Kevin Hassett says Fed economists should be 'disciplined' over tariff study

White House economic advisor Kevin Hassett has escalated tensions with the Federal Reserve's research department, calling for disciplinary action against economists who published a study revealing the substantial economic burden of U.S. tariff policies on businesses and consumers.

The controversy centers on a nuanced economic analysis that challenges the Trump administration's trade strategy, suggesting that tariffs ultimately transfer significant costs to American enterprises and consumers rather than primarily impacting foreign manufacturers.

Hassett's critique targets the New York Fed's research methodology, arguing that the economists' study undermines the administration's narrative about the effectiveness of tariff-based trade interventions. By publicly demanding professional discipline, he has sparked a rare public disagreement between economic policymakers.

For precious metals investors, this academic dispute highlights the ongoing volatility in monetary policy and trade negotiations that can significantly influence commodity markets. Tariffs and trade tensions historically create uncertainty that can drive investment toward safe-haven assets like silver and gold.

The research in question suggests that approximately 80% of tariff costs are absorbed by U.S. importers and consumers, a finding that directly contradicts the administration's claims about trade policy's economic benefits. This revelation could potentially reshape investor perceptions of trade-related market risks.

As the debate unfolds, sophisticated investors should monitor how this academic-political conflict might influence future trade policies and their potential ripple effects across global commodity markets. The intersection of economic research, political rhetoric, and market dynamics remains a critical consideration for strategic investment planning.