In April 2025, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative introduced a tariff formula named “Liberation Day.” Initially, the formula appeared sophisticated with its Greek symbols and academic references. However, upon closer inspection, economists found flaws, noting that key terms essentially negated each other, reducing the formula to a calculation based on bilateral trade deficits.

Prompted by these concerns, an economist filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to explore how the formula was developed. After facing a year of delays and negotiations, the U.S. Trade Representative’s office disclosed that it had 31 pages of relevant records but refused to release them. The office claimed executive privilege due to communications between the agency and the White House Council of Economic Advisers regarding the tariff calculations. Whether this privilege applies is a legal question, but it leaves unresolved issues about transparency.

For one economist, the refusal to disclose these documents raises doubts. If the economic rationale for the tariffs was solid, why does the government conceal its work? The involvement of the Council of Economic Advisers also prompts questions. This body of experts usually provides objective analysis. If they found issues with the formula, the public deserves to know.

The Liberty Justice Center, representing businesses contesting these tariffs, sees these hidden pages as part of a broader pattern. The legal justifications for tariff actions have shifted multiple times while the policy itself remained unchanged. Initially, the administration used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act as a basis. When courts rejected this, they switched to Section 122, which Congress limited to temporary use. As this authority expired, the administration moved on to Section 301, leveraging a forced-labor investigation to maintain the tariffs.

This pattern suggests a search for legal and economic justifications to uphold an existing policy. The FOIA denial hints that the administration might prioritize defending a chosen policy over substantive analysis. The question remains, is the policy driven by sound economics and law, or are these crafted to justify predetermined actions?

The administration’s use of academic sources also deepens suspicion. One key source cited was by economists Pau Pujolas and Jack Rossbach. Interestingly, one author later stated that the administration misrepresented their findings. An entire academic work was used to support the opposite conclusion than intended, questioning the authenticity of the government’s claims.

Withholding the 31 pages keeps the public unaware of whether concerns were raised internally. Transparent communication is essential when policies impact billions in commerce. When government actions are taken, the rationale must be clear and available for public scrutiny. This lack of transparency invites skepticism about what the government might want to hide.

Ultimately, the public and the courts deserve clear explanations for trade policies. Only transparency can foster trust in the government’s economic strategies.