More than half of manufacturing professionals say that tariffs have cut their profit margins by as much as 15%, while most have ultimately opted to pass those added costs directly on to consumers. 

According to a survey from factory tour facilitator Plant Tours (PT) of 500 U.S. manufacturing managers and executives, business leaders described the impact from the Trump administration's tariffs as "a slow bleed on profitability." 

“We’ve had to renegotiate contracts mid-project — steel prices alone blew our estimates out of the water," one construction professional told PT, citing the 25% levies on foreign steel and aluminum that are currently in place in the U.S.

Read More: The Fatal Flaw Behind a U.S. Manufacturing Revival

Although 41% of businesses initially tried to absorb the added costs from tariffs, the vast majority found that was unsustainable, with 75% of respondents passing related cost increases along to customers. Companies also reported a "range of secondary effects" from having to change suppliers and shuffle sourcing strategies, with 12% reporting disruptions to their supply chains, and 11% experiencing quality issues as a result.

Overall impacts have varied by industry as well, with the construction sector seeing the highest rate of product price increases, at 59%, as well as customer loss, at 16%. Workforce reductions have been widespread across sectors, with 45% of companies reporting job cuts of 5-10% as a direct result of tariff-driven cost pressures.

"This isn’t just a supply chain story — it’s a labor story, too," PT said. "The loss of jobs due to margin compression and reduced demand undercuts the idea that tariffs are universally pro-worker."

All the same, 30% of respondents said that they've also seen an "unexpected upside" from tariffs, with 21% having gained customers who prefer domestic goods, 17% reporting higher profits due to reduced import competition, and more than 16% seeing improved supply chain resiliency. The general sentiment surrounding tariffs wasn't entirely negative either, with 21% voicing support for the policy, 37% calling it a "mixed bag," and 41% opposing it altogether.