The Tariff Doubts of a Trump Loyalist: Stephen Moore’s Cautionary Turn on Trade Policy

In the swirling currents of economic policy under President Donald Trump’s second term, few voices carry as much insider weight as Stephen Moore, the conservative economist who once championed “Trumponomics” with unbridled enthusiasm. Moore, a former senior economic adviser to Trump during his first administration and co-author of the 2018 book extolling the virtues of the president’s economic blueprint, has recently voiced unexpected reservations about one of the administration’s cornerstone strategies: sweeping tariffs. This shift comes at a pivotal moment, as the U.S. economy grapples with the dual pressures of inflation and global trade tensions in 2025.

Moore’s concerns, articulated in a recent interview, highlight a growing unease among some conservative economists about the real-world impacts of tariffs, which Trump has positioned as a tool for revitalizing American industry and funding tax cuts. According to details from Business Insider, Moore admitted that while he supports Trump’s overall agenda, the tariffs’ potential to act as a hidden tax on consumers gives him pause. “Tariffs are taxes—and taxes are bad,” Moore reportedly said, echoing a sentiment that contrasts with his earlier advocacy for protectionist measures.

This admission isn’t isolated. Moore has been vocal in various forums, including a March 2025 event hosted by the Garden State Initiative, where he discussed the need for swift tax cuts to offset economic headwinds. Yet, his evolving stance underscores a broader debate: Can tariffs truly deliver on promises of prosperity without inflicting undue harm on growth and household budgets?

Echoes from the Past: Moore’s Role in Shaping Trumponomics

Tracing back to Trump’s first term, Moore was instrumental in crafting policies that blended tax reductions with targeted trade barriers. As a key architect, he argued that tariffs could level the playing field against unfair foreign competition, particularly from China. In a 2025 CNBC appearance, detailed in a CNBC video segment, Moore praised Trump’s negotiation of better trade deals with countries like South Korea, Japan, Canada, and the European Union, crediting them for boosting U.S. exports and manufacturing.

However, the data tells a more nuanced story. Independent analyses, such as those from the Tax Foundation, estimate that Trump’s 2025 tariffs—including 25% levies on imports from Canada and Mexico, and 10% on Chinese goods—could raise taxes by $1.2 trillion over the next decade, reduce GDP by 0.4%, and cut employment by 344,000 jobs. These figures, shared widely on social platforms like X, amplify concerns that tariffs function as a regressive tax, disproportionately affecting lower-income households through higher prices on everyday goods.

Moore himself has acknowledged these risks in recent commentary. In an October 2025 interview with Fortune, he expressed worry that tariffs have already dragged down growth and elevated prices, even as he remains optimistic about the administration’s broader tax reform goals. This balancing act reflects Moore’s attempt to reconcile his free-market principles with the populist tilt of Trump’s trade agenda.

The Inflationary Ripple Effects and Market Reactions

As 2025 draws to a close, the economic indicators paint a picture of resilience mixed with vulnerability. Trump’s tariffs, ramped up throughout the year, have targeted a wide array of imports, from electronics to agricultural products, aiming to protect domestic industries. Yet, critics argue this approach has fueled inflationary pressures, with consumer prices rising as businesses pass on the costs.

Posts on X from users like those affiliated with economic think tanks highlight public sentiment, often citing studies showing tariffs could spike household costs by an average of $830 annually. One such analysis, echoed in discussions on the platform, warns of a potential 4-6% GDP contraction over a decade due to labor disruptions from related policies like mass deportations, which compound tariff effects by shrinking the workforce in key sectors.

Market reactions have been telling. Stock indices have fluctuated amid tariff announcements, with sectors like retail and manufacturing experiencing volatility. In a Yahoo Finance article republishing Fortune’s insights, Moore voiced additional concerns about Trump’s public interventions in pricing for drugs and beef, suggesting such moves could distort free-market dynamics and further unsettle investors.

Policy Intersections: Tariffs, Taxes, and the Push for Cuts

At the heart of Moore’s critique is the interplay between tariffs and tax policy. He has urged Congress to prioritize extending the 2017 tax cuts, set to expire in 2025, arguing in a Guardian interview that action by Memorial Day was essential to stabilize the “wobbly” economy. The Guardian piece quotes Moore calling Trump’s tariff strategy “misguided” in parts, a stark departure from his earlier endorsements.

