U.S. President Donald Trump has consistently maintained a contentious relationship with expertise, often dismissing the insights of economists who warn against his policies.
His administration has faced criticism for implementing widespread tariffs that many economists believe could trigger a severe recession, leading to a tumultuous impact on global markets.
Surrounded by a select group of economists advocating a ‘degrowth agenda,’ Trump has ignored the advice of respected experts on economic issues.
Trump’s decision-making process is driven by instinct rather than data, as he himself remarked in 2018, “I have a gut, and my gut tells me more sometimes than anybody else’s brain can ever tell me.”
His approach was evident last week when he justified the timeline for his tariff decisions by saying he chose the 90-day pause “just instinctively.”
The president’s skepticism towards experts and academic institutions has been apparent, as shown by his public critiques of the university system, reflecting a broader disregard for sources of knowledge.
His cabinet selections often align with this inclination, favoring individuals less experienced in managing large bureaucracies and independent economic thought.
Trump’s reliance on unsupported tariffs poses significant risks, potentially laying the groundwork for an economic crisis on a global scale.
The pattern of rejection towards expert opinion is not entirely new but echoes historical tensions throughout U.S. presidential history, particularly post-World War II.
In the immediate aftermath of the war, there was a widespread recognition among government officials that expert knowledge could enhance economic stability and national security.
The creation of the Council of Economic Advisors (CEA) in 1946 is emblematic of this era, designed to provide presidents with the expertise necessary for effective governance.
Legislators at the time sought to establish mechanisms that promoted full employment through macroeconomic policy adjustments, giving the federal government a prominent role in the economy.
Led by champions such as Senators James Murray and Robert Wagner, the passage of the Employment Act marked a commitment to economic planning and the institutionalization of expertise.
Although the original legislation faced significant backlash from business interests fearing governmental overreach, it ultimately passed, resulting in the establishment of the CEA.
This council was intended to serve as a reservoir of independent advice, free from political pressures, allowing presidents to make informed economic choices.
Initially, however, there was wariness about the advisory group, given presidential anxieties regarding independent voices.
The legislation mandated the CEA to devise economic forecasts and appraise governmental programs, making recommendations based on empirical research rather than political motivations.
President Harry Truman’s appointment of Edwin Nourse as the first chair reflected an effort to integrate respected economists into the advisory process of the presidency.
The role of the CEA gained traction during Truman’s administration, as he recognized its value in crafting policies that responded to the exigencies of the postwar period.
In a 1947 economic report, Truman acknowledged the CEA’s expertise, emphasizing its capability to analyze developments and recommend sound economic strategies.
As the CEA evolved, it came to be seen as a trusted source of advice, utilized by both Democratic and Republican administrations in economic deliberations.
Under President Dwight Eisenhower, the council solidified its reputation, despite Eisenhower’s initial skepticism toward economists due to perceived liberal bias.
After appointing a more conservative chair, Arthur Burns, the CEA established stronger connections with academia and underscored the nation’s commitment to valuing expertise.
The cultural consensus of the 1950s emphasized expertise amidst a burgeoning university system and government investment in higher education, suggesting a belief in knowledge as integral to governance.
Throughout the following decades, the CEA remained significant in advising presidents, contributing to pivotal policies from Lyndon Johnson’s initiatives to Barack Obama’s stimulus response.
In interviews and discussions, former CEA chairs like Charles Schultze have stressed the unique position of the council to provide unbiased economic advice, navigating the often politically charged advisory landscape.
However, since the 1980s, the relevance of the CEA has been challenged by a political climate increasingly skeptical of expertise.
The trend of conservative criticism toward expert institutions gained momentum during Ronald Reagan’s presidency, leading to proposals to eliminate the council altogether.
Moreover, the rise of alternative sources of advice, such as the National Economic Council established by Bill Clinton, further complicated the CEA’s role within the executive branch.
In stark contrast to the past, Trump’s administration showcases a deliberate distancing from independent economic experts, choosing instead to surround himself with allies that adhere to his views.
The exclusion of respected economists like Robert Lighthizer from Trump’s second administration exemplifies how independence is often viewed with suspicion.
Even Stephen Miran, Trump’s CEA Chairman with a robust academic background, represents a shift towards a more politically aligned advisory group than traditional CEA chairs.
Miran’s prior political actions and criticism of institutions like the Federal Reserve indicate a departure from the nonpartisan ethos once championed by the council.
Recent events underscore the critical importance of expertise in the face of monumental economic decisions as the U.S. approaches a potential self-imposed disaster.
The reliance on gut instinct over informed analysis poses significant risks in today’s interconnected global economy, where policy resolutions carry profound implications.
The historical lessons regarding the value of expertise in governance remain pertinent, yet current attitudes suggest a departure from these principles, with the potential for catastrophic consequences.
image source from：https://foreignpolicy.com/2025/04/14/council-economic-advisors-president/
