We have long worked with large numbers of CEOs, many of whom recognize the importance of urgent collective action to guard against a vindictive President Trump through strength in numbers. Post election, we saluted CEOs for trying to help Trump succeed. Then we called on CEOs and their trade groups to challenge Trump on excesses, carefully invoking their influential public voices to diligently represent their shareholders and society.
Over the last month, it’s become increasingly clear how Trump’s tariffs are already wreaking havoc across virtually every sector of the American economy. Far from the “golden age” of economic prosperity Trump promised, all his tariff tantrums have accomplished thus far are price increases, layoffs, plummeting business and consumer confidence, and frozen capital investments across industries.
CEOs have been sounding the alarm for months now. After all, at our recent Yale CEO Summit, 90% of the top CEOs we polled believed that Trump’s tariffs are backfiring amidst near universal revulsion to his economic policies. Broader public opinion has finally caught up to CEO opinion, with fresh polling revealing Trump’s plummeting approval ratings, the lowest of any presidency 100 days in since Harry Truman in 1949 and mirroring only Trump’s own underwater numbers from his first term. Disapproval for Trump’s handling of the economy is higher than it’s ever been, showing approximately three-fourths of the nation believing the economy is in bad shape.
Nevertheless, the broader business community’s response has been disappointingly and ineffectually fragmented. Companies nearly universally share the common thread of facing needless economic damage, inflicted on them by a grandiose president who is often vindictive when individual CEOs speak the truth.
What is sorely missing is collective action to advocate the shared fate of industry and the American public, raising questions as to why the Business Roundtable (BRT) has not been more aggressive in fighting tariff excesses, beyond putting out statements and behind-the-scenes lobbying. To fill the void, the Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers (led by Jay Timmons, a loyal Reagan Republican), and the newly formed Chamber of Progress—along with other specialized trade groups from automotive to pharma—have valiantly tried to pick up the pieces and convey the message.
The BRT meeting with Trump in March—defined by CEOs largely sitting passively in rows and columns, politely listening to Trump pontificate without much substantive interaction with the audience—is not what the founders of the BRT had in mind.
But still, the overall void of collective action on the issue of tariffs has allowed Trump to divide and conquer, picking off companies and industries one by one and pitting them against each other in a competition for his favor and for much-needed tariff exemptions. For example, after reports that parts of Amazon were planning to list tariff surcharges next to products—despite Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick saying “it’s nonsense, a 10% tariff is not going to change virtually any price”—Trump officials attacked Amazon for being “hostile and political,” reportedly forcing Amazon founder Jeff Bezos to back down after a heated phone call from Trump himself.
Similarly, just as Trump intended, some industries have been more successful than others in securing exemptions; for example, just this week, Trump announced scaled back auto tariffs after meeting with the CEOs of leading carmakers; in contrast, despite leading retail and tech CEOs meeting with Trump in separate meetings, few exemptions have been announced for those industries so far despite their loud pleas.
With mounting evidence of impending economic catastrophe, we are fielding more and more calls from CEOs every day wondering where is the BRT in this moment of crisis, hoping that the BRT will lead collective action against Trump’s tariff excesses more aggressively. Surely, its absence cannot be explained by the lack of evidence that tariffs are hurting American companies.
Here is a roundup of how virtually every sector has been hurt by Trump’s tariffs so far:
Automakers
Few sectors have been as hard hit as the auto sector, despite the scaling back of auto tariffs announced this week by the Trump administration. As former Ford CEO Mark Fields warned on CNBC this week, even with the scaling back of auto tariffs, “in this space, nobody wins. The cost for automakers is going up, the cost for consumers is going up.” In the words of current Ford CEO Jim Farley, “so far, what we’re seeing is a lot of cost, a lot of chaos. If you look at the tariffs, let’s be real honest, a 25% tariff…will blow a hole in the U.S. industry that we have never seen…to have that kind of size of tariff would be devastating.”
Despite GM’s valiant efforts to increase truck production by 50,000 annually at the Fort Wayne Assembly Plant, and to boost parts sourced from the US by 27% since 2019, the automaker still expects up to a $5 billion hit from tariffs this year alone.
Auto analysts from Goldman Sachs and Bank of America project that Trump’s tariffs will lead to 2 million fewer car sales this year—equivalent to a third of annual U.S. car sales from the “big three” automakers of General Motors, Ford, and Stellantis, or a 15% cut off the seasonally adjusted annual rate for car sales.
