IMF Report: Trump Trade War Will Hurt Both U.S. and Global Economies
Predictions for U.S. and global economic growth are down since January.

Since his second term began, President Donald Trump has imposed double-digit tariffs on nearly every nation, sending markets into turmoil. Trump said it was necessary, posting in all caps on Truth Social, "Will there be some pain? Yes, maybe (and maybe not!)." But "it will all be worth the price that must be paid."
In a new report this week, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) found Trump's trade war would negatively affect both the U.S. and global economies.
"Following an unprecedented series of shocks in the preceding years, global growth was stable yet underwhelming through 2024 and was projected to remain so in the January 2025 World Economic Outlook (WEO) Update," the IMF wrote in the executive summary of the April 2025 WEO report. "However, the landscape has changed as governments around the world reorder policy priorities."
It did not mince words assigning blame. "A series of new tariff measures by the United States and countermeasures by its trading partners have been announced and implemented, ending up in near-universal US tariffs on April 2 and bringing effective tariff rates to levels not seen in a century. This on its own is a major negative shock to growth," not to mention "the unpredictability with which these measures have been unfolding."
In short, the IMF found, "the swift escalation of trade tensions and extremely high levels of policy uncertainty are expected to have a significant impact on global economic activity."
To the extent the report could make a prediction, it was rather negative: "Global growth is projected to drop to 2.8 percent in 2025 and 3 percent in 2026." As recently as January, the WEO had predicted 3.3 percent growth each year; the change constitutes "a cumulative downgrade of 0.8 percentage point, and much below the historical (2000–19) average of 3.7 percent."
The prognosis for the U.S. was even worse: "Growth in the United States is expected to slow to 1.8 percent, a pace that is 0.9 percentage point lower" than the prediction in January, it found. "The downward revision is a result of greater policy uncertainty, trade tensions, and a softer demand outlook, given slower-than-anticipated consumption growth. Tariffs are also expected to weigh on growth in 2026, which is projected at 1.7 percent amid moderate private consumption."
The report put the odds the U.S. would experience a recession this year at 37 percent—up from 25 percent odds in October 2024.
Economic growth will likely be lower than expected as a result of Trump's tariffs and restrictionist trade policy. Inflation is likely to get worse as well—both here and abroad.
"For advanced economies, the inflation forecast for 2025 has been revised upward by 0.4 percentage point since January," the report notes. Compared to the January 2025 prediction, the U.S. "inflation forecast has been revised upward…by 1.0 percentage point….This reflects stubborn price dynamics in the services sector as well as a recent uptick in the growth of the price of core goods (excluding food and energy) and the supply shock from recent tariffs."
It predicted the U.S. inflation rate would rise to 3 percent by the end of the year, but put the odds that it would "rise above 3.5 percent" at "more than 30 percent, compared with 13 percent back in October." The annualized inflation rate hit 3 percent in January but declined in the following two months.
Last week, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell said there was a "strong likelihood" Trump's tariffs would cause prices and unemployment to rise in a manner that would be difficult for the Fed to address without exacerbating one problem or the other.
The IMF's chief economist warned in October that tariff increases like then-candidate Trump floated were "a policy that is harming basically everyone."
"Trump's plan to lower prices will be impeded by his support of broad-based tariffs on consumer goods and manufacturing inputs," Reason's Jack Nicastro wrote in January, the day after Trump's inauguration.
Trump owes his victory in November in large part to consumer dissatisfaction with the persistently high levels of inflation during Joe Biden's presidency, and he explicitly campaigned on lowering prices. "I will immediately bring prices down, starting on day one," he pledged in August 2024.
Now, Trump's tariffs are making things more expensive and making Americans poorer—and will have negative effects across the entire world.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Predictions have always been accurate.
oh no! predictions!
why don't you guys just go with 48-point bold THE SKY IS FALLING! everyday instead of working?
The trade war will hurt both the IMF *and* the ACA/Medicare/Medicaid/Big Pharma/Education *and* H1B Vibe-coding-dominated US economy? OH NOEZ!
infinite win-win-win-win ...
THE WALLS ARE CLOSING IN!!!!!!!!!!!
Because there were exactly zero foreign tariffs against the U.S. before March of 2025...
Those were the right tariffs. And they convinced a lot of idiots that free trade was those sets of tariffs.
We can only control our own economic pain. And if, as you claim, the tariffs do actually create less tariffs worldwide (free-er trade than now), we’re going to lose more mass-production manufacturing jobs.
So is that what you want? I would be very happy if that were to happen because I know free trade is beneficial to everyone involved, but it doesn’t seem like you share that opinion.
