Uncertainty is the enemy of being able to plan, well, anything. Uncertainty leads to unease, anxiety, and a whole bunch of unpleasant feelings that can impact anyone's ability to make good, clearheaded decisions. I probably don't need to tell you that; these are things that you probably already know, and have personally experienced. Knowing things, even if they're bad, is generally better than that strange liminal space where you don't know (so you catastrophize to keep your brain busy).
Because once you know what's happening (again, even if it's bad news), you can plan. And more importantly, you can act. You have a sense of direction at last, instead of staying in the pool and treading water until you figure it out.
That's why the current US administration's international tariffs approach has effectively acted like a wrecking ball, at least in terms of overall confidence levels. So far, there's been talk of one thing, then another; a walkback over here, a delay over here, and so on. Swing your partner; do-si-do; it's absolute chaos. I'll leave it to you to debate whether it's intentional or not; I'm certainly not in anyone's head, and frankly, I don't want to be.
Instead, what I'm here to talk about is what we know so far. For one thing, some news outlets have unfortunately used imprecise language when talking about the latest set of tariffs that may or may not go into effect on April 2, 2025.
Yes, even though it's March 31 as I write this, it's still not totally clear. Chaos.
Automobiles are a TYPE of vehicle, but they're not synonyms
Maybe it's the salty editor in me coming out, but "vehicle" is a broad term. Merriam-Webster's first definition describes it as 'a means of carrying or transporting something,' and uses the phrase 'planes, trains, and other vehicles' as an example of its correct usage. (Was that an alternate title for the comedy classic film Planes, Trains, and Automobiles? Unclear.)
And yet, some news outlets have used the word "vehicle" when what they really meant to say was "automobile," because that's the specific term that the White House's executive order regarding 25 percent blanket tariffs on "imports of automobiles and certain automobile parts" uses. Although, to be fair, it does go on later to use the term "imported passenger vehicles," which it then defines as "sedans, SUVs, crossovers, minivans, cargo vans."
The problem with simply using the word "vehicle" on its own, of course, is that as the Merriam-Webster definition above makes abundantly clear, we could be talking about planes. Or trains. Or motorcycles. Or any other thing that could loosely be described as a "vehicle."
TL;DR: At present, the current new round of 25% tariffs on imported automobiles does not appear to include powersports products.
Right now, anyway. But given that we've already seen how the conversation can seemingly change on a dime, that might not remain the case. Especially if Harley-Davidson has anything to say about it, which brings me to my second point.
Harley's Not Happy About Europe's Counter-Tariffs
I mean, you can't really blame it. Taking an extremely narrow, business-only view about what's good for your business (and without consideration for any and all external factors), you'd probably be unhappy, too. Once again, Harley feels like it's getting caught in the crossfire, and even its planned end-run around the tariffs by moving some production to Thailand ultimately isn't working out as well as it hoped.
But if you listen to what the MoCo told the Wall Street Journal, its bikes are already heavily taxed in some places, like Denmark. In fact, it specifically supplied Denmark as an example that it gave of how the European Union's threat of retaliatory tariffs of 50 percent on American-made motorcycles over 500cc would make it very, very unlikely that many people would still want to purchase Harley-Davidson motorcycles in that country.
There's just one problem: The math, as they say, isn't mathing. I'll quote directly here, and then show you why it doesn't work out. Here's what the WSJ wrote:
Consider the Road Glide, a touring model that starts at $28,000 in the U.S. In Denmark, the price tag is already around $77,000 once the country’s 25% value-added tax and 150% luxury tax are added.
Reading that and accepting it at face value, it sounds terrible. Scandalous, even, if you're a major Harley-head. Except, if anyone bothered to actually check the figures here, they'd quickly see there are a few problems with this statement.
A quick check of a Harley-Davidson dealer in Copenhagen called Thunderbike shows that the price of a 2025 Road Glide starts at 32,600 €. Like most prices you'll find of goods sold via European websites, the scary-sounding value-added tax (VAT) is already included. In other words, with that price, what you see is what you get; no sticker shock of a bike carrying an MSRP of $4,999 but actually costing a bunch more once you do all the financial paperwork and the taxes are tacked on when you're too tired to think about it.
Now, Euro to US Dollar conversion rates fluctuate, so I can only tell you what the rate is at the time I'm writing this, which is in the middle of the day on March 31, 2025. Right now, 32,600 € converts to approximately US $35,272. While that's not quite on par with the suggested US MSRP of $27,999, you can probably explain that away pretty easily when you factor in shipping costs to get that hefty American-made motorcycle over to Copenhagen, pay the mechanics at the dealership their setup costs, and so on.
We've already proved that the first half of the sentence that reads, "In Denmark, the price tag is already around $77,000 once the country’s 25% value-added tax and 150% luxury tax are added" isn't totally correct. Now let's work on the second.
