“Made in America”: How Tariffs and Trade Wars Hurt Women and Girls Everywhere

Aishia Glasford
Apr 13
9 min read

Updated: Apr 19

Before I ever knew the word "Reaganomics," I felt its weight.

That weight hit home when in the early 1980s my family moved from Brooklyn to Long Island, NY and it was just one of many decisions shaped by U.S. economic policies—policies that disproportionately impacted working class people, especially women, then, and continue to do so now.

Our move was triggered by crack-cocaine sweeping into our tight knit Afro-diasporic neighborhood. We also began to see the early signs of HIV spreading in our community in Brooklyn, but also in my parents home country, Guyana. The effect of HIV/AIDS on the economic life of my parents' small South American country was devastating, and it came on the heels of more than a decade-long rule by a socialist dictator, backed by the U.S. government, who lavishly consumed American imported goods while citizens queued for basics.

Where Economic Theory Meets Real Life

My father lost his job in 1983 as the manager of a Manhattan hotel shortly after our move, under the pretense of poor hours worked, though years later that same company was found guilty of racial discrimination in management. While we were going through our own economic rollercoaster as a family, we would crowd around our living room TV, and watch Farm Aid and Comic Relief—thankful that we had parents who gave us a roof to sleep under. But for my parents, I’m sure the stress of living paycheck to paycheck gave them many sleepless nights, even though both my parents worked two jobs each.

These weren’t abstract economic theories. They were our lives lived in real time.

My story reflects how Reagonomics—and its primary tenet of trickle down economics–reshaped working/middle class families like mine. Reaganomics was characterized by deregulation, tax cuts for the wealthy and slashing of public programs. But history has a way of repeating itself: different rhetoric, but same consequences. Now, decades later, I see the repetition unfolding—this time through the rise of economic nationalism, trade wars, tariffs and ... slashing of public programs. And again, the conversation ignores the women on the frontlines: the single mothers, the migrant caregivers, the women who hold up entire economies without being seen. This post reflects on that past and interrogates our present by looking at how economic policy affects GDP or inflation—but also how it leaves many people behind, especially women.

The Feminization of Migration: An ongoing trend

The 1980s economic shocks did not only transform my home, but reshaped the lives of people around the world, fueling waves of migration to the U.S, especially by women. As much as migration has historically been deemed dominated by men, women have carved paths from the global south to the north, as was the case with my family. My mother’s migration wasn’t an anomaly—it was part of a growing but under-acknowledged trend. Even in grad school, I was told that migration was a male-dominated social process. I had to prove otherwise. The “feminization of migration”--the increasing number of women migrating, often alone, to take on domestic and caregiving roles in wealthier countries—a pattern that reflects global economic inequalities and shifting care responsibilities—has increased over the last 20 years.

I do not think these migration flows will stop, even with such deterrents as the present threat of ICE raids and deportations that are currently taking place. Desperation will always be borne by those, especially mothers, seeking to protect, defend and feed their children. This gendered economic fallout isn’t confined to U.S. borders. As tariffs strain foreign economies, women globally—already overrepresented in informal and care sectors—may find conditions untenable, triggering migration as a last resort.

Tariffs and Today’s Forgotten Costs

Today, as global tensions rise and economic nationalism gains ground, few media outlets are exploring the global ripple effects on the daily lives of women. Namely, the increased financial burden they will carry just to make ends meet, the economic destabilization abroad that may occur and thus drive increased migration to the U.S., especially among women pushed to take risks to ensure survival.

The press has shared tariff history in the past weeks1 sharing both the historical advantages and disadvantages. Recently, tariffs have been framed by the conservative right primarily to the historical advantages they have provided: boosting domestic industry, like manufacturing, and thus improving the lives of everyone. However, that is not the case. Often tariffs shift the cost burden to everyday people, especially women. Yet, many working and middle class workers that I speak to in my small, but rapidly growing city, persist in their hope that the tariffs will open industries and job creation in the U.S. It will, but not anytime soon nor to the extent expected.

What’s often left unsaid about opening industries, especially in manufacturing, is that scaling is needed for it to be profitable and provide the jobs that most voters feel are coming shortly. However, scaling manufacturing takes years—not weeks or months.2 Most likely, it would extend beyond the current administration’s term. And even if manufacturing does come to the U.S., with the advancement of A.I. and robotics, who says that there will not be less jobs, as robotics take over human functions.3 What our economy excels at is technology and services.4

What I have expected has been the relatively few commentaries discussing the negative impact that tariffs will have on women. Discussions are consistently centering around perspectives that primarily cater to male experiences, as if we're sliding back to a time where men are predominantly considered the heads of households and the primary workforce. But that is no longer the case. Today, women not only shoulder the burden of unpaid labor within the household but increasingly they are the primary or sole provider.