Because you're a fucking moron Nelson.
What we have is not free trade. You seemingly even admit that.
The plan laid out by Bessent and Trump to induce a global reduction of tariffs to make them more fair. 14 countries have reached agreement. 34 more up this week. The goal is to reduce GLOBAL tariffs.
Yet you and your other leftist globalist retards push the status quo which you admit is not free trade. Your plan is to remain the same advantaged markets that benefit global corporations. Your plan is one that supports large managed trade bills that enshrined these advantages.
My goal is zero tariffs and a free market. I just understand what that is.
A tit for tat strategy can induced this goal. This has been shown in economic trade simulations for decades at this point. But you choose ignorance and narratives. You want managed central globalist trade packages. Not a free market. Because you're a fucking leftist dumbass who is easily fooled by narratives.
My goal is zero tariffs and a free market. I just understand what that is.
If you really understood that, you would realize that your idealized world has never, and will never exist. You stupid fuckers want to go back to some romanticized version of the past that only exists in the nostalgic fever dreams of your parents. Sadly, you will fuck up a lot shit in your foolish pursuit. You (or anybody) don't even know which goal Trump is pursuing; zero tarrifs, or onshore manufacturing. They are not the same and work against each other. Explain that one to me, asshole, unless it's not in your book.
Cool story fag. You must be the most special retard in Retardville, population; democrats.
“ What we have is not free trade. You seemingly even admit that.”
Free trade doesn’t mean no tariffs. That is a strawman. It’s been explained to you repeatedly, but your tiny brain can’t understand even moderately complex ideas. What we have had for decades is free trade. Adam Smith talked about this topic in the 18th Century, for God’s sake. It’s not like the topic hasn’t been studied in depth.
But apparently Jesse and his eighth grade education is right and the father of capitalism and those that study economics for a living are wrong.
“ The plan laid out by Bessent and Trump to induce a global reduction of tariffs to make them more fair.”
Define “reduction” and “more fair”. What does the Trump Administration consider those term to mean? They are, unsurprisingly given the source, extremely vague terms.
And if global tariffs were reduced (which, for the record, would be awesome), Trump would get pilloried by his own supporters because even more jobs would flow to countries like India, Vietnam, and Indonesia where labor costs are 1/10 of the US and the quality is comparable.
“ Your plan is to remain the same advantaged markets that benefit global corporations.”
It advantages ALL corporations. Large, small, and in between. Anyone who produces goods (especially goods with no IP) benefits from the trade conditions that existed before Trump’s idiocy. You do understand that small companies, often participating in co-op agreements, source from overseas, too? Right?
“ 14 countries have reached agreement. 34 more up this week.”
Really? I guess I missed so many trade treaties being signed all at once. Or is it just that they “agreed” (scout’s honor) to do something that won’t actually happen? Or, perhaps, it’s a NAFTA/USMCA situation where the treaties are basically the same, but Trump claims it was a huge victory? Or is it that Trump said so, but nothing substantive has actually been done, in order to convince the rubes he is winning? I’m guessing it’s the latter.
“ The goal is to reduce GLOBAL tariffs.”
Which would be awesome. But reduce, or eliminate? Because you just said that if there are tariffs it isn’t free trade. Make up your mind.
“ Yet you and your other leftist globalist retards push the status quo which you admit is not free trade.”
Much like your weird ActBlue fixation, this is something that you, and not anyone else, “admits”. In fact people here keep pointing out to you that it isn’t true. We had free trade before. The whiplash tariffs are disputing it because companies are paralyzed and have paused making investments because they have no idea what fresh idiocy Trump will spring on them, but trade is still going on. We’re just leaning towards a reduction in GDP due to Trump’s mishandling of … well, almost everything.
“ Your plan is one that supports large managed trade bills that enshrined these advantages.”
So if you oppose trade bills, how are you going to stop other countries from imposing tariffs without a written agreement? More self-destructive tariffs that hurt Americans and American companies as much or more than foreign companies?
“ My goal is zero tariffs and a free market.”
That would be awesome. Full stop. It is also a utopian goal that’s never going to happen because we can’t stop other countries from doing what they want with their own tariff policies. Unless, of course, we have a trade treaty with them, which you say is bad (see above). But even then, there will be some tariffs, just like now. So nothing will change.
“I just understand what that is.”
So do I. Globalism.
So which is it? Is globalism good or bad? Is manufacturing in other countries good or bad? Is international trade good or bad? Because you are arguing both sides, with a healthy dose of bad definitions, bad faith, and false accusations thrown in.
“ A tit for tat strategy can induced this goal.”
