Tariffs: Long Term Losses
1. Introduction: Re-evaluating Trade Shocks Through the Lens of Capacity
The implementation of sweeping and unprecedented tariff policies by the United States throughout 2025, culminating in a dramatic legal and executive restructuring in early 2026, represents one of the most profound exogenous shocks to the global economic architecture in modern history. Traditional macroeconomic analyses of these tariffs often rely on standard trade elasticity models, focusing primarily on the immediate, static impacts on consumer prices, import volumes, and deadweight loss. While these conventional metrics provide necessary baseline data, they frequently fail to capture the systemic, long-term degradation of the underlying economic engine that gives a sovereign currency its fundamental value. To achieve a comprehensive, robust understanding of the short-term and long-term impacts of the 2025-2026 tariff landscape, this report applies the rigorous framework of Capacity-Based Monetary Theory (CBMT).
Capacity-Based Monetary Theory posits a radical departure from traditional fiat definitions, arguing instead that money is a floating-price claim on the future productive capacity of an economy. In this ontological framework, money is not backed by gold or mere state decree, nor is its value fully explained by the tripartite textbook definition of medium of exchange, unit of account, and store of value. Rather, money is a promissory note backed by the "Expected Future Impact" of the society that issues it. This capacity is quantified not as a static store of wealth, but as a dynamic, complex vector function encompassing the aggregate labor force, the efficiency of that labor (amplified by technology), the accumulation of human capital, and the stability of the institutional social contract that secures the realization of this value.
When a sovereign state aggressively alters its trade posture—such as the United States raising its average effective tariff rate from 2.4% in early 2024 to a peak of 17% in late 2025, and subsequently navigating a volatile landscape of judicial invalidations and executive pivots in 2026 —it does not merely alter the price of goods at the border. It fundamentally shifts the variables within its own domestic production function. By viewing the U.S. tariff policy through the CBMT framework, we can mathematically and theoretically map how import taxes, retaliatory measures, and the resultant institutional uncertainty directly impact the physical capital, human capital, labor force, technological efficiency, and institutional realization rate of the United States.
The current economic landscape is characterized by severe policy volatility. On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) issued a landmark 6-3 decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, ruling that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant the President the authority to impose sweeping reciprocal and global tariffs. While this ruling immediately invalidated the baseline tariffs that had defined the 2025 economic landscape, the administration swiftly pivoted. Within hours, the executive branch invoked Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, imposing a new 10% global tariff for 150 days, and initiated aggressive investigations under Sections 232 and 301.
This report will systematically deconstruct these events and their cascading economic consequences. By integrating the Augmented Solow-Swan growth model, Douglass North’s institutional economics, Amotz Zahavi’s Handicap Principle, the evolutionary concept of Fitness Interdependence, and the Hamilton Filter for regime-switching probabilities, this analysis will provide an exhaustive evaluation of how the current tariff regime is reshaping the foundational capacity of the U.S. economy, dictating its short-term viability and its long-term trajectory.
2. The CBMT Analytical Framework: Defining the Collateral of Currency
To accurately price the impact of the 2025-2026 tariff shocks, it is imperative to first establish the mathematical parameters of Capacity-Based Monetary Theory. Traditional neoclassical growth models, such as the standard Solow model, are insufficient for pricing a modern fiat currency because they treat human capital merely as a component of raw labor. To accurately model the "collateral" of the U.S. dollar, CBMT utilizes the Augmented Solow-Swan model, specifically the Mankiw-Romer-Weil (MRW) specification. This framework treats Human Capital as an independent factor of production with its own accumulation dynamics, distinct from raw labor.
The production function for "Impact" (Total Output, $Y$), which serves as the underlying collateral for a sovereign currency, is defined as:
$$Y = I \cdot (K^\alpha H^\beta (A L)^{1-\alpha-\beta})$$
In this formulation, $Y$ represents Total Production or Expected Future Impact. The variable $K$ represents the stock of physical capital, while $H$ represents the stock of Human Capital, encompassing education, specialized skills, and population health. The variable $A$ represents labor-augmenting technology, or "Efficiency Capacity," which multiplies the aggregate labor force, $L$. The exponents $\alpha$ and $\beta$ represent the output elasticities of physical and human capital, respectively. Crucially, $\alpha + \beta < 1$, indicating diminishing returns to capital accumulation, a fundamental constraint that forces mature economies to rely on technological efficiency and human capital for sustained growth.
Finally, $I$ represents the Institutional Realization Rate. This is a coefficient between 0 and 1 that discounts theoretical economic capacity based on the frictional costs of institutional instability, rule of law degradation, and policy uncertainty.
Under the CBMT framework, the fundamental value of money ($V_m$) is the discounted present value of this expected future impact, adjusted by a stochastic regime premium ($R_t$). This premium is derived from the Hamilton Filter, which prices the ongoing risk of institutional collapse or severe regime switching. The mathematical formulation for the value of the currency is thus:
$$V_m = \sum_{t=1}^{\infty} \frac{I_t \cdot (K_t^\alpha H_t^\beta (A_t L_t)^{1-\alpha-\beta})}{(1+r)^t} \cdot (1 - R_t)$$
The discount rate ($r$) typically brings future cash flows to the present; however, in CBMT, $r$ represents the exchange rate between present impact and future impact. If an economy is rapidly expanding its technological efficiency ($A$) and human capital ($H$), the future is expected to be significantly richer than the present, resulting in high real interest rates as capital is demanded to fund this expansion. Conversely, if these variables stagnate, the demand for claims on the future drops, and real interest rates fall.
