Diageo warns Trump that tariffs threaten American jobs
- Diageo warns of threats to American jobs due to proposed import tariffs.
- The company supports 178,000 jobs in the U.S., with 11,500 Direct employees.
- Trade protectionism may risk the American economy and jobs.
In a recent letter, Diageo, the company behind iconic brands like Johnnie Walker and Guinness, expressed concerns regarding proposed import tariffs by the Trump administration. These tariffs could jeopardize thousands of jobs within the United States, where Diageo reportedly supports more than 178,000 jobs, including 11,500 direct employees in production and sales roles. The company argues that such protectionist policies not only threaten employment within its organization but also impact the broader U.S. economy. The letter, sent to White House officials, highlighted the importance of free trade, emphasizing that Diageo's ability to compete in export markets is vital for maintaining its workforce and contribution to the economy. The company generates substantial excise revenue for the federal government, reinforcing its status as a significant economic player. Diageo's representative stated that there is no need for protectionism within the spirits trade, as it largely operates on reciprocal terms, suggesting that the proposed tariffs might harm American workers more than help them. In light of the escalating trade tensions, Diageo recommended implementing stricter regulations on 'rules of origin' to deter foreign adversaries from exploiting loopholes while still benefiting U.S. businesses. These prioritized sourcing guidelines could minimize misuse of trade agreements with nations like Mexico and Canada, ensuring that genuine American products are supported and recognized in the marketplace. Finally, the situation reflects a broader concern over the effectiveness of trade tariffs. As evidenced by analysis from DHL, tariffs introduced during Trump's first term did little to reduce the volume of imports from China, and may inadvertently result in adverse economic effects for the U.S. economy, thereby undermining the very intentions behind such protective measures.