U.S. Consumers Think Modest Price Hikes Are “Reasonable” as Corporate Tariff Pressures Mount

As the tariff blame game accelerates, companies are coming in for criticism

Midway through the Trump administration’s 90-day reciprocal tariff pause, U.S. consumers appear to be increasingly willing to blame companies for a perceived acceleration in price increases, posing reputational headwinds for brands at a time when many are already grappling with pronounced economic uncertainty and volatile U.S. consumer confidence.

Among the roughly seven in 10 adults who think tariffs are inflationary, 57% of them say American companies are “very” or “somewhat” responsible for the resulting inflation consumers perceive. Shares for each item are similar when broken out by respondents’ political affiliation.

Though still far behind the 80% of respondents who say they hold the Trump administration responsible for tariff-related inflation — and the somewhat smaller shares who call out foreign entities and the U.S. Congress — the share blaming U.S. corporates is up notably compared with a similar assessment we performed in late January 2025, when only 34% of U.S. adults said they would hold U.S. companies “fully” or “partly” responsible for tariff-related price increases (67% said the same of the Trump administration at that time). While the underlying survey scales vary, the jump in shares anecdotally suggests that U.S. consumers may now be more willing to direct their ire at companies who pass tariff-related costs onto consumers in the form of higher prices.

The past few weeks have seen prominent U.S. companies grapple with whether or not to do so, as a function of perceived risks emanating from consumers themselves and from the Trump administration, which has called upon companies to keep prices steady. But even as the risk of U.S. consumers blaming corporates remains acute, our data suggests U.S. companies may have a fair amount of latitude to maneuver when it comes to raising prices, particularly when pairing modest price hikes with consumer-facing messaging that calls out tariffs as the underlying cause.

U.S. consumers view some price hikes as “reasonable,” though they worry companies will exceed them

Part of the explanation for why consumers are poised to hold U.S. companies responsible for tariff-related inflation may stem from the fact that while many Americans feel it’s reasonable for companies to pass on some tariff-related costs, in practice, they expect companies will do so by a wider margin than they’re comfortable with. At the moment, a combined 30% of U.S. consumers say it’s reasonable for companies to pass up to half of the tariff-related cost increases they incur onto consumers, but only 26% of consumers (among those who anticipate price transmission, making for an even smaller share of consumers overall) think companies will actually confine price increases to this range. Conversely, only 17% of U.S. adults think it’s reasonable for companies to pass along 50-99% of the tariff-related costs they face, compared with the 30% who say companies will do so (again assessed among those who anticipate price transmission). The starkest difference concerns consumers’ views of companies that pass all tariff-related cost increases onto consumers: One-third of U.S. adults think companies will actually do so, whereas only 12% of consumers who anticipate price transmission think this is reasonable. Overall, the share of consumers who think cost pass-through will exceed 50% is also up notably relative to an earlier study that Morning Consult’s economic analysts conducted in April 2025.

On the one hand, these metrics suggest that challenges lie in store for U.S. companies that lack sufficient inventory or sway with suppliers to keep price increases in line with consumers’ expectations of what’s reasonable. On the other hand, big-box companies that are advantaged on this front — and who are ultimately able to keep consumer-facing price increases below the midpoint of any tariff-related cost increases they now face — will outperform expectations among the nearly two-thirds of U.S. consumers (63%) who anticipated higher increases, while meeting the expectations of roughly another quarter of them (26%) who say that increases in the range of 1-49% are reasonable. (Within that range, consumers are equally split on whether a price increase of 1-25% or 26-49% counts as reasonable, but a larger share expects companies to pursue the latter.)

Doing so is unlikely to assuage consumers entirely — at the end of the day, even modest price hikes mean pocketbook costs go up. But in cases where raising prices is necessary, our data indicates that companies have relatively wide latitude to over-deliver relative to consumers’ expectations surrounding price increases, potentially helping to avoid allegations of corporate price-gouging while maintaining brand loyalty in the process.

When prices do need to rise, communicating that tariffs are to blame can go a long way with consumers

For companies whose prices do ultimately need to rise, U.S. consumers are enthusiastic about corporate messaging that explicitly ties price increases to tariffs. As of May 2025, 39% of U.S. adults say that companies should “definitely” let their customers know how much of a product’s total price is specifically due to tariffs, rising to two-thirds (66%) of respondents when looking at the combined share who said companies should “definitely” or “probably” do so. Companies serving Democratic consumers are likely to carry even more favor when doing so, owing to the somewhat higher share (48%) of Democrats who say companies should definitely take such actions.

