NBA YoungBoy and the Law: The Latest in a Long Line of Legal Troubles

By: Curtis Roselle

Edited by: Avigna Ramachandran and william liu

Prescription Drug Fraud Case

Despite his success as a musical artist, rapper NBA YoungBoy has had more than his fair share of run-ins with the law. Most recently, the 25-year-old artist, whose real name is Kentrell Gaulden, faced 46 charges for his role in a large-scale prescription drug fraud ring that involved impersonating a doctor to fill prescriptions for promethazine with codeine, an addictive opioid coformulation. Gaulden pled guilty to two counts of third-degree felony identity fraud, two counts of third-degree felony forgery, and six counts of misdemeanor unlawful pharmacy conduct. He opted to enter a “no contest” plea for the remainder of the charges. Although he pleaded guilty to four of the felony charges, he did not face prison time and was only required to pay a $25,000 fine instead. [1] However, this outcome does not imply that Gaulden is free to go. 

Firearms Case

Prior to his arrest in April 2024 for the aforementioned drug fraud ring, Gaulden was already awaiting trial for a federal firearms case stemming from an arrest in 2021. [2] Shortly after Gaulden’s sentencing in the prescription drug case, a federal judge imposed a 23-month prison sentence for the rapper’s involvement in the firearms case. Gaulden was caught with a Glock 21 .45-caliber pistol and a Masterpiece Arms MPA30T 9mm handgun while filming a music video in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. He also admitted to possessing a Sig Sauer 9mm semi-automatic pistol at his home in Huntsville, Utah. [3] In light of his conviction for a firearm-related aggravated assault in 2017, Gaulden was not permitted to have access to them. In addition to serving prison time, Gaulden will be under supervised probation for five years and must pay an additional $25,000 fine. [4]

Legal Outcome and Reactions

When considering Gaulden’s maximum prison sentences in both legal proceedings—10 years for the Louisiana firearms case and 15 years for the Utah prescription drug fraud case—Gaulden was fortunate to receive relatively lenient punishments. [5] Gauldens legal team worked diligently to reach a deal, stating, “This has been a long road that involved extensive litigation and ultimately extensive negotiation.” Gaulden’s legal team is optimistic about the result of the Utah case, noting they are “very happy for Kentrell and look forward to his many future successes.” [6] While the sentence was intended to conclude in December 2025, Gaulden will be released on July 27, 2025, receiving credit for time served. [7] Upon his release, Gaulden seeks to continue making music, as encouraged by Spencer Walsh, the judge who sentenced him. Walsh said to Gaulden, “I’ve seen so many times where you have young men and women who have a lot of talent and potential. They can be robbed of that potential when they start to really struggle with their addictions,” adding, “I don’t want that for you.” [8] After evading harsh sentences, only time will tell if Gaulden will take advantage of this second chance. Hopefully the next few months will be enough time for Gaulden to both reflect on his actions and gain the desire to make a true lifestyle change. With this case being far from Gaulden’s first conflict with the law, the amount of leniency that he has been shown is unprecedented. If Gaulden can take advantage of what may be his final chance to become a law-abiding citizen before the book is thrown at him, this case will serve as a prime example of the efficiency and effectiveness of rehabilitation over incarceration.

Notes:

1. Associated Press, "Rapper NBA YoungBoy Pleads Guilty to Federal Gun Charge in Utah," AP News, September 6, 2024.

2. Taijuan Moorman, "NBA YoungBoy Pleads Guilty in Utah Prescription Drug Case," USA Today, November 19, 2024.

3. The Guardian, "NBA YoungBoy Pleads Guilty to Federal Gun Charge," August 20, 2024.

4. Ethan Shanfield, "NBA YoungBoy Arrested in Utah on Gun and Drug Charges," Variety, 2024.

5. The Salt Lake Tribune, "NBA YoungBoy Sentenced in Federal Gun Case," December 13, 2024.

6. The Guardian, "Rapper NBA YoungBoy Sentenced to Prison in Federal Gun Case," December 11, 2024.

7. Peter Aitken, "NBA YoungBoy's Prison Release Date Revealed in Plea Deal," Newsweek, 2024.

8. ABC4, "NBA YoungBoy Pleads Guilty to Drug Fraud Charge in Utah," 2024.

Bibliography:

ABC4. "NBA YoungBoy Pleads Guilty to Drug Fraud Charge in Utah." ABC4, 2024. https://abc4.com/news/local-news/nba-youngboy-pleads-guilty-drug-fraud.

