A new academic study has revealed that there is little public appetite in Europe for the imposition of trade tariffs, even when such measures are presented as a direct response to Donald Trump’s protectionist trade policies in the United States. Drawing on survey responses from 5,500 participants across Germany and the United Kingdom, the research found a striking and consistent rejection of tariffs under all circumstances. Whether framed as a means of protecting domestic industries, funding green investments, or countering US trade barriers, tariffs failed to gain popular support. This finding runs counter to a widespread political assumption that voters are increasingly turning towards economic nationalism in times of uncertainty and global competition.

The study was conducted jointly by researchers from Uppsala University, the University of Reading, and the University of Southampton, in the context of the US government’s 2025 decision to impose new tariffs on European and British imports. These circumstances provided a timely opportunity to examine whether European voters were inclined to support reciprocal or retaliatory trade policies. Using two extensive opinion surveys, the researchers sought to understand not just what Europeans think about tariffs in general, but also the reasoning behind their preferences when faced with different policy trade-offs. Across all tested scenarios, the conclusion was unequivocal: European voters overwhelmingly prefer alternative economic tools to tariffs, even when the latter are presented as socially or environmentally justified.

Michal Grahn, the study’s lead author and a political scientist, noted that the consistency of opposition surprised the research team. “Even when tariffs were presented as a way of financing climate action, people preferred other economic solutions,” Grahn explained. This resistance to tariffs, even in the face of persuasive justifications, suggests that European publics may view such measures as inherently destabilising or economically counterproductive. Rather than interpreting tariffs as an expression of national strength or sovereignty, voters appear to associate them with uncertainty, higher consumer prices, and the potential for escalating trade conflicts. These findings stand in sharp contrast to assumptions that economic protectionism naturally appeals to the working and middle classes in industrialised nations.

Methodologically, the research employed conjoint experiments — a sophisticated survey technique designed to simulate the kinds of trade-offs voters face in actual policy or electoral contexts. Participants were asked to evaluate and choose between various hypothetical economic policy packages, each combining different approaches to trade, investment, and environmental funding. This method allows scholars to determine how much weight respondents assign to specific policy features when making decisions. Nearly 4,000 participants were surveyed in Germany and approximately 1,500 in the UK, all recruited through well-established online panels to ensure demographic representativeness in terms of age, gender, education, and region. By directly comparing tariffs to other measures such as subsidies or international cooperation, the study captured not only public preferences but also the underlying logic guiding those choices.

The results demonstrated a clear pattern: trade tariffs are not a politically advantageous issue in either Germany or the UK. Rather than endorsing economic retaliation, European voters expressed a marked preference for stability, international collaboration, and policy predictability. According to the researchers, this preference reflects a broader cultural and political orientation towards moderation in European politics. Despite the rise of populist movements across the continent, which often champion nationalist and protectionist economic narratives, the general public remains sceptical of measures that risk economic isolation or friction with key trading partners. As such, tariffs are unlikely to serve as a vote-winning strategy, even during periods of geopolitical tension or economic slowdown.

In their conclusion, the researchers emphasised the broader policy implications of their findings. “Even at a time of global uncertainty, there is no widespread support for responding to US protectionism with tariffs of our own. There is an idea that tougher trade policies are popular, but our results show the opposite. European voters seem to favour caution over conflict,” Grahn observed. This suggests that while policymakers may feel pressure to adopt assertive trade positions for strategic or symbolic reasons, such approaches may run counter to the preferences of their electorates. Ultimately, the study highlights a persistent divide between political rhetoric and public opinion: while leaders may invoke the language of protectionism to appear decisive, the European public continues to prioritise economic stability, cooperation, and a rules-based international order over confrontation and retaliation.

More information: Michal Grahn et al, A game of tariffs: is there demand for tariffs in Europe? Journal of European Public Policy. DOI: 10.1080/13501763.2025.2571062

Journal information: Journal of European Public Policy Provided by Uppsala University