Early Days (1790s–1830s): Democrats, rooted in agrarian interests, opposed tariffs that favored industrialists over farmers. They pushed for free trade.

Jacksonian Era (1830s–1850s): Under Andrew Jackson, the party resisted high tariffs, easing tensions in the Nullification Crisis with a compromise.

Civil War and Reconstruction (1860s–1870s): Southern Democrats opposed post-war tariffs that benefited Northern industry at the South’s expense.

Gilded Age and Progressive Era (1880s–1910s): Grover Cleveland reduced tariffs, like with the Wilson-Gorman Act, to limit monopolies and promote fairness.

New Deal and Post-War Era (1930s–1960s): FDR’s Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act shifted Democrats toward internationalism and free trade.

Late 20th Century (1970s–1990s): Clinton backed NAFTA, embracing globalization, though it sparked internal party debate over job losses.

Trump Era (2010s–Present): Democrats criticized Trump’s aggressive tariffs for raising costs and straining alliances, while some, like Sanders, supported protecting workers.

Across the left flank of the party, progressive Democrats are speaking in one voice—and it's blistering. As Trump's 10% tariff declaration ricocheted across social media and financial markets, the Progressive Caucus launched a coordinated public rejection that was equal parts mocking, moralizing, and strategic.

Rep. Jamie Raskin quipped: "Trump’s Liberation Day! Liberating Americans from their stock market gains, loyal democratic allies, and affordable groceries. Liberating us from our Constitution." Rep. Chuy García called it "a giveaway to his billionaire friends" and accused Trump of "weaponizing a trade tool." Judy Chu didn’t hold back either: "These tariffs aren’t liberation. They’re stupidity."

Other members, like Ilhan Omar, Melanie Stansbury, and Jimmy Gomez, amplified the same message: Trump’s tariffs are a national sales tax, a threat to retirement accounts, and a policy rooted in chaos rather than strategy.

In this chorus, Rep. Pramila Jayapal stood out as carefully calibrated—attempting to balance her long-standing support for tariffs with the need to distance herself from Trump’s reckless implementation. She denounced Trump’s tariffs as “chaotic” and “economically incoherent,” warning they would “raise prices” and fuel “corporate price gouging.” Yet she also defended tariffs as a legitimate tool:

“All tariffs are not bad. They are an important tool… but you have to be strategic about it and you have to pair it with investments in domestic manufacturing.”

Jayapal urged Democrats to meet this moment with bold clarity:

“Democrats really standing up strong and understanding these nuances… is going to be part of winning back the working class.”

She wasn’t alone. Sen. Bernie Sanders, long a champion of using tariffs to protect American labor, has remained notably cautious in the wake of Trump’s new plan. While he hasn’t endorsed Trump’s policy, Sanders reiterated his belief that “trade deals must work for working people, not multinational corporations”—but avoided direct engagement with the specifics.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who has also supported targeted tariffs in the past, called Trump’s approach economically incoherent. In a statement, she warned that “across-the-board tariffs like these hurt American families and invite retaliation without a strategy to actually grow good jobs at home.”

Jayapal’s broader critique targeted not just Trump—but her own party’s economic reticence. She demanded a return to bold, working-class-centered policy, including wage hikes and labor reforms: “We can’t be seen as a party that just wants to keep things going.”

While progressives navigate nuance, the New Democrat Coalition is having what one member called “a clarity moment.” For once, they don’t have to contort their message. Founded in the shadow of NAFTA, this pro-growth, pro-trade caucus is walking straight into the fight with zero hesitation.

Chair Brad Schneider called Trump’s move “perhaps the largest single tax increase in modern American history.” In multiple official statements, the Coalition said the tariffs were “reckless,” “regressive,” and “an open threat to American competitiveness.”

They’ve introduced bills like the Prevent Tariff Abuse Act and the Repealing Outdated and Unilateral Tariff Authorities Act to rein in Trump’s Section 301 and 338 powers. Their message: tariffs aren’t the issue—Trump’s abuse of trade tools is.

And they’re drawing contrasts with Republicans too: “It’s time Republicans join Democrats in taking urgent action to restrict the President’s ability to impose these taxes unilaterally.”

Labor unions are anything but united on Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs—and their split response is becoming a major subplot in how this fight unfolds.

The United Auto Workers (UAW), bolstered by its recent high-profile contracts and political clout, cautiously endorsed the tariffs—at least the parts affecting the auto sector. UAW leadership said they saw value in protecting domestic manufacturing and warned that companies, not tariffs, should be blamed for any cost increases.

But beyond autos, the support drops off. AFL-CIO President Liz Shuler issued a sharp warning about the broader trade implications, cautioning that Trump’s approach could undercut worker protections and sabotage investments in clean energy. She criticized what she described as Trump’s attempt to "exploit worker frustration without delivering long-term security."

Meanwhile, many union-aligned groups participated in the April 5 “Hands Off!” protests across the country, joining progressive advocates in denouncing the tariffs as a regressive tax on working families. Teachers, nurses, and transit union chapters posted statements online accusing Trump of stirring chaos and blaming labor for his economic mismanagement.

The tension is real. Tariffs have traditionally divided the labor movement, and Trump’s blanket approach has only made the rift wider. Whether this moment rallies unions behind a shared policy demand—or exposes deeper fractures—remains to be seen.

Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariff plan has triggered a rare moment of cohesion within the Democratic ecosystem. From progressive activists to establishment senators, and from union halls to Gen Z’s timelines, the reaction to Trump’s tariffs has been unusually synchronized—and overwhelmingly negative.

On social media, Democrats and aligned voices are framing the policy as a regressive tax on working families. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer posted, “President Trump's tariff plan is nothing more than a tax hike on American families,” while Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called it “a direct attack on working families and small businesses.”

Progressive organizations like the Center for American Progress labeled the plan “economically destructive,” and the Democratic Socialists of America slammed it as “a regressive tax on workers and consumers.” Even Sen. Bernie Sanders, a longtime advocate for targeted tariffs, warned that Trump’s “blanket, arbitrary sales tax” would “raise prices on products that Americans need.”

The reaction hasn’t just been rhetorical. Progressive X accounts, Gen Z influencers, Black advocacy groups like the NAACP, and labor voices from AFL-CIO to individual union chapters have all joined in expressing deep concern about the inflationary and unequal impacts of Trump’s tariff strategy.

This rare unity extends beyond the base. Polling shows overwhelming opposition to the tariffs among key Democratic constituencies—including young people, Black voters, and union households. Perhaps more critically, swing voters also oppose the plan: according to a March post-election pulse survey, more than 40,000 persuadable voters are deeply wary of policies that raise prices and inject economic instability.

In an era where the party is often divided between moderates and progressives, Trump’s tariff agenda may have done what internal strategy memos and DNC talking points could not: unite the left, the middle, and the message.