Aitken, Peter. "NBA YoungBoy's Prison Release Date Revealed in Plea Deal." Newsweek, 2024. https://newsweek.com/rapper-nba-youngboy-prison-release-date-plea-deal-2013571.

Associated Press. "Rapper NBA YoungBoy Pleads Guilty to Federal Gun Charge in Utah." AP News, September 6, 2024. https://apnews.com/article/nba-youngboy-gaulden-guilty-plea-utah-929ba3f0ff2a4efa9e1ce48c6fec6542.

Moorman, Taijuan. "NBA YoungBoy Pleads Guilty in Utah Prescription Drug Case." USA Today, November 19, 2024. https://usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/2024/11/19/nba-youngboy-guilty-utah-prescription-drug.

Shanfield, Ethan. "NBA YoungBoy Arrested in Utah on Gun and Drug Charges." Variety, 2024. https://variety.com/2024/music/news/nba-youngboy-arrested-utah-gun-drug-charges-1235973951.

The Guardian. "NBA YoungBoy Pleads Guilty to Federal Gun Charge." The Guardian, August 20, 2024. https://theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/20/rapper-nba-youngboy-pleads-guilty-gun-charge.

The Guardian. "Rapper NBA YoungBoy Sentenced to Prison in Federal Gun Case." The Guardian, December 11, 2024. https://theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/11/rapper-nba-youngboy-prison-sentence.

The Salt Lake Tribune. "NBA YoungBoy Sentenced in Federal Gun Case." The Salt Lake Tribune, December 13, 2024.https://sltrib.com/news/nation-world/2024/12/13/nba-youngboy-sentenced-federal-gun.

The Legal Implications of Rescheduling Cannabis

By: Hannah Fergus

Edited by: Alanna Liu and Anna Dellit

The Biden administration’s decision to reclassify cannabis from a Schedule I to Schedule III substance under the Controlled Substance Act (CSA) marks a historic shift in drug policy with wide-ranging legal and regulatory implications. As a Schedule I substance, cannabis and its use are subject to severe legal restrictions and regulations, with no recognized medical use and severe criminal penalties. Reclassifying the substance would acknowledge its medical benefits, reduce legal penalties, and provide tax advantages for cannabis businesses. However, rescheduling would also create new conflicts between federal and state laws, especially in states where cannabis is legal for recreational use or where certain frameworks like state-run medical programs and interstate commerce function independently of federal laws.  Without broader federal cannabis reform, legal uncertainties will persist and leave state and federal policies at odds.

Understanding the Legal Shift: Schedule I to Schedule III

Schedule I substances are defined by the CSA as having a high potential for abuse, no accepted medicinal use, and a lack of accepted safety when used under medical supervision. [1] Cannabis has been classified as a Schedule I substance since the CSA was passed in 1970, despite growing medical and scientific evidence supporting its therapeutic benefits.  Schedule III substances, including ketamine, anabolic steroids, and testosterone, are recognized for their medical use and are subject to fewer legal restrictions than Schedule I substances. [2]

Rescheduling cannabis to a Schedule III substance would carry several important ramifications.

• Medical Recognition: The rescheduling would formally legalize cannabis for medical use, allowing patients to use it for therapeutic benefits including for cancer patients going through chemotherapy in helping with pain, nausea, and increasing their appetites. [3]  

• Reduced Criminal Penalties: The penalty for possession of a Schedule I or II drug is more than double that of possession of a Schedule III drug. [4]  Rescheduling cannabis would mean that the punishment for a small amount of marajuana wouldn’t be the same as a small amount of cocaine or heroin.

• Tax Benefits: Businesses selling marijuana in states where it is legal wouldn’t be prevented from taking tax deductions as they are now under IRS Code Section 280E. [5] 

Despite these benefits, rescheduling cannabis does not mean that it will be legal in every state, and there will still be significant legal conflicts between federal and state laws.

Conflicts with State Laws

Although cannabis remains federally illegal, many states have laws that legalize it for medicinal and/or recreational use.  These states often simply operate under the assumption that federal authorities will not aggressively enforce the CSA against compliant state-regulated businesses. Statements at the federal level further reinforced this assumption, including the Cole Memorandum, which states that federal attorneys shouldn’t pursue convictions for cannabis offenses in states where it was recreationally legalized. [6]  Rescheduling cannabis to Schedule III further complicates this legal unbalance without resolving the current issues in enforcement.

