Fifty-four percent of U.S. executives interviewed for the 2026 C-Suite Stress Index Survey are confident their businesses will survive 2026, but 60% report feeling more stressed than last year. Among the sources of their stress are familiar concerns often blamed for weak business results: supply chain or logistics challenges (45%), economic pressures (44%), tariffs / trade uncertainty (39%), labor shortages (38%), employee healthcare costs (38%), and cyberattacks (37%).
Their stress reflects more than cyclical economic pressure. It indicates a structural shift in the rules of global trade, one in which tariffs have become a permanent instrument of negotiation rather than an exceptional policy tool.
It’s not my place to tell these people what to worry about, but they’d be wise to get accustomed to the lingering presence of U.S. tariffs, and to “trade uncertainty” more generally.
Late last month there were a few hours of relief among the business interests that objected to the numerous tariffs applied by President Trump precipitously through the spring and summer of 2025. Manufacturers and other businesses that source materials and products globally opposed the tariffs both in principle and in practice. Automakers and other businesses moved quickly to reorganize their production plans and relocate as much manufacturing as possible to their domestic operations.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s February 24 ruling that the President may not use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs unilaterally will end at least some of the tariffs imposed last year and limit the speed with which new ones can be introduced.
But through 2025 that manner of imposing, adjusting, and sometimes rescinding tariffs made clear that their purpose was not only to promote U.S. manufacturing; for the Administration, the tariffs are possibly more effective for applying negotiating pressure on foreign trade partners. That much became evident when the White House quickly shifted its justification from IEEPA to Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which authorizes the President “to address certain fundamental international payment problems through surcharges and other special import restrictions.”
Those stressed-out executives should recognize that U.S. tariffs are not a temporary disruption.
While the claimants in the Supreme Court case, and large businesses in general have drawn many more sympathetic analyses in this discussion, it’s been clear throughout that the Trump tariffs have supporters. Upstream, or basic, manufacturers like foundries and diecasters, steelmakers and aluminum producers, and many more endorse the system of tariffs.
And that backing has been a longstanding factor in U.S. economic policy. Presidential administrations’ adherence to free-trade principles and open market regulations has been consistent since the middle of the 20th century - but concessions to state or regional demands have also been constant. It has been a balancing act to prop up industries or encourage union workers, but balancing became harder as the global economy expanded and capital flowed to support that expansion.
U.S. voters have become less persuadable regarding the benefits of free trade, particularly as trade agreements over the decades have targeted consumer activity rather than industrial expansion - and as trade partners have so frequently flaunted the principles of free trade by suppressing wages, disregarding safety and environmental standards, and subsidizing less-than-competitive production activities.
For some U.S. manufacturers, and for a sizable portion of the population and their representatives, the argument for tariffs is simply that such policies will restore balance to global trade agreements, because they will offset the advantages that foreign competitors gain from lower wages, subsidies, or weaker regulations.
The opposing views on this will no longer be reconciled. Economic principles can be upheld between parties that share trust, or at least assurance of reliability. President Trump’s use of tariffs as a negotiating lever ended any likelihood of regaining such trust, and no economic theories or court rulings will restore it.
Business leaders seeking some signal that former rhythms of global trade will return them to a more predictable business environment will be disappointed. There is no fallback position from the current state of uncertainty.
By abrogating existing trade agreements and imposing tariffs widely and unpredictably, the Trump Administration simply cut through 70 years of discussion and ended the formality of global trade negotiation. Global trade will continue, but no one should be confident that its rules will remain stable even if they have been negotiated.
