POLICY WIRE FACT CHECK: Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed overstates Michiganders’ cost for Trump’s tariffs
The Claim On September 1, 2026, Michigan Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed shared a post on X (formerly Twitter) featuring a graphic that claimed, “Trump’s tariffs cost each Michigan...
The Claim
On September 1, 2026, Michigan Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed shared a post on X (formerly Twitter) featuring a graphic that claimed, “Trump’s tariffs cost each Michigan household $5,619.” The image juxtaposed a photo of El-Sayed’s Republican opponent, Mike Rogers, with one of former President Donald Trump, accompanied by a caption stating, “Mike Rogers called it ‘necessary.’” This claim was part of a broader political messaging strategy to highlight the economic impact of Trump’s trade policies on Michigan residents.
The figure of $5,619 appeared in a report by the National Taxpayers Union Foundation (NTUF), which calculated the total tariff burden on Michigan importers since January 2025. However, the claim made by El-Sayed suggested that this number represented the average cost per household in the state, which is a significant misrepresentation of the original data. The viral nature of the post sparked public concern and prompted fact-checking efforts from outlets such as PolitiFact, which sought to clarify the accuracy of the statement.
The Details & Investigation
The $5,619 figure originates from a study conducted by the National Taxpayers Union Foundation, which analyzed the total tariff costs incurred by Michigan importers between January 2025 and August 2026. According to the report, Michigan importers paid approximately $23 billion in tariffs during this period. To arrive at the per-household figure, the NTUF divided this total by the number of households in the state, resulting in the $5,619 estimate. However, this calculation fails to account for key economic realities that make the figure misleading when applied to individual households.
One major issue is that not all goods imported into Michigan are consumed within the state. As noted by Bryan Riley, director of the NTUF’s Free Trade initiative, many of the goods imported into Michigan are used by manufacturers or distributed across the country. For example, Michigan is a major hub for vehicle imports from Canada and Mexico, but these vehicles are not exclusively sold within the state. Jason Miller, a professor of supply chain management at Michigan State University, explained that the state’s auto industry makes it an outlier in terms of import activity, and thus the tariff burden cannot be directly attributed to Michiganders alone.
Furthermore, importers often absorb some of the costs associated with tariffs, reducing the direct impact on consumers. This means that the $5,619 figure represents the total tariff burden on importers, not the amount passed on to households. Additionally, the Supreme Court’s ruling in late 2026 that struck down some of Trump’s initial tariffs led to $166 billion in refunds, which were not accounted for in the NTUF’s data. This further complicates the interpretation of the $5,619 figure, as it does not reflect the net tariff burden after legal challenges.
📄 POLICY WIRE WHITEPAPER PUBLISHED: PAKISTAN’S NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY PRIORITIES
El-Sayed’s campaign defended the claim by pointing to other media outlets and even Governor Gretchen Whitmer’s opinion column, which cited the same figure. However, the original source of the data—NTUF—explicitly cautioned against interpreting the number as a household-level cost. The claim also ignores broader economic studies that suggest the national average tariff burden was around $851 per person or $1,000 per household before accounting for refunds. These figures are significantly lower than the $5,619 figure, indicating that El-Sayed’s statement exaggerated the financial impact on Michigan families.
Given the context, the claim appears to be a case of MISINFORMATION rather than DISINFORMATION. While El-Sayed may have intended to highlight the negative effects of Trump’s tariffs, he misrepresented the data without acknowledging its limitations. There is no evidence of deliberate manipulation or coordinated disinformation efforts, but the omission of critical details about how the data was calculated and interpreted constitutes a significant factual error.
The Verdict
PolitiFact rated the statement “Mostly False” due to the misrepresentation of the $5,619 figure. The number, while accurate in describing the total tariff burden on Michigan importers, was incorrectly presented as the cost per household. This misinterpretation overlooks key factors such as the role of manufacturers, the distribution of imported goods, and the impact of tariff refunds. The claim contains an element of truth in that Trump’s tariffs did increase consumer costs, but it omits crucial context that would provide a more accurate picture of the economic impact.
While the statement was not intentionally deceptive, it qualifies as MISINFORMATION because it circulated widely without proper clarification of the data’s limitations. The lack of transparency in how the figure was derived and the failure to acknowledge alternative estimates further support this classification. The claim should be understood as an exaggerated representation of the tariff burden, rather than a fully verified fact.
Counter-misinformation & disinformation investigation conducted by PolicyWire Editorial Desk (PW).