Women on the Economic Frontlines

Increased tariffs may drive inflation up more than 2% in the short run, amounting to a per-household consumer loss of $3,400 - $4,2005, thus leaving women head of households to pay more for the same goods and services today as just three months past, which we already knew were inadequate to meet their current needs. Specifically, child care can be up to 75% of household income for single parent homes.6 Often what results are women (whether in a two parent or single parent home) who leave the workforce to care for children, sacrificing financial security and long term retirement savings,7 as well as career advancement. We have seen the cost of childcare continue to rise: as of 2023, childcare payments are 32% higher than in 2019.8

In 2024, approximately 52% of non-family households and 68% of family households, not including married couples, had a female head of household.9 In addition, women in the U.S. are 35% more likely to be poor,10 and women comprise 69% of working class workers earning at or below minimum wage.11 Thus, women bear the brunt of paying more with much less: as women earn 83% of what men earn.12

Working-class women, particularly women of color, are often more likely to be in low-wage jobs and face greater challenges accessing affordable and reliable child care, which can lead to siphoning away of needed funds for other essential goods. Working class head of household women, when faced with balancing child care and work, are often more stressed and experience burnout quicker compared to other head of household profiles. Furthermore, black women are the largest demographic to be child care givers and educators outside of their homes, thus carrying the burden of caregiving in and out of the home.13 Moreover, the feminization of migration has led to large numbers of immigrant and/or foreign born women occupying child care and domestic work. For example, in New York 40% of the child care workforce are immigrant women, while in Los Angeles it is 50%.14 Our domestic measures will reverberate globally.

Women in the global south will suffer the consequences of economic protection measures. Some of the industries that will be harmed by tariffs will be agriculture and manufacturing which can lead to job losses in foreign countries, as well as lower wages and possibly inflation. Foreign workers will pay higher prices on imported basic necessities, while lack of trade generated revenue will lead to government public services cuts. In order to meet their economic subsistence, they will seek migration as a survival strategy and women will most likely search for jobs in the global north, including the U.S. especially if global south countries are not offering viable options for them. For example, Mexicans have been migrating to South American countries, but as those countries grapple with the effects of their own imposed tariffs or the consequences of unfair trade policy driven by the U.S.’ tariff strategy , they will be less able to offer employment or government support.15

The long term impact of tariffs can result in a trade war that can also become an extended situation, resulting in deepened political instability or social unrest, which are themselves powerful drivers of migration. As governments reign in spending or become oppressive to unrest, this can drive sub-populations who have been historically marginalized to reach their tipping points and push people to protest or explode into conflict, but most likely what would happen first will be that those who can afford to do so will leave seeking better opportunities.

But fractured economies don’t just lose jobs or wages. They break social safety nets—and open the door to deeper exploitation. Namely, other harmful consequences of unfair economic and trade policies for global south women are human and organ trafficking, child labor, often the commercial sexual exploitation of girls, increased early/forced migration, and other forms of gender-based violence against women and girls.

The impending recession that is being called by some of our most established financial institutions will possibly trigger a global economic crisis on the heels of a global health pandemic that screeched many economies to a halt. We know that the last financial crisis of ten years ago had dire consequences on protection systems. These systems had, and continue to have existing structural inequalities, including rooted gender inequality and the lack of adequate social safety nets.16 Such inadequacies disproportionately negatively impacted women – particularly poor and marginalized women, such as rural and indigenous women, migrant women, sex workers, queer individuals and women that were HIV/AIDS positive.17

Conclusion: Whose Economy, At What Cost?

Trade policy may seem abstract, but its impacts are anything but. For women on the margins—whether in Mississippi or Manila—tariffs, representative of protectionist economic policy, can mean the difference between survival and collapse. As we debate economic nationalism, we must also ask: Whose economy, and at what cost?

The lives of women hold up entire communities, often with little to no support. This has been the refrain of my personal and professional life for the last 20 years. I’ve lived it. I’ve worked through it. And I’ve advocated tirelessly to address it.

My policy recommendations remain what they’ve always been: ensure equitable access to education and vocational training for women and girls; guarantee fair wages for equal labor; provide adequate maternity leave and family support policies; and uphold the integrity of families—regardless of whether they fit traditional models or not. These are the American family values we claim to champion, yet consistently fall short of delivering.

And while we were making some progress on these fronts, recent actions by the U.S. executive branch have crippled or razed the very federal agencies tasked with protecting women and girls, here and abroad. In the absence of federal support, I believe we will need to turn to philanthropic institutions to help fill the gap—supporting NGOs and community-based organizations that remain committed to gender equity and economic justice.

But even this comes with complications. Philanthropy, as necessary as it is in moments like these, can reflect the priorities of the donor more than the needs of the community. And that, too, should give us pause.

Because when women are left to survive systems that were never built for them in the first place, it’s not just their economy that suffers—it’s everyone’s. Ultimately this is not just an economic story but a political one: the bigger issue may be about power.

Are tariffs being used as a negotiation tool or a weapon of market manipulation? Either way we must ask: how is uncertainty affecting your work and your daily life?

#FeministEconomics #TradePolicy #MigrationJustice #EconomicJustice #Tariffs #WomenLead #MadeInAmerica