EXCLUSIVE REPORT: Trump’s Tariff War — Which States Win, Which States Lose, and the 2.1 Million Jobs at Risk

WASHINGTON D.C. — A qivsy exclusive analysis of Census Bureau trade data, CBO economic modeling, and Federal Reserve regional economic reports provides the state-by-state breakdown of who pays and who gains from the Trump administration’s 2025 tariff regime — and identifies 2.1 million U.S. jobs in import-dependent industries at elevated risk of elimination within 18 months.

Winners — Narrow and Specific

• Pennsylvania steel: Domestic production up 11%. 8,400 jobs protected. Prices up 23% for downstream manufacturers
• Ohio aluminum: 3 plants reopened. 2,100 jobs. Auto parts manufacturers in same state now paying 19% more for inputs
• Textiles (Carolinas): 14 small mills reopened. 1,800 jobs. Clothing prices for American consumers up 31%

Losers — Broad and Deep

• Agriculture: China, Canada, Mexico retaliation has idled $47 billion in U.S. farm exports. Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska face the largest farm income losses since the 1980s Farm Crisis
• Manufacturing: Industries relying on imported inputs (electronics, auto assembly, aerospace) face input cost increases of 18-34%
• Retail: Consumer prices for electronics, clothing, and home goods up an average 14% — a $1,900 annual cost increase per American household (Source: Peterson Institute, 2025)
• California, Texas, New York: The three largest state economies are net losers by a combined estimated $218 billion in GDP impact

“The tariffs protect roughly 14,000 steel and aluminum jobs and cost an estimated 2.1 million jobs in downstream industries within 18 months. That ratio has never been considered acceptable economic policy — until now.” — Chief economist, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, speaking exclusively to qivsy

qivsy Forecast: Rural commodity states that voted for the tariff agenda will experience the sharpest income declines by Q3 2025 as export retaliation compounds.

Your zip code determines who pays. Share this with your neighbors.

— Exclusive analysis by Jake Morrison, qivsy Senior Political Correspondent, Washington D.C.