As businesses refrain from using the word "tariff," you may hear these three terms more frequently

[WORLD] Since President Donald Trump began implementing a series of shifting tariff policies, businesses have been working to figure out how best to communicate the resulting cost pressures. But the term “tariff” is increasingly absent from those conversations.

Instead, companies are turning to phrases like “sourcing costs,” “supply chain expenses,” or “import costs”—often paired with detailed explanations of cost-mitigation strategies—as stand-ins for the politically charged word “tariff,” according to Denise Dahlhoff, director of marketing and communications research at The Conference Board, a think tank that advises companies on economic and business trends.

This shift in language reflects a broader effort by corporations to navigate a highly polarized political climate. With tariffs becoming a contentious flashpoint in the national economic discourse, many firms are treading carefully to avoid alienating consumers or attracting unwanted attention from either side of the political aisle. A recent Conference Board survey found that 68% of executives are adjusting their public messaging to steer clear of politically sensitive terminology—even when that means skirting direct acknowledgment of policy impacts.

“In today’s business environment, it’s no longer just about your customers,” Dahlhoff told. “You’re also balancing employees, investors, regulators, the president, the media, and your supply chain partners.”

Trump’s tariff strategy is aimed at reshoring American manufacturing by making foreign imports more expensive, thus encouraging domestic production. While certain sectors like steel and aluminum have seen a boost in U.S.-based output, economists remain divided on the broader effectiveness of the policy. Critics argue that rising costs are often passed down to consumers with limited gains in job creation. A Tax Foundation analysis estimated that the tariffs could cut long-term GDP by 0.2% and lead to more than 160,000 job losses—underscoring the complex, and often uneven, economic impact.

Some companies see disclosing tariff-related costs as a way to maintain consumer trust. But firms that speak too plainly about tariffs risk political blowback, sometimes directly from Trump himself.

On May 15, Walmart stated during an earnings call that price hikes were expected due to the tariffs. Two days later, Trump took to Truth Social to lambast the retailer for “blaming” his policies and warned the company to “eat the tariffs,” saying he’d be monitoring any increases.

The public dust-up underscores the tightrope retailers now walk. Analysts say companies face a dilemma: they must be transparent with shareholders while avoiding reputational risks that could arise from appearing to challenge the administration. As a result, some businesses have adopted more neutral language or opted to absorb short-term costs to sidestep controversy.

Walmart declined to comment for this story, but a spokesperson previously told the company remains committed to keeping prices “as low as possible.”

This isn’t the first time Trump has taken tariff-related pricing personally. When reports surfaced that Amazon might display tariff-related cost breakdowns on product listings, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt labeled the idea a “hostile and political act.” Amazon quickly denied the claim.

“Even saying the word ‘tariff’ can be interpreted as a political statement in today’s deeply divided environment,” Dahlhoff said. “It’s very nuanced, and companies are trying to avoid language that could be polarizing or unpopular.”

This cautious approach extends beyond trade policy. Companies are increasingly reassessing how they talk about socially and politically sensitive topics like climate change and labor practices. The backlash against so-called “woke capitalism” has led many brands to scale back public commitments. A recent Harvard Business Review report found that some Fortune 500 firms have quietly softened their sustainability pledges due to fears of political repercussions.

Retailers may ultimately prefer to let consumers draw their own conclusions, according to Michael Baker, senior analyst at D.A. Davidson. “Retailers have learned they have to be extremely cautious in how they frame these issues,” Baker said. “No one wants to end up the subject of a Truth Social post. That alone complicates communications strategy.”

Dahlhoff noted that corporate leaders are increasingly avoiding terms like DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) and ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance), which have become flashpoints in the political culture wars. After Trump’s inauguration, companies like Target rolled back DEI initiatives, prompting backlash from progressive advocates. Target has since rebranded its DEI framework as “Belonging at the Bullseye.”

“If it used to feel like a tightrope walk, now it’s more like balancing on a thread,” Dahlhoff said. Peter Cohan, an associate professor at Babson College and a venture capitalist, told that consumers are well aware of the links between tariffs and price increases—regardless of how companies frame the issue.

“I don’t think companies should just cave,” Cohan said. “If there’s no resistance, it’s appeasement. Businesses that alter course every time they get a call from the president risk losing control over their own strategy.”