Tariffs are traditionally viewed as a simple consumption tax or a mechanism to protect domestic industries. However, within the CBMT equation, universal tariffs act as a massive, multi-variable exogenous shock. By increasing the cost of imported inputs, tariffs degrade the accumulation of physical capital ($K$). By prompting retaliatory isolationism and reducing cross-border academic and professional exchange, they restrict human capital ($H$) and aggregate labor ($L$). By forcing sudden, reactive shifts in global supply chains under the threat of executive decree, they threaten the Institutional Realization Rate ($I$). The net valuation of the U.S. economy—and consequently the strength of the dollar and the trajectory of real interest rates—depends entirely on how these variables interact over the coming decade.
3. Institutional Realization ($I$) and the Rule of Law Shock
The "software" of economic capacity is the institutional framework governing the state. In CBMT, production capacity is purely theoretical if the fruits of labor cannot be secured, or if infinite transaction costs (the "Hobbesian Trap") consume the economic surplus. The Institutional Realization Rate ($I$) measures the effectiveness of the "Leviathan"—the state's ability to impose order, enforce contracts, and maintain predictable regulatory environments. A high-trust society maintains an $I$ value approaching 1, whereas a volatile, unpredictable state sees its $I$ value plummet, diluting the value of its currency.
The SCOTUS Ruling and the Preservation of the Social Contract
The U.S. tariff environment throughout 2025 severely strained the Institutional Realization Rate. The executive branch utilized the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to bypass Congress, levying vast, unbounded tariffs on allies and adversaries alike under the premise of national emergencies related to trade deficits and drug trafficking. The administration imposed a 10% baseline tariff, reciprocal tariffs scaling up to 50%, and fentanyl-related trafficking tariffs, applying them to virtually all imports. This executive overreach generated profound uncertainty, a known inhibitor of capital investment and long-term business planning.
On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump struck down the IEEPA tariffs. The Court determined that IEEPA's grant of authority to "regulate importation" does not constitute a delegation of Congress's exclusive Article I taxing authority. The Court emphasized that there is no exception to the major questions doctrine for emergency statutes, stating that the framers gave Congress alone the power to impose tariffs during peacetime.
From a purely legal standpoint, the ruling was a reaffirmation of the separation of powers. From a CBMT perspective, the ruling was a critical defense of the Institutional Realization Rate ($I$). Legal scholars and market analysts widely interpreted the SCOTUS decision as a profound victory for the rule of law. Cary Coglianese, Director of the Penn Program on Regulation, noted that the ruling ensures continued prosperity by affirming constitutional limits against political pressure, staving off what would have been a "disastrous" breakdown of predictable governance. Corporate entities, such as the plaintiffs in the Learning Resources case, heralded the decision as a powerful reaffirmation of constitutional separation of powers. By checking the executive branch, the Court signaled to domestic and global markets that the United States remains a jurisdiction where $I$ approaches $1$, ensuring that theoretical capacity ($Y$) remains fully realizable and not subject to arbitrary expropriation.
The Section 122 Pivot and Economic Policy Uncertainty (EPU)
However, the institutional stabilization provided by the Supreme Court was immediately offset by the administration's subsequent actions. The President, calling the ruling a "disgrace to our nation," swiftly pivoted to alternative statutory authorities. Within hours of the ruling, the executive branch invoked Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose a new 10% global tariff, effective February 24, 2026. This statute allows the President to impose duties of up to 15% for up to 150 days to address "large and serious" balance of payments issues. Concurrently, the administration announced the launch of new, targeted investigations under Section 301 (unfair trade practices) and Section 232 (national security).
While Section 122 requires congressional approval to extend beyond 150 days, thereby maintaining a semblance of legislative oversight , its immediate deployment perpetuates a regime of chronic policy volatility. In CBMT, such volatility is tracked via the Economic Policy Uncertainty (EPU) index, based on the methodology of Baker, Bloom, and Davis. Increased EPU acts as a direct friction cost on $I$, depressing economic activity by forcing firms and households to postpone significant financial decisions, specifically capital investment and hiring.
The U.S. EPU Index reached historic extremes during this period, reflecting the severe institutional strain. Historical data shows the index reached a record low of 3.32 in August 2015, but spiked to an all-time high of 1026.38 in January 2024 as the prospect of aggressive trade policies emerged. Leading up to the Supreme Court decision and the subsequent Section 122 pivot in February 2026, the daily EPU index exhibited violent fluctuations.
| Date | U.S. Economic Policy Uncertainty (EPU) Index |
|---|---|
| August 2015 (Historical Low) | 3.32 |
| January 2024 (Historical High) | 1026.38 |
| February 15, 2026 | 345.60 |
| February 17, 2026 | 288.00 |
| February 19, 2026 (Eve of SCOTUS Ruling) | 706.97 |
Table 1: U.S. Economic Policy Uncertainty Index Volatility (Feb 2026). Data Source: United States Federal Reserve / FRED.
This high-variance institutional environment directly impacts corporate transaction costs. Businesses report that rapid fluctuations in trade policy complicate supply chain contracting, forcing them to constantly renegotiate supply agreements and alter pricing windows. Throughout 2025, major manufacturers were forced to revise their internal tariff cost estimates multiple times due to policy whiplash. For instance, Ford initially projected \$1.5 billion in annual tariff costs, increased this to \$2 billion following the announcement of universal tariffs, and then downwardly revised it to \$1 billion based on complex offset programs. Similarly, General Motors fluctuated from an annual projection of \$5 billion down to \$4.5 billion, while Caterpillar upwardly revised its projection from \$1.5 billion to \$1.75 billion.