Well, since that hasn’t been done by Trump, do you have another plan?
“ This has been shown in economic trade simulations for decades at this point.”
Yes. It’s the classic solution to The Prisoner’s Dilemma. Basic game theory stuff. And once one side “betrays”, both sides suffer and lose. You understand that, right?
“ But you choose ignorance and narratives.”
Yes, the guy (me) who posts links and makes detailed rebuttals and understands and can explain economic principles is the “ignorant” one and the guy who parrots Trump’s unsupported assertions (you) is brilliant and isn’t choosing “narratives”. Your lack of self-awareness leaves me gobsmacked.
“ You want managed central globalist trade packages.”
The opposite, actually. I want the least amount of government interference in trade as possible. I want companies to be able to make what they want, where they want, based on what is most advantageous to them. In the real world, that means most mass-produced products would be manufactured overseas, but since American companies would benefit, America benefits. And because we have robust IP protections, some IP products would be made here, but other places have good IP protections and lower labor costs, so not a lot. We would become a specialized manufacturing country, making the things that have such valuable IP that the most stringent protections are required and are worth the cost of American labor. But even those components, once made here, would go elsewhere for assembly. For most of the iPhone’s existence, they have been assembled in China, but the IP components were made in countries with strong IP protections (like South Korea and America) and shipped to China. No one who has IP makes those components in China unless they want to get ripped off.
I want protectionism to disappear (that’s tariffs and non-tariff barriers, in case you didn’t know tariffs were protectionism), but I’m not so clueless as to think that is actually an achievable goal. The more government interferes with trade, the more expensive things are for Americans. Any tariffs we impose are a tax on Americans. That shouldn’t happen.
“ Because you're a fucking leftist dumbass who is easily fooled by narratives.”
I’m a libertarian who is vocally in favor of free trade (which means overseas manufacturing), less government (which means minimal protectionist policies), and free trade (which doesn’t mean zero barriers, despite your “if it isn’t perfect it isn’t anything” foolishness). I support a balanced budget and a flat tax. I am an ardent capitalist. I made a great living, not only working with international supply chains, but I also co-founded, built, and eventually sold my share in a business that allowed me to retire at 45. Capitalism and free markets literally gave me a great life, and now I can enjoy the fruits of my labors. All of these things, and more, have been the positions I have expressed for years. Repeatedly. Enthusiastically.
If that’s your definition of a “leftist”, only paleocons aren’t leftists.
As fellow 'fucking leftist dumbass' who has never voted dem in my life, I appreciate and agree 100% with everything you just said. Jesse and the other dishonest assholes/socks will probably not read what you just wrote. If they do, they will just call you a name for not kissing the ring. I applaud your effort.
No, as this article points out, we can control a lot of other countries' pain also.
“ Because there were exactly zero foreign tariffs against the U.S. before March of 2025...”
The tariffs that others have on our products don’t impact the prices in America, so foreign tariffs on us don’t make a bit of difference to us. They only matter to the country that imposes them. They raise the price of American goods for consumers in that country, but since there is enough worldwide demand for American goods if the tariffs are too high, the American company just sells their products somewhere else. That has zero impact on our economy, since we were killing it under the old structure (because we are, after all, the richest and most powerful nation in the world largely because of our economic success). Their tariffs can’t stop American business success, but Trump’s can.
Trump’s tariffs raise the prices that Americans pay for goods in America. They impact the profit margins of American companies that produce things overseas (which is virtually every company that makes things), but will never be high enough for long enough to get any noticeable number of jobs back. So American companies will lay people off because they have to cut costs, but there won’t be many new jobs coming to replace them. Guess what happens when a lot of people get laid off and there aren’t new jobs for them to fill?
So tariffs will inevitably cause inflation and unemployment. We had high inflation and high unemployment once before in our history, in the 70s. It’s called “stagflation” and it was brutally difficult to fix once it began.
Are you willing to accept the high interest rates it took to get stagflation under control again? Are you willing to pay 17% on your mortgage? For your car? For your HELOC?
How much economic pain are you willing to accept? And what results would make that pain worth it?
The tariffs that others have on our products don’t impact the prices in America, so foreign tariffs on us don’t make a bit of difference to us.
Wrong from the very first sentence. Lol.
Does IRAD and R&D get distributed as a cost based on number of goods sold, yes or no?
If i spend 1M in IRAD to develop an item and can sell 1M domestically, that cost is 1 dollar per unit. If I can sell another 1M internationally, the cost is 50 cents, reducing costs.
You know Jack shit about economics dumbass.
You know Jack shit about economics dumbass.
