Will Trump's new tariffs rewrite the beauty industry?

With Donald Trump's return to the American political scene, trade protectionism is once again at the center of the global economic agenda — and it's not just the big tech, automotive, or fashion industries feeling the tremors. The new measures announced during "Liberation Day", which propose tariffs of up to 25% on a wide range of products imported from South Korea, the European Union, and the United Kingdom, threaten to hit a sector that until now has remained relatively immune to trade wars: the beauty industry. Behind the aggressive language accompanying these policies lies a strategy many see as shortsighted, risking one of the most dynamic and globalized sectors of the contemporary economy. It could reshape the pricing, production, and consumption dynamics that have fueled the beauty boom of the past decade. With a global market value estimated at over $600 billion and annual growth around 5%, beauty relies on complex international supply chains, transnational innovation, and consumers used to a wide variety of products from around the world. Imposing high tariffs on beauty products will not only impact consumer prices and corporate competitiveness but also expose the contradictions of an economic policy that claims to favor Made in USA while damaging globally intertwined creative and production networks. In this scenario, both heritage brands and emerging startups must rethink logistics, investments, and pricing strategies, while American and European consumers brace to pay the price of Trump’s economic vision.

Beauty world: a fragile sector behind the glittering surface

Beauty is often seen as a recession-proof industry. The lipstick effect, theorized as early as the 1930s, shows that consumers tend to indulge in small luxuries like a lipstick even in hard times. However, tariffs hit the sector at a critical point: the supply chain. According to an analysis by Business of Fashion, Korean products — from sheet masks to high-tech serums — are among the most exposed. K-beauty, which has redefined global skincare standards through continuous innovation and affordable pricing, surpassing France as the main source of non-perfumed beauty imports, now risks losing its competitive edge. The proposed tariffs could raise import costs by up to 25%, potentially disrupting the quality-to-price ratio that fueled K-beauty's global expansion. And it's not just skincare: South Korea’s influence extends to innovative packaging, biotech formulations, and trendsetting that shape the entire beauty market. Increased costs across this chain could threaten the accessibility that made Asian beauty a global phenomenon, impacting brands like Rare Beauty, Glow Recipe, 111Skin, and Olive & June.

Hands Off Beauty

Often perceived as frivolous compared to other strategic sectors, the beauty industry is emerging as one of the most vulnerable to Trump’s new protectionist wave. As reported by Fortune Italia, major European cosmetic groups like L’Oréal, LVMH, Coty, and Shiseido have appealed to the European Commission to exclude beauty from any retaliatory tariffs against the U.S. A spokesperson for the European Cosmetics Association stated: "We cannot allow such a strategic sector to become a hostage of trade wars." Europe is not only the world's leading exporter of cosmetics (holding nearly 47% of the global market share) but also the heart of innovation in the sector. From French niche perfumery to Swiss skincare treatments, every segment of European beauty could suffer structural damage. Trump’s indiscriminate tariff policy ignores the global interdependence linking production, innovation, and consumption, endangering mid-sized and small companies that compete globally through quality, craftsmanship, and heritage but lack the financial muscle to absorb or bypass trade barriers. Additionally, many European companies exporting to the U.S. employ thousands of American workers and invest heavily in U.S.-based research, marketing, and distribution. Penalizing them means hurting domestic employment and raising consumer prices.

Consumers will pay the price

If the new customs tariffs come into effect, end consumers will bear the brunt. Tariffs will hit not just producers — especially masstige brands (those positioned between mass market and premium) — but will inevitably be passed on to retail prices. Buying a moisturizer, lipstick, or perfume in the U.S. could cost up to 25% more. According to Glossy, some brands may attempt to absorb part of the cost by reducing profit margins, but most, especially smaller companies, will have no choice but to hike prices. Beauty is a sector with high price elasticity: when costs rise, consumers shift their habits, opting for cheaper alternatives or foregoing purchases altogether. This behavior, observed during past inflationary cycles, could hurt mid-to-high-end brands the most, to the benefit of mass market or private label products. Moreover, tariffs won't just affect finished products. Key ingredients — such as dermatological actives, botanical extracts, and packaging materials often sourced from South Korea and Europe — will become more expensive, adding further pressure across the value chain. In this scenario, Trump’s attempt to “bring production back home” could backfire, resulting in higher prices, reduced choices, and a slowdown in one of the few industries that continued growing even during past crises.

Beauty made in resilience: how the industry prepares to resist

Facing the uncertainty caused by Trump’s new tariffs, the beauty industry is not standing still. If protectionism threatens established supply chains and raises costs, many brands are already developing strategies to reduce dependency on geopolitically exposed international supply routes. One of the most discussed options is reshoring — bringing manufacturing back to home markets. Major groups are considering relocating part of their production to the United States or Europe to avoid future tariffs and shorten the logistics chain. However, reshoring is complex and costly, accessible only to companies with enough capital to reorganize production without sacrificing quality and competitiveness. For smaller brands, the answer lies in agile strategies: diversifying suppliers, investing in regional production, and forming alternative trade agreements with non-tariff countries. The real keyword today is resilience. As Glossy points out, the most forward-thinking brands are turning the crisis into an opportunity to rethink production and distribution models. In a more fragmented global context, those who can transform crisis into evolution and rethink their global positioning without losing the international spirit that made the beauty industry great will survive.