See, here is the problem. At its core, a tariff is tool to modify specific aspects of a specific human or group of humans. In theory, the tariff adds enough to the cost of a product that either the middlemen or the final customer has to actively decide if it is worth it.
If you want fewer EU citizens to purchase Fords, you increase the cost with a tariff and suddenly the Ford costs the same as a BMW. In one fell swoop, you have removed whatever monetary advantage Ford had while not addressing or affecting any issues of quality or fun or utility etc etc. Basically you have raised the cost without increasing the value. If Ford has had a good year or ten and they have plenty of cash on hand, they could choose to keep the MSRP the same and just pay the cost of the tariff themselves. In that way the EU citizens are not financially incentivized to purchase a vehicle of alternate manufacture.
Your modification target can be either the manufacturer, the middlemen - importer, jobber, retailer, or the end user. Any or all of them MAY be affected by additional costs but choices can be made that places the greater burden on one entity or the other. Generally as a long-term reaction to the tariffs, the choice is to pass the costs on to the next entity in the line. As the phrase indicates, the "end user" is the last entity. With no one else to pass the costs on to, they must choose to either pay the cost or change their behavior and choose a different product.
If Walmart were to "eat the tariffs" as demanded by Felon47, neither the foreign manufacturers nor the end user are financially incentivized to alter their behavior. So was the goal all along to decrease Walmart's profits? To what end? That has certainly not been articulated within range of my awareness.
According to the day or the rant, the tariffs are either to punish the foreigners that stole our jobs OR they are to convince Americans to buy American and convince companies to move manufacturing back to our shores. I fail to see how Walmart "eating the tariffs" accomplishes any of that. Sam Walton's heirs are incredibly wealthy. They enjoy a near unimaginable income from Walmart. But regardless of how true that is, my behavior will not be changed by my socks costing Walmart $4.58 instead of $3.80 as long as I still see $5.00 at the register. China, Vietnam, India, or Indonesia cashed the check and put the product on a ship. They could not possibly give less of a shit what happens to it after that so their behavior is not likely to be modified.
So what are the goals? How would you know? Whether you listen to the misadministration's words or observe their actions, there are internal and external conflicts with both. The only honest effort seems to be in the attempt to make it look like the misadministration is doing something and, more importantly, to make Felon47 feel like a big man because actual successful people are jumping when he says "jump". Past that, he has no more of a clue than do his supporters.