While Denmark's vehicle registration taxes aren't cheap, they're also not quite as bad as this sentence makes them out to be. According to the Danish Motor Vehicle Agency (which is the official government body that handles said taxes), the vehicle registration taxes (which this would be; not a 'luxury tax,' which were a thing on certain goods in Denmark but which are currently being phased out) for motorbikes are based on the purchase price (including VAT) of the vehicle in question.
Notably, while Denmark is a member of the European Union, it opted out of using the Euro as its currency and instead continues to use the Danish Krone. This is an important difference to note, because it adds an extra step to the calculation and conversion process.
While that Harley dealership in Copenhagen, the capital city of Denmark, lists its prices in Euros, you can then convert that Euro price to a DKK price to figure out the rate of taxation on your new 2025 Road Glide. Going from its Euro price at present to DKK makes the price 243,233 DKK.
Since all motorbikes over 76,200 DKK (equivalent to about US $11,050 at the time of writing) are taxed at a rate of 150%—and by the way; that's ALL motorbikes, not only imports, so neither Harley nor American-made bikes are being singled out here—and 150% of that figure is 364,849.5 DKK, that makes the total out-of-pocket cost to get your Road Glide on the road in Denmark 608,082.5 DKK.
Convert that back to USD at the time of writing, and you get US $88,178, which is actually a bit higher than the US $77,000 figure quoted in that piece. Then again, maybe the conversion rates have really changed that much since last week (the time of Root's presentation to that congressional committee), given the current period of global economic volatility the uncertainty of these tariffs has plunged us all into.
These Mathematical Scare Tactics Were Made To Make A Point
In presenting this somewhat flawed mathematical argument via the piece in the WSJ, the MoCo's chief financial officer, Jonathan Root, was quoted as saying "Competitor brands should not be allowed to take advantage of low-cost manufacturing and preferential import duty when accessing the U.S. market,” when speaking to a US congressional trade panel last week.
So, in other words, competitor brands should not be allowed to do what Harley itself tried to do by establishing facilities overseas to access the European market.
And, I mean, of course that's what it's going to say. Most companies want to make money; therefore, most companies will want any and all advantages they can gain access to, by whatever means. It's not about equalizing the playing field; it's all about the money. Therefore, it's unsurprising that in this piece, Harley advocates for non-American motorcycle makers to "face reciprocal duties when they export bikes into the US."
If you know your Harley history (or your American motorcycle industry history, for that matter), then this line of reasoning might sound familiar, as it's an echo of something that did actually happen in the early 1980s.
Funnily enough, if you look at the digitized version of the actual memoranda regarding President Reagan's 1983 Motorcycle Import Relief tariffs scheme, you'll see that April 2 was the deadline by which the then-president was told he must make a decision about whether to proceed with tariffs to help out Harley.
As the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel notes, "Reagan's action was considered unusual for an administration committed to free trade." And in truth, it was. But it's what was done, and it's since been credited with helping Harley-Davidson turn its fortunes around as it recovered from the AMF years.
Prior to Reagan's tariff action, imported heavyweight motorcycles (for purposes of this determination, those over 700cc in displacement) were taxed at 4.4 percent. But after Reagan's tariffs went into effect, they jumped up to 49.4 percent in 1983. Over the following years, they receded first to 39.4 percent, then 24.4 percent, then 19.4 percent, and then 14.4 percent. By 1987, the MJS reported, the Motor Company had asked for those protective tariffs to be repealed because the company was sufficiently back on its feet.
It's not clear what specific action(s) the current Harley-Davidson administration in 2025 would like to see taken, but that statement from Root makes clear that it wouldn't be opposed to similar measures being taken within the modern motorcycle industry. Presumably, other members of the modern motorcycle industry would not like to see that happen. (I haven't asked them at this point, but I think that's a reasonably safe assumption.)
Incidentally, the WSJ report quotes the Motorcycle Industry Council as not having a comment, presumably because it doesn't want to be asked to choose its favorite child among all the OEMs that comprise the motorcycle industry in the US. And, I mean, fair enough.
There's a lot to consider here, though, and the main concerns that I always have are about two things: Rider choice, and also whether the employees at the OEMs in question are getting a fair shake. In my ideal version of things, riders should be able to choose bikes based on whether they offer the desired qualities (and value proposition) they want in their lives. Some people want Harleys; others do not, and they should be able to ride what they want. At the same time, the employees of the OEMs that make those bikes should be compensated fairly for their time, and be able to take care of themselves and their families.
An ongoing tariffs war seems likely to negatively impact both of those ideal goals, in ways that we probably can't even begin to see from our current vantage point. I don't want to see it. Many of you probably also don't want to see it. How will all of this ultimately develop? At this point, your guess is as good as mine.
