By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Despite a January 2024 letter, highlighted by Eleanor Mueller of Semafor, that clearly states tariffs are inflationary and would strengthen the dollar, a key figure claimed such a document did not exist. In the letter, it was argued that Donald Trump’s intention to weaken the dollar was to foster US manufacturing competitiveness. Attempts were made to dismiss this conflicting evidence, with a subsequent assertion that any prior statement regarding tariffs being inflationary was mistaken, all while the average American continues to bear the brunt of economic impacts from tariff policies.
Read the original article here
The notion of public officials being held accountable for their words, particularly when testifying before Congress, is a cornerstone of democratic governance. When that accountability seems to falter, especially in the face of clear evidence, it raises significant questions about integrity and the rule of law. This is precisely the situation that has unfolded regarding Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent.
During a congressional hearing, Bessent was directly asked by Representative Maxine Waters whether he had written a letter to investors expressing concerns about the impact of tariffs, specifically stating that “tariffs are inflationary.” His response was a clear and unequivocal “Uh, no.” This denial, delivered with a smile when the New York Times was invoked as a corroborating source, suggested a dismissiveness that has now been met with undeniable proof to the contrary.
The contradiction lies in a letter Bessent himself authored in January of this year. This letter, highlighted by Eleanor Mueller of Semafor, explicitly states, “Tariffs are inflationary and would strengthen the dollar–hardly a good starting point for a US industrial renaissance.” The letter goes on to elaborate on how then-candidate Trump would weaken the dollar to boost American manufacturing competitiveness. This stands in stark contrast to his testimony where he, at one point, asserted, “There is no inflation. Tariffs are not being passed on to consumers,” even going so far as to accuse critics of “tariff derangement syndrome.” Furthermore, when pressed again on the inflationary nature of tariffs, Bessent deflected, citing the San Francisco Federal Reserve and claiming tariffs do not cause inflation.
The existence of this letter, bearing Bessent’s name and containing the very sentiment he denied expressing, presents a direct conflict with his sworn testimony. In the realm of congressional hearings, such discrepancies can carry serious implications, with lying to Congress historically being considered a felony. The casual nature of Bessent’s denial, coupled with the irrefutable evidence of his prior written statement, leaves little room for interpretation. It suggests a deliberate attempt to mislead lawmakers.
This incident also brings to the forefront the broader economic implications of tariffs. Independent research and reports consistently indicate that the burden of tariffs, contrary to some official rhetoric, is largely borne by American consumers and the domestic economy, rather than foreign exporters. Studies suggest that American households have incurred significant costs due to these tariffs, and trade deficits have, at times, widened despite these protectionist measures. The disconnect between the stated intent of tariffs and their documented economic consequences, as suggested by various analyses, further complicates the narrative presented by officials like Bessent.
The situation raises concerns not just about Bessent’s credibility but also about the broader adherence to truth and transparency within the administration. When key figures appear to offer demonstrably false statements under oath, it erodes public trust and calls into question the reliability of information provided to Congress and, by extension, to the American people. The expectation is that officials in such positions will engage in honest discourse, and when that expectation is unmet, particularly in such a blatant manner, it necessitates scrutiny and a demand for accountability.