Furthermore, research indicates that the sheer complexity and "loophole-ridden" nature of the current tariff regime allows for widespread tariff evasion, making it exceptionally challenging for businesses to predict actual costs and for the government to project actual revenues. Within the CBMT equation, this chronic uncertainty and regulatory complexity mathematically lowers the Institutional Realization Rate ($I$). Even if physical capital and labor remain constant, a lower $I$ diminishes the present value of the currency, acting as a structural drag on the economy.
4. Short-Term Economic Impacts: Pricing the Immediate Shock
In the short term—defined within this analysis as a 12-to-24-month horizon—the imposition of the 2025 tariffs and the subsequent 2026 legal restructuring have manifested as distinct, measurable shocks to consumer prices, aggregate demand, and immediate GDP output.
Tariff Incidence and Consumer Pass-Through
The fundamental question of tariff economics is the distribution of incidence: whether the cost falls on foreign exporters, domestic importers, or end consumers. Under CBMT, a tariff acts as an artificial inflation of the cost required to generate Impact ($Y$). If the foreign exporter absorbs the cost to maintain market share, the domestic currency retains its purchasing power. If the cost is passed through, the domestic currency dilutes in real terms.
Empirical analyses of the 2025 tariff regime indicate a substantial pass-through to the American consumer. Research from the New York Federal Reserve and other macroeconomic models suggests that pass-through rates currently exceed 50%, with some highly inelastic goods experiencing nearly 100% pass-through. By February 2026, following the SCOTUS decision and the immediate implementation of Section 122, The Budget Lab estimates that the remaining tariffs will increase the aggregate consumer price level by 0.6% in the short run. Even after consumers and businesses shift their purchasing behavior (post-substitution), the persistent price increase is expected to settle at 0.5%.
This translates to a direct, regressive reduction in real household wealth. The remaining post-SCOTUS tariffs represent a short-run income loss of approximately \$800 for the average U.S. household, measured in 2025 dollars. For households at the bottom of the income distribution, the loss is approximately \$400, but represents a much larger share of their total income. The burden on the first income decile (1.1% of post-tax-and-transfer income) is nearly three times larger than the burden on the highest decile (0.4%).
Short-Term GDP, Labor, and the Fiscal Impulse of Refunds
The macroeconomic drag of these price increases became evident in late 2025. U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth slowed sharply to a 1.4% annualized rate in the fourth quarter of 2025, significantly missing the consensus forecast of 3.0%. While this slowdown was partially exacerbated by a 43-day government shutdown that subtracted an estimated 1.5 percentage points from fourth-quarter GDP , the underlying drag of tariff-inflated input costs heavily weighed on the manufacturing sector. The administration's goal of reversing manufacturing declines was fundamentally undermined by the increased cost of imported components, leading to a loss of 68,000 manufacturing jobs over the year.
However, the February 2026 SCOTUS ruling introduces a complex, countervailing short-term dynamic. Because the IEEPA tariffs were ruled unlawful ab initio, billions of dollars in unlawfully collected duties are potentially subject to court-ordered refund claims. The Court of International Trade (CIT) is positioned to order relief, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) may implement refunds through administrative correction processes.
If the U.S. Treasury processes these reimbursements, it will inject a massive, unanticipated fiscal stimulus into the corporate sector. The Budget Lab estimates that this temporary positive fiscal impulse from IEEPA refunds will approximately offset the negative growth impacts of the remaining Section 122 and Section 232 tariffs for the calendar year 2026. Consequently, short-term equity markets reacted favorably to the ruling. U.S. small-cap equities jumped as reduced supply-chain uncertainty and the prospect of refunds supported profit margins, while non-U.S. stocks in export-heavy economies (such as Canada and Mexico) also rallied.
| Short-Term Economic Metric | Impact Estimate (Post-SCOTUS 2026) |
|---|---|
| Average Effective Tariff Rate (Post-Substitution) | 8.0% (down from 16.9% with IEEPA) |
| Short-Run Price Level Increase | +0.6% |
| Average Household Income Loss | -$800 |
| Short-Run Payroll Employment Impact | -550,000 jobs |
| Q4 2025 Annualized GDP Growth | 1.4% |
Table 2: Short-Term Economic Impacts of the 2026 Tariff Landscape. Data aggregated from The Budget Lab and BEA reports.
5. Capital Accumulation ($K$) and the Crowding Out Effect
While short-term fiscal impulses driven by legal refunds may mask immediate GDP contractions, Capacity-Based Monetary Theory is fundamentally concerned with the long-term accumulation of the core production variables. The first of these is Physical Capital ($K$).
Tariffs systematically degrade the accumulation of $K$ through two primary channels: the reduction of global capital flows and the crowding out of private investment by sovereign debt issuance. The Wharton Penn Budget Model (PWBM) provides a stark quantitative assessment of these dynamics over extended horizons.
Universal tariffs inherently restrict the volume of global trade. The PWBM projects that the tariff regime enacted in April 2025 will reduce total U.S. imports by \$6.9 trillion over the next decade (2025-2034) and by a staggering \$37.2 trillion through 2054. While the administration points to the massive revenue generation of these tariffs—projected by PWBM at \$5.2 trillion over ten years conventionally, or \$4.5 trillion dynamically when accounting for economic drag —this revenue comes at the cost of global capital starvation.
In the macroeconomic balance of payments, the U.S. trade deficit represents a capital inflow; foreign entities exchange goods for U.S. dollars, which are subsequently reinvested into U.S. assets, including corporate equities and federal government bonds. A reduction of $37.2 trillion in imported goods corresponds directly to foreign businesses and governments purchasing fewer U.S. assets.