1. State-Legal Recreational Cannabis Markets

One major issue that would arise from the rescheduling is that recreational cannabis would still remain illegal under federal law.  Nearly every state allows some form of access to cannabis, and 24 states allow full access to adults and for medical use. [7]  These states still have complex systems to regulate the sale, taxation, and distribution of cannabis, but the reclassification would mean that cannabis is still a federally controlled prescription drug.  

For example, Colorado’s 64th Amendment allows the use of marijuana for anyone 21 and over and that its taxation and regulation is the same as for alcohol. [8]  Similarly, California’s Proposition 64 law allows the use of marijuana for all those over the age of 21 and even reduces punishments for marijuana related offenses for minors, governed by the Bureau of Cannabis Control. [9]  The rescheduling would mean that the production and distribution of cannabis could be subject to FDA and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) oversight, which would not align with these state programs.  The federal government would have to decide whether or not to pursue consequences for businesses operations outside of FDA regulations.

2. Existing State Medical Cannabis Programs

Rescheduling would also disrupt state programs that allow medicinal cannabis use that have long histories of operating independently of FDA approval.  These states often have their own programs that regulate medical cannabis, which allows physicians to recommend rather than prescribe cannabis to patients of any age.  These programs function under the assumption that cannabis isn’t included in the scope of traditional pharmaceutical regulation.  

Enacted in March 2021, New York’s Marihuana Regulation and Taxation Act (MRTA) has improved the Medical Cannabis Program by expanding the number of conditions that qualify and increasing the dispensing limits and types of products allowed to be used as medical treatment. [10] Similarly, Florida’s Second Amendment establishes clear and well-defined frameworks for doctors to use when prescribing medical marijuana. [11]  The reclassification would mean that cannabis would fall under FDA prescription drug regulations, meaning it would have to go through the official FDA development and approval process. [12]  State medical cannabis programs could be directly violating federal law, and doctors would be unable to simply recommend rather than officially prescribe the use of cannabis.  It would have to be formally prescribed, hurting patients who rely on products solely sold in dispensaries.

3. Interstate Commerce and Transport Issues

Rescheduling could further complicate state cannabis commerce and supply chains.  Many states have laws that allow cannabis businesses to operate within state lines but prohibit interstate cannabis transport due to federal prohibition.  If the DEA reclassifies cannabis as Schedule III, federal rules governing pharmaceutical distribution may apply.  For example, Oregan passed Senate Bill 582 saying the state may enter into an agreement with another state to transport cannabis across state lines to conduct business in both states. [13] However, under a Schedule III framework, only DEA-licensed entities may distribute controlled substances, which would interfere with state laws such as Oregon’s Senate Bill and may prevent the state’s control over transportation with other states.

Conclusion

While rescheduling cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III is an important step toward federal reform, it does not fully resolve the legal conflicts between state and federal law. The reclassification may lead to increased medical benefits, tax relief for businesses, and a shift in criminal enforcement priorities. However, it also introduces new challenges, particularly for recreational markets, state medical programs, and interstate commerce regulations.  Ultimately, unless Congress enacts broader cannabis reform—such as descheduling entirely or implementing a federal-state regulatory framework—legal uncertainties will persist.

Notes:

1. Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 812 

2. “Drug Scheduling.” United States Drug Enforcement Administration. DEA, July 10, 2018. https://www.dea.gov/drug-information/drug-scheduling 

3. Muhammad Hossain and Han Chae. “Medical Cannabis: From Research Breakthroughs To Shifting Public Perceptions and Ensuring Safe Use.” National Library of Medicine. 13, no. 4 (2024). https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11617882/

4. “Laws Governing Drug Use.” Drexel University. Drexel University. ​​https://drexel.edu/studentlife/community-standards/code-of-conduct/drug-free-schools-and-community-act/drug-use 

5. “IRS: Marijuana Remains a Schedule I controlled substance; Internal Revenue Code Section 280 E still applies.” IRS. IRS, June 28, 2024. https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/irs-marijuana-remains-a-schedule-i-controlled-substance-internal-revenue-code-section-280e-still-applies#:~:text=Section%20280E%20disallows%20all%20deductions,the%20federal%20Controlled%20Substances%20Act. 