That would wipe out the profits for GM and Ford this year, and the bonuses of their workers, thanks to contractual profit-sharing arrangements—which would be devastating for United Auto Workers union members, since they have been reaping record bonuses with GM having just paid $14,500 per hourly employee for their annual incentive last year. Furthermore, that 15% drop in sales would jeopardize a commensurate 15% of the 9 million workers indirectly employed by the auto industry, equivalent to over 1 million American jobs at risk.
The impact on U.S. consumers is also devastating. Dan Ives of Wedbush Research estimates that tariffs will increase the cost per car by anywhere from $5,000 to $10,000, equivalent to $100 billion annually. As Ives wrote this week, “this continues to be a Twilight Zone situation for the entire automaker industry which continues to be paralyzed, with further cost increases and uncertainties.”
Trump’s advisors claim that thanks to the newly announced tariff rebates, or “offsets”, the increased cost is not being passed on to consumers and is essentially equivalent to a 3.75% rebate/offset. They point out that if the average SUV costs $50,000, and 18% of parts come from overseas (though many analysts estimate it is closer to 40%), which will cost 25% more, that amounts to around $2,250 in added costs, which is a wash with the ~$2,000 rebate. But what this misses is that comparably priced foreign cars will be far more expensive—in fact, many foreign automakers have already largely suspended auto exports to the U.S., such as Audi, Mitsubishi, Volvo, and Jaguar—which means consumers who were once likely to get a foreign car are now likely to increase demand for comparable U.S. cars. That will increase prices for U.S. cars since American carmakers are simply unable to bring back auto production to the U.S. so quickly. In the auto sector, it takes anywhere from five to seven years to get a new factory up and running, and 18 to 24 months to refamiliarize an existing idle plant.
Some commentators suggest that the carmakers can simply wipe the dust off idled plants in a fortnight, pointing to the example of GM being able to move production of the Silverado pickup truck from Mexico to Fort Wayne, Indiana. However, this is the exception and not the norm. More common is the challenge Ford faces in trying to move Bronco Sport production from Mexico to an idled plant in Michigan. There is no plant in Michigan that even makes the platform that underlies the Bronco Sport, and those idled plants would need to be completely repurposed.
Transportation and travel
Another sector already reeling from Trump’s tariffs is transportation. Most prominently, shippers have been at the forefront of sounding the alarms, as they have been for years on tariffs. FedEx founder and major GOP donor Fred Smith previously warned, “Mercantilism does not work…history is very, very clear that countries that pursue the most open markets are the ones that prosper the most and whose citizens’ income increases the most.” Indeed, one of FedEx’s competitors, DHL, has completely suspended all high-value shipments to the U.S. because of debilitating red tape at customs, with even customs officials apparently confused and unable to keep up with Trump’s head-spinning tariff pivots. Another competitor, UPS, just announced layoffs of 20,000 employees.
On the high seas, the number of freight vessels scheduled to arrive at the Port of Los Angeles is projected to be down by 31% year-over-year for the week ending May 10. And cargo imports are now expected to be down at least 20% year-over-year during the second half of 2025.
As supply chains have stalled out, every major airline—including United, Southwest, Delta, and American Airlines—has pulled their guidance for the year amidst tariffs turbulence, sounding the alarms that demand for travel is plummeting. On CNBC, Breeze Airways founder David Neeleman warned that Canadians are already traveling significantly less to the U.S., and feared that tourists from traditional allied nations are scared of visiting the U.S. because of Trump’s diplomatic whiplash. Similarly, the CEO of Southwest Airlines, Bob Jordan, warned of the “erosion of consumer confidence,” admitting that “just how rapidly the decrease in demand fell” exceeded even their most pessimistic forecasts.
Airline executives have been pointing out in frustration that even Trump’s comparatively lenient 10% universal baseline tariff far exceeds the net operating margin of 2-3% for most airlines—all while some suppliers, such as Airbus and GE Aerospace, pass on the costs of tariffs onto customers and consumers.
Pharmaceuticals
Trump’s pledge to impose a 25% sectoral tariff on pharmaceuticals is already leading to carnage within the pharmaceutical industry, with earnings estimates for every major pharma company being revised downward. Johnson & Johnson estimates tariffs will cost it $400 million, Merck estimates a $200 million hit, and more downward revisions are coming. Consumers will likely be hurt the most from these soaring costs. An EY analysis found that a 25% tariff on pharmaceutical imports would increase U.S. drug costs by nearly $51 billion annually, and boost U.S. drug prices for consumers by 12.9%.
