For decades, women have unknowingly paid more for everyday clothing, not because of brand differences or design complexities, but due to outdated tariff rules baked into the US trade system. These pricing discrepancies, often called “pink tariffs,” place a heavier financial burden on women simply for buying gender-specific apparel.
While discussions around wage equality and representation have gained traction, this less-visible form of inequality affects millions of shoppers annually.
The Hidden Cost of Gendered Tariff Rates
The US Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS), which outlines how imported products are taxed, still classifies most clothing and footwear by gender. As a result, items designed for women are taxed at higher rates than comparable men’s products.
According to research from Edward Gresser of the Progressive Policy Institute, the average tariff on women’s clothing stood at 16.7%, compared to 13.6% for men’s items in 2022.
When broken down further:
– Women’s suits were taxed at 15.1%, while men’s suits faced a 13.3% rate.
– Women’s underwear had a 12.8% tariff, while men’s versions came in at just 8.6%.
This pricing difference means women pay roughly an extra dollar per garment, adding up to over $2 billion each year.
Where Did This Tariff Gap Come From?
The disparity dates back to the early 20th century, when the US helped shape the global trade system. During that time, men’s clothing manufacturing played a more significant economic role, so lobbyists focused on securing favorable tariff policies for that segment. Women’s apparel, then a smaller part of the industry, didn’t receive the same attention or trade advantages.
This gendered gap in tariffs wasn’t deliberately designed to discriminate, and courts have upheld it as lawful. In 2007, several major companies tried to challenge the system, but the courts ruled that the differences stemmed from longstanding trade practices, not targeted bias.
Attempts to Fix the Inequity
Despite industry pushback, little progress has been made in updating this tariff structure. However, some movement is underway. Two Democratic lawmakers introduced a bill called the “Pink Tariffs Study Act,” which would require the Treasury and other agencies to study how tariffs impact women and different consumer groups. If passed, this could be a key step toward fairer trade practices.
Steve Lamar, head of the American Apparel & Footwear Association, emphasized the missed opportunity. He noted, “While the administration is reworking much of our trade system, it’s unfortunate that this outdated bias hasn’t been addressed.”
Tariffs and the Broader Impact on Consumers
Clothing tariffs don’t only affect shoppers based on gender. They also hit lower-income households harder than wealthier ones. That’s because budget-conscious shoppers spend a larger portion of their income on basics like socks, t-shirts, and sneakers—items that often carry higher tariffs than luxury goods.
Sheng Lu, a professor of fashion and apparel studies at the University of Delaware, explained that fabric plays a big role in how much an item is taxed. Everyday materials like cotton, polyester, and nylon attract steeper tariffs than high-end fabrics such as silk, wool, or cashmere. That means basic items commonly purchased by working-class families are taxed more aggressively.
Since low-cost clothing often operates on tight profit margins, brands can’t easily absorb the added expenses, which are passed directly to the customer.
Edward Gresser summed up the imbalance clearly: “People working hourly jobs will feel this increase more than anyone else. Price hikes on basics hit them the hardest.”
New Tariff Rules Could Worsen the Problem
Under recent trade policies, including tariffs imposed on a wide range of imports, the situation may only get worse. In particular, tariffs introduced during President Donald Trump’s term added significant new charges on imported goods. Many trading partners, including Canada, Mexico, and China, faced these new rules.
Yale Budget Lab researchers estimate that these newer tariffs could drive apparel prices up by more than 60%. And since women typically spend more on clothing than men—$655 vs. $406 per household in 2023, based on Bureau of Labor Statistics data—the impact will again fall disproportionately on women.
Lori Taylor, a professor at Texas A&M, pointed out that even if new tariffs apply equally to men’s and women’s goods, women still end up paying more because of how much more they buy. “Reducing tariffs across the board for both genders would have been a smarter move,” she said.
Time for a Modern Tariff System
The current system no longer reflects modern consumer habits or values. People shop across categories, and rigid gender classifications in trade law feel increasingly out of touch. While new legislation like the “Pink Tariffs Study Act” could help identify these gaps, real change will likely require significant pressure on lawmakers and trade authorities to update tariff categories and rates.
The tariff system, as it stands today, still reflects choices made nearly a century ago. With mounting evidence of how these outdated rules harm both gender equality and economic fairness, there’s a growing need to rethink how tariffs are applied in the modern retail landscape.