6. Cole Memorandum, U.S. Department of Justice (2013). https://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/3052013829132756857467.pdf 

7. “Map Monday: Nearly Every State Redefining Cannabis Access.” National Conference of State Legislatures. NCLS, Dec 11, 2023. ​​https://www.ncsl.org/resources/map-monday-nearly-every-state-redefining-cannabis-access 

8. Colorado Constitution, Art. XVIII, Sec. 16

9. California Proposition 64 (2016), Business and Professions Code §§ 26000-26231.2

10. “NYS Medical Cannabis Program.” Office of Cannabis Management, New York State Department of Health. https://cannabis.ny.gov/medical-cannabis 

11. Florida Constitution, Art. X, Sec. 29; Fla. Stat. § 381.986

12. “Development & Approval Process: Drugs.” U.S. Food and Drug Administration, FDA, August 8, 2022. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/development-approval-process-drugs 

13. Oregon Senate Bill 582 (2019)

Bibliography:

California Proposition 64 (2016), Business and Professions Code §§ 26000-26231.2

Cole Memorandum, U.S. Department of Justice (2013). https://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/3052013829132756857467.pdf 

Colorado Constitution, Art. XVIII, Sec. 16

Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 812 

“Development & Approval Process: Drugs.” U.S. Food and Drug Administration, FDA, August 8, 2022. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/development-approval-process-drugs 

“Drug Scheduling.” United States Drug Enforcement Administration. DEA, July 10, 2018. https://www.dea.gov/drug-information/drug-scheduling 

Florida Constitution, Art. X, Sec. 29; Fla. Stat. § 381.986

Hossain, Muhammad  and Chae, Han. “Medical Cannabis: From Research Breakthroughs To Shifting Public Perceptions and Ensuring Safe Use.” National Library of Medicine. 13, no. 4 (2024). https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11617882/

“IRS: Marijuana Remains a Schedule I controlled substance; Internal Revenue Code Section 280 E still applies.” IRS. IRS, June 28, 2024. https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/irs-marijuana-remains-a-schedule-i-controlled-substance-internal-revenue-code-section-280e-still-applies#:~:text=Section%20280E%20disallows%20all%20deductions,the%20federal%20Controlled%20Substances%20Act. 

“Laws Governing Drug Use.” Drexel University. Drexel University. ​​https://drexel.edu/studentlife/community-standards/code-of-conduct/drug-free-schools-and-community-act/drug-use 

“Map Monday: Nearly Every State Redefining Cannabis Access.” National Conference of State Legislatures. NCLS, Dec 11, 2023. ​​https://www.ncsl.org/resources/map-monday-nearly-every-state-redefining-cannabis-access 

“NYS Medical Cannabis Program.” Office of Cannabis Management, New York State Department of Health. https://cannabis.ny.gov/medical-cannabis 

Oregon Senate Bill 582 (2019)

Felon Disenfranchisement: A Historical Weapon for Racial Discrimination

By: Ameera Hamadeh

Edited by: Jack Pacconi and Haley Kleinman

On Monday, January 27th, 2025, The Supreme Court of the United States declined to hear a challenge to Mississippi's lifetime ban on voting for individuals who have previously committed a felony. [1] SCOTUS justices turned away an appeal requested from a lower court’s decision to reject a lawsuit against the ban. The appeal argued that the provision of the Mississippi Constitution which prevents a felon from voting after their sentence is completed violates the U.S. Constitution's 8th and 14th Amendments, sections which respectively bar cruel and unusual punishments and ensure equal protection under the law. [2]

The case had been previously tried in 2023 by Black Mississippi residents who lost their voting privileges indefinitely after being convicted of felonies listed in section 241 of the Mississippi Constitution. [3] Within the state of Mississippi, a felony can range from convicted murder or rape to minor cases of theft; the voting restrictions apply to the citizens no matter the severity or context of their crime. [4] An individual may restore their voting rights by receiving a pardon from their governor or permission from two-thirds of the State Congress; however, very few citizens have actually obtained this restoration in the past several years. [5]

Felony disenfranchisement within the United States has a complicated history deeply rooted in racial discrimination. Following the era of Reconstruction after the Civil War, leaders of the Southern states created barriers to civic participation for Black people who recently gained equal voting rights. The restrictions placed on felon’s ability to vote, specifically in the state of Mississippi, trace back to the implementation of Jim Crow laws within state legislation. [6] Section 241 of Mississippi’s constitution, one which permanently bars felons from voting, was amended in 1890 with the goal of adding crimes more commonly committed by Black citizens to the document. Supporters of this amendment openly admitted that they aimed to “keep Black men away from the ballot box.” [7] The provision was amended again in 1950, to remove the act of burglary, and in 1968, to add murder and rape. The addition of these crimes had been historically delayed on the premise that they were “not considered crimes a black person was prone to commit,” and therefore, did not have merit in disenfranchising eligible black voters. [8]

