Indiana is ground zero for President Donald Trump's trade war damage, and the worst is still ahead.

The Supreme Court recently struck down Trump’s largest tariff authorization, briefly thrilling hundreds of Republican officeholders facing the worst electoral prospects since President Herbert Hoover (see https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/02/supreme-court-strikes-down-tariffs/ and https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/us-elections-1932). Their relief lasted less than a day.

Trump immediately pivoted to an obscure trade statute to reimpose tariffs — first at 10%, then 15%, then back to 10% — using the very law his own Justice Department argued wouldn't support him in the case he just lost (see https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/trump-global-tariff-start-10-percent-despite-announcement-15-percent-rcna260369).

The trade war grinds on. And no state is paying a higher price than Indiana.

As an agriculture-and-manufacturing-intensive state, Indiana has been pummeled. In the nine months after Liberation Day, Hoosiers paid an average of more than $900 each in higher prices caused by tariffs (see https://taxpolicycenter.org/features/tracking-trump-tariffs). At the current announced rates, that will rise to more than $1,200 per resident, or more than $2,880 per family.

To put this in context, Trump's trade war has cost the average Hoosier family more than their total state sales or income taxes each year (see https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/state-local-tax-collections-per-capita/). The tariffs are roughly equal to the property taxes that burden a $350,000 home, and far more than the median Hoosier family pays for local property and income taxes.

All that extra spending will now be reimbursed to the companies that paid the import taxes known as tariffs. Hoosier families will get nothing from it. When the current tariffs are overturned by the Supreme Court, as they surely will be, Hoosier families will again pay about 4% of their annual earnings, for less than nothing.

Don't forget to thank the Trump administration and its allies.

Hoosier manufacturing proved relatively resilient for the first months of the trade war, responding to Trump's TACO delays by buying an extra five months of pre-tariff imports (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/IMPTOTIN). This saved them from a much worse year that seemed likely last April.

Still, Hoosier manufacturing firms have shed 4,200 jobs since Liberation Day (see https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/INMFG). The real pain for factories is coming as they are forced to pass on tariff prices to consumers.

Hoosier steel manufacturers, which were supposed to be the biggest beneficiaries of the trade war, have lost 400 jobs since Liberation Day (see https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SMU18000003133100001SA). MAGA.

Indiana's agriculture industry has taken a devastating hit, with farm income declining 47% in just six months after the tariffs were imposed (see https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/INOFAR). This shaved more than $1.1 billion out of Hoosier farmer earnings. The entire agricultural industry in Indiana lost 25% of its GDP over the same six months (see https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/INAGRNQGSP). American farms lost more than 140,000 jobs (see https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS12034560).

The trade war was supposed to be good for factories and farms. Instead, it was a disaster that will worsen until the tariffs are removed and American firms can repair relationships with customers and suppliers. Much of the damage is permanent.

Outside of a recession, 2025 was the second-worst year for job creation in Indiana in a half-century (see https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/INNA); only the jobless recovery of 2003 was worse. As a whole, during Trump's first year, the U.S. economy dramatically underperformed every year of the Biden presidency on every measure except inflation.

Of course, price increases since Liberation Day have been high enough that the Federal Reserve discussed rate hikes in its last meeting (see https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PCEPI and https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/fed-interest-rate-hike-scenarios-rcna259604Blank 95.docx). It's an election year, so let’s ask candidates about that.

The good news is that even if the new tariffs survive initial court scrutiny, they expire automatically after 150 days, unless Congress votes to extend them. That means we get a long, drawn-out congressional debate right at the start of election season. For advocates of data-driven governance, it's like a reward.

I know there are folks reading this who honestly believe tariffs will help the economy, and that just a bit more patience will reveal them to be the masterstroke of public policy their architects promised. I fully appreciate that understanding these types of issues takes a lot of specialized education and experience — so does plumbing a home. Listening to the pro-tariff crowd is really no different than hiring a plumber who believes fecal matter runs uphill, with similar results.

Most Americans don't listen to presidential addresses — most of us have better things to do. Had you listened to Trump's remarks after losing his tariff case, you would come to the conclusion that he is unqualified to be an HOA vice president in a Florida trailer park. Don't take my word for it; listen to his response in full (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9s3OPaCx-c).

The coming months demand that citizens make important decisions about whom to vote for and what policies to support or oppose. In that important process of democracy, one thing we must all insist upon is clear answers about the trade war — using facts. Each and every candidate, for every office, should be put on the record.

Now, critics will be quick to accuse me of Trump Derangement Syndrome. Not so; there are clear winners and losers in the trade war in which we have all been unconstitutionally conscripted.

Brazil has seen huge agricultural industry investment and now exports more soybeans than does the United States (see https://www.producer.com/markets/chinese-investment-boosts-brazilian-agricultural-growth/ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_soybean_production). Indeed, the 2018 start of the current trade war accelerated the end of U.S. export dominance of agricultural products (see https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/is-a-negative-us-agricultural-trade-balance-a-cause-for-concern/). It seems unlikely to return.

The European Union, Canada, Mexico and South America are nearly finished creating a new free-trade zone that will bypass America's stochastic tariff regime (see https://commission.europa.eu/topics/trade/eu-mercosur-trade-agreement_en). Pacific Rim nations are also considering a trade deal that would help avoid the unpredictable tariff changes (see https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/cptpp-ptpgp/index.aspx?lang=eng).

International trade is a simple process of people buying and selling — the very basis of growing prosperity. As I and nearly every economist since Adam Smith have observed, trade is good and a trade imbalance is irrelevant (see https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2025/08/relearning-adam-smiths-lessons-on-trade/).

For a century, most Americans understood this. Trump doesn't. What is wildest about all this is that by his standard, running a trade imbalance is bad. That's wrong, but his trade war has given China a record export year (see https://www.reuters.com/world/china/chinas-trade-ends-2025-with-record-trillion-dollar-surplus-despite-trump-tariffs-2026-01-14/).

MAGA was always a hollow promise, at least for Americans.

Note: The views expressed here are solely those of the author, and do not represent those of funders, associations, any entity of Ball State University, or its governing body.