CNN’s latest attempt to discredit President Donald Trump’s escalating tariff policy unraveled in real time this week after the network’s featured expert—presented as a “conservative economist”—was exposed as a Democrat donor with ties to Joe Biden and ActBlue.
The network aired a Tuesday morning segment challenging the mathematical foundation of Trump’s universal tariff plan, relying on Dr. Stan Veuger, an economist affiliated with the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a think tank historically associated with conservative and free-market ideas. CNN’s chyron boldly declared, “Conservative Think Tank Says Trump Tariffs Have A Math Error.”
But that label proved misleading at best.
While AEI itself is traditionally seen as center-right, Veuger’s personal political track record tells a different story. According to public Federal Election Commission records, he has made repeated donations to Joe Biden’s presidential campaign and to ActBlue, the Democratic Party’s preferred fundraising platform.
Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung wasted no time calling out the spin, posting on X:
“CNN tried to trick viewers into thinking they had a ‘conservative’ economist on, but in reality @stanveuger is a dummy who is also a Democrat and Biden donor.”
The revelation calls into question the credibility of the segment’s framing—an attempt to portray Trump’s economic agenda as out of step even with his own ideological allies.
CNN tried to trick viewers into thinking they had a “conservative” economist on, but in reality @stanveuger is a dummy who is also a Democrat and Biden donor. pic.twitter.com/rk8qUaOMrw
— Steven Cheung (@StevenCheung47) April 8, 2025
Veuger’s core criticism hinged on an obscure economic coefficient—phi (φ)—used in trade models to calculate the effect of tariffs on import prices. He claimed the Trump administration underestimated the value, using 0.25 instead of a figure closer to 1, leading to what he called “inflated tariff rates.”
According to his math, Trump’s policy produced tariffs up to four times higher than intended. “That number should be close to 1,” Veuger said. “So every tariff they calculated based on this formula is four times higher than it should be.”
But even as he attacked the administration’s math, Veuger conceded he doesn’t support the approach at all, branding tariffs based on trade deficits as “bad economics.” That undercut any pretense of neutrality the segment was attempting to preserve.
The controversy comes as Trump dramatically intensifies his tariff agenda. On April 2, the administration announced a universal 10% tariff on all imports, coupled with targeted levies, including a 34% rate on Chinese goods.
In response, China retaliated with matching tariffs, effective April 10. On Monday, Trump threatened an additional 50% tariff on Chinese imports unless Beijing withdrew its retaliatory measures, potentially pushing the effective rate to a staggering 104%.
Despite the alarmism from media outlets and globalist economists, Trump allies say the tariffs could generate up to $300 billion annually for the U.S. Treasury, while affecting only 1% of the domestic economy.