The effects of the provision continue to disproportionately target Black citizens of Mississippi today, a population that represents “nearly 60% of individuals convicted of disenfranchising felony offenses, but make up approximately 37% of the state’s population.” [9] Of the nationwide African American population, 4.5% is disenfranchised in comparison to that of the non-African American population being only 1.3%. [10] In the 2024 Presidential Election, an estimated 4 million Americans were ineligible to vote due to felony conviction laws, with an overwhelming majority of this population being previously eligible citizens of color. [11]

The recent order from SCOTUS is not the only time justices refused to consider the issue of felony voting rights in Mississippi. In June of 2023, the Court refused to hear a similar case challenging the same provision of Section 241 with respect to the context of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The rejection of this case resulted in a dissent from Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor, the former noting that the Court had “missed yet another opportunity to learn from its mistakes.” [12]

Ultimately, the systemic preservation of  voting rights restrictions for convicted felons works to further racial injustice within predominantly white regions of the United States. As the highest court of the land, it is imperative that SCOTUS works to correct these injustices by ensuring equal protection and barring cruel and unusual punishment for all citizens, as promised in the US Constitution.

Notes:

1. Chung, Andrew. “US Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Mississippi Lifetime Ban on Voting by Felons.” Reuters.com, January 25, 2025. https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-rejects-challenge-mississippi-lifetime-ban-voting-by-felons-2025-01-27/.

2. Ibid. 

3. Golde, Kalvis. “Mississippi’s Permanent Felony Voting Ban Returns to the Court.” scotusblog.com, January 25, 2025.. https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/01/mississippis-permanent-felony-voting-ban-returns-to-the-court/.

4. ncsl.org. “Felon Voting Rights,” October 18, 2024. https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/felon-voting-rights.

5. Sherman, Mark. “Supreme Court Leaves in Place Mississippi’s Voting Ban for People Convicted of Some Crimes.” apnews.com, January 27, 2025. https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-voting-rights-mississippi-felon-disenfranchisement-66e42dfdc5106d40ed5fcb6a62ed06af.

6. Chung, Andrew. “US Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Mississippi Lifetime Ban on Voting by Felons.” Reuters.com, January 25, 2025. https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-rejects-challenge-mississippi-lifetime-ban-voting-by-felons-2025-01-27/.

7. Golde, Kalvis. “Mississippi’s Permanent Felony Voting Ban Returns to the Court.” scotusblog.com, January 25, 2025. https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/01/mississippis-permanent-felony-voting-ban-returns-to-the-court/.

8. Berry, Patrick. “Court Strikes Down Mississippi’s Lifetime Felony Voting Ban.” brennancenter.org, July 18, 2024. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/court-strikes-down-mississippis-lifetime-felony-voting-ban.

9. Selzer, Rachel. “SCOTUS Declines to Review Mississippi’s Jim Crow-Era Felony Disenfranchisement Law.” democracydocket.com, January 27, 2025. https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/scotus-declines-to-review-mississippis-jim-crow-era-felony-disenfranchisement-law/.

10. Uggen, Christopher, Ryan Larson, Sarah Shannon, Robert Stewart, and Molly Hauf. “Locked Out 2024: Four Million Denied Voting Rights Due to a Felony Conviction.” sentencingproject.org, October 10, 2024. https://www.sentencingproject.org/reports/locked-out-2024-four-million-denied-voting-rights-due-to-a-felony-conviction/.

11. Ibid.

12. Selzer, Rachel. “SCOTUS Declines to Review Mississippi’s Jim Crow-Era Felony Disenfranchisement Law.” democracydocket.com, January 27, 2025. https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/scotus-declines-to-review-mississippis-jim-crow-era-felony-disenfranchisement-law/.

Bibliography:

Berry, Patrick. “Court Strikes Down Mississippi’s Lifetime Felony Voting Ban.” brennancenter.org, July 18, 2024. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/court-strikes-down-mississippis-lifetime-felony-voting-ban.

Chung, Andrew. “US Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Mississippi Lifetime Ban on Voting by Felons.” Reuters.com, January 25, 2025. https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-rejects-challenge-mississippi-lifetime-ban-voting-by-felons-2025-01-27/.ncsl.org. “Felon Voting Rights,” October 18, 2024. https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/felon-voting-rights.

