A truly enormous shock is needed to tip the entire global economy into recession. Since World War II, there have been two of these events: the financial crisis of 2008-09, and the coronavirus pandemic of 2020.

Why it matters: Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs — if they stay in place and especially if they face retaliation from targeted nations — could be the third such economic earthquake in 17 years.

Follow the money: The U.S. imported $3.3 trillion of goods in 2024. That's more than $25,000 per household.

• If the new tariffs work out to an average of 29%, per Evercore, then U.S. importers would have to pay about $1 trillion in tariffs per year, or $7,300 per household.
• Realistically, that would never happen. Many goods will just not get imported any more, creating shortages and large price hikes.
• But if U.S. imports plunge, that would remove a key driver of the global economy, especially for export-dependent countries like Germany and China.

Zoom in: The total 54% tariff on imports from China is particularly punitive.

• China exports lots of high-tech goods like iPhones, but it's also the engine that provides affordable goods to millions of financially stretched families on low incomes.
• As such, the China tariff alone could cause a significant increase in poverty.

Zoom out: The last 75 years or so of globalization have created a complex web of interdependent economies, which explains sayings like "when the United States sneezes, Latin America catches pneumonia."

• If U.S. tariffs cause our major trading partners to slide into recession, that would devastate U.S. exports, which totaled $2.1 trillion in goods last year, plus another $1.1 trillion in services. That's even before those partners start implementing retaliatory tariffs.
• "This is a game changer for the global economy," Fitch Ratings economist Olu Sonola wrote in a note yesterday. "Many countries will likely end up in a recession."

Where it stands: In early March, JPMorgan estimated there was a 40% chance of a global recession this year. That estimate priced in a tougher trade policy, but nothing of the magnitude we saw yesterday.

Between the lines: Global stocks fell on the Trump announcement, but not nearly as much as they would have if they believed these tariffs will be fully implemented and will be here to stay.

• "One lesson from the first few months of the Trump presidency is that you have to let news cure a little before you take it seriously," Matthew Hougan, chief investment officer at Bitwise Asset Management, tells Axios.

The bottom line: It's almost impossible to overstate the sheer magnitude of the announced tariffs, and the degree to which they could devastate the global economy.

• Whether they really get implemented, however, remains to be seen.

Brady Dale contributed to this report.

The clothes you buy stand to get a lot more expensive after Trump's sky-high tariffs on imports from around the world, including from China, Vietnam and Bangladesh.

Why it matters: The U.S. imports nearly all of its clothing and shoes, with over half from those three countries alone.

• If these tariffs take effect as planned, the price of apparel would soar.
• Increases will be especially painful for low- and middle-class Americans, who are already set to take a disproportionate hit from these duties.
• Investors are feeling it, too, with shares of apparel companies like Nike and retailers like Walmart plunging on the news.

Zoom out: A big reason for the tariffs is to bring manufacturing jobs back to the U.S. If it becomes prohibitively expensive to import things, companies will decide to make them here, the thinking goes.

• The problem is making clothing in factories isn't at the top of anyone's bring-back list.
• The cost of labor in the U.S. is far higher than it is abroad, and the supply of people willing to do low-wage work is lower with the demographics of the aging population. (A situation that could worsen with an immigration crackdown.)

What they're saying: "If we burden the cost of apparel and the U.S. doesn't really have an interest in building an apparel industry, then the costs are going up," says Jim Kilpatrick, a partner at Deloitte who specializes in supply chains.

• "That doesn't really make sense to me," he says, noting tariffs should protect high-tech industries, like semiconductors, or ones that are a security asset, like pharma or defense. "Where labor isn't as big of a piece of the overall cost component, tariffs will certainly help to shift the playing field."
• The National Retail Federation was also quick to react: "While leaders in Washington may not care about higher prices, hardworking American families do," its chief lobbyist David French said in a statement.

By the numbers: The U.S. gets 97% percent of its apparel and shoes from other countries, per a 2024 report by the American Apparel & Footwear Association.

• One major supplier is Vietnam, which Trump claimed charges the U.S. 90% in tariffs.

Reality check: According to data from the World Trade Organization, Vietnam puts an average tariff of 4.5% on nonagricultural goods from around the world.

• "If you really wanted to do a reciprocal tariff you could do 4.5%, but what they've done is just very far removed from reality," says Ed Gresser, a former assistant U.S. trade representative for policy and economics who is now a director at the Progressive Policy Institute.

Yes, but: "Access to cheap goods is not the essence of the American dream," Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent recently said.

• And many advocates for workers around the world have long railed against the conditions in overseas factories that make clothing.

Trump presented his sweeping tariffs yesterday as a way to "make America wealthy again," a slogan that implies the nation used to be much wealthier than it is today.

Why it matters: U.S. households are sitting on astonishing levels of wealth, some $169 trillion in total, per recent data from the Federal Reserve.

• That works out to an average of $500,000 per person.

Flashback: Trump Tower, on Fifth Avenue in Manhattan, opened in a blaze of publicity in 1983. For all the glitz and glamor, however, the U.S. back then was much, much poorer than it is today.

• At the time, U.S. household net worth was $12 trillion, just 7% of its current level.
• Adjusting for inflation by converting to 2024 dollars, American families in 1983 had an average net worth of $172,000, a third of where they are today.

The bottom line: There was never a time in decades past when American families were richer than they are today.