Economist Delivers 'Basic Economics' Lesson to Trump

New study finds 90% of Trump's tariffs are paid by Americans, not foreign countries

Published on Feb. 15, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

A new study by the New York Federal Reserve found that 90% of the tariffs imposed by former President Donald Trump are paid by American consumers, not foreign countries. Economist Peter Schiff criticized Trump and his advisors, saying they do not understand this "basic economics" concept.

Why it matters

The findings challenge Trump's claims that his trade war tactics, including tariffs, would force other countries to pay. This revelation raises questions about the effectiveness and impact of Trump's economic policies, which were a central part of his administration's agenda.

The details

The study by the New York Federal Reserve showed that the burden of Trump's tariffs falls primarily on American businesses and consumers, who end up paying higher prices for imported goods. Economist Peter Schiff, a financial commentator and radio personality, criticized Trump and his advisors for not understanding this basic economic principle.

  • The New York Federal Reserve study was recently completed in February 2026.

The players

Peter Schiff

A financial commentator and radio personality who has been raising alarms about America's affordability crisis.

Donald Trump

The former President of the United States whose trade war tactics, including tariffs, were a central part of his administration's economic agenda.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“The N.Y. Fed just completed a study that found that 90% of Trump's tariffs are paid by Americans. Since this is such basic economics, there really was no need to conduct a study.”

— Peter Schiff, Financial Commentator and Radio Personality (Twitter)

“What should be most concerning is that neither Trump nor his advisors understand this simple concept.”

— Peter Schiff, Financial Commentator and Radio Personality (Twitter)

The takeaway

This case highlights the disconnect between the Trump administration's rhetoric on trade policy and the economic realities faced by American consumers and businesses. It raises questions about the effectiveness and impact of Trump's economic policies, which were a central part of his agenda.