Golde, Kalvis. “Mississippi’s Permanent Felony Voting Ban Returns to the Court.” scotusblog.com, January 25, 2025. https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/01/mississippis-permanent-felony-voting-ban-returns-to-the-court/.

Selzer, Rachel. “SCOTUS Declines to Review Mississippi’s Jim Crow-Era Felony Disenfranchisement Law.” democracydocket.com, January 27, 2025. https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/scotus-declines-to-review-mississippis-jim-crow-era-felony-disenfranchisement-law/.

Sherman, Mark. “Supreme Court Leaves in Place Mississippi’s Voting Ban for People Convicted of Some Crimes.” apnews.com, January 27, 2025. https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-voting-rights-mississippi-felon-disenfranchisement-66e42dfdc5106d40ed5fcb6a62ed06af.

Uggen, Christopher, Ryan Larson, Sarah Shannon, Robert Stewart, and Molly Hauf. “Locked Out 2024: Four Million Denied Voting Rights Due to a Felony Conviction.” sentencingproject.org, October 10, 2024. https://www.sentencingproject.org/reports/locked-out-2024-four-million-denied-voting-rights-due-to-a-felony-conviction/.

Trump’s Tariff Threats: The Case of Colombia

By: Alison Booth

Edited by: Eleanor Bergstein and Faith Magiera

A government exists, in part, to protect its people. Tariffs are a central tool of protection in terms of the domestic producers in the economy. Generally, tariffs tax imports to drive up the price of internationally produced goods. In turn, the domestically produced goods become more affordable to the domestic consumer. [1]

While the primary goal of tariffs is to generate revenue for the government, wealthy countries also focus on using tariffs to shield domestic industries and correct trade imbalances. The associated tax payments are ostensibly paid by international producers, but the situation is much more complex. [2]

Originally, for the United States, the founding fathers intended for Congress to determine tariff rates. However, during the Great Depression, presidential power was expanded. Currently, Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 allows the president to impose tariffs as a response to national security threats. [3]

Consumers, either individuals or companies purchasing inputs, of an economy with tariffs see higher prices. As the price of exporting the good to the buyer directly rises due to increases in tariff rates, all international sellers see a higher cost in production. Because the formerly cheaper imported goods now cost more for the producers, they pass off the cost to the consumers via increased prices. Currently, domestic consumers see a higher exchange rate as a direct result of declining trade. [4] As intended, trade falls.

Alternatively, if the country imposing tariffs is a sufficiently large consumer of a certain product, international producers must reduce their prices to remain competitive. In this case, consumers pay a post-tariff price roughly equivalent to that of domestic production. Assistant Professor of Economics and USC Dornsife Monica Morlacco comments on a specific example: “This price reduction, known as a ‘terms of trade gain’ for the U.S., ensures that the domestic price of imported coffee does not rise by the full amount of the tariff.” [5]

Nonetheless tariffs still cause damage to domestic industries. An increase of just 3.6% results in a decline in gross domestic product (GDP) of 0.4% for five years following the change. [6] As labor productivity falls under tariffs and imported part prices rise; domestic consumers are harmed by tariffs. The impact worsens over time as the tariffs are maintained.

Beyond the domestic lens, countries impacted impose retaliatory tariffs. According to Morlacco, “[Retaliatory tariffs] can compound the direct effects by reducing access to foreign markets and raising prices for other goods.” [7] During President Trump’s first term in office, tariffs were met with targeted retaliatory measures designed to impact products produced by strong supporters of the GOP. [8]

In the current day, President Donald Trump is using tariffs to address his key initiatives to reduce the rate of illegal immigration to the United States. As such, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has been rapidly detaining individuals under his direction. When the Colombian government refused military flights of deportees, Trump threatened a combination of tariffs and sanctions. [9]

The threats included a 25% tariff on Colombian goods. The rate would increase to 50% one week after institution, amongst other restrictions. With 4% of the Colombian GDP dependent on U.S. exports, President Gustavo Petro was forced to allow the aircraft to transport the illegal immigrants even as Petro critiqued the use of a military plane and relevant conditions. [10]

Trump has similar concerns around illegal immigration and fentanyl transportation related to Mexico and Canada. Further, his agenda extends to global competition with China. On February 1st, he followed through on previous threats, placing a 25% tariff on Mexico and Canada and a 10% tariff on China and Canadian energy, a significant change from the previous rates of roughly 2%. [11] [12]

