Bipartisan majorities of Nevadans opposed raising tariffs on other countries by 10 percent to 20 percent — a policy proposal that former President Donald Trump has embraced on the campaign trail, repeatedly saying that higher tariffs will fix a range of U.S. economic problems including high prices, the federal deficit and the cost of child care.
But 69 percent of Nevadans said they would prefer keeping tariffs with other nations mutually low, in accordance with the rules governing world trade, instead of a tariff hike, according to a new poll. While keeping tariffs low is more popular among Democrats (77 percent), a majority of Nevada Republicans — 60 percent — disagreed with Trump’s proposal.
China, however, proved to be an exception to Nevadans’ belief in free trade orthodoxy — 72 percent of Nevadans support keeping 20 percent tariff rates on the import of Chinese goods.
Trump raised tariffs on China for the import of certain goods in 2017, inciting a trade war; President Joe Biden kept many of those tariffs and added new ones on China. Economists concluded that these tariffs raised revenue for the U.S. government but also amounted to a tax on consumers — most of the impact was borne by American companies buying from China rather than China itself. But they have remained popular among both parties.
Trump is now proposing raising tariffs on Chinese goods to 60 percent. The goal is to punish China for intellectual property theft violations and give American manufacturers a leg up.
The poll was conducted by the Program for Public Consultation at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy and is one of several issue-focused polls the group is conducting ahead of the election in swing states. This survey polled 394 Nevadans in online opt-in panels from Sept. 9-22, and has a margin of error of 4.6 percent.
See our reports on Nevada polls on child care, Social Security and abortion.
Tariffs are a tax on imported goods that companies must pay. A common foreign policy tool in the 19th and early 20th centuries, new tariffs were widely believed to have worsened the Great Depression, causing other nations to raise tariffs in-kind and reducing exports and imports, contracting the economy.
After World War II, as international cooperation grew and the postwar economic order took shape, nations pursued low tariffs and free trade agreements. Such policy is considered to have greatly improved the global and national standard of living, improving access to and affordability of new products, but also is frequently blamed for the offshoring of blue-collar jobs — a key theme in the 2016 election.
A majority of Nevadans were receptive to arguments that free trade has undercut American workers, companies and sovereignty. But when asked to decide if they supported continuing international trade agreements based on low tariffs and agreed-upon rules, 80 percent said they approved of the current regime.
“[The poll] could help [us] understand why, when candidates speak critically of trade, they probably see some heads nodding in terms of American manufacturing capacity,” said Steven Kull, a political psychologist at the University of Maryland and director of the Program for Public Consultation. “But then when they look at the big picture and the long-term benefits of trade, they come down quite clearly on [that] side. And that’s bipartisan.”
Nevadans are also supportive of the U.S. making more bilateral trade agreements with other nations, including requirements that manufacturers meet certain labor and environmental standards, as it has with partners such as the European Union, South Korea, Canada and Mexico. Overwhelming majorities — 81 percent for labor standards and 77 percent for environmental standards — want to see these agreements expanded.
Economists have issued dire warnings about Trump’s proposed tariffs, which include a 20 percent across-the-board import hike, an 100 percent tariff on Mexican goods and a 200 percent tariff on John Deere exports into the U.S. The former president has argued that doing so will keep U.S. companies from offshoring jobs.
“We’re going to put big tariffs on those cars that are coming in here at 100 [percent] to 200 percent, and they’re no longer going to be competitive,” Trump said of raising tariffs on Mexico in retaliation against American automakers moving jobs there. “So you better stay in Michigan.”
Morgan Stanley projects that under Trump’s proposed tariff regime, 70,000 fewer jobs would be created each month.
Economists at Goldman Sachs concluded that new tariffs would increase inflation and raise prices by 0.1 percent for each additional percent increase in the effective tariff rate. Estimates place the cost to the median American family at between $1,500 and $4,000 per year.
Vice President Kamala Harris, meanwhile, has called Trump’s tariff proposals “not very serious,” preferring to raise the corporate tax rate.
The costs argument was compelling to Nevadans in open-ended responses.
“Seems like raising them will affect cost of living right now more,” one respondent wrote. “I can’t afford to be paying more for stuff right now.”
Nevada candidates rarely mention trade in their campaign websites — Congress has relinquished much of its tariff and trade powers, giving the president enormous unilateral authority to impose duties on certain industries and countries.
Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-NV) has been involved in tariff debates in Congress before, urging colleagues and the Biden administration to put off taxing imports on solar panels and parts in order to protect Nevada-based solar companies and jobs as the domestic solar manufacturing sector grows.
A statement from her campaign said Rosen supports holding China accountable but that tariffs such as the ones Trump proposes would raise costs and amount to a “tax on the middle class.”
“Donald Trump’s reckless trade agenda would lead to thousands of dollars in higher costs every year for hardworking Nevadans and Nevada small businesses,” the statement said.
Rosen’s opponent, Sam Brown, told The Washington Examiner in a May interview that he supports free trade broadly, and that tariffs can amount to a tax on consumers, but considers China an exception. While he has echoed several of Trump’s economic policy calls, including to end taxation on tips and on Social Security benefits, he has been mum on Trump’s tariff pitches.
His campaign did not respond to The Nevada Independent when asked if he supported Trump’s tariff hikes.
On the House side, Rep. Dina Titus’ (D-NV) campaign said she did not support Trump’s plan to raise tariffs 10 percent to 20 percent on all imports and 60 percent on China, but was in favor of the U.S. expanding its bilateral trade agreements with labor and environmental standards.
Greg Kidd, an independent challenging Rep. Mark Amodei (R-NV) in Congressional District 2, said he was against raising tariffs, citing the 1930s-era history, but would support new agreements involving other countries raising their labor and environmental standards, though he acknowledged such provisions can be difficult to enforce.
“The thought that the other country pays the tariffs is nonsense,” Kidd said in a statement. “Tariffs are clearly just a tax on the American people. Always have been, always will be.”
Amodei’s campaign staff said they were not able to comment on the issue in the provided time frame; Titus challenger Mark Robertson and the candidates in Congressional Districts 3 and 4 did not respond to questions.
Rep. Susie Lee (D-NV) has previously advocated against further solar tariffs; her challenger, Drew Johnson, has advocated against tariffs in op-eds during the Trump and Biden administrations, saying they contribute to higher prices.
