Welcome to 538’s politics chat. The transcript below has been lightly edited.

nrakich (Nathaniel Rakich, senior editor and elections analyst): Let’s party like it’s 1890, because it’s tariff time, baby! On Thursday, President Donald Trump announced reciprocal tariffs for virtually every country — meaning the U.S. will now levy the same amount on imports from a given country that that country levies on goods from the U.S. This, of course, is the culmination of a recent tariff spree from the White House: Earlier this week, he imposed a 25 percent tariff on all steel and aluminum imports — generally understood to be aimed at China, although it affects U.S. allies like Canada as well — and at the beginning of the month imposed a 10 percent tariff on all goods from China. (He has, for now, backed down from harsher tariffs on Canada and Mexico that were planned at the same time.)

Of the many executive actions Trump has taken in office so far, these tariffs have the potential to be among the most consequential for the largest number of Americans. So how do Americans feel about them?

tia.yang (Tia Yang, senior editor): Americans overall are fairly split over tariffs. Broadly speaking, polls this year have shown that increased or new tariffs are slightly unpopular among the public. At least two-thirds of Republicans tend to support them, while a larger share of Democrats consistently oppose them.

But these numbers are still highly subject to change as Americans learn more about tariffs and their actual impacts. Right after the election, there was this trend where people were suddenly googling how tariffs worked, because it’s sort of a wonky foreign/economic policy area that most voters probably hadn’t thought much about. I think that’s still true as this battle over Trump’s tariff policies is still heating up.

nrakich: Yep, Google searches for “tariff” increased right after the election, although the really big spike occurred at the beginning of February when Trump was engaged in that standoff with Canada and Mexico.

Monica Potts (Monica Potts, senior politics reporter): In addition to what Tia said, one thing that has struck me most in looking at the survey data on how Americans feel about these tariffs is just how much uncertainty there is around them. In polls from this year, the percentage of respondents who chose “neither” or “not sure” when asked whether they supported or opposed tariffs has been as high as 25 percent. That’s not surprising: While voters understand that tariffs are taxes charged on imported goods, they’re also a pretty complicated policy issue. So it makes sense that the results of tariff polling vary depending on how the question is asked, what kind of tariffs we’re talking about, etc.

gelliottmorris (G. Elliott Morris, editorial director of data analytics): You know, Monica, you’ve reminded me that most Americans don’t pay attention to politics pretty much at all, and when pollsters ask them to express an opinion, many are giving their first impression based on what little they may have heard about the issue, not necessarily an informed attitude. That’s not to say we should ignore these polls — just that we have to be careful interpreting them.

Monica Potts: Right, I imagine many Americans are still forming their opinions based on what they’re hearing about the latest news.

tia.yang: Several of the recent polls on this topic have asked both how Americans feel about tariffs and what they think the effects of those tariffs will be — and found that support for tariffs is mixed even as a solid majority (between 60 and 70 percent) consistently think those tariffs will increase the cost of goods in the U.S. However, the question about whether they think tariffs will drive up costs tends to be asked after the question about whether they support the tariffs. Support may be lower when costs are directly mentioned in the question about support for tariffs.

For example, in a YouGov survey from January, just over half of those who initially said they’d favor increased tariffs on imported goods said they would still do so “even if that leads to higher prices for American consumers,” while 20 percent said they would no longer support the tariffs. The rest were unsure.

In a Navigator Research poll, 37 percent of registered voters supported Trump’s tariff plan and 41 percent opposed it, while at least 6 in 10 said tariffs would raise prices, similar to other polls. But what really caught my eye was another question that asked whether those higher costs were worth it “if it helped to keep American manufacturing strong and protected American jobs.” A slim plurality said it was worth it. That was driven largely by Republicans, 69 percent of whom said the trade-off was worth it. In comparison, only 21 percent of Democrats and 29 percent of independents said so.

So Americans’ support for Trump’s tariff policies may hinge on not only whether prices go up, but also whether they see positive impacts on other economic metrics, like jobs.

Monica Potts: For what it’s worth, though, many economists don’t think tariffs would be the best tool for the things Americans do want, like increasing jobs. Tariffs would raise some revenue for the government, but it would be hard to make them cover the tax cuts Trump is proposing. They do protect some domestic sectors when it makes sense, but broad-based tariffs could harm more than they help.

So tariffs are kind of a blunt tool and negotiating tactic that Trump is using when the goals Americans really care about are more easily achieved through other policies.

nrakich: We’re starting to get into a discussion of the economic impacts of the tariffs, which was going to be my next question. Would they really hurt the economy as much as Trump’s critics are warning?

