Understanding the Tariff Conversation: Three Distinct Personas

Tariffs have dominated headlines and conversations throughout this year. Regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum in the United States, trade policy has touched your life in some way. Whether through market volatility, shipping delays, or higher prices on some everyday purchases.

We decided to dig deeper into who's actually talking about tariffs online and what they're saying. Using Infegy Starscape's AI Personas widget, we found something fascinating: the tariff conversation is highly polarized, with sentiment skewing predominantly negative overall (39%). But when you break down the data by persona, a more nuanced picture emerges. Let's explore the three largest groups driving the tariff discussion and their unique perspectives.

The Market Opportunists: Investors and Traders

Comprised of investors, traders, and financial analysts, this persona approaches tariffs from a purely economic and market-driven perspective. They're overwhelmingly male (around 83%) and exhibit surprisingly positive sentiment (59%).

Why the positivity? For this group, tariffs aren't primarily a political issue. They're a market event that creates arbitrage opportunities. Their discussions are analytical and data-driven, focusing on how trade policy affects stock prices, commodity markets (steel, aluminum, soybeans), and currency exchange rates in the Forex market.

You can spot these folks by their professional identity markers. Bios frequently feature terms like "Investor," "Trader," "Analyst," and "financial," often accompanied by the ubiquitous chart emoji (📈). Many offer newsletters, mentorship programs, or financial advice services, positioning themselves as guides through turbulent economic waters.

Figure 1: Topics for Financial + Investor Persona discussing tariffs in the US, (July - September 2025); Infegy Social Dataset.

What sets this persona apart is their global macro perspective. They assess the broader economic consequences of trade disputes on international markets, viewing tariffs as catalysts for volatility and trading opportunities. Interestingly, a subset of this group has also embraced cryptocurrency trading, with terms like "Crypto," "Bitcoin," and "Web3" appearing frequently in their profiles.

For Market Opportunists, a tariff isn't inherently good or bad, it all depends on how it affects their investment portfolio or trading strategy. Their stance is pragmatic rather than ideological.

The Progressive Opposition: Anti-Trump Democrats

This persona stands in stark contrast to the Market Opportunists. Defined by strong opposition to Donald Trump and his policies. They express markedly negative sentiment (48%) toward the tariff policy. These individuals typically identify as Democrats, liberals, or progressives and are vocal advocates for democracy and international cooperation.

Political opposition is their primary motivation. Profile terms like "Democrat," "#Resist," "Anti-Fascist," and "Anti-Trump" appear frequently. For this group, tariffs represent more than just trade policy. They believe the tariffs are a disruptive and harmful legacy of an administration they fundamentally oppose.

Figure 2: Topics discussed by Anti-Trump Democrats around tariffs, (July - September 2025); Infegy Social Dataset.

Their ideological stance centers on progressive values, with many mentioning #BLM or displaying pride flags (🌈) in their profiles. They frame their opposition to tariffs within a broader critique of nationalist and protectionist ideologies, viewing such policies as contrary to their values of inclusivity and global cooperation.

The presence of Ukrainian flags (🇺🇦) signals strong support for international alliances and causes. This group sees tariffs as damaging to global relationships and represents a retreat from America's role on the world stage. Demographically, this persona shows more gender balance than other personas, though it remains majority male (around 60%). Many identify as "Lifelong" Democrats, indicating deep-rooted political affiliation.

The Business Pragmatists: Tech and Industry Leaders

The third major persona represents individuals from the business and technology sectors. This heavily male-dominated group (over 80%) maintains relatively neutral to positive sentiment (51%), approaching tariffs from a practical rather than ideological standpoint.

Their professional identity shapes everything. They identify as "Engineers" (often in software), "Founders" of startups, or "Consultants," and their perspective centers on how tariffs impact supply chains, manufacturing costs, and innovation cycles.

Strong connections to the tech world are evident, with terms like "Tech," "AI," and "Web3" prominent in their profiles. These Business Pragmatists might discuss how technology can mitigate supply chain disruptions or how tariffs could affect the global race for technological supremacy.

As entrepreneurs and business leaders, they're concerned with the bottom line. Their discussions revolve around practical matters: increased costs for materials like steel and aluminum, supplier reliability, and delivery logistics. Rather than debating the political merits of tariffs, they focus on finding solutions, navigating the new economic landscape, and identifying potential business advantages in a changed marketplace.

Their approach is fundamentally problem-solving oriented. These are the people asking "How do we adapt?" rather than "Should this policy exist?"

Figure 3: Tariff related topics within discussions from the Business leader persona, (July - September 2025); Infegy Social Dataset.

Conclusion

The tariff conversation in America reveals more than just divided opinions on trade policy—it exposes fundamentally different frameworks for understanding and engaging with political and economic issues. The Market Opportunists see data and trading opportunities. The Progressive Opposition sees a referendum on values and leadership. The Business Pragmatists see challenges to solve and a landscape to navigate.

What's particularly striking is how gender, profession, and political identity shape not just opinions on tariffs, but the very lens through which people view them. For some, tariffs are numbers on a screen. For others, they're symptoms of a more profound political crisis. And for still others, they're simply another variable in the complex equation of running a business.

Understanding these distinct personas helps explain why tariff debates often feel like people are speaking entirely different languages, because, in many ways, they are. Each group brings different priorities, different expertise, and different stakes to the conversation, making consensus nearly impossible, but the discussion is endlessly revealing about contemporary American society.

Top 3 Takeaways

1. Sentiment Depends on Your Perspective
The overall negative sentiment around tariffs masks significant variation by persona. While Market Opportunists view tariffs positively (59% positive sentiment) as opportunities for profit, Progressive Opposition expresses deep negativity (25% positive sentiment) rooted in political opposition. Your profession and political identity fundamentally shape whether you see tariffs as an opportunity or a threat.

2. The Tariff Conversation Is Overwhelmingly Male
All three personas skew heavily male, with Market Opportunists and Business Pragmatists over 80% male, and even the more balanced Progressive Opposition around 60% male. This gender imbalance suggests that either women are less engaged in public tariff discussions or their voices are underrepresented in the data, raising important questions about whose perspectives shape trade policy debates.

3. Different Groups Aren't Just Disagreeing, They're Having Different Conversations
Market Opportunists discuss trading strategies and market volatility. Progressive Opposition frames tariffs within debates about democracy and international cooperation. Business Pragmatists focus on supply chains and operational challenges. These groups aren't simply reaching different conclusions from the same data, they're asking entirely different questions and prioritizing completely different concerns, which explains why bridging the divide feels nearly impossible.