But even more dangerously, pharma tariffs are leading to supply chain disruptions and shortages, which could put patients’ lives at risk. As Johnson & Johnson CEO Joaquin Duato warned, “There’s a reason…why pharmaceutical tariffs [have been] zero, it’s because tariffs can create disruptions in the supply chain, leading to shortages. If what you want is to build manufacturing capacity in the U.S., both in medical technology and in pharmaceuticals, the most effective answer is not tariffs, but tax policy.”
Those shortages arise from the fact that our pharmaceutical industry is uniquely reliant on foreign supply chains. For example, China controls approximately 90% of the active pharmaceutical ingredients, or APIs, used in the U.S. for generic antibiotics, for conditions ranging from bronchitis to pneumonia to sepsis, and the supplies and infrastructure do not exist for antibiotic production to be reshored overnight.
Retail
In a private meeting with Trump last week, the CEOs of Walmart, Target, and Home Depot collectively warned the president that his aggressive, volatile trade policy could result in empty store shelves and notable price spikes. Sources close to the White House described a shaken Trump administration after the meeting upon hearing about the potential for product shortages during July 4th, Christmas, and other holidays. Target and other U.S. retailers have paused orders from Chinese manufacturers, going so far as stopping delivery midway through the supply chain.
The American Apparel and Footwear Association characterized the “prohibitively high new tariff rates” as an effective “import ban…[with] an average figure exceeding 160%, but in some cases, the actual tariff exceeds 200.”
Many companies—from the affordable, fast-fashion Chinese labels to the luxury brands— have already implemented price increases. Temu and Shein raised prices by as much as 120% on some product prices in response to Trump’s bid to end the de minimis tariff exemption, while Hermes and LVMH are attempting to offset the cost effects from Trump’s tariffs with targeted adjustments. The price moves by the high-end platforms come amid reports of demand for luxury products already on the decline.
That demand can only be expected to slow further with tariffs. As the National Retail Federation recently reiterated, tariffs are “taxes on U.S importers ultimately paid by consumers,” a fact well understood by the average economist but apparently one not resonating with Trump administration officials.
Finance and housing
Finance chiefs initially hailed Trump’s return to the Oval Office after four years under a less than business friendly administration. Many expected a boon in deal flow with a softer stance on antitrust by the FTC and sensible corporate policymaking, but that has not been realized. Goldman Sachs CEO Solomon told CNBC last week that “the level of uncertainty is too high…It’s not healthy and it’s affecting investment, spending, and planning, and that will have an effect on growth and the economy.”
JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon echoed a similar point in his annual shareholder letter: “Whether or not the menu of tariffs causes a recession remains in question, but it will slow down growth.” The bank’s chief financial officer, Jeremy Barnum, told analysts on a recent earnings call that corporate clients are in “a bit of a wait-and-see attitude. It’s hard to make long-term decisions right now.”
The effects have been felt by Wells Fargo, which informed analysts earlier this month that it expects net interest income to be at the low end of original guidance. In a similar downbeat tone, BlackRock CEO Larry Fink told the Economic Club of New York: “Most CEOs I talk to would say we are probably in a recession right now.” Later in the month, even with the 90-day pause on reciprocal tariffs, Fink was not encouraged: “I think you’re going to see, across the board, just a slowdown until there’s more certainty.
Ken Griffin, CEO of Citadel, grabbed headlines at the Semafor World Economy Summit by telling attendees the country, amidst the Trump trade war, “has devolved into a nonsensical place…In the financial markets, no brand compares to the brand of the U.S. Treasuries — the strength of the U.S. dollar and the strength and creditworthiness of U.S. Treasuries,” but Trump’s trade tactics have “put that brand at risk.”
Similarly, Evercore founder and senior chairman Roger Altman gave a clear answer of how CEOs feel about the current tariff regime: “Many big cap public company CEOs [are unhappy]…they universally don’t like the tariffs, are either already experiencing softness in the business or sure that they will, and think it’s a policy error of great magnitude.”
These adverse effects are being felt not only on Wall Street, but also on Main Street. Take real estate, for example. In part due to tariffs, mortgage rates have been soaring, with uncertainty in borrowing markets making it difficult for buyers to purchase homes, leading to more canceled sales and a weak housing market. Tariffs will further drive up the cost of critical housing materials, such as lumber, granite, marble, steel, aluminum, and labor, exacerbating what many believe is already a housing affordability crisis.
