Ex-Biden Treasury Official Accuses Trump Administration of Misusing Tariff Study

Former Biden Treasury official Brent Neiman has accused the Trump administration of misrepresenting his academic research to support its tariff policy.

ContentsTariff calculations misrepresented researchEconomic assumptions under fireCriticism highlights policy concernsNeiman, now a professor at the University of Chicago, voiced his concerns in a New York Times essay, arguing that the administration used his findings inaccurately to justify aggressive tariff measures.

Neiman co-authored a study with three other economists analyzing the effects of tariffs on trade deficits and import duties. He stated that his research suggested significantly lower tariffs than those imposed by the Trump administration. However, the U.S. Trade Representative’s office cited the study to support a more aggressive tariff approach.

Tariff calculations misrepresented research

According to Neiman, the USTR’s “Reciprocal Tariff Calculations” report misapplied a key metric from his research. The administration used a 25 percent pass-through rate, which measures how much of the tariff cost is passed on to consumers. Neiman said his research found a 95 percent rate, meaning the USTR used a figure nearly four times lower than what the data supported.

He criticized the USTR, then led by Robert Lighthizer, for presenting his work as backing their conclusions when it did not. Neiman stated that the misinterpretation led to tariff rates that were much higher than his findings recommended. He called the government’s use of his research deeply flawed and misleading.

Economic assumptions under fire

Neiman also pointed to what he described as flawed assumptions in the Trump administration’s tariff formula. The model assumed that tariffs on one country would not influence imports from other countries or impact U.S. exports. Neiman said this is unrealistic, especially with broad tariffs across multiple trade partners.

He explained that imposing tariffs on countries like Japan could shift demand toward alternatives like Mexico. Over time, such policies could lead to higher prices, retaliation from trade partners, and a stronger U.S. dollar, which would hurt American exporters.

Criticism highlights policy concerns

He refused to expand his research applications and ultimately dismissed the tariff policy in international trade. The expert clarified that trade deficits stem from economic factors beyond deliberate trade inequality. Neiman opposed the notion that utilitarian trade barriers to equalize US deficits worked efficiently because he believed such an approach distorted actual international commercial relationships. Professional research should be used cautiously when formulating economic policies since this practice creates multiple risks to factual criteria and legal accountability in decisions.