Your favorite pair of jeans—especially if they’re Calvin Klein, Levi’s, or Wranglers—may have been made in Lesotho. A small country surrounded by South Africa, Lesotho is also known as the “denim capital of Africa.” With a population of 2.3 million people, Lesotho is classified by the World Bank as a lower-middle-income country where about 34 percent of the population lives below the $2.15 a day international poverty line. Over the past 25 years, however, many American blue-jean brands have contributed to Lesotho’s thriving textile industry, providing much-needed jobs.
Then, in April, President Trump proposed 50 percent tariffs on Lesotho, objecting to the trade imbalance between our two countries. While the final tariffs were reduced to 15 percent, the intervening months of uncertainty were enough for contracts to be canceled and some factories to close.
Workers in Lesotho became collateral damage of the U.S. trade policy process. The mere possibility of 50 percent tariffs and the drawn-out negotiation process itself were enough to cost families on the other side of the world their jobs. According to the Guardian, garment workers in Lesotho earn between $146 and $163 USD per month. With an annual income of less than $2,000, it is not surprising that these workers cannot afford to buy imported American goods (which is the main cause of the trade imbalance).
Trade agreements are complicated, and Catholic social teaching offers no universally applicable position on tariffs. At the same time, however, as we seek to discern just trade policy, Catholic social teaching does offer helpful guideposts.
In Populorum Progressio (On the Development of Peoples), St. Pope Paul VI expresses deep concern about the imbalances of power, wealth, and development among nations. He insists that wealthier nations have three major duties: mutual solidarity, social justice, and universal charity. Most notably, he defines social justice as the “rectification of trade relations between strong and weak nations.” Recognizing imbalances of power and wealth, he argues that free trade and market prices are not adequate “for regulating international agreements.”
While serving national interests, trade policy must conform to the demands of social justice. In 2009’s Caritas in Veritate (On Integral Human Development), Pope Benedict XVI similarly calls for “just and equitable international trade” and “building economic democracy.” In his first address to members of the diplomatic corps, Pope Leo XIV echoes his predecessors, urging, “Every effort should be made to overcome the global inequalities—between opulence and destitution.” Catholic social teaching considers this to be a duty of justice.
A just trade policy then balances the responsibility to workers and industries alongside duties of solidarity and justice. Such a policy does not seek to exploit imbalances of wealth and power between nations but to foster what Benedict XVI called “economic democracy,” where the dignity and rights of workers everywhere are respected.
Practically, the principle of double effect offers a helpful criterion for moral discernment. While double effect is most often used for bioethics or just war theory, it also applies in personal and communal economic decisions. Every day, we are faced with moral decisions that can have unintended negative consequences. Sometimes, we could not have predicted our choices’ effects, but often, we make choices knowing they may have both good and bad outcomes. The principle of double effect provides criteria for determining the best way forward.
Often attributed to Thomas Aquinas, the principle of double effect has four basic components. First, the act itself must be morally good or legitimate. Second, you must intend the good and try to avoid or minimize the harmful effects as much as possible. Third, the good effects must not be produced by the negative or evil effects. And fourth, the good effects must be proportionately good enough to outweigh the bad effects.
Tariffs can be legitimate tools to promote and protect domestic industry and workers. And loss of jobs and industry in another country (and domestically) is a foreseen negative consequence of tariffs. However, in the current process of steep tariff announcements followed by negotiation, has the U.S. government actively tried to minimize the collateral damage to Lesotho’s economy and workers? Does any potential economic benefit to the United States from Lesotho’s market proportionately outweigh the harm caused to Lesotho’s economy? It is difficult to justify the entire U.S. tariff negotiation process where Lesotho is concerned.
A trade balance between countries is only to be sought when it is just and equitable in Catholic social teaching. Among countries of drastically different size, wealth, and power, a just trade arrangement is unlikely to be mathematically equal. Each country or region requires careful discernment throughout the process. The principle of double effect can help guide both our economic decisions and our processes to build a more just and equitable international community.
This article also appears in the November 2025 issue of U.S. Catholic (Vol. 90, No. 11, pages 40-41). Click here to subscribe to the magazine.
Image: Unsplash/Rupinder Singh
Add comment