Manufacturing
Perhaps most confounding is the glaring gap between one of the stated goals of the tariffs—to bring manufacturing back to the U.S.—and the actual outcomes expressed by leaders in manufacturing. The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) has continuously warned that the “high costs of new tariffs threaten investment, jobs, supply chains and, in turn, America’s ability to outcompete other nations and lead as the preeminent manufacturing superpower.”
Alcoa CEO Bill Oplinger shared similar concerns, telling analysts on an earnings call: “It’s hard to make a restart decision based on a tariff that can change…We just don’t know whether they will stick. And we wouldn’t necessarily make a decision to restart capacity simply based on tariffs just because they can change.” The aluminum producer estimates a $100 million negative annual impact on its business due to Trump’s higher Section 232 duties.
Semiconductor manufacturer ASML reported an underwhelming sales expectation for the year in its latest earnings report, citing uncertain U.S. trade policy as a potential headwind for the market. The company warned of a cautious consumer, which is particularly concerning as the West is engaged in a critical economic and security race for AI dominance with China.
The industry’s pain is felt not only by the large players. A member survey by NAM found 87% of small and medium-sized manufacturers indicated that they “may need to raise prices,” and one-third “could slow hiring.” Smaller manufacturers have shared a flood of concerns and challenges with the association, including worries about their ability continue as a going concern.
Industrials
Midway through earnings season, iconic American brands in the industrials sector have announced a series of sharp hits to their top and bottom lines. 3M CEO Bill Brown cautioned, “Tariffs are going to be a headwind this year.” The company estimates a “total annualized impact of approximately $850 million” to its profit forecast. Similarly, RTX noted a potential hit of $850 million to its operating profit for the year because of Trump’s tariffs. And Thermo Fisher Scientific expects tariffs to result in “a $400 million revenue headwind for the year,” according to CEO Marc Casper.
Others, meanwhile, are being more forthright in this period of unprecedented volatility. General Dynamics CEO Phebe Novakovic told analysts, “We do not know the scope and breadth of the tariffs issue at the moment and will not for a while.” Novakovic said any attempt to forecast the tariff’s impact would be “sheer speculation.”
***
To be sure, some companies have fortunately avoided the harmful effects of tariffs because of their localized business models, as Yum Brands CEO David Gibbs recently explained to Jim Cramer on Mad Money: “We are not affected by tariffs…for the most part as most of our supply chain is usually sourced within country, so our model is pretty insulated.” But these companies are the exception, not the norm, and many American enterprises are reeling with no way to possibly onshore supply chains in the time frame demanded by Trump.
As such, instead of ushering in his promised “golden age,” Trump is steering the American economy straight off the cliff into recession as his tariffs wreak havoc across every sector of the economy through idiosyncratic tariff tantrums. As CEOs express increasing alarm, their bewilderment at how the BRT could possibly be missing in action at this moment of crisis is growing, with collective action the only effective remedy.
Republican timber baron George Weyerhaeuser explained to the first author the importance of business voice in Washington, D.C. in 1984, saying, “our business is privilege granted by society. We have a license to operate from society. If we violate the intended terms of that contract, it can be revoked by society.” He, along with Irving Shapiro of DuPont and Reginald Jones of GE, set up some of the first Washington government relations offices in the 1970s to reinforce the newly formed Business Roundtable’s chorus of voices on shared interests of industry and society. Under the leadership of Walmart’s Doug McMillon, Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase, and Mary Barra of GM, the BRT boldly engaged at critical moments. Autocratic bullies are only countered through collective action. Now it is more important than ever in our history that CEOs not be left hanging on limbs by themselves, especially considering the way the nation’s law firms apparently “cowered” in the face of unconstitutional coercion and economic self-immolation.
Jeffrey Sonnenfeld is the Lester Crown Professor in Management Practice and Senior Associate Dean at Yale School of Management. He has informally advised five U.S. presidents across political parties and is president of the Chief Executive Leadership Institute. Steven Tian is the director of research at the Yale Chief Executive Leadership Institute and formerly an analyst at Rockefeller Capital Management. Stephen Henriques is a senior research fellow at the Yale Chief Executive Leadership Institute and a former McKinsey & Co. consultant.
The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.
Read more:
- Ending the U.S. trade deficit with tariffs is impossible, and it risks eliminating two longstanding U.S. surpluses
- Trump’s tariffs are not ‘common sense’—and they’re putting America’s credibility and ‘exorbitant privilege’ at risk
- Tariffs won’t make America great again: Export-Import Bank’s former chairman and president
- Trump’s tariffs are putting America’s economy at risk: Consumer Technology Association CEO
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com