Such high rates on close trade partners of the US would likely drive up domestic inflation. In response to the tariffs, Canada and Mexico have begun to set similar rates for US exports to their countries. Specifically, according to Josh Boak of AP News, “The premier of the Canadian province of British Columbia, David Eby, specifically called on residents to stop buying liquor from U.S. ‘red’ states and said it was removing American alcohol brands from government store shelves as a response to the tariffs.” [13] Top economists such as William Reinsch, the adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and a former U.S. trade official, heavily critique taxation of raw material imports claiming, “It doesn’t make much economic sense.” [14]

With the retaliation by Mexico and Canada, economists estimate households would lose $1,439 annually, on average. The tariffs alone would contribute 0.76% to an inflation rate Americans are already frustrated with. [15]

Looking forward, insurance company Nationwide’s economics division predicted economic growth falling by 0.7 percentage points, not accounting for the retaliatory tariffs. Tariff payments from the transport sector alone would rise from $4 billion to $68 billion. [16] 

The Trump administration’s new tariffs went into place at midnight on March 3rd. All three countries impacted–China, Canada, and Mexico–plan or have already placed retaliatory measures in place. China responded to the 10 percent tariff with 10 and 15 percent tariffs on a variety of American food products. The 25 percent tariffs against Canada were immediately matched while identical tariffs against Mexico will receive a response by March 9th. [17] Further threats against the European Union loom. [18][19] American consumers should hope for the tariff war to end peacefully to avoid further increases to the inflation rate.

Notes:

1. Joy, Darrin S. “Tariffs: What are they, who pays for them and who do they benefit?” USC Dornsife, 2 Feb. 2025, https://dornsife.usc.edu/news/stories/tariffs-explained-by-economics-professor-trade-expert/.

2. Joy, Darrin S. “Tariffs: What are they, who pays for them and who do they benefit?” USC Dornsife, 2 Feb. 2025, https://dornsife.usc.edu/news/stories/tariffs-explained-by-economics-professor-trade-expert/.

3. Loftis, Emily. “Who has the Authority to Impose Tariffs and how does this Affect International Trade?” National Library of Medicine, May 2019, https://yeutter-institute.unl.edu/who-has-authority-impose-tariffs-and-how-does-affect-international-trade/.

4. Furceri, Davide, Swarnali A Hannan, Jonathan D Ostry, Andrew K Rose. “Are tariffs bad for growth? Yes, say five decades of data from 150 countries.” National Library of Medicine, 12 Apr. 2020, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7255316/.

5. Joy, Darrin S. “Tariffs: What are they, who pays for them and who do they benefit?” USC Dornsife, 2 Feb. 2025, https://dornsife.usc.edu/news/stories/tariffs-explained-by-economics-professor-trade-expert/.

6. Furceri, Davide, Swarnali A Hannan, Jonathan D Ostry, Andrew K Rose. “Are tariffs bad for growth? Yes, say five decades of data from 150 countries.” National Library of Medicine, 12 Apr. 2020, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7255316/.

7. Joy, Darrin S. “Tariffs: What are they, who pays for them and who do they benefit?” USC Dornsife, 1 Oct. 2024, https://dornsife.usc.edu/news/stories/tariffs-explained-by-economics-professor-trade-e.

8. Stewart, Phil, Oliver Griffin. “US, Colombia reach deal on deportations; tariff, sanctions put on hold.” Reuters, 27 Jan. 2025, https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/colombias-petro-will-not-allow-us-planes-return-migrants-2025-01-26/.

9. Stewart, Phil, Oliver Griffin. “US, Colombia reach deal on deportations; tariff, sanctions put on hold.” Reuters, 27 Jan. 2025, https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/colombias-petro-will-not-allow-us-planes-return-migrants-2025-01-26/.

10. Boak, Josh, Zeke Miller, Rob Gillies, Christopher Sherman. “Trump puts tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China, spurring trade war as North American allies respond.” AP News, 2 Feb. 2025, https://apnews.com/article/trump-tariffs-trade-china-mexico-canada-inflation-753a09d56cd318f2eb1d2efe3c43b7d4.

11. “Industrial Tariffs.” Office of the United States Trade Representative, 2 Feb. 2025, https://ustr.gov/issue-areas/industry-manufacturing/industrial-tariffs#:~:text=The%20United%20States%20currently%20has,the%20United%20States%20duty%20free

12. Boak, Josh, Zeke Miller, Rob Gillies, Christopher Sherman. “Trump puts tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China, spurring trade war as North American allies respond.” AP News, 2 Feb. 2025, https://apnews.com/article/trump-tariffs-trade-china-mexico-canada-inflation-753a09d56cd318f2eb1d2efe3c43b7d4.