Because the U.S. domestic investment outpaces domestic saving, this foreign capital is necessary to finance business investment and the government's budget deficit. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects the federal deficit will grow to \$1.9 trillion in fiscal year 2026 and \$3.1 trillion by 2036, pushing debt held by the public to 120% of GDP. If foreign capital inflows drop due to restricted trade, U.S. domestic savings must be diverted away from productive private sector investments to absorb this massive federal debt issuance.
This mechanism triggers a classic "crowding out" effect. Capital that would otherwise be deployed by private firms for research, development, and infrastructure expansion ($K$) is instead absorbed by sovereign debt servicing. As a result, the Wharton model projects that by 2054, the U.S. capital stock will be between 9.6% and 12.2% lower than it would have been under current law.
In the CBMT equation ($Y = I \cdot (K^\alpha H^\beta (A L)^{1-\alpha-\beta})$), a sustained reduction in the capital stock ($K$) directly reduces the marginal productivity of labor, regardless of how hard the population works. This drop in productivity inevitably drives down real wages. Long-run wage projections from PWBM suggest a 5% decline due to this specific capital starvation channel, burdening the middle-class with an estimated $22,000 lifetime loss.
| Timeframe | Projected Import Reduction | Projected Revenue (Conventional) | Projected Revenue (Dynamic) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10-Year (2025-2034) | -$6.93 Trillion | $5.24 Trillion | $4.49 Trillion |
| 30-Year (2025-2054) | -$37.23 Trillion | $16.39 Trillion | $11.82 Trillion |
Table 3: Long-Term Effects of Universal Tariffs on Trade and Revenue. Source: Penn Wharton Budget Model.
6. Human Capital ($H$) and Labor ($L$): The Demographic Contraction
The most profound vulnerability exposed by applying CBMT to the 2025-2026 policy landscape lies in the human variables of the production function: the aggregate labor force ($L$) and the accumulated stock of Human Capital ($H$). Unlike raw commodities, these assets take decades to cultivate and cannot be rapidly re-shored.
The Aggregate Labor Contraction ($L$)
The Augmented MRW specification utilized by CBMT emphasizes that a currency's strength is heavily reliant on the continuous replenishment of the labor force. Concurrently with the tariff regime, the U.S. administration implemented historically restrictive immigration policies throughout 2025, severing the primary pipeline of U.S. demographic growth.
The macroeconomic impact of these restrictions has been immediate. Net immigration, which traditionally provided between 500,000 and 1.5 million new workers annually, fell drastically. Brookings Institute research estimates that net migration in 2025 dropped to between -10,000 and -295,000 individuals—the first time it has gone negative in at least half a century. Consequently, breakeven employment growth—the number of jobs needed to keep the unemployment rate stable—plunged into negative territory, pushing the labor market into a stagnant "low-hire, low-fire" equilibrium.
The long-term projections for the labor force ($L$) are deeply pessimistic. The National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP) projects that the combination of legal and illegal immigration restrictions will reduce the projected number of workers in the United States by 6.8 million by 2028, and by 15.7 million by 2035. Due to these missing workers, the U.S. economy faces a potential labor loss of approximately 102 million worker-years by 2035. This sudden contraction heavily suppresses the $L$ variable in the CBMT production function, acting as a permanent downward shift in the economy's production possibility frontier.
The Targeted Degradation of Human Capital ($H$)
More alarming than the raw numerical drop in $L$ is the targeted degradation of $H$. Human capital represents the specialized skills, advanced education, and innovative capacity of the population.
The administration's policies have actively dismantled high-skilled immigration pipelines. Specific measures included prohibitions on international students working on Optional Practical Training (OPT) and STEM OPT extensions after completing their coursework. In 2024, STEM OPT participation had surged by 54%, with over 95,000 foreign students obtaining work authorization, providing critical engineering and technical talent to major U.S. technology firms. The elimination of these programs severs the inflow of highly educated human capital.
Data from the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) in late 2025 showed that while 1.16 million international students remained enrolled in U.S. programs, the underlying trend in new student enrollment was sharply decreasing, driven by an atmosphere of fear and policy uncertainty.
Under CBMT, a currency backed by a population with declining advanced education (low $H$) represents a claim on a fundamentally smaller pool of future innovation. A shrinking population can theoretically sustain a strong currency if human capital accumulation outpaces the numerical decline. However, the 2025-2026 policy landscape represents a simultaneous assault on both $L$ (aggregate labor) and $H$ (high-skill STEM retention). The NFAP estimates this combined demographic and human capital shock will reduce cumulative U.S. GDP by \$1.9 trillion by 2028, and by a staggering \$12.1 trillion by 2035.
| Demographic Metric | Projected Impact of 2025-2026 Immigration Policies |
|---|---|
| Net Migration (2025) | -10,000 to -295,000 individuals |
| Labor Force Reduction (2028) | -6.8 Million workers |
| Labor Force Reduction (2035) | -15.7 Million workers |
| Cumulative GDP Loss (2035) | -$12.1 Trillion |
| Lost Worker-Years (2035) | 102 Million |
Table 4: Long-Term Impacts of Restrictive Immigration Policies on U.S. Labor Capacity. Source: NFAP and Brookings Institute.
