In the wake of Liberation Day’s sweeping tariff announcements, the world didn’t just brace for economic shockwaves – it logged on, posted, and reshaped the narrative in real time. Our analysis of millions of conversations across Facebook, X, and Reddit shows that public sentiment shifted rapidly. We analysed social media discussions around several key topics in relation to Donald Trump, using two snapshots – one before, and one after the tariffs were announced. The results show the enormous impact the policy has had on public discussion – and what it may reveal about Trump’s media strategy. This analysis comes ahead of our upcoming 100 Days of Trump report, which will provide an in-depth look at how the media has reacted to the 47th President.
Conversations surrounding countries closest to the US in terms of both geography and economy saw the sharpest spikes in social media activity, while others watched cautiously from the sidelines. Across these discussions, there was markedly little positivity. For Mexico, negative commentary more than doubled post Liberation Day, while for China, overall volumes increased by nearly 1400% and negative commentary surged 2320%. In these countries, commentary focused primarily on the negative economic impacts for both the US and the tariff recipients. Regions with a lower tariff level, such as the UK and EU, saw more neutral discussion, focused on how the growing trade war would impact international relations more broadly – particularly the US’ position on the world stage.
But it was regarding healthcare that coverage saw the biggest shift – with negative commentary skyrocketing a huge 2950%. It’s possible that shock played a part in this. In areas such as automotive and energy, data show users were already aware of Trump’s likely impact in these areas. But for healthcare, pre-Liberation Day discussion was mostly limited to criticisms of the appointment of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and to continued frustrations with the American healthcare system. There was next to no mention of tariffs. After Liberation Day, users expressed outrage at the finding that pharmaceutical products would likely see a price increase as a result of the new legislation. As a result, healthcare saw the highest ratio of negative content out of any topic we analysed. Here discussion took on a particularly emotive form, as users told devastating personal stories of family members who would be impacted by the policy, as well as highly emotional criticisms of Trump’s supporters.
However, amid mostly negative sentiment, a few opportunistic voices emerged. Some users discussing the impact on Brazil highlighted how the country would become a more attractive trading partner, while users in automotive discussions claimed the tariffs would make companies more likely to move to the US. Regarding cryptocurrency, users claimed the tech would help the US pull ahead on the world stage amid the growing trade war. But energy saw the most notable shift. Discussion of energy prior to Liberation Day was predominantly negative, focusing primarily on Trump’s stance on climate change. After the announcement posters became more positive, as Trump’s own X posts claiming tariffs would encourage companies to shift their production to the US were shared by his supporters, while critics of his climate change stance appeared to focus on other topics.
What this highlighted was another key media impact of Trump’s tariffs – and perhaps the most revealing one. On April 8 and 9 – the latter being the day we took our second snapshot of social media discussion – Trump signed into effect two Executive Orders (EOs) regarding the US’ energy production. The first, EO 14261, placed coal at the center of Trump’s economic policy and marked a clear shift towards the use of fossil fuels, while EO 14270 greatly expanded the US government’s executive power to strike down federal energy and environmental regulations, and has already had its legality called into question by lawyers and think-tanks.
But here’s the thing: these orders did not feature nearly as significantly in social media discussions around energy as tariffs did. On April 9, just 18% of posts about energy spoke about either coal or Trump’s executive orders, while 66% focused on tariffs. Discussion across topics also grew substantially more negative, something which has been shown to both seize users’ focus and cloud their judgement. Trump has been accused of treating the Presidency like a reality show, focusing on shock value to keep his name as close to the top of the news agenda as possible at all times. His critics – and even former members of his own team – say this is a deliberate move to ensure that potentially damaging stories are unable to come up for air, buried in controversy.
Without direct access to the Oval Office, it’s impossible to claim with certainty whether this strategy has been at play in Trump’s Liberation Day announcements. But it is notable that in the week following the announcement, April 2 – 9, Trump signed 14 EOs, the most in any 7-day period since the first week of his Presidency. They cover a range of topics, including trade, but also energy policy and education reform. And yet, CARMA data shows on April 9, tariffs saw over 10 times more discussion (around 220K posts) than any of Trump’s other executive orders (around 20K posts). This could of course simply be an unintended, even inevitable side effect of a policy launch as enormous as Liberation Day. But either way, the data suggests that the seismic impact of Trump’s tariffs, the wave of outrage and the hopeful theorising about the future of the US, has lessened the scrutiny his other EOs may have received.
Cutting through the noise requires analysis and measuring tools more than ever before. Don’t forget to check back for our 100 Days of Trump report for a full, detailed analysis of media coverage of the President. For now, see below for a breakdown of how social media reacted to Trump’s tariffs across a series of key topics.
