President Donald Trump is using tariffs to disrupt nearly everything about the global trade order. Except for a tariff policy that favors men over women.

For decades, the US tariff system has taxed women’s clothing more heavily than men’s. Tariffs on women’s clothing are currently about three percent higher than men’s, a policy that’s known as “pink tariffs” — similar to the “pink tax” that makes the same products for women more expensive than men’s.

That means women pay an average extra dollar per garment compared to men, costing them more than $2 billion a year, according to research by Edward Gresser, vice president and director for trade and global markets at the Progressive Policy Institute, a left-leaning think tank.

And with Trump imposing 10% tariffs on most trading partners, with even higher levies for Canada, Mexico and China, the cost for women could easily go higher.

“As he is instituting massive new tariffs, President Trump is missing a chance to tackle historically regressive and misogynistic traits” of the global free trade system, said Steve Lamar, the president of the American Apparel & Footwear Association.

Most manufactured apparel and footwear are classified by gender in the US Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS), which sets out the tariff rates for all categories of merchandise imported into the United States. Tariff rates on women’s clothing were, on average, 16.7% in 2022 — 2.9 percentage points higher than the 13.6% average tariff rate for men’s clothing, according to Gresser.

Breaking it down to individual items: Women’s suits in 2017, for example, were subject to a 15.1% tariff rate, while men’s suits were subject to a 13.3% tariff. Women’s underwear was hit with a 12.8% tariff, while men’s underwear had an 8.6% tariff.

There’s no single reason why tariffs on women’s clothing are higher than men’s, but the policy has taken shape over decades.

During the 1930s and 1940s, when America helped design the global free trading system, women’s clothing production was a smaller industry while men’s clothing was a major source of employment and an economic driver. US textile and apparel manufacturers at the time were more focused on lobbying to lower tariffs and end trade barriers on men’s clothing, trade experts say. The current tariff gap is a relic of that old trade regime.

Companies have attempted to end the gender bias in tariff rates. Steve Madden, Asics, Columbia Sportswear and other companies sued the government in 2007 to strike down the tariff policy, but the suit failed because courts ruled that the tariff gaps were not designed to be discriminatory.

There also has been little movement from the federal government to fix the policy. But this year, two Democratic lawmakers, Rep. Lizzie Fletcher of Texas and Rep. Brittany Pettersen of Colorado, introduced legislation known as the “Pink Tariffs Study Act” that would direct the Treasury Department and other agencies to examine the impact of tariffs on women and other consumer groups.

Trump’s tariffs could unintentionally narrow the gender gap by raising the floor of tariffs on men’s clothing, however, said Lori Taylor, a professor in the department of public service and administration at Texas A&M who studies trade policy.

But Trump’s tariffs will ultimately impact women more than men because women spend more money on average on clothing. In 2023, household spending on women’s apparel averaged $655, compared with $406 for men’s apparel, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

“My policy preference would have been to lower tariffs for both men’s and women’s clothing” to reduce the gap, Taylor said.

Hitting low-income families hardest

Trump’s tariffs will have an outsized impact on clothing because nearly all clothing sold in the United States is imported.

Consumers immediately will face 64% higher apparel prices from Trump’s tariffs, according to the Yale Budget Lab.

Tariff disparities aren’t just between women and men. Tariffs will hurt lower-income households and the goods they rely on more than wealthier households.

That’s because lower-income consumers spend a greater share of their income on basic clothing and necessities than higher-income consumers. Tariffs also tax cheap, mass-market goods at higher rates than luxury items.

Socks, underwear, t-shirts, sneakers and other clothing basics have higher tariff rates than luxury items because tariffs vary by fabric content, said Sheng Lu, a professor of fashion and apparel studies at the University of Delaware. High-end fabrics such as wool, cashmere and silk have lower tariff rates than the cotton, polyester and nylon used to manufacture inexpensive clothing and sneakers.

Prices for clothing basics will also rise more quickly than luxury items because of Trump’s tariffs, trade experts say, because basics typically have little markup. That leaves companies with less room to absorb higher costs.

“The cost increase will be higher at the low end than at the luxury end,” Edward Gresser said. “Hourly-wage America will be carrying a lot of the tariff burden.”