7. Technological Substitution ($A$) and the Solow Residual
Faced with higher imported input costs due to tariffs and a shrinking labor pool due to immigration restrictions, domestic firms are forced to alter their production functions to survive. If $K$ and $H$ are constrained, firms must exponentially increase Efficiency Capacity ($A$) to maintain output ($Y$) and protect profit margins. This efficiency multiplier is often measured macroeconomically as the Solow Residual—the portion of economic growth not explained by raw capital or labor accumulation, typically attributed to technological advancement.
Throughout 2025 and early 2026, the U.S. economy witnessed a massive acceleration in the deployment of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and industrial automation. A detailed macroeconomic analysis of corporate behavior indicates that tax and tariff policies directly accelerated AI investment. Large, capital-intensive firms capable of offsetting tariff costs utilized their remaining liquidity to invest heavily in technology to defend their margins through labor cost savings.
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) reported in January 2026 that IT investment as a share of U.S. economic output surged to its highest level since 2001, providing a major boost to overall business activity and helping the global economy shake off the immediate tariff shocks. From a CBMT perspective, this represents a crucial compensatory mechanism. The aggressive expansion of $A$ (technology) is acting as a counterbalance to the degradation of $K$ (physical capital) and $L$ (labor). If AI integration yields the transformative productivity gains anticipated by hyperscalers, the long-term capacity of the U.S. economy may stabilize, validating the currency's value despite the frictional costs of protectionism. However, if this technological boom proves to be an investment bubble, the U.S. economy will be left with the unmitigated drag of capital starvation and demographic decline.
8. Corporate Strategy: Fitness Interdependence and Shared Fate
If macro-level capacity variables are under siege, micro-level entities (corporations) must adapt their internal structures to navigate the resulting high-friction environment. Capacity-Based Monetary Theory integrates the biological and evolutionary concept of "Fitness Interdependence" or "Shared Fate" to explain modern workforce design and corporate resilience.
Shared Fate in the Face of Trade Shocks
Fitness interdependence occurs when individuals or entities have a direct stake in each other's welfare, mimicking cooperative behaviors found in kin groups without requiring genetic relatedness. In the context of the 2025-2026 trade wars, U.S. firms utilized shared fate strategies to mitigate the damage caused by tariffs, supply chain disruptions, and labor shortages.
As input costs spiked and high-skill labor became scarce, companies could no longer afford the frictional costs of high employee turnover. To maximize the efficiency term ($A$) of their own micro-production functions, firms increasingly turned to specialized compensation structures to bind key talent to the organization. For senior leaders, portfolio CEOs, and critical operating executives, an increasing portion of total compensation in 2026 is provided through instruments that pay out only when value is realized. These structures include equity grants, profit interests, phantom equity, and Stock Appreciation Rights (SARs). By linking the economic survival and wealth generation of the employee directly to the long-term viability of the firm, corporate leaders intentionally engineered a state of high fitness interdependence.
This strategy extended beyond internal employee relations to broader supply chain alliances. When the initial IEEPA tariffs and subsequent Section 122 tariffs disrupted global logistics, smaller firms in exposed sectors banded together. As observed in earlier emergent markets (such as the U.S. biodiesel market defending against environmental challenges), targeted ventures experiencing a "shared fate" due to asymmetric policy threats pool their resources. In 2026, the imposition of the 10% global surcharge under Section 122 has forced traditionally competitive firms into cooperative supply-chain alliances to share the burden of increased costs, rather than passing 100% of the price hike to an already exhausted consumer base. This consensual, cooperative behavior refines mutual expectations of effort and reward, acting as an adaptive design feature for processing complex market information efficiently.
9. Sovereign Signaling and the Handicap Principle
From a geopolitical and macroeconomic standpoint, the implementation of economically damaging tariffs can be analyzed through the lens of Amotz Zahavi’s Handicap Principle, another core pillar of the CBMT framework.
The Handicap Principle, originating in evolutionary biology, suggests that sexually selected traits or behaviors function as honest signals of quality precisely because they are wastefully extravagant and costly. The classic example is the peacock's tail: only a highly fit organism can afford the metabolic cost of growing and maintaining an ornament that actively hinders its survival. A low-quality agent cannot afford to burn capital in this manner; thus, enduring a self-imposed handicap proves underlying surplus capacity.
Applying this framework to the 2026 tariff landscape reframes the administration's actions. The U.S. government's willingness to endure severe domestic economic pain—higher inflation, manufacturing job losses, supply chain chaos, and the alienation of allies—acts as a massive, costly signal to the international community, specifically geopolitical rivals like China. By willingly absorbing the deadweight loss of universal tariffs and risking a recession, the United States signals that its fundamental economic capacity ($Y$) is so vast that it can survive self-inflicted wounds that would outright destroy a weaker, export-dependent nation.
This "sovereign signaling" aims to force structural concessions from trading partners without resorting to military conflict. Indeed, the Atlantic Council noted that while the 2025 tariff shocks were deeply disruptive to global commerce, they successfully imbued U.S. trading partners with a sense of urgency regarding the need to reform the international trading system to accommodate legitimate U.S. concerns.
The effectiveness of this handicap strategy, however, relies entirely on the premise that the United States actually possesses the surplus capacity it is projecting. If the degradation of capital ($K$) and human talent ($H$) is too severe, the handicap is no longer a signal of overwhelming strength, but a catalyst for systemic economic collapse. The line between a strategic display of dominance and catastrophic self-harm is exceedingly thin.
