In April 2025, the U.S. Trade Representative introduced a controversial tariff formula, called “Liberation Day,” sparking scrutiny among economists. At first, the formula seemed credible, with its Greek symbols and academic citations. However, upon closer inspection, key terms nullified each other, reducing the formula to calculations based primarily on bilateral trade deficits. This raised questions about its origins.
An economist, curious about the formula’s development, filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to access the background records. The process was met with delays and eventually, the Trade Representative’s office found 31 pages of responsive material but withheld them, citing executive privilege due to communications with the White House Council of Economic Advisers. The courts now must decide if this privilege is applicable.
This secrecy fuels speculation about the strength of the tariff’s economic justification. If the case for these tariffs is robust, why conceal the work? Moreover, why would the Council of Economic Advisers avoid endorsing a document they helped prepare?
The Liberty Justice Center, representing businesses challenging these tariffs, sees the withheld pages as part of a broader pattern. The legal basis for tariffs has shifted multiple times. Initially, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act was cited, then Section 122, and later Section 301, each attempt becoming a new legal stance when others were rejected. Each change leads to similar tariffs, raising questions about the administration’s consistency.
The controversy extends to who was involved in crafting these tariffs. The Council of Economic Advisers, tasked with objective analysis, was part of these discussions. It’s crucial for the public to know whether they raised concerns about the formula’s logic or endorsed it.
An academic source cited in the formula’s defense was a working paper by economists Pau Pujolas and Jack Rossbach. One co-author later claimed the administration misrepresented their findings, supporting policies contrary to their research. This misuse further questions the credibility of the administration’s academic backing.
The withheld records could clarify if officials recognized these issues before publishing the formula or if concerns were overlooked or not raised at all. By withholding these pages, the government prevents public scrutiny.
Disagreements about tariffs and trade deficits are common. However, the executive branch must offer the public a transparent explanation for policies affecting significant economic activities. When the government seeks judicial deference, business trust, and public acceptance of its broad economic policies, it should be transparent about its reasoning.
The administration must reveal what it fears the public might see. Without transparency, confidence in the government’s decision-making remains uncertain.