Monica Potts: I think most economists agree that tariffs would immediately increase consumer prices, to the tune of about $100 a month by some estimates. For what it’s worth, many economists don’t like tariffs. Not to get too wonky, but they just shift money from consumers to governments and producers — but not even that much money. Some of the value and efficiencies we get from trade are simply lost.

There’s another potential political cost as well. Watching Trump’s threats of high tariffs, backing off, threatening again, etc., may simply make our trading partners wary of us. Trump paused his plans to impose tariffs on goods from Canada and Mexico, but do those countries’ leaders and companies know that the U.S. is still a solid trading partner? What if Trump wants something else? Is he going to threaten tariffs every time he wants something? That could drive our allies into the arms of other big trading partners, like China. Companies just want to sell their goods; they don’t want to be bargaining chips.

Additionally, Trump’s stated goal of increasing American manufacturing won’t happen without other domestic policy changes that increase the potential for it. And it could take time to ramp up manufacturing in sectors where we currently rely heavily on imports, like steel and aluminum from China. Plus, so many of our imports, especially from Canada, are raw materials that we simply don’t have enough of.

gelliottmorris: Tariffs raise the prices of foreign goods and, because companies dealing with trade like to make money, those price hikes get passed on to consumers. This is not really a matter of projections or forecasting so much as it is a fact of how the tool works. Tariffs on goods –> prices of those goods rise for importers –> importers raise prices for distributors and the like –> those companies raise prices on consumers.

The typical way this gets justified is that if prices for imports go up, then people will just flock to American-made goods. But that assumes three things that are simply not true: (a) that the U.S. has replacement goods in large supply for all affected commerce (looking at you, avocados); (b) that American companies would not raise prices to match those of foreign imports in order to increase profits (but price equilibrium typically approaches the old cost of the good + the new tariff); and (c) that the laws of supply and demand do not apply to local American goods (as increased demand increases prices). So there are really multiple ways in which consumers could suffer from these policies.

The downstream effects of this could be quite severe. For example, decreasing imports of Mexican goods will hurt the Mexican economy, which could also exacerbate the problems at the border.

nrakich: How severe are we talking? Like, recession? Summer-of-2022-level inflation?

gelliottmorris: Well, America imported almost $440 billion worth of goods from China last year, and they’re all about to get 10 percent more expensive. That’s stuff like electronics (iPhones!) and a lot of basic manufactured goods that are too expensive to make in the U.S. given domestic labor costs.

If Trump does go through with his tariffs on Canada and Mexico, the consequences could be even worse. Grocery prices rising by even 10 percent would match the inflation we saw in the summer of 2022. Twenty-five percent would nearly match the entire increase in the consumer price index for food at home from 2021 to 2024.

Monica Potts: It really depends on what goes into effect, but Canada, Mexico and China together make up almost half of our trade. Cars are especially dependent on North American trade, and that’s not just about imported raw materials or finished cars, but many of the components and parts that are part of the manufacturing process. Mexico grows most of the fresh produce we find in grocery stores. And imposing these tariffs could also just start a trade war that hurts our exports, too. So it could unleash chaos.

It’s interesting because fighting back against global free trade was the purview of the young left in the late 1990s and early 2000s, largely because they feared that the goals of organizations like the World Trade Organization and the International Monetary Fund would result in labor laws getting bypassed and unfair wages. But Trump has a different set of goals, so it’s not clear what will happen.

tia.yang: Right, as Monica just said, we also have to consider the impacts of retaliatory tariffs that other countries have threatened to impose on American exports. The retaliatory tariffs proposed by Canada have prompted significant concern, including among Republican lawmakers who represent states or districts that depend heavily on trade with neighboring countries. For example, Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell has spoken out against Trump’s tariffs, not least because of the impacts that retaliatory tariffs would have on his state’s huge bourbon industry.

This backlash is particularly potent too in light of other administration moves that could negatively impact American agriculture (i.e., rural areas largely represented by Republicans). Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley called for Trump to include a tariff exemption for potash, a fertilizer imported in large quantities from Canada. And the dismantling of USAID food assistance programs that purchase food from American farmers to send abroad has raised alarm bells as well.

nrakich: That all sounds pretty bad! So why is Trump imposing/threatening all these tariffs when so many economists are opposed to them?

tia.yang: Well, Trump is explicitly using tariffs as a bargaining or leverage tool, not just an economic one. He has long been focused on addressing America’s “trade deficit” (the fact that we import more goods than we export), and that’s still a big part of his rhetoric. But especially when it comes to his aggressive proposals of 25 percent tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico, he’s brandishing tariffs as a way to exert pressure on non-economic issues like border security and cracking down on the importation of drugs like fentanyl.

