Tariffs didn’t start Oregon’s economic slowdown, but they exacerbated it, report finds

A new report from the Oregon Office of Economic Analysis highlights the fiscal impact of federal trade policy on the state. State economists estimate that tariffs imposed by the Trump administration during the 2025-27 budget cycle contributed to a $442 million loss in state revenue. These findings suggest that the tariffs dampened consumer demand and reduced corporate profitability across key sectors.

Data shows that Oregon importers paid nearly $3 billion in tariffs between March and December 2025. The report notes that costs accelerated significantly throughout the year, with December payments reaching nearly ten times the amount recorded in March. While Governor Tina Kotek emphasizes that these measures hinder the state’s coastal trade advantages, the administration maintains that these policies aim to incentivize domestic manufacturing.

Oregon remains a notable outlier in current trade trends. While national exports grew by 5.7 percent, Oregon saw a 17 percent decline in exports during 2025. This downturn occurred alongside a surge in imports, particularly within the semiconductor industry, as businesses moved to stockpile goods before new rates took effect. Officials attribute this shift largely to the uncertainty surrounding global supply chains.

To gauge the real-world impact, researchers surveyed 870 businesses across the state. Nearly 60 percent of respondents reported higher costs for domestic goods, while 45 percent noted price hikes on international imports. Many businesses responded by raising consumer prices, although a majority reported that they have maintained their current payroll levels despite the pressure. Economists concluded that while the tariffs did not trigger the state's economic slowdown, they clearly made existing challenges more difficult to manage.

In response to these fiscal pressures, Attorney General Dan Rayfield has filed a third lawsuit against the federal government. This legal action challenges the scope of the current tariff structure, which impacts more than 80 countries. State leadership argues that these costs are passed directly to local families rather than foreign entities. The outcome of this legal conflict remains pending as the state seeks to protect its trade-dependent economic foundation.