Brent Neiman, a former U.S. Treasury official under the Biden administration and a respected economist at the University of Chicago, has publicly criticized the Trump administration for misusing his academic research to justify aggressive tariff policies.

In a scathing New York Times op-ed published Monday, Brent Neiman accused the Trump-era U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) of misapplying his findings to support excessively high tariffs. The administration had cited Neiman’s research in its “Reciprocal Tariff Calculations” report, but Brent Neiman argued that they had “got it wrong—very wrong.”

His original study, co-authored with three other economists, analyzed how tariffs affect trade imbalances. However, the Trump administration’s interpretation led to tariffs nearly four times higher than what Neiman’s data suggested was appropriate.

How the Trump Administration Misapplied Brent Neiman’s Research

A critical error in the USTR’s calculations was their use of a 25% “pass-through” rate, which measures how much of a tariff’s cost is passed on to consumers. Brent Neiman’s research, however, indicated a 95% pass-through rate—a massive discrepancy that drastically inflated the proposed tariffs.

Had the Trump administration used Neiman’s correct figures, the resulting tariffs would have been significantly lower. Instead, they imposed steep duties on imports from China, Mexico, and the European Union, claiming it would reduce trade deficits.

Brent Neiman strongly refuted this approach, stating that trade deficits are influenced by numerous economic factors, including natural resources, comparative advantages, and developmental stages—not just tariffs.

Why Brent Neiman Says Zero Trade Deficits Are Unrealistic

The Trump administration’s “reciprocal tariff” strategy aimed to eliminate trade imbalances by matching other countries’ tariffs. However, Brent Neiman argued that this goal was fundamentally flawed.

He explained that trade imbalances are not inherently bad—they often reflect differences in economic structures. For example, Americans buying more clothes from Sri Lanka than Sri Lankans buy from the U.S. doesn’t indicate unfair trade practices but rather differing consumer demands and production capabilities.

Brent Neiman also highlighted another flaw in the administration’s formula: it ignored how tariffs on one country could shift demand to another. For instance, high tariffs on Japanese auto parts might lead manufacturers to source from Mexico instead—without actually reducing overall imports.

Additionally, Neiman warned that such tariffs could trigger retaliation and strengthen the U.S. dollar, making American exports more expensive and ultimately harming domestic industries.

The Broader Problem: Politicians Misusing Academic Research

Brent Neiman expressed frustration over seeing his research twisted to fit a political agenda. His work was intended to guide balanced, data-driven trade policies, not justify extreme protectionist measures.

This controversy underscores a recurring issue in policymaking: selective use of academic research to validate pre-existing agendas. Brent Neiman’s case highlights the risks of such practices—misapplied economics can lead to costly, ineffective policies with long-term consequences.

A Call for More Responsible Policy Decisions

Neiman’s critique goes beyond a single policy dispute—it raises important questions about transparency and accountability in economic decision-making. As global trade dynamics continue to evolve, policymakers must rely on accurate interpretations of research rather than distorting data to fit ideological goals.

For now, Brent Neiman’s rebuke serves as a cautionary tale: when academic work is misused, the economic fallout can be severe. Moving forward, ensuring that research informs—rather than justifies—policy will be crucial in shaping fair and effective trade strategies. The Bit Gazette is your sure bet for the latest and hottest crypto news and expert analysis.