The White House in a background paper on the imposition of tariffs claims that tariffs strengthen the U.S. economy, create jobs, and don’t raise consumer prices. But when I checked two of their sources, I found that they don’t actually support these claims. The McKinsey analysis they cite says some economists believe that tariffs could help U.S. producers—meaning there’s no guarantee tariffs will have the intended effect. The academic study McKinsey references actually states that tariffs often lead to slower job creation in downstream industries, higher consumer prices, and trade conflicts. Similarly, Janet Yellen’s quote about tariffs not increasing prices was taken out of context—she was referring to targeted Biden-era tariffs, not broad tariffs on Canada and Mexico.

While I only checked two sources defending the first of many claims in the paper, the way the sources were misrepresented raises concerns about the overall credibility of the White House background paper. It appears to selectively present information in a way that misleads rather than informs. Instead of offering a balanced assessment of tariffs, it relies on an appeal to authority—citing respected sources to lend credibility to its claims while ignoring key details that contradict them. I expect better. The typical reader doesn’t have time to verify claims and track down sources. They want a quick, credible read. The background paper quickly fails the credibility test. I think it is important that I use the paper’s own sources to check its assertions on tariffs. The remainder of the post describes how I came to this conclusion.

The White House Background Information (see https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/…/white-house-press…) on tariffs imposed February 1st (and then deferred) begins with: “TARIFFS STRENGTHEN THE AMERICAN ECONOMY, RAISE WAGES, AND CREATE JOBS.” I’m skeptical, but there are numerous references supporting this assertion, beginning with a 2024 analysis by McKinsey & Company. The analysis is quoted: “tariffs on imported goods could reduce competition for US producers, increase demand for US-made goods, and create jobs.” The presence of the word “could” means that tariffs might or might not have the intended effect. The assertion is further weakened in the analysis itself, which begins with: “Some economists believe that tariffs on imported…” The word “some” means not none, but it does not mean a lot either.

The trail doesn’t end there. The McKinsey analysis cites a journal article (Trade and Inequality in Europe and the U.S.) as its source. As it turns out, the article says something quite different. It states that tariffs are “intended to” reduce competition for U.S. producers—but intentions are not results. The article explicitly states: “The benefit that higher tariffs bring in terms of averted job loss in protected industries tends to trade off against lower job creation in downstream industries, higher consumer prices, and potential political conflict with foreign trading partners who may react with retaliatory tariffs.” Furthermore, it notes: “The U.S. tariff hikes were widely seen as part of President Trump’s [first-term] agenda to bring back jobs to America. Yet there is little evidence for employment gains. […] The industries that were protected by higher import tariffs did not add significantly more jobs, while downstream customer industries faced job losses.”

So, the first supporting source confuses the intentions behind imposing tariffs with the actual results of imposing tariffs. More importantly, it supporting citation highlights that tariffs often produce unintended negative consequences.

I also checked one more supporting source. In the background information, Janet Yellen is quoted as saying: “I don’t believe that American consumers will see any meaningful increase in the prices that they face.” She did say this, but she was referring to the targeted tariffs President Biden announced on roughly $18 billion of imports from China—not broad tariffs on Canada and Mexico. She even clarified: “They’re very carefully targeted at sectors that we’re supporting through legislation that President Biden passed with Congress, the clean energy sector, semiconductors, sectors where we consider it critical to create good jobs.”

So contrary to the White House’s claim, Yellen was not saying that consumers wouldn’t see price increases from across-the-board tariffs on Canada and Mexico. This is another example of selective citation that misleads the reader.

I only looked at two sources, but if these are any indication, the White House background paper is not an honest evaluation of tariffs. Instead, it appears to selectively present information to fit a political narrative rather than provide a balanced economic assessment. I expect better.