Maybe you can lend us your book Jesse, or point us to one of the 'schools of economics' that agrees with anything you spam here daily that is not the 'JesseAz Upstairs University of Economics'?
You’re too stupid to understand economics, fag.
These fags are woefully ignorant and stupid. No wonder they gleefully voted for Harris when ordered to.
“ Does IRAD and R&D get distributed as a cost based on number of goods sold, yes or no?”
And what does that have to do with foreign tariffs? If France makes its tariffs too high, the company just sells to Germany or Italy or Niger or Egypt. You seem to believe that R&D costs, which are sunk costs, are somehow related to tariffs. They aren’t.
“ If i spend 1M in IRAD to develop an item and can sell 1M domestically, that cost is 1 dollar per unit. If I can sell another 1M internationally, the cost is 50 cents, reducing costs.”
If you spend 1M on development, that cost doesn’t change if you sell one unit or a million units. And tariffs don’t reduce or increase that R&D cost. The two are literally unconnected.
“ You know Jack shit about economics dumbass.”
As you repeatedly display, your ignorance of economics is deep and wide. You’re the Mariana Trench of economic ignorance.
I can (and have, repeatedly) discussed in detail economic concepts and theories. You have made repeated statements that lack even the most basic connection to economic reality.
You don’t even understand whether various different policies have positive or negative influences, nor are you capable of identifying mutually exclusive policies. You think that it’s possible to onshore manufacturing while also reducing global tariffs to zero. I mean, it doesn’t get more clueless than that.
Foreign tariffs make no difference to Americans - but American tariffs affect foreigners?
How does that work only one way?
For these idiots, it works whatever way the DNC decrees on any given day.
That’s how everything works for these credulous leftist retards.
American tariffs raise costs for American consumers. Foreign tariffs raise costs for foreign consumers. Rapid, unpredictable, and sudden changes in trade policy hurt ALL businesses, regardless of where they are based, because it not only immediately changes the profitability of products ordered months ago, but it also makes figuring out what is worth producing almost impossible. It results in companies ordering less and holding on to their money because they don’t want to risk going out of business if Trump wakes up with a hair up his ass.
Globalists report globalist economics system they set up and profit from will be hurt by not remaining in the globalist system. - Reason.
Ignore the costs associated with the current system from an ever increasing welfare state and unemployment. Subsidizing of labor is a good thing. - Reason.
So, the world economy only prospers if all other countries ass rape the United States with bad trade deals. Good to know.
The US has favorable trade deals. It is a MAGA lie that we don't.
You keep saying blatantly false things. Ovrt all there are much higher tariffs in the US than there are on them.
You’re a dumb cunt, Tony. You just swallow anything the democrats tell you to, just like you do the procession of cocks you swallow nightly at your local gloryhole.
All hail the central bankers!
Surprised they haven't deleted these.
https://reason.com/2024/12/18/imf-offers-a-glimpse-at-the-perils-of-central-bank-digital-currencies/
https://reason.com/2014/08/01/international-monetary-fund-proposes-car/
https://reason.com/2010/08/12/did-imf-say-usa-is-doa/
Some fun predictions from the IMF.
https://reason.com/2012/10/03/am-links-gary-johnson-running-in-2016-us/
https://reason.com/2009/03/09/world-economy-set-to-shrink-fo/
True patriots scoff at higher prices because they know it’s for their own good.
I will keep repeating the fact you have demanded higher income taxes for the last few years.
You actually joined shrike in calling Bidens economy good despite 21% inflation over 3 years.
You defend mass illegal immigration subsidized with taxpayer money putting upward pressure on housing costs.
You have zero room to talk about costs. Lol.
He’s against whatever Trump is doing. If Trump created world peace, Sarc would be advocating for WW3.
I mean, at some level, yes.
This is the point that I try to acknowledge when someone advocates for bringing lower skill manufacturing back here or stopping the export of white collar jobs to 2nd and 3rd world countries. Those policies will inherently mean higher prices for the consumer, at least in the short run. You know, because we don’t pay people $0.25 an hour.
And those prices will remain high because the second the tariffs are taken off, the jobs go back overseas. Tariffs are a tax on consumers. There is no way around that.
And why would any American want an American company to lose profits so they can produce 1000 widgets in Iowa for the same price they could produce 10,000 widgets in India?
If the government doesn’t stick their noses in with protectionist policies, profits are higher for companies and costs are lower for consumers. Literally a win-win.
“ You know, because we don’t pay people $0.25 an hour.”
To be fair, the rate in countries like Vietnam and India is closer to $2.50 an hour. Even so, no one in America will work for $2.50 an hour because you can’t survive on that.
