Last year, the U.S. imported nearly $3.3 trillion worth of consumer goods and components for those goods. Given that U.S. consumers’ total retail spending for 2024 amounted to $7.3 trillion, imported goods accounted for 45% of shoppers’ purchases, according to a PYMNTS Intelligence calculation based on Bureau of Economic Analysis and census data. As the current administration continues its negotiations with foreign governments, it’s easy to see that tariffs have the power to impact individuals’ budgets and bank accounts.
Consumer optimism about the effects of the new tariffs varies considerably depending on what they value in their purchases. A May PYMNTS report, “Consumer Tariff Sentiment: Informed Americans Are Skeptical of the Benefits,” sheds light on these issues. When given the choice between low-priced or American-made products, 39% of shoppers always or mostly value affordability, a feature associated with imports from low-cost China. Conversely, 34% always or mostly prefer items made in the U.S., and 26% feel each matters equally.
In a nutshell the “Made in America” message and image correlates directly to pricing expectations and the ability to meet them. The May report found that while 34% of shoppers consistently prioritize American-made products, it’s notable that consumers living paycheck to paycheck are more likely to seek out U.S.-made goods (41%). This group, along with those valuing domestic products, also tends to expect more positive impacts from tariffs. Yet, the overall picture of consumer understanding is nuanced.
Nearly half (49%) report being very or extremely familiar with tariffs. However, this familiarity often breeds skepticism. The “highly informed” consumer group in the survey, are the least likely to expect positive consequences from them, with only 22% anticipating benefits. The most common positive impact that consumers expect is an increase in domestic purchasing, anticipated by 52% of those who believe there will be any benefits. Additionally, 49% predict tariffs will create domestic jobs.
Regardless of their level of understanding, most consumers are proactively adapting to potential price increases. Over 80% are already changing their habits, making an average of nearly five behavioral adjustments. These widespread changes include buying less overall (38%), switching to less expensive brands (31%), or delaying major purchases (29%). This behavior serves as a clear window into how Americans navigate economic uncertainty, much of which comes from guessing about prices and availability.
Those guesses unfortunately extend to tariff knowledge. Americans know tariffs are costing them, but they don’t know exactly how the costs are being set or reset. An upcoming report from PYMNTS shows that Americans have strong opinions about tariffs, but they just don’t know many details. The upcoming PYMNTS survey of 2,262 adults finds 44.5% say they are “very” or “extremely” familiar with tariffs in general, yet only 29.3% claim the same command of the current U.S.-China trade accord. The 15‑point knowledge gap is most pronounced among baby boomers, whose reported familiarity with the Beijing‑Washington agreement bottoms out at 22.1%.
The disconnect matters because tariffs are no longer an abstract talking point. Nearly half of respondents have already run into empty shelves, and one‑third have had retailers explicitly blame tariffs for higher prices. Those living paycheck‑to‑paycheck feel it first. Eighteen percent of financially struggling consumers say grocers name‑checked tariffs when explaining food price hikes. That’s 60% more often than financially secure shoppers.
For their part, retailers appear to tailor their explanations based on who’s listening. Millennials and Gen Z, as well as households that juggle monthly bills, are more likely to be told that tariffs, not generic “supply‑chain issues,” are the villain. The message lands because these segments rely heavily on imports. More than a third of younger consumers tell the survey they pick imported goods even when domestic substitutes sit next to them on the shelf. That reliance will get painful quickly if tariff walls rise again. When the price tag on an American‑made product jumps just 5%, more than half of Gen Z shoppers ditch the domestic option, according to the price‑sensitivity chart on slide 12. In other words, tariffs intended to encourage “Made in USA” purchases sometimes push budget‑conscious buyers in the opposite direction.
U.S.-China Deal: Low Understanding, High Hope
Add to the mix the perceptions of the interim trade détente between Washington and Beijing. As of July 2025, most Chinese imports still face headline rates north of 25 %, and negotiations have produced only narrow progress. For example, most recently a rare‑earth export accord papered over, rather than resolved, the broader dispute. Given the stop‑start escalation, partial rollbacks, exclusion lists and campaign‑season sound‑bites, consumers could be forgiven for not knowing whether the price tag on a pair of headphones reflects a 7.5 %, 25 % or 50 % tariff, or whether the rate might change again before the product ships.
So, while overall knowledge is low, but sentiment is surprisingly positive. 44.6% of consumers think the agreement is good for the U.S. economy, while only 21.7% take a negative view.
Why the optimism? Among self‑described supporters, 55% say simply seeing the two governments back at the negotiating table is progress, and nearly half believe the pause shields them from immediate price spikes. Critics, meanwhile, voice more technical concerns: 56.6% warn the truce just adds uncertainty for businesses, and a similar share argue it papers over deeper structural problems.
The feel‑good vibe doesn’t translate into complacency. Almost three‑quarters of respondents plan to change their buying behavior over the next 90 days because of the temporary deal. Top moves include cutting discretionary spending (39.5%), delaying big‑ticket purchases until a permanent pact is signed (27.6%) and stockpiling in case duties return (21%).
Put differently, shoppers are hedging against both inflation and policy whiplash — even if they can’t define the mechanism that’s driving either.
