Trump pressures Amazon to hide tariff costs from consumers, prompting retreat by Bezos’ company

President Donald Trump personally pressured Amazon founder Jeff Bezos on Tuesday to abandon a plan that would have exposed how the administration’s new tariffs are hitting American pockets, a rare and direct intervention in the pricing strategy of one of the world’s largest online retailers.

According to sources familiar with the matter, Trump placed a phone call to Bezos early Tuesday after Punchbowl News reported that Amazon was preparing to roll out a feature that would display U.S. import tariff costs next to product prices. The feature, aimed at increasing transparency, would have informed buyers how much of what they paid was due to newly imposed duties — particularly the sweeping 145% tariff the administration has levied on Chinese imports.

The response from the White House was swift and hostile. Within hours of the report, Amazon issued a statement walking back the proposal, first claiming it was only being considered for “Amazon Haul,” a subsection focused on budget-conscious shoppers. But in a follow-up comment later in the day, the company disavowed the idea entirely, stating the plan was “never approved” and “is not going to happen.”

The sequence of events has raised concerns about the administration’s efforts to suppress visibility into the real-world consequences of its trade policies. While President Trump has repeatedly portrayed his tariff agenda as a tool to reverse decades of economic imbalance and reduce the U.S. trade deficit, analysts have warned that the true cost will be borne by American consumers, a fact that Amazon’s shelved feature would have made uncomfortably clear.

In public remarks, Trump has pitched tariffs as a patriotic lever to bring back manufacturing, punish China for years of trade violations, and “put American workers first.” He has insisted that foreign exporters, particularly China, would shoulder the cost of these duties.

However, economists across the spectrum agree that tariffs function as taxes on imports, which are almost always passed on to U.S. retailers and ultimately consumers.

The Amazon plan, according to Punchbowl, would have placed a line item next to the total price of each product, specifying how much of the cost was due to tariffs. This would have served as a rare form of transparency in an online marketplace where price hikes often go unexplained. The timing was especially sensitive, as Amazon merchants have already begun raising prices across thousands of listings in response to Trump’s tariffs.

When asked about the decision at a Tuesday press briefing, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt called the move “a hostile and political act,” questioning why the company hadn’t done something similar during the Biden administration’s inflationary peak. She held up a printout of a 2021 Reuters report claiming Amazon had previously complied with censorship demands from China, using it as a rhetorical device to paint the company as untrustworthy and politically motivated.

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick weighed in online, posting that Amazon had made a “good move” by reversing course. But behind the coordinated front, the administration’s reaction revealed a deeper concern: that growing discontent over consumer prices could chip away at Trump’s carefully cultivated image as a defender of the working class.

Amazon’s short-lived proposal would have made it harder to maintain the illusion that tariffs are an abstract penalty on foreign governments. Instead, it risked showing with each product listing that the policy effectively functions as a stealth tax on American consumers. The potential political blowback was clear, especially as the administration touted the tariffs as part of a broader plan to revive U.S. industry and reduce dependency on Chinese manufacturing.

According to Wedbush Securities, up to 70% of the products sold on Amazon’s platform are sourced from China, meaning the impact of Trump’s 145% duty would ripple through virtually every corner of the site. The prospect of Americans seeing a specific surcharge labeled “tariff cost” next to common items like phone chargers, clothing, or kitchenware could have turned the president’s key economic message on its head.

Meanwhile, rivals like Temu and Shein, two fast-growing e-commerce platforms based in China, have already begun labeling “import charges” at checkout, in some cases increasing final prices by more than 140%. Their compliance with international shipping norms has put additional pressure on Amazon, which is still determining how to adjust its pricing model amid the rising import costs.

The attempt to display tariff charges reportedly originated from Amazon Haul’s operations team, which specializes in low-cost imported goods. Internally, the company has begun surveying its third-party sellers about how tariffs are affecting their pricing strategies and profit margins — a sign that executives are closely tracking the economic disruption triggered by Trump’s aggressive trade agenda.

However, Amazon’s hasty reversal has fueled speculation that Trump’s administration is seeking to suppress evidence that its policies are straining household budgets. Consumer advocates and trade experts argue that hiding such information may delay a broader reckoning about who ultimately pays the price for these policies.

Bezos, once a frequent target of Trump’s criticism, has made notable efforts to mend ties with the White House since the Republican’s 2024 victory. In December, Amazon contributed $1 million to Trump’s inaugural committee, and Bezos has praised the president’s more “disciplined” leadership style during his second term. The Washington Post, owned by Bezos, has also reportedly narrowed its opinion section focus to align with free-market values and individual liberties — another sign of detente between the two powerhouses.

Still, the latest scuffle suggests there are limits to that truce — especially when the public visibility of economic pain is at stake. Asked at Tuesday’s briefing whether Bezos remains a supporter of the president, Leavitt declined to answer directly, only reiterating that Amazon’s brief push for transparency was “a hostile and political action.”