This perspective aligns with broader economic modeling. For instance, Penn Wharton’s budget models, referenced in various X threads, project that tariffs act as a de facto tax hike on the middle class, potentially offsetting any benefits from tax reductions. Moore, in his Business Insider comments, emphasized the need for tariffs to be “targeted and temporary” rather than blanket impositions, warning that prolonged use could sink growth.

Moreover, Moore’s involvement in Project 2025—a conservative policy blueprint—adds layers to his position. While he contributed to its economic sections, his recent statements suggest a divergence, particularly on trade. In a Reddit thread on r/Economics, users debated a post summarizing Moore’s views, with many pointing to evidence of tariffs reducing exports by up to 18% and triggering layoffs.

Global Repercussions and Domestic Challenges

The international fallout from Trump’s 2025 tariff wars has been profound. Retaliatory measures from trading partners like China and the EU have slashed U.S. agricultural exports, hitting rural economies hard. A Los Angeles Times recap, published as a year-end overview, details how these policies led to a “rollercoaster” in trade relations, with concessions won but at the cost of higher global tensions.

Domestically, affordability remains a flashpoint. Fox News reported on Moore’s take, noting in a piece about economic perceptions that while data shows momentum building—such as rising GDP and job gains—voter skepticism persists due to lingering inflation from tariffs. Moore highlighted this “perception vs. reality” gap, urging better communication to counter narratives of economic distress.

On X, sentiments vary, with some users praising tariffs for national security gains, while others decry them as a $1,200 per household tax, citing reduced long-term revenue from retaliations. These discussions underscore the divisive nature of the policy, with Moore’s worries resonating among those fearing a broader slowdown.

Voices from the Inside: Moore’s Broader Economic Outlook

Delving deeper into Moore’s recent appearances, his CNBC discussion from December 29, 2025, reveals a nuanced optimism. He acknowledged tariffs’ worrying aspects but credited Trump with extracting better deals that could pave the way for a stronger 2026. This comes amid reports from Yahoo Finance’s coverage of Moore’s emphasis on energy policy and deregulation as counterbalances to trade frictions.

Yet, external analyses temper this view. A Guardian op-ed by economist Jeffrey Frankel, in a December 29 piece, questions why tariffs haven’t yet crashed the economy, attributing it to fiscal stimuli but warning of delayed effects in 2026, including heightened inflation and job losses.

Moore’s shift also reflects internal conservative debates. As a co-founder of the Committee to Unleash Prosperity, he has long advocated low taxes and minimal regulation. His tariff qualms, as expressed in the Garden State Initiative event covered by their press release, stress the urgency of tax reforms to mitigate tariff-induced drags.

Navigating Uncertainty: Implications for 2026 and Beyond

As the administration eyes further policy tweaks, Moore’s input could influence adjustments. In Stocktwits coverage of his interviews, a report notes Moore’s admission that he’s “not a big fan” of tariffs despite appreciating trade concessions, signaling potential for recalibration.

Industry insiders watch closely, as tariffs intersect with supply chains. X posts from economic analysts predict ongoing volatility, with some forecasting a 0.9% GDP dip in 2025 due to export slashes and rising layoffs. These concerns echo Moore’s own, who in Business Insider stressed the need for tariffs to fund tax cuts without becoming permanent burdens.

Looking ahead, the debate Moore has ignited may shape legislative battles. With Congress divided, his call for Memorial Day tax action, as per the Guardian, could rally support. Yet, as Fortune detailed, his worries about price dictation extend to broader interventionism, raising questions about the sustainability of Trumponomics 2.0.

Balancing Act: Free Markets vs. Protectionism in Trump’s Era

Moore’s trajectory—from ardent supporter to cautious critic—embodies the tensions within conservative economics. His Business Insider revelations, coupled with X-driven public discourse, illustrate how tariffs, while politically potent, risk alienating allies through economic fallout.

In forums like the r/Economics Reddit, discussions of Moore’s “sinking economy” warnings garner thousands of views, blending data with opinion. Similarly, Tax Foundation estimates, amplified on X, quantify the human cost: 344,000 jobs lost, a stark reminder of policy trade-offs.

Ultimately, as 2025 transitions to 2026, Moore’s voice serves as a bellwether. His blend of praise for trade negotiations and tariff trepidation, as seen in CNBC and other outlets, suggests a path forward that tempers protectionism with fiscal prudence, potentially guiding the administration through choppy economic waters.