by Martha Scharping
April 17, 2025
The expansion of US tariffs in 2025 is reshaping the education market, intensifying concerns around budget strain, market volatility, and shifting procurement behavior.
The expansion of US tariffs in 2025 is reshaping the education market, intensifying concerns around budget strain, market volatility, and shifting procurement behavior. Although books and instructional materials have largely escaped the latest round of tariffs, the broader economic ripple effects are being felt across schools, higher education institutions, and education companies. These disruptions arrive at a time when districts are still addressing post-pandemic academic recovery, digital infrastructure gaps, and teacher workforce challenges.
According to the US Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), import duties rose sharply in Q1 2025, totaling $7.4 billion—a 13.9% year-over-year increase. Tariffs on key education-related imports—including technology components, construction materials, and food products—have already impacted district purchasing behavior. For example, several large districts in Texas and Pennsylvania have reported a 12%–18% increase in procurement costs for classroom technology and essential maintenance supplies.
Capital projects are increasingly vulnerable to reprioritization or indefinite postponement. In many cases, districts are halting building upgrades or delaying long-planned new construction to accommodate higher pricing for basic materials and services. For instance, several districts in the Midwest and Pacific Northwest have canceled or deferred school HVAC modernization efforts due to a nearly 30% spike in equipment costs largely driven by increased tariffs on metal components and imported electrical systems. Others are redesigning project scopes to limit square footage, reduce energy system complexity, or push installations into the next fiscal year.
These changes carry downstream effects on student learning environments, teacher satisfaction, and long-term facility maintenance cycles. Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Unified School District cited a nearly $4 million surge in their annual food service budget due to elevated import costs for items such as fruit, grains, and kitchen equipment. Similar cost escalations have been observed in several large urban and suburban districts, pointing to a systemic budgetary impact.
Moody’s has flagged elevated financial risk for school districts, especially those with aging infrastructure or declining enrollment. Higher education institutions face similar pressures, with deferred maintenance needs and rising construction costs compounding ongoing tuition and enrollment concerns. Higher Ed Dive reports that some institutions are scaling back planned capital improvements by up to 20-35% as a cost-containment strategy.
While these dynamics present new urgency, they echo previous disruptions. During the 2018–2019 tariff cycle, education systems adjusted procurement timelines, bundled orders to reduce costs, and shifted to domestically manufactured goods where possible. These tactics are again appearing in current district budget strategies, reinforcing a cyclical response pattern to trade-related cost volatility.
Simba’s recent Radar coverage reveals growing strain on federal education funding as debates intensify around Title I allocations, school nutrition programs, and infrastructure grants. As costs rise, districts face increasingly difficult decisions about resource allocation. Some are deferring investments in instructional materials, while others are freezing hiring or cutting professional development budgets to protect capital funds.
State agencies and national associations are responding. In Georgia, the Department of Education issued revised budget guidance outlining cost-control strategies and prioritizing core instruction over discretionary spending. Nationally, AASA and the Council of Chief State School Officers are advocating for updated federal funding formulas that better reflect inflationary conditions and regional disparities. Vendors, in turn, are restructuring contracts to offer flexible pricing and extended payment options while emphasizing bundled solutions to demonstrate long-term value and cost efficiency.
For education publishers, supplemental content providers, and edtech firms, current conditions demand both agility and long-range thinking. Companies with scalable, cost-efficient, and standards-aligned offerings are better positioned to maintain district relationships despite market disruption. However, even established vendors are contending with mounting operational pressure.
According to EdWeek Market Brief, multiple digital content providers have postponed product development and narrowed their marketing focus to core subject areas—particularly mathematics and literacy, where purchasing remains most resilient. In parallel, international suppliers of classroom hardware report logistical slowdowns due to increased port inspections and tariff compliance checks, adding 2–4 weeks to average delivery timelines. These delays have begun affecting district rollout schedules for both hardware and software implementations.
For-profit education providers are particularly exposed. Institutions that rely heavily on federal financial aid and serve large populations of nontraditional or first-generation students are under heightened scrutiny. Reports from the Center for Responsible Lending and the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office underscore the need for greater transparency, measurable outcomes, and financial accountability. With student and family expectations rising, credibility is no longer a competitive advantage—it is a baseline expectation. Institutions unable to demonstrate return on investment risk enrollment declines and reputational damage.
Tariff exemptions implemented during the Biden administration—designed to ease pandemic-era strain on education procurement—have largely expired. These included exclusions for interactive whiteboards, laptops, tablets, STEM lab equipment, projectors, and classroom furniture. Their expiration has renewed cost burdens just as many schools return to leaner post-pandemic budgets.
The current administration has taken a more assertive stance, expanding duties on imports from China and other trade partners. For companies that manufacture educational tools overseas, this has led to higher customs costs, restructured production cycles, and increased uncertainty in contract pricing. Districts already facing budget shortfalls now contend with longer procurement timelines, narrower vendor options, and compressed decision-making windows.
In response, education sector advocacy is intensifying. AASA submitted formal comments to the Office of the US Trade Representative requesting reinstated exemptions for education-related goods. The State Higher Education Executive Officers Association (SHEEO) raised concerns about how tariffs are affecting campus construction, accessibility, and affordability. Local school boards in California, Ohio, and Florida have passed resolutions urging Congress to shield schools from further trade-related financial strain.
These calls underscore the need for education-sensitive trade policies—ones that protect access, preserve affordability, and ensure continuity in essential learning environments. Stakeholders argue that education must be treated as an essential service—not as a secondary consideration in economic negotiations.
For education market providers, clarity, resilience, and adaptability are critical in this evolving landscape. While short-term disruptions may complicate timelines and purchasing decisions, long-term drivers—such as personalized learning, equitable access, and digital transformation—remain essential to growth.
Simba Information is committed to helping stakeholders navigate these forces through data-driven, market-specific insight. Our reporting identifies the intersection of policy shifts, pricing volatility, and instructional need—equipping providers, publishers, and investors with the context required to plan strategically.
This article is an excerpt from Simba Information’s bi-monthly newsletter Education Market Advisor. Learn more about this valuable resource and request access today.
In addition, subscribe to our blog using the blue button on the bottom right to easily access more articles like this in the future.
About the blogger: Martha Scharping is the Education Analyst and Writer for Simba Information, the leading authority of strategic intelligence for EdTech companies and other producers of instructional materials for K-12 and higher education.
Provide the following details to subscribe.