But in rural India, that same $2.50 an hour is a good living and, if the American company manufactures there, their products cost 1/10 as much to make. Global shipping is cheap, so it adds just pennies to the per-unit landed cost of the goods. And landed cost is what matters. It’s how companies compare the cost of producing domestically vs. overseas.
So it wouldn’t be higher prices in the short run, it would be higher prices in the long run. Not only that, the supply would decrease, since you now need more money to place each order and cash doesn’t just fall from heaven. So fewer products for the same cost.
And guess what happens when demand remains steady and supply falls?
“And why would any American want an American company to lose profits so they can produce 1000 widgets in Iowa for the same price they could produce 10,000 widgets in India?”
Americans are a complicated people. Obviously we want a bunch of cheap shit, but we also want every citizen to achieve “The American Dream”. They want the American companies profit to always grow (well, except for retarded leftist), but they also want the labor of that company to be paid a fair wage (“fair” tbd).
Though I’d be willing to bet if you took any random American on the street and gave them the choice between increased profits for XYZ corporation or increased wages for their workers, most are going to choose the worker over corporate profits. Take that as you will.
“If the government doesn’t stick their noses in with protectionist policies, profits are higher for companies and costs are lower for consumers. Literally a win-win.”
If they’d pull their fists out of domestic companies asses, I think a lot of people wouldn’t see the protectionist policies as a necessity.
Also, Those aren’t the only two variables in the equation. Or rather, they aren’t the only ones that matter.
I stopped reading at IMF.
Same
Same. Incredibly the species survived for thousands of years without the IMF. No one can figure out how that happened.
This is pointless. The only thing that is known is that the US economy going forward is entirely on Trump. And the magic trade deals (x China) will mostly benefit the Trump family businesses.
Thanks maddow!
Do you ever wonder if leftist trash like JewFree have any independent thoughts whatsoever?
the IMF wrote
lol, going with that are you?
>IMF Report: Trump Trade War Will Hurt Both U.S. and Global Economies
1. Yes. We know that.
2. This is quite a change from last week's 'tariffs are just punching yourself in the face' isn't it. It's almost like you're coming to the realization that tariffs may not be an end in themselves but are being used as tools to change policies across the world.
Tariffs are being used as tools to change policy around the world
Haha. How's that going so far? Trump's done nothing but surrender every time markets vomit his babble. Supposedly, one aim re China was IP theft of tech. So what does Trump do when Apple is too dependent on China supply -- suspends tech tariffs. So what's the leverage re the policy I stated above? Or is the goal to reshore manufacture of Tshirts and Xmas tree baubles to the US?
Japan (probably the most important deal needed outside the China/Canada/Mexico trio) met with the US and the US couldn't even state their objective. They just asked what are you offering?
This is clownville. On the bright side - your ilk still has no clue that this is clownville. So you got four more years of painful learning experience ahead of you
Yes, we have all been exposed to your “wisdom” over the years.
While you’re at it, are you ready to unveil those plans you me with Misek to exterminate the Jews?
Sure follow the "science". Trust the "experts". There is currently no "trade war" and if there were none of these regime mouthpieces has any idea about what would happen.
Maybe you prefer to listen to someone with a high school education over someone who has made a living in economics, but I prefer not to hire the village Jesse to do something that requires knowledge and intelligence.
Do you trust your local seamstress to perform surgery? I mean, both she and a surgeon just cut and sew things, right?
Hurts the Foreign Goods Tax-Exemption.
Which allows sensible Tax-Cuts on the Domestic US economy.
LOL. The IMF you say. GTFO.
Joe,no sane uncoerced person with even a non-professional Economics background ( mine from the CMA training) can avoid the question : Why are the hundreds of non-American tariffs okay but not American. Again, my neighbors, co-workers laugh at this and , sorry, you. These are the same people that pushed the world into bankrolling African dictators with hundreds of millions of dollars.
Why ? Because without all this aid the African people will not have food and education etc.Well now instead of food we ship abortifacients. And was your boy any different? No, most every conservative and mainstream news outlet -- but not REASON -- reacted very badly to this
Explainer: How the U.S. plans to commit $55 billion to Africa over three years
By Reuters
and most egregiously
U.S Pledges $8Billion Aid To Resolve South Africa's Energy Crisis
SOUTH AFRICA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There will be as much spent on energy (as opposed to racist oppression) as was spent on EV charging stations
THIS IS THE WASHINGTON POST , okay
Biden’s $7.5 billion investment in EV charging has only produced 7 stations in two years
The network of fast chargers promised by the Biden administration has had a painfully slow rollout
Updated March 29, 2024