New Tariffs Are Another 'Pink Tax' That Hurt Women. Here's Why.
Don't fall for the old pink tax line--this expert says it's it's actually LESS expensive to make femme-appearing items than male or neutral ones
One of my besties sent this report on tariffs + pink tax my way, and I’m so glad she did. Make that glad and mad. Glad that there’s still light shining on this ridiculous and harmful practice and that Meg suggested I look into it, but mad that we’re still dealing with this issue. Also, pink tax is illegal in California and New York, so if you see something, say something—even if you’re not in those places!
I reached out to the author, Dr. Prachi Agarwal, a Research Fellow at the U.K.-based International Economic Development Group, ODI. She has worked extensively on empirical analysis of trade policy, regional trade agreements, and digital trade. (The rest of her impressive bio is below.) For more on tariffs, see her adjacent piece, US implements sweeping reciprocal tariffs, igniting global economic challenges | ODI: Think change. She was so kind to submit her answers in writing because of our time difference.
Vanessa McGrady: Let’s start with a background on pink tax and why companies get away with it.
Dr. Prachi Agarwal: The “pink tax” is an economic phenomenon wherein the prices and import tariffs on women’s consumer goods, including clothing, makeup, hygiene products, basic toiletries, etc. are higher than comparable products advertised to or made for men. This gender disparity is known as “ pink tax” and it’s a direct consequence of trade policy and business practices followed globally. Even without the new reciprocal tariffs announced by Mr. Trump, US MFN tariff (a tariffs that is applied on all incoming imports irrespective of origin) on women’s clothing is higher than on comparable men’s clothing. For instance, MFN rate on men’s overcoats (620120) is 14.74% while women’s overcoats (620220) is 15.49%. Similarly, men’s cotton underpants (610711) attract a tariff of 7.4% and women’s (610821) are taxed at 7.6%. Men’s sleeveless woolen jackets (620120) are taxed at 8.5% versus women’s 620220) at 14%, and the list goes on.
Moreover, a US-based study found that on an average, personal care products for women tend to be 13% more expensive than those for men, while clothing is 7-8% more expensive in the US retail market. This pink tax or tariff obviously then puts an extra burden on women consumers in the U.S. Compounded with lower and sluggish wage rates, and the fact that women purchase more clothing than men in any given fashion cycle, women spend a larger proportion of their income on clothing and other personal goods. This leads to an erosion of their savings.
It’s interesting that you ask how businesses get away with this. One obvious reason is that there is an information asymmetry in the market, few people are aware of this gender bias exploited by retailers. Moreover, women consumers are less sensitive to prices, so retailers and brands tend to get away with charging a few dollars extra. There is also the perception that women will be willing to pay for their appearance. But in the long run, if you aggregate across the total expenditure by women and men in their lifetime on such products, women tend to be worse-off.
VMc: This hurts women on the consumer side and the manufacturing side. Let’s talk about that.
PA: As I said, a pink tax or in this specific context, a pink tariff on women’s consumer goods, especially clothing and footwear will translate into a higher price in the U.S. market. If you add the new tariffs announced by Mr. Trump, there is an average difference of 3% on the tariffs on women’s clothing versus men’s, that will also add to final retail price. According to economic theory, these new tariffs are going to have an overall inflationary pressure on the US market, but women consumer will be worse off due to the inherent biases in the way tariffs are applied on imports.
On the manufacturing side, most garment factories in low-income countries, such as Bangladesh, Viet Nam, Cambodia, Sri Lanka employ a larger proportion of women in low-wage and low-skilled jobs (average of 80%). Due to the new tariffs, businesses will now need to cut costs to supply the same garments at a similar retail price after the importers in the US pay extra tariffs at the border. This cost-cutting will happen in the form of lay-offs of the low-skilled workers, usually women. Moreover, the U.S. is a large buyer of clothing, so the tariffs might also reduce demand for clothes produced in these countries, and that will also lead to wage or employment cuts, and women will be disproportionately affected. Some suppliers may not be able to supply apparel products at the new (lower) buying price and may run out of business altogether, potentially leading to job losses for women garment workers. Such demand shocks will also occur across other sectors that export goods to the US, and studies show that women are usually more adversely impacted than men during such global shocks. Overall, this is likely to reverse some of the strides we have made in improving working conditions, providing access to proper sanitation (especially important for women workers) and reducing human rights violations in such factories across most exporting countries in Asia and Africa. This impact will be more severe in countries that export a large share of their total exports to the US.
VMc: Discuss the differences in gendered clothing and why we’re told it’s “more expensive” to manufacture
P.A.: The clothing industry is a multi-billion-dollar industry that is constantly evolving. The cost of producing clothing varies depending on the materials used, the complexity of the design, and the location of the production.
