Many shoppers are familiar with the “pink tax” a markup on products marketed to women, even when similar products for men cost less. This price disparity extends beyond store shelves into the realm of import taxes, where “pink tariffs” quietly increase costs for women’s goods. These tariffs contribute to higher prices for clothing, personal care items, and even toys labeled as “women’s” or “girls’,” making everyday shopping more expensive for women.
Pink tariffs are one reason women’s clothing often costs more than men’s, prompting some women to opt for men’s apparel like sweatpants or oversized sweaters to save money. A recent legislative effort aims to address this issue by urging the treasury department to study gender-based tariff discrepancies and their impact on consumer spending.
This discussion on tariffs emerges at a time when more attention is being paid to trade policies and their effect on everyday expenses. Many consumers, especially younger ones, have expressed concerns over rising prices due to import taxes on goods from countries like China. These tariffs are particularly burdensome for women, who already pay an estimated 3% more than men in import duties. In some cases, the difference is even greater. Unisex clothing, rather than serving as a neutral alternative, is often taxed at the same rate as women’s apparel, further reinforcing gender-based pricing disparities.
The reason for this imbalance can be traced back to historical trade negotiations, which were largely influenced by men, leaving women’s interests unconsidered. The first U.S. tariff laws date back to the 18th century, with modern import duties taking shape after the 1929 stock market crash. Although tariffs decreased in the mid-20th century due to free trade agreements, they regained prominence in recent years as part of efforts to promote domestic manufacturing. However, fashion industry leaders argue that shifting production away from established global supply chains is not easily achievable.
Studies indicate that women drive the majority of consumer spending, making them a lucrative target for taxation. Research has shown that in 2015 alone, American households paid nearly $2.8 billion more in tariffs on women’s clothing than on men’s. The tax disparity is further exacerbated by material choices women’s apparel is often made from synthetic fibers like polyester, which face higher tariffs compared to cotton, a major U.S. export. Fashion brands, unable to fully absorb these additional costs, ultimately pass them on to consumers.
The U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedule, which dictates duty rates for imported goods, contains multiple instances of gender-based pricing differences. For example, men’s silk brief underwear is taxed at 0.9%, whereas women’s silk underwear faces a 2.1% tariff. Similarly, wool overcoats for men are taxed at 38.6 cents per kilogram plus 10% of the item’s value, while women’s wool overcoats incur a higher rate of 64.4 cents per kilogram plus 18.8%. While some argue that men’s clothing weighs more, justifying the discrepancy, the differences in taxation often exceed what would be reasonable based on weight alone.
Despite calls for reform, eliminating pink tariffs remains a challenge. Unlike sales taxes, which appear clearly on receipts, import tariffs are hidden costs that consumers rarely notice. Since these taxes generate significant revenue, policymakers have little incentive to change the system.
Efforts to raise awareness about gender-based pricing have gained traction in recent years, particularly in response to studies highlighting price discrepancies. Laws in states like California and New York now prohibit businesses from charging different prices for substantially similar gendered products. If retailers were required to disclose tariff-related markups, public pressure for change could increase. Until then, pink tariffs will continue to add up, subtly yet significantly contributing to financial inequality.