What is striking about the topline 39% figure is that it garners more public support than any other corporate actions we asked about in the context of the Trump tariffs, including efforts to keep prices down by relocating manufacturing stateside (“reshoring”) or to markets facing lower tariffs, or attempting to renegotiate costs with foreign suppliers. Communicating with customers about corporate efforts to manage tariff-related costs also sees relatively broad enthusiasm among the general public, though support for doing so is similarly skewed toward Democratic consumers.

For companies already pursuing consumer-facing communication strategies in line with the above, our data suggests such efforts are on many consumers’ radars: 51% of U.S. consumers have heard “a lot” or “some” about corporate messaging surrounding impending price increases, while 45% of consumers have heard about companies adding a line item to indicate tariff-related price surcharges for customers (such as on receipts or product listing pages online), suggesting both strategies may ultimately pay dividends for companies. But there is still room for improved awareness on both fronts.

Two additional insights are worth highlighting when it comes to U.S. consumers’ views on what actions companies should pursue as they contend with whether to raise prices (and by how much) or not.

First, one tradeoff that relatively few consumers are willing to entertain is lower product quality in exchange for better prices. When asked about their views on companies incorporating cheaper inputs into their production processes to help keep costs down if doing so could compromise product quality, slightly more consumers are opposed to such efforts (39%) than not (36%). For companies that do ultimately decide to raise prices, communicating that price increases were necessary to ensure consistent product quality is therefore likely to resonate with consumers.

Second, a non-trivial share of U.S. consumers (32%) say companies should “definitely” blame President Trump and/or the Trump administration publicly for increased prices, rising to a near-majority when looking at the combined share who say companies should “definitely” or “probably” do so. As U.S. companies are well aware, taking such action is a political minefield and — in light of broader trends in our data pointing toward declining consumer support for U.S. corporate engagement in politics — is an action best avoided for now. The potential exception is for companies serving predominantly Democratic consumers, with whom this strategy may bear fruit.

Guidance for companies caught in the crossfire

As economic uncertainty and tariff-related pressures continue to mount for U.S. companies, the bulk of consumers are unenthusiastic about corporate price hikes (only 13% say companies should “definitely” pursue them). But in cases where companies must ultimately raise prices, a plurality of U.S. consumers say modest price hikes that do not exceed half of the tariff-related costs incurred by companies are “reasonable” to pass along. Companies that keep price transmission within this range will be best positioned to outperform expectations among the roughly two-thirds of U.S. consumers who anticipate larger price hikes.

Importantly, consumers are unlikely to have a complete picture of the exact tariff-related costs that companies face. For companies that decline to message such information to consumers for competitive reasons, our expectation is that some consumers may rely on their knowledge of the more salient U.S. tariffs as a heuristic device (i.e. 10% tariffs will raise companies’ costs by that amount) to inform their expectations about what counts as a “reasonable” price increase. Among the new slate of tariffs imposed by the Trump administration, the universal tariffs — which roughly 69% of U.S. adults had heard “a lot” or “some” about as of early April — have the lowest rate among them. Given the data we present above on consumers’ expectations, this suggests that limiting near-term price increases to roughly 5% or less of a given product’s pre-tariff price is a relatively conservative bet for companies looking to avoid reputational risks arising from price transmission. Should the China tariffs — which risk taxing imports at a substantially higher rate, and which 77% of U.S. adults had heard at least something about as of early April (when the rate momentarily hit 145%) — become more sticky, companies will likely have leeway to go higher. At the same time, it’s worth noting that consumers’ willingness to pay a higher share of the costs, and their views on what counts as a “reasonable” price increase, may also vary as a function of a given product’s overall cost (i.e. consumers may be more tolerant of price increases on cheaper goods compared with more expensive ones). Companies should probe these dynamics with in-depth research particular to their market segment for a more holistic read before making a decision one way or the other (such as via our Research Intelligence capabilities).

Alongside their thinking about price considerations, many consumers are enthusiastic about corporate messaging that clarifies the extent of tariff-related costs faced by companies (when possible), the share of those costs they pass onto consumers, and corporate efforts to keep costs down. Companies stand to benefit from proactive communication on all three fronts. For companies that do raise prices, framing increases as necessary to maintain consistent product quality is likely to be viewed positively by consumers. Calling out the Trump administration, meanwhile, remains a high-risk strategy for most companies.

Collectively, these findings provide a straightforward playbook for companies seeking to avoid customer blowback as consumers look to assign blame for perceived inflation: Limit price increases to roughly 5% or less of a given product’s pre-tariff price; proactively inform consumers about tariff-driven costs, price transmission as a share of those costs, and related mitigation efforts; and frame such increases as necessary to avoid cutting corners on product quality.