what the tariffs are buying is worth what they cost. That is a values question. It belongs to the reader, and it is a real one.
"Burden" combines what firms absorbed in their margins and what consumers paid in prices, and the split between the two varies by product and by month. Household figures are averages, and any individual household's cost depends on what it buys.
Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Liberty Street Economics (Feb 2026) · USAFacts, U.S. Treasury fiscal data, FY2025 · Tax Foundation tariff analysis (Feb 2026) · Yale Budget Lab, State of U.S. Tariffs (Nov 17, 2025) · U.S. Commerce Department 2025 trade data (reported Feb 19, 2026) · UN manufacturing data via NIST · NATO defence spending release (Aug 2025) · U.S. Supreme Court, IEEPA ruling (Feb 20, 2026). Receipt Pack MC-0001 available on request.
No filed updates.
You can debate what to do about the facts here. The facts are not the debate.