Hassett says authors of New York Fed tariff study should be disciplined: 'Worst paper I've ever seen'

White House economic advisor Kevin Hassett has launched a scathing critique of a recent New York Federal Reserve paper, challenging its methodology and conclusions regarding U.S. tariff impacts. In a bold statement that has sent ripples through economic policy circles, Hassett declared the research an 'embarrassment' and suggested the authors should face professional consequences.

The controversial paper, published on February 12th, concluded that approximately 90% of tariff costs are being absorbed domestically by U.S. companies and consumers, a finding Hassett vehemently disputes. He argued that the researchers ignored critical economic factors, particularly the potential upward impact on wages and benefits from onshore production.

Hassett's criticism centers on what he perceives as a fundamentally flawed analysis. 'The people associated with this paper should presumably be disciplined,' he stated during a CNBC 'Squawk Box' interview, characterizing the work as unworthy of even a first-semester economics class.

The dispute highlights the ongoing complexity of trade policy and tariff implementation. While the New York Fed researchers focused primarily on price mechanisms, Hassett insists that the broader economic narrative is more nuanced. He emphasized that inflation has decreased and real wages increased by an average of $1,400 last year, suggesting that tariffs might have more complex economic benefits than the paper suggests.

For precious metals investors and economic policy watchers, this public disagreement underscores the continuing uncertainty surrounding trade policies. The ongoing strategic recalibrations in global commodity markets suggest that such policy debates will continue to have significant implications for investment strategies.