10. Valuation in a Stochastic World: The Hamilton Filter and Regime Probabilities
To quantitatively assess the risk of this systemic collapse and accurately price the value of the U.S. dollar, CBMT employs Regime-Switching Models, specifically the Hamilton Filter. Traditional deterministic economic models fail to account for sudden breaks in the social contract or discrete, paradigm-altering shifts in trade architecture. The Hamilton Filter recursively estimates the probability of the unobserved state of the economy (e.g., Expansion vs. Recession, or Stable vs. Collapse) using prediction and update steps based on real-time macroeconomic data.
Regime Probabilities in 2026
The U.S. economy in early 2026 hovers on the precipice of a regime shift. The Hamilton Filter analyzes the variance in inflation data, GDP growth, and abrupt policy shifts to update the transition matrix of the economy. A Markov process dictates that the probability of being in a particular state is dependent upon the previous state, but exogenous shocks—such as the sudden implementation of Section 122 global tariffs—can force a discrete jump to a high-volatility regime.
Following the SCOTUS ruling and the Section 122 pivot, the filtered probability of the U.S. entering a recessionary regime has remained elevated but choppy. Some models, such as those run by Goldman Sachs Research, reduced the probability of a recession in the next 12 months from 30% to 20%, anticipating that the drag from tariffs will give way to a boost from business and personal tax cuts included in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. However, pure mathematical models utilizing the Hamilton filter on long-term time series data show that rapid, discretionary shifts in monetary and trade policy historically precede transitions into highly volatile, inflationary regimes.
Inflation, Interest Rates, and the Yield Curve
In the CBMT framework, the discount rate ($r$) represents the exchange rate between present impact and future impact. The Federal Reserve's response to the tariff-induced inflation and shifting regime probabilities dictates this rate.
Throughout late 2025, the Federal Reserve cut interest rates aggressively, bringing the target range down to 3.50% - 3.75% by December. Market consensus for 2026 projects further cuts down to 3.0%. However, the Hamilton Filter analysis of the new Section 122 tariff regime suggests a high probability of persistent, structural inflation.
The SCOTUS decision introduced a profound variable: if the Treasury is forced to refund billions in illegal IEEPA tariffs, the resulting fiscal shortfall will widen the already massive budget deficit. To finance this deficit, the Treasury must issue more debt. This supply shock, combined with the inflationary pressure of the Section 122 tariffs, fundamentally alters the yield curve. Following the February 20 ruling, the U.S. Treasury yield curve immediately steepened, with long-term rates rising as markets priced in the fiscal pressure and the potential loss of ongoing tariff revenue.
If the Hamilton Filter detects a permanent shift toward a high-inflation, high-debt regime where the "Leviathan" is losing control of the fiscal trajectory, the discount rate on future U.S. capacity will spike. This results in the structural devaluation of the currency, as investors demand higher premiums to hold U.S. debt in an unstable institutional environment.
| Macroeconomic Indicator | 2025 Status (Pre-SCOTUS) | 2026 Projection (Post-SCOTUS / Sec 122) |
|---|---|---|
| Average Effective Tariff Rate | 16.9% (with IEEPA) | 9.1% (up to 24.1% max under Sec 122) |
| Federal Funds Rate | 4.00% | 3.00% - 3.75% |
| Goldman Sachs Recession Probability | 30% | 20% |
| U.S. Treasury Yield Curve | Inverted / Normalizing | Steepening at the long end |
| Fiscal Deficit Pressure | Baseline expansion | Increased by IEEPA refund liabilities |
Table 5: Shifting Macroeconomic Regime Indicators (2025-2026). Data Aggregated from.
11. Long-Term Sectoral Reallocation
Synthesizing the variables of Capacity-Based Monetary Theory allows for a rigorous projection of the long-term impact of the 2026 trade architecture. If the administration successfully utilizes Section 122, Section 301, and Section 232 to replicate the high-tariff environment blocked by the Supreme Court, the long-term degradation of capacity is mathematically inevitable under standard growth models.
Beneath the aggregate GDP decline lies a violent sectoral reallocation. In the long run, the tariff environment forces an artificial restructuring of the U.S. economy. Because tariffs protect domestic manufacturing from foreign competition, manufacturing output is projected to expand by 1.2% in the long term. However, this expansion is deeply inefficient. The physical capital ($K$) and labor ($L$) absorbed by the protected manufacturing sector are cannibalized from other, potentially more productive areas of the economy.
Consequently, The Budget Lab projects that construction output will decline by 2.4%, and the agriculture and mining sectors will experience significant contractions exceeding 1%. This represents a net destruction of Efficiency ($A$). By sheltering industries rather than forcing them to compete on global innovation, the state subsidizes inefficiency. When combined with the deliberate restriction of high-skill human capital ($H$) via immigration cuts, the theoretical limits of U.S. production are permanently lowered.
12. Conclusion: The Valuation of Capacity
Capacity-Based Monetary Theory demonstrates that the value of a nation's currency and the stability of its economy are derivative claims on its future productive capacity. The application of this framework to the 2025-2026 U.S. tariff policies reveals a profound misalignment between short-term geopolitical tactics and long-term economic sustainability.
The immediate invalidation of the IEEPA tariffs by the Supreme Court in February 2026 successfully preserved the Institutional Realization Rate ($I$), signaling to global capital markets that the United States remains governed by the rule of law rather than unconstrained executive fiat. However, the rapid substitution of these measures with Section 122 global tariffs guarantees that Economic Policy Uncertainty (EPU) will remain a heavy friction cost on domestic investment.
In the short term, the U.S. economy may experience a localized, debt-fueled stimulus driven by tariff refunds and aggressive corporate investments in Artificial Intelligence ($A$), designed to bypass tariff-inflated supply chains and critical labor shortages. Furthermore, corporate adoption of "Fitness Interdependence" through broad-based equity compensation has temporarily stabilized the workforce in high-value sectors.