13. Boak, Josh, Zeke Miller, Rob Gillies, Christopher Sherman. “Trump puts tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China, spurring trade war as North American allies respond.” AP News, 2 Feb. 2025, https://apnews.com/article/trump-tariffs-trade-china-mexico-canada-inflation-753a09d56cd318f2eb1d2efe3c43b7d4.

14. “The Economic and Fiscal Effects of the Trump Administration’s Proposed Tariffs.” The Budget Lab at Yale, 31 Jan. 2025, https://budgetlab.yale.edu/sites/default/files/2025-01/The%20Economic%20and%20Fiscal%20Effects%20of%20the%20Trump%20Administration_1.pdf.

15. “Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Imposes Tariffs on Imports from Canada, Mexico and China.” The White House: Fact Sheets, 1 Feb. 2025, https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/02/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-imposes-tariffs-on-imports-from-canada-mexico-and-china/.

16. “Canada Follows Mexico in Reaching Deal to Delay U.S. Tariffs.” The New York Times, 3 Feb 2025, https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/02/03/us/trump-tariffs.

17. “Live Updates: Trudeau, Speaking to Americans, Blames Trump for ‘a Trade War.’” The New York Times, 4 March 2025, https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/03/04/us/tariffs-us-canada-mexico-china?smid=url-share#4c410b47-5a9a-5644-b3da-0e3ba7e17395.

18. “Canada Follows Mexico in Reaching Deal to Delay U.S. Tariffs.” The New York Times, 3 Feb 2025, https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/02/03/us/trump-tariffs.

19. Davidson, Paul. “Trump's tariffs on Canada and Mexico are delayed. Economic turmoil is here.” USA Today, 6 Feb 2025, https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2025/02/06/trump-tariffs-canada-mexico-economic-impact-damage/78244024007/.

Bibliography:

Boak, Josh, Zeke Miller, Rob Gillies, Christopher Sherman. “Trump puts tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China, spurring trade war as North American allies respond.” AP News, 2 Feb. 2025, https://apnews.com/article/trump-tariffs-trade-china-mexico-canada-inflation-753a09d56cd318f2eb1d2efe3c43b7d4.

“Canada Follows Mexico in Reaching Deal to Delay U.S. Tariffs.” The New York Times, 3 Feb 2025, https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/02/03/us/trump-tariffs.

Davidson, Paul. “Trump's tariffs on Canada and Mexico are delayed. Economic turmoil is here.” USA Today, 6 Feb 2025, https://www.usatoday.com/story//2025/02/06/trump-tariffs-canada-mexico-economic-impact-damage/78244024007/.

“Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Imposes Tariffs on Imports from Canada, Mexico and China.” The White House: Fact Sheets, 1 Feb. 2025, https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/02/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-imposes-tariffs-on-imports-from-canada-mexico-and-china/.

Furceri, Davide, Swarnali A Hannan, Jonathan D Ostry, Andrew K Rose. “Are tariffs bad for growth? Yes, say five decades of data from 150 countries.” National Library of Medicine, 12 Apr. 2020, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7255316/.

“Industrial Tariffs.” Office of the United States Trade Representative, 2 Feb. 2025, https://ustr.gov/issue-areas/industry-manufacturing/industrial-tariffs#:~:text=The%20United%20States%20currently%20has,the%20United%20States%20duty%20free.

Joy, Darrin S. “Tariffs: What are they, who pays for them and who do they benefit?” USC Dornsife, 1 Oct. 2024, https://dornsife.usc.edu/news/stories/tariffs-explained-by-economics-professor-trade-expert/.

Loftis, Emily. “Who has the Authority to Impose Tariffs and how does this Affect International Trade?” National Library of Medicine, May 2019, https://yeutter-institute.unl.edu/who-has-authority-impose-tariffs-and-how-does-affect-international-trade/.

Stewart, Phil, Oliver Griffin. “US, Colombia reach deal on deportations; tariff, sanctions put on hold.” Reuters, 27 Jan. 2025, https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/colombias-petro-will-not-allow-us-planes-return-migrants-2025-01-26/.

“The Economic and Fiscal Effects of the Trump Administration’s Proposed Tariffs.” The Budget Lab at Yale, 31 Jan. 2025, https://budgetlab.yale.edu/sites/default/files/2025-01/The%20Economic%20and%20Fiscal%20Effects%20of%20the%20Trump%20Administration_1.pdf.