Anson Soderbery, an economist at Purdue University, received emails from friends and colleagues around 10:30 pm on Wednesday informing him that the Trump administration had referenced his research in justifying high tariff rates on America's trade partners. Despite some lighthearted congratulations, Soderbery felt bewildered by the news as his study actually discouraged the policies being implemented by the administration. He had not been consulted by the government before his work was cited. Concerned that his research might now be infamous, Soderbery expressed his confusion and humor about the situation.

Soderbery is not alone in feeling uneasy about how his work was used in the White House tariff decisions. While the concerns of these economists may seem insignificant compared to the recent market turmoil, they highlight the lack of rigor in the planning of the US's significant import taxes. The administration characterized the tariffs as "reciprocal" to match trade barriers of other countries, but the computation method deviated from a direct tariff-for-tariff comparison. The approach involved dividing each country's trade surplus with the US by the amount imported from them, halving this result as a gesture, plus implementing a minimum 10% rate.

For example, Vietnam faced a 46% tariff as it had a $125.5 billion trade surplus from sending $136.6 billion worth of goods to the US in 2024. The administration's method of calculating the tariffs, revealed Wednesday evening after public scrutiny, drew criticism for its simplicity and apparent lack of consideration for actual trade barriers of other nations.

Economics journalist James Surowiecki criticized the administration's approach as nonsensical, reflecting broader skepticism surrounding the planning and rationale behind America's most significant import tariffs in a century.