In the long term, however, the mathematics of the Augmented Solow-Swan model are unforgiving. The current trade and immigration regime systematically degrades the two most vital components of future capacity: Physical Capital ($K$), which is aggressively crowded out by the reduction in global trade flows and rising sovereign debt issuance; and Human Capital ($H$), which is crippled by demographic stagnation and the legislative rejection of high-skill STEM talent.
If money is truly a priced bet on the future impact of a society, the 2026 tariff landscape forces the global market to underwrite a U.S. economy that is deliberately shrinking its own productive horizons. While the application of the Handicap Principle suggests that this economic self-harm is a calculated geopolitical signal of dominance, it carries extreme systemic risk. Unless the costly signal of the trade war rapidly yields a more favorable, frictionless global trade architecture, the underlying collateral of the U.S. economy will degrade, necessitating a structural, downward repricing of the nation's capacity in the decades to come.
-
CBMT
Trump Tariffs: Tracking the Economic Impact of the Trump Trade War - Tax Foundation, accessed February 21, 2026, https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/trump-tariffs-trade-war/
Economic issues to watch in 2026 - Brookings Institution, accessed February 21, 2026, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/economic-issues-to-watch-in-2026/
Supreme Court Overturns Trump’s IEEPA Tariffs, accessed February 21, 2026, https://www.clarkhill.com/news-events/news/supreme-court-overturns-trumps-ieepa-tariffs/
Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump | 607 U.S. ___ (2026), accessed February 21, 2026, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/607/24-1287/
The Supreme Court’s IEEPA Tariff Ruling: Next Steps, Potential Refunds, and Guidance for Businesses, accessed February 21, 2026, https://www.flexport.com/blog/the-supreme-courts-ieepa-tariff-ruling-next-steps-potential-refunds-and/
Supreme Court Rules Most of Trump’s Tariffs Are Illegal, accessed February 21, 2026, https://time.com/7380033/supreme-court-tarriffs-ruling-trump/
Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Modifies the Scope of Reciprocal Tariffs and Establishes Procedures for Implementing Trade Deals - The White House, accessed February 21, 2026, https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/09/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-modifies-the-scope-of-reciprocal-tariffs-and-establishes-procedures-for-implementing-trade-deals/
Supreme Court Strikes Down IEEPA Tariffs: What Importers Need to Know Now, accessed February 21, 2026, https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2026/02/supreme-court-strikes-down-ieepa-tariffs
Can Trump overturn Supreme Court tariff ruling? What US Constitution says, accessed February 21, 2026, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/can-trump-overturn-supreme-court-tariff-ruling-what-us-constitution-says/articleshow/128616123.cms
Cary Coglianese on the Tariff Ruling and the Rule of Law, accessed February 21, 2026, https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/news/18334-cary-coglianese-on-the-tariff-ruling-and-the-rule-of-l
Trump tariff court ruling does little to end uncertainty for global business, accessed February 21, 2026, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/feb/20/trump-tariff-scotus-trade-business-uncertainty
Trump slams justices after Supreme Court strikes down most of his tariffs, accessed February 21, 2026, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/02/20/trump-tariffs-supreme-court-decision/
World Insights: U.S. tariff ruling brings relief but renewed uncertainty to global trade, accessed February 21, 2026, https://english.news.cn/northamerica/20260221/14e57c55c93a482d97ff6ab179cf2655/c.html
Supreme Court Restricts Presidential Tariff Authority Under IEEPA, accessed February 21, 2026, https://www.bhfs.com/insight/supreme-court-restricts-presidential-tariff-authority-under-ieepa/
The Economic Effects of President Trump's Tariffs - Penn Wharton Budget Model, accessed February 21, 2026, https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2025/4/10/economic-effects-of-president-trumps-tariffs
Economic Policy Uncertainty for United States - 2026 Data 2027 Forecast 1985 Historical, accessed February 21, 2026, https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/economic-policy-uncertainty-index-for-united-states-fed-data.html
Economic Policy Uncertainty Index for United States (USEPUINDXD) | FRED | St. Louis Fed, accessed February 21, 2026, https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/USEPUINDXD
U.S. businesses report that tariff policies will likely lead to price increases and labor market impacts in 2026 - Equitable Growth, accessed February 21, 2026, https://equitablegrowth.org/u-s-businesses-report-that-tariff-policies-will-likely-lead-to-price-increases-and-labor-market-impacts-in-2026/
US International Trade and Investment: Key Shifts in 2025 and What ..., accessed February 21, 2026, https://www.morganlewis.com/pubs/2026/01/us-international-trade-and-investment-key-shifts-in-2025-and-what-businesses-should-know-for-2026
Who bears the cost of Trump’s tariffs?, accessed February 21, 2026, https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-economics/donald-trump-tariffs-us-who-pays-10543096/
The U.S. economy in 2026: What to watch for | Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research (SIEPR), accessed February 21, 2026, https://siepr.stanford.edu/publications/policy-brief/us-economy-2026-what-watch
Who Is Paying for the 2025 U.S. Tariffs? - Liberty Street Economics, accessed February 21, 2026, https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2026/02/who-is-paying-for-the-2025-u-s-tariffs/
