Which Global Consumers Pose Boycott Risks in Response to U.S. Tariffs?

U.S. businesses have been targeted for overseas boycotts in recent months as a result of anger in other countries over U.S. government actions and rhetoric, including tariffs and incendiary public statements by U.S. politicians like President Trump. Canadians have soured on U.S. brands after threats of annexation, Germans and other Europeans have expressed outrage at Elon Musk’s perceived meddling in their domestic affairs, and Mexicans have bristled over targeted tariffs and rhetoric about immigration. 

Increased boycott likelihood has gone hand-in-hand with the United States’ declining reputation globally, suggesting the two are related. For U.S. companies doing business overseas, our data continues to indicate there is a potentially unprecedented risk of global consumers souring on American brands due to sharply worsening views of the United States, should the Trump administration’s tariff action and inflammatory rhetoric persist.

Canadian, Mexican and Chinese consumers are highly prone to spending reductions and potentially boycotting in response to U.S. tariffs

In April, we began collecting data among consumers in the 11 major economies indicated in the chart below — a subset of the 43 Morning Consult Intelligence markets where we field daily surveys — allowing us to widen the aperture and see which global consumers are more prone to boycotting U.S. brands. We measure this using a question which asks whether consumers have reduced their spending on U.S. brands, and are doing so specifically because of the imposition of U.S. tariffs. Asking specifically about U.S. tariffs as a motivation differentiates this data from questions we have asked previously about boycotting foreign brands. It also provides a data point that can help U.S. companies stay ahead of  future boycotts by providing an early indication of which brands consumers are starting to walk away from in response to tariff policy. 

In our recent analysis of Europe in which we specifically asked about boycotts, we noted that consumers cited recent Trump tariffs and political rhetoric, but also geopolitical events in Gaza and Ukraine in open-ended responses about their motivations for boycotting. Nevertheless, the relative position of countries in that study and in this one on spending reduction due to tariffs are similar, highlighting the political underpinnings of at least some of the spending reduction. For example, in our earlier European analysis, French consumers were the most likely to boycott foreign companies relative to Europeans in other markets. We see that in this result as well. 

Conversely, while governments in Asian allied nations like Japan and South Korea have expressed frustration with many of the Trump administration's professed economic policies, their consumers nevertheless appear to have fairly low boycott propensity. Cooler heads prevail in Japan especially, despite Trump’s enthusiasm for steel tariffs which hit Japan hard, his waffling on Japanese Nippon Steel’s acquisition of U.S. Steel, and Trump’s comment that the security arrangement with Japan is “one-sided.”

Income is predictive of cross-country boycott propensity, less so for political ideology and age

Given that much of global consumers’ current ire is in response to actions and rhetoric by the right-wing Trump administration, one might think that the populations most prone to boycotts are primarily made up of left-leaning consumers. Not so. The political distribution of those who say they are actively avoiding spending on U.S. brands in response to Trump’s tariffs varies country to country. In Canada, where Prime Minister Mark Carney won an election in 2025 thanks in large part to a Trump-driven turnaround, those with high boycott propensity are in fact more likely to be left of center. In Mexico, the clearest difference is that those who are actively avoiding U.S. companies tend to be more likely in general to express where they are on the ideological spectrum, regardless of whether that’s on the left or the right. This may reflect that they are more likely to be politically active and aware relative to consumers in other countries we examine. That is also true in Australia. But consumers in the land down under who are shunning U.S. companies are more likely to be on the extremes of the political spectrum, whether left or right. 

Age is predictive in some markets, but similarly lacks consistent cross-country trends. In Canada, Baby Boomers are leading the charge in boycott propensity. In Mexico it’s the opposite, with younger consumers saying they are avoiding U.S. brands. But in Australia and Brazil, age doesn’t appear to be a major factor.

Income, by contrast, drives much more consistent trends. We previously noted that higher-income markets as measured by GDP per capita were also the ones showing greater declines in purchase consideration of U.S. brands. It now appears that insight is consistent within, as well as across, countries. For all markets we considered except Japan, being higher on the income distribution was associated with being more likely to go out of one’s way to buy less from U.S. companies in response to tariffs. This is bad news for U.S. consumer goods companies that are the targets of boycotts, especially those that rely primarily on higher-income brackets for the bulk of their sales. 

Because this question about avoiding U.S. companies in response to tariffs is on the same survey that feeds Morning Consult Intelligence, users can look at purchase consideration for specific U.S. brands among consumers who say they are actively reducing spending on U.S. companies and compare it to the share among the general population to see if your brands (or those of your competitors) are in the crosshairs. Taking Canada as an example, users can use the platform to see how the purchase consideration for a subset of U.S. brands varies between the general population in Canada and the demographic of those who pose boycott risks. 

To offer a few examples, Hoka and Patagonia see virtually no difference in purchase consideration between those avoiding U.S. brands and the general population in Canada, and those avoiding U.S. brands are nevertheless more likely to be considering buying from Lego. This suggests those are not being penalized by the U.S. tariffs. For other brands like Subway, KFC and Tesla, however, purchase consideration is quite a bit lower among the consumers who are actively shunning U.S. brands compared with the general population. For users seeking to cast a wider net, the same exercise can be done for other markets beyond Canada. 

Keep all global consumers close… and your high-income consumers closer

Canadian, Mexican, and Chinese consumers are leading the charge in actively shunning U.S. companies, but the propensity to boycott is most strongly linked across geographies to income rather than age or political ideology. This trend poses a particular challenge for brands that rely on high-income international customers. By leveraging Morning Consult Intelligence, U.S. companies can monitor these shifts in real time and identify which brands are most at risk in specific markets.

Recent waves of boycotts have shown that current political instability poses secondary risks to U.S. brands in addition to the first-order risks related to their ability to operate. Even if they maintain market access, international consumers — especially wealthier ones — are showing a willingness to shift their purchasing behavior. As global attitudes toward the United States continue to fluctuate, it is more important than ever for U.S. businesses to stay attuned to consumer sentiment and adapt their strategies accordingly.