But to answer your question, the idea that women’s clothing is more expensive to manufacture is mostly a myth. Women’s clothing items, shirts, blouses, trousers when compared (like for like) to men’s clothing items are cheaper to produce due to three reasons. One, on an average, manufacturing of women’s clothing consumes less fabric due to its sleeker fitting styles and smaller sizes than men, and this is true across any given society. Two, men’s clothes are constructed using more durable fabrics that tend to be more expensive. And three, men’s formal clothing is more constructed due to precision tailoring that gives them the stiff-formal look- and this adds to the cost of production (measured in time and inputs). Of course, a small section of women’s clothing includes trims, laces, fringes, that are more expensive to produce, but this specialized production occupies a minority share.
Most of the time, when retailers are asked why they charge more for women’s clothing items, it starts a blame game that they are more expensive to produce and buyers purchase them at higher prices from exporters, but this is usually not the case. Retailers and brands know that given the low-price sensitivity (and higher willingness to pay) displayed by women, they will still buy as many pieces of new clothing even if the prices are increase by a small margin. They exploit this consumer behavior by using gender pricing models and making higher profits on women’s clothing.
VMc: The tariffs. What kind of monkey wrench are they adding to an already unfair system?
P.A. The United States announced its reciprocal tariff policy on April 2, 2025. This marks the most significant shift in US trade policy since the establishment of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994, or the accession of China to the WTO in 2001. The new policy introduces two sets of tariffs applicable to different groups of countries: a general or base tariff and a reciprocal tariff linked to the US trade deficit with a specific country. The general tariff, set at 10% will be applied to imports from all countries (except Canada and Mexico) starting on 5th April . In addition, according to Sec 3 a, countries listed under Annex I will be subject to a bespoke reciprocal, effective 9thApril. These tariffs are supposedly designed to account for the perceived implicit ‘duty’ applied to US products in those countries. Most trade specialists are baffled by the methodology used to calculate these tariffs. But these have been paused for a period of 90 days now, but the reciprocal tariff on China has now been increased to 145% across goods except those on the exclusion list.
These new tariffs (when they come into play) will be gender-biased and add more pressure on the existing pink taxes in the U.S. Interestingly, countries in Asia that have seen the highest tariff rates, like Cambodia, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, and Viet Nam mainly export women’s clothing to the U.S. So, U.S. imports of women’s clothing will now be more expensive than men’s after the new tariffs. Considering the pink taxes that already exist, the total tariffs will be exacerbate thew gender bias in the U.S. trade policy. But this is not intentional, per se. The issue is the lack of a gender assessment of trade policies and such nuanced differences just fall through the cracks.
VMc: How can people better leverage their dollar?
P.A.: This is very subjective. I would suggest moving away from fast fashion and improve spending habits by investing in good quality, durable clothing items that last over several years. Moreover, with a major uptick in upcycled, recycled and vintage clothing and accessories available in the market, consumers can move towards more sustainable fashion purchases. Several retailers and designers are getting creative to increase the life of a garment through upcycling, and I think this is a step in the right direction. It is environmentally healthier, and lighter on the pocket too, at least in the long run.
VMc: What are other ways that workers, consumers, and businesses can eliminate a pink tax?
P.A.: I don’t think this is the responsibility of workers, or consumers. Women across the economy face different challenges compared to men due to societal expectations and norms, and this tends to impact them disproportionality in all spheres of life. Then, the onus to eliminate the pink tax lies on governments and businesses. Government should undertake a gender assessment of its trade and industrial policies to determine the impact on women as consumers, workers, and business owners. There is a need to collect gender-disaggregated data on trade and consumer behavior. This also underscores the importance of addressing gender disparities in policy interventions through the inclusion of specific gendered language, especially in trade policies that addresses the unique challenges faced by women in access to finance, trade networks, markets, and fair pricing for their exports.
On the other hand, with the spread of information about the pink tax, consumers will become more aware of this disparity. If this awareness leads to changes in buying habits, retailers and businesses will be forced to reconsider their gender pricing models. With the right incentives, they might consider equalizing the retail prices of women and men’s clothing.
VMc: What else should people know?
P.A.: The implementation of these reciprocal tariffs makes a combination of inflation and recession in the US highly probable. This inevitable outcome will likely force voters to confront the reality of this damaging economic policy. The US government may eventually recognize the error and reverse these policies. Unfortunately, until that time, the primary course of action is to exercise patience. And to remember that its not about your clothes getting more expensive but the underlying principle that pink taxes have existed for a long time, and they discriminate against women, thus perpetuating patriarchal norms and practices.
More about Dr. Prachi Agarwal
At ODI, Dr. Prachi Agarwal research is focused on trade and development, with an emphasis on the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) agreement, regional value chains, trade-industrial policy nexus, and digital services. She leads research at ODI Global on women in trade, aimed at improving gender equity in trade policies and creating women-forward global value chains. Her recent research also focuses on the determining the economic impact of the cultural and creative industry, as well as the impact of climate change and decarbonisation policies on trade. Prior to this, Dr Agarwal worked as a consultant on various projects with the United Nations and Asian Development Bank on impact analysis of global shocks on growth, and trade in Latin America, Africa, and Asia-Pacific. She holds a Ph.D. in Economics from the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.