Renowned U.S. economist Brent Neiman, a former senior official in President Biden’s Treasury Department and a current professor at the University of Chicago, has publicly voiced concern after discovering that his academic research was incorrectly cited by the Trump administration to justify newly announced global tariffs.
In a hard-hitting op-ed published Monday in The New York Times, Neiman expressed deep dismay, explaining that the tariffs unveiled by President Trump are wildly inflated — roughly four times higher than what his original economic models would have suggested.
“When I first saw the numbers, I was stunned,” Neiman recalled. His shock deepened when he noticed that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative had cited a 2021 study he coauthored. However, according to Neiman, the administration fundamentally misinterpreted the data.
“Even if you accept the administration’s goals at face value — which I don’t — our findings point to much lower tariff rates, not these extreme figures,” Neiman wrote.
A Flawed Application of Economic Theory
Neiman’s criticisms go beyond simple disagreement. He systematically dismantled the Trump administration’s tariff strategy, explaining that reciprocal tariffs, as described by Trump, are being misapplied.
True reciprocal tariffs, Neiman clarified, involve matching the treatment other countries give U.S. exports. In reality, foreign tariffs on American goods are far lower than the staggering rates Trump has proposed. The concept of “fairness” that the administration touts, he argued, does not align with actual global trade data.
Moreover, Neiman pointed out that Trump’s tariff plan seems to operate under the false assumption that trade with one country happens in isolation. In a globalized economy, however, slapping high tariffs on one nation inevitably affects trade flows with others — something basic economic models take into account but the administration appears to have ignored.
“These assumptions might hold in dealing with a small country,” Neiman wrote, “but not in a global trade war against multiple major economies.”
Questionable Calculations and Lack of Transparency
Perhaps most concerning to Neiman was the methodology used by the Trump administration. He criticized it as being riddled with poor assumptions and opaque logic.
One key figure — a so-called 25% pass-through rate (the percentage of tariff costs passed onto consumers) — appears in the administration’s calculations without any clear explanation. Neiman emphasized that this critical variable is highly uncertain and depends heavily on how businesses respond, yet no detailed analysis or justification was provided.
“I would prefer they scrap both the policy and the methodology altogether,” Neiman said bluntly. “But short of that, they should at least divide the results by four.”
Broader Backlash from the Economic Community
Neiman is far from alone. Leading economists across the political spectrum have criticized the tariff announcement, calling the math behind it “embarrassing” and “economic malpractice.”
Despite mounting criticism, the Trump administration has signaled it intends to stick to its plan. The White House has claimed that over 50 countries have reached out seeking negotiations since the tariffs were introduced, though there are mixed messages on whether talks are actually on the table.
Peter Navarro, White House trade adviser, insisted in his own op-ed that “this is not a negotiation.” Meanwhile, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent suggested a more flexible approach, saying negotiations — at least with countries like Japan — remain possible.
Final Thoughts
Neiman has yet to speak directly with Trump administration officials but has been informed that they are aware of his public criticisms. His experience serves as a cautionary tale about how academic research can be misused in policymaking — particularly in a high-stakes area like global trade.
In an era when sound economic policy is vital for both national and global stability, Neiman’s warning reminds us of the importance of expertise, accuracy, and transparency — values that cannot be compromised without real-world consequences.
