President-elect Donald Trump announced Sunday that he will tap Stephen Miran, a trade hawk who supports the use of tariffs as a revenue-raising tool, to serve as a top economic adviser in his incoming administration.
If confirmed by the Senate, Miran, who was a senior Treasury Department adviser during Trump’s first term, would chair the Council of Economic Advisers – the agency responsible for advising the president on economic policy and undertaking critical economic analysis.
“Steve will work with the rest of my Economic Team to deliver a Great Economic Boom that lifts up all Americans,” Trump said in a Sunday morning post to Truth Social.
Miran would join the administration from the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank, where he has written about fiscal and monetary policy since 2023, according to the institute's website. He also is a senior strategist at Hudson Bay Capital, a global investment firm.
In a post to X on Sunday, Miran said he was “beyond honored” that Trump had selected him for the role and said he looks “forward to working to help implement the President's policy agenda to create a booming, noninflationary economy.”
Miran has been an outspoken proponent of using tariffs to generate additional government revenue. In a November post to X, Miran argued that raising tariff rates would be a better alternative than raising tax rates to bolster government coffers.
“Higher tax rates are much more dangerous than lower tax rates,” Miran wrote. “Taking effective tariff rates from 2% to 20% seems way better than taking [marginal] income tax rates from 30% even higher.”
At the end of the day, government has to raise revenue via taxation. Higher tax rates are much more dangerous than lower tax rates.
— Stephen Miran (@SteveMiran) November 14, 2024
Taking effective tariff rates from 2% to 20% seems way better than taking maringal income tax rates from 30% even higher.
Miran’s tariff views are closely aligned with the incoming president’s. During a meeting with Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill, Trump floated the idea of reducing income tax rates and replacing the revenue with tariffs. Some in Trump’s circle have also reportedly discussed with lawmakers the prospect of using tariff revenues to offset new tax cuts in a reconciliation bill next year, according to Politico.
On the campaign trail, Trump also argued that additional tariff hikes would have little impact on U.S. consumers because the tariff increases would be paid by foreign exporters, a view Miran has echoed in his recent research. In a November Hudson Bay Capital paper, Miran asserted that tariff hikes on Chinese goods during Trump’s first term were almost entirely offset by a depreciation of China’s yuan enminbi against the dollar, passing the bulk of the tariff costs on to Chinese exporters.
Cut through the clutter! We deliver the news you need to stay informed about farm, food and rural issues. Sign up for a FREE month of Agri-Pulse here.
“[A]ny inflation from this trade war was small enough that it was overwhelmed by these cross-currents,” Miran wrote. He championed a similar view in an op-ed for Barron’s last month, in which he suggested an “optimal” U.S. average tariff rate could be around six times higher than the current 3%.
Some of Trump’s other picks for senior economic roles, including Scott Bessent at Treasury, have previously been more circumspect of tariffs, suggesting their value lies in their use as negotiating leverage with other governments. But tariff hawks in Washington see an intellectual ally in Miran and praised his selection for CEA chair on Monday.
“I'm very encouraged,” Charles Benoit, trade counsel for the Coalition for a Prosperous America, told Agri-Pulse. “You get top marks in my book if you understand that tariffs are a powerful revenue tool and not just some sort of sanction or whatever – and he gets that.”
Miran has also been a critic of the Federal Reserve and its chair, Jerome Powell, arguing the Reserve should face more political oversight and structural reforms.
Manhattan Institute President Reihan Salam called Miran an “outstanding choice” in a post to X on Sunday.
Others, however, were quick to point out the risks in using tariffs as a policy lever for boosting revenues and lowering income taxes.
“[T]he biggest difference is that taking tariffs higher invites retaliation while taking income tax rates higher does not,” Erica York, a senior economist and research director at the Tax Foundation, said on X.
Donald Boudreaux, a professor of economics at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, said in a blog post on Monday that Miran’s appointment is “nothing to applaud” when it comes to trade policy.
The issue, Boudreaux said, is that even if Miran’s analysis is correct and the costs of tariffs are offset by currency devaluations abroad, “a higher-valued dollar means fewer American exports.”