In fact, one poll from Atlas Intel actually found much higher support for raising tariffs against specific countries “as a negotiation tactic” than for across-the-board tariffs “to protect U.S. manufacturing.” The problem is, Americans don’t want those tariffs to become actual policy. Tariffs on Canada and Mexico (especially Canada) are particularly unpopular, and I think that’s in part because Americans are more aware that these tariffs would majorly impact their lives. An Abacus Data survey specifically showed that overwhelming majorities value free trade between the U.S. and Canada.

I’d also note that unpopular North American tariffs would effectively undo one of the more popular accomplishments of Trump’s first term, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, which overhauled trade policy between the three countries. In the Abacus Data survey, 52 percent of Americans said the USMCA was good or very good for the U.S. Thirty-eight percent said it was neutral, and just 10 percent said it was bad.

gelliottmorris: The other thing about Canada: It’s uniquely hurt by Trump’s steel and aluminium tariffs, which today are 25 percent but could be as high as 50 percent soon (an official said the overall and steel-based tariffs would “stack” on top of each other).

I’m about to be a bit cheeky here, but these tariffs in particular fit two of Trump’s broader goals: first, to deliver on promises he made to the steelworkers’ union — and arguably protect a vital American industry. And second, to punish Canada for not being more serious about his desire to annex the country as our 51st state. (And it does seem like Trump has a pretty particular obsession with our northern neighbor.)

tia.yang: Still less weird than his obsession with Greenland!

Monica Potts: I actually think the obsession with Greenland makes more sense — but that’s a different chat, LOL.

More seriously, though: Trump may just be threatening Mexico and Canada as a negotiating tactic, but it’s not clear that he really achieved anything with them. Both had already made plans to crack down on fentanyl passing through their borders with the U.S. and deploy more security to the borders. In the case of Canada, only about 0.2 percent of seizures of fentanyl captured by border security come through our border with them.

This is a broader point about the effects tariffs might have overall. Again, if the goal is to increase American manufacturing jobs, that’s debatable. It would take a while to build new things — and it might not even be possible! For example, when Trump threatened Colombia with tariffs after its president briefly refused to accept a flight carrying deported immigrants, Colombia backed down. But what if it hadn’t? One of our biggest imports from Colombia is coffee, and most of the U.S. isn’t suited to growing coffee (although we do produce some). So we would just import it from other countries, and we might pay more because importing it from those countries costs more, and it might not match American consumer tastes, etc.

This is, incidentally, the whole point of trade: Countries can concentrate on what they’re good at and everyone gains value (in theory) if those goods can flow freely between borders.

gelliottmorris: Yeah, and to that point, Monica, the American people’s patience with Trump may soon run out. Wednesday’s CPI release showed inflation had risen again in January. If former President Joe Biden’s tenure is any indicator, that is a surefire way to find yourself on the outs with the American people.

tia.yang: Morning Consult’s consumer sentiment index also caught my eye and showed that the public may already be responding negatively to the potential economic impacts of tariffs, which have been in the spotlight for a couple of weeks now. Consumer confidence has fallen since its post-election high point on Jan. 25, in a reversal of the positive trend that followed the election.

Another Morning Consult survey showed that few want Trump to prioritize tariffs (23 percent), but many see him doing so (47 percent).

gelliottmorris: My overall takeaway from the polling is that the administration’s public justification for the tariffs is popular, but the policy implementation isn’t. For example, a co/efficient poll from late January found that 49 percent of Americans approved “of President Trump’s plan to impose tariffs to bring back American jobs and ensure fair international trade,” while 42 percent disapproved. That makes sense: Who wouldn’t favor fairness and jobs?

But the numbers just ain’t there for the details. When Ipsos/Reuters asked Americans if they wanted tariffs even if it meant prices would go up, only 30 percent of Americans said yes; 47 percent said no.

This is a theme we’ve seen with immigration polling, too; people generally want to secure the southern border and reduce immigration, but they oppose the things that go along with that, the administration’s strict enforcement policies such as arresting migrants at school or church and separating kids from their undocumented parents.

So because of this divide between goals and implementation, you get an administration that is really leaning into its messaging. Trump has pitched his actions as necessary for America’s national interests, even if that means costs go up. I think it’s unlikely that most people will agree the trade-offs are worth it.

Monica Potts: It’s interesting that this messaging — that there might be short-term pain but the long-term benefits would be worth it if Americans just hold on — didn’t work for the Biden administration when it said prices had risen because of supply and demand shocks after the pandemic and that things were getting better.

And Trump campaigned on lowering prices. The irony.