Donald Trump says his escalating trade war with Canada will revive American manufacturing. But a University of Pennsylvania economist is warning that the immediate result will be far less triumphant: Americans paying more money for fewer choices and potentially lower-quality goods.

Dr. Ioana Marinescu, a professor at Penn’s School of Social Policy and Practice who also works with its Economics Department and Wharton School, said tariffs on Canadian imports will inevitably impose costs on ordinary consumers.

Her assessment carries an ironic connection to the president. Wharton is Trump’s own alma mater.

Speaking with AlterNet, Marinescu explained that Americans import products because they are less expensive, higher quality or unavailable from domestic suppliers. Once tariffs are applied—or imports become difficult to obtain—those advantages begin to disappear.

“The immediate effect is definitely negative for the consumer,” she said.

Americans will pay the tariff bill

Trump frequently presents tariffs as a financial punishment paid by foreign countries. In practice, importers face the tariff, and at least part of that additional expense can be passed along to American consumers through higher prices.

Marinescu offered a straightforward thought experiment: Imagine a household attempting to purchase exactly the same products over the next year that it bought previously.

If new tariffs cover some of those goods, maintaining that same shopping basket will cost more.

Consumers may attempt to switch to American-made or non-Canadian alternatives. But those substitutions can still leave families paying a higher price, accepting lower quality or abandoning products they previously enjoyed.

A shopper might give up a favorite imported food because it has become prohibitively expensive. A business could replace a specialized Canadian component with a more costly alternative. Either way, the consumer’s overall position becomes worse.

Tariffs can sometimes be defended as part of a longer-term industrial strategy, Marinescu acknowledged. But their immediate impact is much clearer: higher costs and reduced consumer welfare.

Trump’s insults created a new kind of conflict

The trade confrontation has also been intensified by rhetoric that goes far beyond ordinary negotiations over taxes, regulations and market access.

Trump and members of his administration have repeatedly insulted Canada, floated the idea of turning it into America’s 51st state and promoted controversial changes to familiar geographic names.

Those attacks have hardened Canadian attitudes and introduced emotion and national pride into an already volatile economic dispute.

Marinescu declined to judge whether the strategy could produce political leverage, noting that negotiations become difficult to predict when one side abandons established expectations.

From an economic perspective, such conflicts resemble a strategic game in which every action changes what each participant believes about the other’s future behavior.

“We are in a new game here that isn’t the one that was played before,” she explained.

That uncertainty matters because companies make major investments based on expectations extending years or decades—not the duration of a single Truth Social post or presidential term.

Will factories really return to America?

Trump argues that tariffs will force foreign companies to move manufacturing into the United States.

Marinescu said some production could relocate at the margins, but she considers a large-scale shift unlikely under the present conditions.

One reason is that Canada is not the only alternative. If Canadian imports become too expensive, American companies may simply purchase similar goods from other countries rather than construct new factories in the United States.

Tariffs would need to be exceptionally high—and potentially applied much more broadly—to make domestic production the cheapest option in many industries.

Even then, businesses would confront a dangerous question: How long will those tariffs remain?

Building a factory requires enormous upfront investment. If a company opens an expensive American plant protected by high tariffs, a future administration could lower those barriers and expose the new facility to cheaper foreign competition.

Investors must therefore believe that the policy will survive political change. Trump’s unpredictable decisions and the possibility of a future reversal make that confidence difficult to establish.

The result could be the worst of both worlds: consumers paying higher prices now, while the promised manufacturing renaissance never fully materializes.

Social Security cuts would hit the poorest hardest

Marinescu also addressed proposed reductions to Social Security and other federal protections on which millions of Americans depend.

She warned that reducing retirement benefits would disproportionately harm lower-income people because wealthier retirees are more likely to have savings, investments and employer-sponsored retirement accounts.

For someone with few assets, Social Security can mean the difference between basic financial stability and poverty.

The program was created in response to widespread hardship among older Americans who could no longer work and had little money saved. Marinescu noted that elderly poverty fell dramatically following its introduction.

Reversing that support would plausibly push old-age poverty upward again.

Even if benefit reductions technically affect people across income groups, losing each dollar is more damaging to someone who has almost nothing than to someone with substantial private wealth.

Weaker unions in the age of AI

The economist also warned about weakening labor protections at a moment when artificial intelligence and technological change are transforming the workplace.

Workers could benefit enormously from new technology over the long term, she said, but the transition may bring displacement and lost bargaining power.

Unions are one mechanism through which workers can claim a share of productivity gains and influence how new technologies are introduced. Further eroding union protections could leave employees carrying the costs of disruption while corporations and investors capture most of the benefits.

Taken together, Marinescu’s analysis presents a stark challenge to Trump’s economic promises.

Tariffs may hurt Canada—but they also hurt American consumers. They might shift limited production to the United States—but only if companies believe the policy will last. Cuts to social protections may reduce federal spending—but at the cost of greater hardship among those least able to absorb it.

Trump has framed his economic confrontation as a display of national strength. The warning from his own alma mater is much less flattering: American families may be the ones forced to pay for it.