State of U.S. Tariffs: SCOTUS Ruling Update | The Budget Lab at Yale, accessed February 21, 2026, https://budgetlab.yale.edu/research/state-us-tariffs-february-20-2026
US economic growth slowed in fourth quarter of 2025 amid government shutdown, accessed February 21, 2026, https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/feb/20/economic-growth-fourth-quarter-2025
Gold jumps on soft US GDP and Trump’s new tariffs, accessed February 21, 2026, https://www.nationthailand.com/business/trading-investment/40062789
Supreme Court decision unlikely to end US tariffs, accessed February 21, 2026, https://www.invesco.com/us/en/insights/supreme-court-decision-unlikely-end-us-tariffs.html
The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2026 to 2036, accessed February 21, 2026, https://www.cbo.gov/publication/62105
Four reasons Trump's economic agenda hasn't tanked the economy - Brookings Institution, accessed February 21, 2026, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/four-reasons-trumps-economic-agenda-hasnt-tanked-the-economy/
Macroeconomic implications of immigration flows in 2025 and 2026: January 2026 update - Brookings Institution, accessed February 21, 2026, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/macroeconomic-implications-of-immigration-flows-in-2025-and-2026-january-2026-update/
october 2025 - the economic impact of the trump administration's immigration policies executive summary - NFAP, accessed February 21, 2026, https://nfap.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Economic-Impact-of-The-Trump-Administration-Immigration-Policies.NFAP-Policy-Brief.2025-1.pdf
National Foundation for American Policy - NFAP, accessed February 21, 2026, https://nfap.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Economic-Impact-of-Trump-Admin-Immigration-Pollicies.DAY-OF-RELEASE.Oct-2025-1.pdf
Key STEM OPT Extension Data for International Students in 2026 - Alma Immigration, accessed February 21, 2026, https://www.tryalma.com/learn/stem-opt-extension-statistics
New SEVIS Data Points Towards Worrying Trends in U.S. International Student Enrollment Amid Policy Uncertainty, Presidents' Alliance Warns, accessed February 21, 2026, https://www.presidentsalliance.org/press/new-sevis-data-points-towards-worrying-trends-in-u-s-international-student-enrollment-amid-policy-uncertainty-presidents-alliance-warns/
Global Economy Shakes Off Tariff Shock Amid Tech-Driven Boom, accessed February 21, 2026, https://www.imf.org/en/blogs/articles/2026/01/19/global-economy-shakes-off-tariff-shock-amid-tech-driven-boom
How Tariffs and Technology Reshaped the U.S. Economy in 2025 – and What Comes Next, accessed February 21, 2026, https://www.pimco.com/us/en/insights/how-tariffs-and-technology-reshaped-the-us-economy-in-2025-and-what-comes-next
Consensus, cooperation and collective intelligence in foraging societies | Hunter Gatherer Research - Liverpool University Press, accessed February 21, 2026, https://www.liverpooluniversitypress.co.uk/doi/abs/10.3828/hgr.2026.9
Sources of Fitness Interdependence Associated with Shared Fate and Cooperation in a Small-scale Horticultural Society - ResearchGate, accessed February 21, 2026, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/390466156_Sources_of_Fitness_Interdependence_Associated_with_Shared_Fate_and_Cooperation_in_a_Small-scale_Horticultural_Society
Private Equity Compensation Trends for 2026: Precision, Performance, and Pay for Value Creation - Buffkin Baker, accessed February 21, 2026, https://buffkinbaker.com/blog/private-equity-compensation-trends-for-2026-precision-performance-and-pay-for-value-creation/
MIT Sloan w26 Low Res | PDF | Artificial Intelligence - Scribd, accessed February 21, 2026, https://www.scribd.com/document/990406591/MIT-Sloan-w26-Low-Res
Shared Fate and Entrepreneurial Collective Action in the U.S. Wood Pellet Market | Organization Science - PubsOnLine, accessed February 21, 2026, https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/orsc.2021.1532
Handicap principle - Wikipedia, accessed February 21, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handicap_principle
Blatant Benevolence and Conspicuous Consumption: When romantic motives elicit strategic costly signals, accessed February 21, 2026, https://research.vu.nl/ws/files/3029946/278976.pdf
How 2025's US tariff shocks can give way to constructive reforms in 2026 - Atlantic Council, accessed February 21, 2026, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/dispatches/how-2025s-us-tariff-shocks-can-give-way-to-constructive-reforms-in-2026/
RDP 9611: A Markov-Switching Model of Inflation in Australia, accessed February 21, 2026, https://www.rba.gov.au/publications/rdp/1996/9611/markov-switching-models.html
State-Dependent and Time-Varying Effects of Monetary Policy - Taylor & Francis, accessed February 21, 2026, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00128775.2025.2456281
US GDP Growth Is Projected to Outperform Economist Forecasts in 2026 | Goldman Sachs, accessed February 21, 2026, https://www.goldmansachs.com/insights/articles/us-gdp-growth-is-projected-to-outperform-economist-forecasts-in-2026
Fed Outlook 2026: Rate Forecasts and Fixed Income Strategies - iShares, accessed February 21, 2026, https://www.ishares.com/us/insights/fed-outlook-2026-interest-rate-forecast
United States Fed Funds Interest Rate - Trading Economics, accessed February 21, 2026, https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/interest-rate
Quick View: Supreme Court Blocks Trump's Emergency Tariffs – What It Means for Trade, Markets and Policy - Janus Henderson Investors, accessed February 21, 2026, https://www.janushenderson.com/en-us/investor/article/quick-view-supreme-court-blocks-trumps-emergency-tariffs-what-it-means-for-trade-markets-and-policy/
State of U.S. Tariffs: SCOTUS Ruling Update, accessed February 21, 2026, https://budgetlab.yale.edu/research/state-us-tariffs-scotus-ruling-update