As we reported in yesterday's coverage of Liberation Day's one-year anniversary, the sweeping tariffs imposed on April 2, 2025 have permanently altered the retail landscape. Today, with new industry-specific data flowing in from CNBC, the Yale Budget Lab, and the Richmond Fed, the picture is coming into sharper focus — and it's more uneven than the headline numbers suggest.

The US average effective tariff rate now stands at 11.0%, according to the Yale Budget Lab's April 2 analysis — the highest since 1943, outside of 2025's initial shock period. For the average household, that translates to a real-income loss of roughly $1,338 per year in the current regime, rising to over $1,500 if Section 122 tariffs are extended past their scheduled sunset.

But the averages mask drastically different outcomes by sector.

Consumer Packaged Goods: The Price-Raisers vs. The Absorbers

Procter & Gamble represents one end of the spectrum. Facing a $1 billion annual tariff burden, P&G raised prices on roughly 25% of its products — a move that preserved margins but accelerated the shift toward private label alternatives already underway in grocery aisles. McCormick, by contrast, managed to whittle its tariff impact down from an initial $70 million estimate to just $20 million through expense cuts, targeted price increases, and aggressive sourcing pivots to lower-tariffed countries, according to CNBC's April 3 analysis.

The divergence isn't random. Companies that moved early to model tariff exposure and pre-negotiate supplier concessions came out ahead. Companies that waited for policy clarity — which never came in any stable form — paid for the delay.

Automotive: Managed Pain, Not Catastrophe

General Motors absorbed $3.1 billion in tariff costs in 2025, per CNBC — a significant number, but meaningfully below the $3.5 to $4.5 billion the company had originally projected. Constellation Brands estimated a $20 million drag from aluminum tariffs alone. The broader automotive sector benefited from the Section 232 carve-outs that were renegotiated under pressure from domestic manufacturers, providing at least a partial buffer.

Retail-adjacent sectors — home improvement, appliances, and furniture — took harder hits because they couldn't shift sourcing fast enough. Categories like lumber, steel-framed furniture, and large appliances with embedded imported components saw the most sustained price pressure.

Apparel and Footwear: Still in the Thick of It

Apparel and footwear have been among the hardest-hit retail categories, with Morningstar projecting non-durable goods prices (which include textiles and clothing) rising 5.6% in 2026 — above the 4.5% expected for electronics and hard goods. Brands with deep China exposure and limited near-term sourcing alternatives have had the fewest options, and the ongoing Section 122 tariff litigation means the rules of the game are still technically unsettled.

The Hidden Cost: Administrative Drag

Beyond the direct dollar figures, businesses across sectors have told CNBC that the administrative burden has been its own category of damage. Filing paperwork for tariff refunds — expected to reach roughly $166 billion under the Supreme Court's partial ruling against IEEPA tariffs — takes time, legal resources, and operational attention that companies cannot reclaim. The Richmond Fed's April 2026 review of one year of tariff effects specifically flagged this hidden cost as underweighted in most economic analyses.

Small businesses, as Marketplace reported this week, have felt this proportionally more acutely than large retailers. A Macy's or a Target has a dedicated trade compliance team. An independent specialty retailer doesn't — and the refund filings process has proven complex enough to deter many from even attempting it.

What Retailers Should Watch Next

The Supreme Court's pending final decision on Section 122 tariff authority is the single biggest variable hanging over retail heading into the second half of 2026. The difference between an 11.0% effective rate and a ~6% rate — if Section 122 tariffs expire — is meaningful for margin planning, pricing strategy, and sourcing decisions.

Modern Retail's recent breakdown of tariff winners and losers identified a pattern that should be familiar by now: companies with diversified sourcing, strong private-label portfolios, and the ability to pass costs to consumers without triggering demand destruction came out ahead. Everyone else is still figuring out the math.

One year in, the lesson is less about tariff rates and more about organizational resilience. The companies that treated the last 12 months as a reason to build more robust supply chains — not just as a cost they were forced to absorb — are the ones positioned for whatever comes next.