Just 4% of Southeast Alaska business leaders surveyed this spring believed that they would benefit from President Donald Trump’s aggressive reshaping of the federal government and tariff campaign that he has pursued since taking office, according to a survey for the Southeast Conference.

Almost 80% said that the changes would be a negative for their business or add uncertainty.

That was one of many conclusions presented on Sept. 16 during this year’s annual gathering of regional business and community leaders and elected officials, held in Sitka this year.

For its annual report, Southeast Alaska by the Numbers, the economic development group’s consultant, Juneau-based Rain Coast Data, reached out to 422 business leaders across the Panhandle in a variety of industries, including seafood, timber, mining, tourism, construction and retail.

In addition to the usual questions about challenges and opportunities in the region, this year’s survey asked more specifically how respondents expected “federal changes in Southeast to impact your business over the next few months.”

That was in reference to the numerous actions that Trump had taken to reorganize the federal government in the weeks after taking office, said Rain Coast Data Director Meilani Schijvens, who presented the report.

The administration’s actions have included large-number layoffs across federal agencies with little notice, cuts to government contracts and projects, and terminating spending that it determined supported the principles of diversity, inclusion and equity.

Trump also has announced significant tariffs on imports from dozens of countries.

Nearly half of respondents to the Southeast survey — 47% — responded that they expected those actions to have either a “very negative” or “moderately negative” effect on their businesses, split nearly evenly between the two categories. Another 30% responded that they would create “a climate of uncertainty.”

About one in five respondents said that they didn’t expect the federal actions to affect their business. Just 3% said that they expected those actions to have a “moderately” positive impact on their livelihood, and 1% expected them to have a “very” positive effect.

Tariffs were a widely quoted concern among respondents, mentioned by business leaders in construction, tourism, seafood and retail.

Those concerns mirrored those in the seafood industry regarding the cost of parts and equipment for vessels, Schijvens said.

Some retail representatives reported that tariffs already had affected their business by the time they responded to the survey. “Tariffs are interrupting the supply chain and only going to get worse with all the uncertainty,” one wrote. “Prices are fluctuating daily now and shipping is increasingly difficult.”

Survey responses were anonymous.

And in a region that already struggles with expensive and scarce housing, many in the construction industry are anxious that the tariffs will hit them hard, making it difficult to predict costs and adding another obstacle to new housing across Southeast Alaska, Schijvens said.

And without more housing, communities will struggle to attract and retain younger families to sustain and support their current population, she said.

“Construction is already extremely expensive in our area, and a lack of contractor confidence in pricing stability is going to raise bid pricing,” a business leader said. “Uncertainty is bad for business.”

Even the industries that Trump has championed, particularly mining, tempered their praise due to concerns about how seismic shifts in the federal workforce would affect timely communication with key agencies.

One mining industry respondent explained: “Some aspects of executive orders may be good for permitting, but there is concern around adequate staffing to administer those permits.”

Seafood leaders shared a similar concern specific to the effects on the number of scientists employed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which helps to analyze and model fishery health and population.

“Loss of scientific and regulatory expertise at NOAA is a concern,” one wrote.