The director of the National Economic Council harshly criticized a Federal Reserve report claiming that U.S. companies and consumers bear 90% of the costs of Trump's tariffs, calling it the worst scientific work in the history of the Federal Reserve System.
In a recent interview, Kevin Hassett, the director of the National Economic Council, expressed sharp criticism of a report published by the New York branch of the Federal Reserve. The report claimed that U.S. companies and consumers are absorbing about 90% of the costs associated with tariffs implemented by former President Donald Trump. Hassett deemed the analysis as the 'worst scientific work' he has ever seen within the history of the Federal Reserve System, suggesting that the authors should face disciplinary action for their conclusions, which he believes carry a partisan bias.
Hassett's remarks emphasize his concerns over the credibility of the report, as he argues that the conclusions drawn from the analysis reflect political motives rather than objective economic assessment. He criticized the methodology used, suggesting that it would not pass scrutiny even in an introductory economics course. This backlash is particularly significant given the intense debates surrounding trade policies and their impacts on the U.S. economy, which are still resonating in the current political landscape.
The tension highlighted by Hassett’s criticism points to broader implications for economic policy in the U.S., especially as discussions around international trade agreements continue. The disputes over Trump's tariffs and the resulting economic impacts remain contentious issues within the political sphere, and such strong rebuttals from a key economic advisor could influence both public opinion and future policy decisions. This scenario underscores the ongoing conflicts regarding economic analysis and its interpretation in a highly polarized environment.
