– Trump publicly mocks Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon (大卫·所罗门) on Truth Social, suggesting he quit banking for DJing
– Goldman research shows US consumers bear 22% of tariff costs, potentially rising to 67%
– Over 330 companies report tariff impacts, with Ford and GM experiencing profit pressures
– Trump replaces Labor Statistics chief amid broader pattern of economic data disputes
– Wall Street navigates political risks while pursuing lucrative Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac IPOs
The escalating feud between former President Donald Trump and Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon (大卫·所罗门) has ignited fresh debates about America’s tariff policies. In a blistering Truth Social post on August 12, Trump attacked Solomon’s economic analysis while sarcastically suggesting the banking chief abandon finance for DJing—a reference to Solomon’s moonlighting as an electronic music performer. This confrontation spotlights fundamental disagreements about who actually pays tariffs: Trump insists foreign companies and governments absorb costs, while Goldman Sachs data indicates American consumers increasingly foot the bill. As major corporations like Ford report tariff-related profit declines and economists warn of global growth risks, this clash reveals deepening fractures in how trade policy gets analyzed and implemented.
The Truth Social Bombshell: Trump’s DJ Taunt
Donald Trump’s social media broadside against David Solomon (大卫·所罗门) represents more than personal animosity—it’s a direct challenge to Wall Street’s economic authority. In his post, Trump claimed Goldman Sachs ‘refused to give credit’ to his tariff approach while making ‘wrong predictions’ about market reactions. The former president specifically targeted the bank’s research department, quipping: ‘I think David should find a new economist’—a clear jab at Goldman’s influential chief economist Jan Hatzius (简·哈齐乌斯).
Core Disagreement: Who Bears Tariff Costs?
Central to this conflict is opposing data interpretation:
– Trump’s position: ‘Consumers in most cases do not pay tariffs—it’s borne by companies and governments’
– Goldman’s June findings: US consumers already pay 22% of tariffs, with projections reaching 67% if policies continue
– Reuters data: 333+ companies adjusted operations due to tariffs since February 1 implementation
Goldman’s Controversial Tariff Research
Jan Hatzius (简·哈齐乌斯)—renowned for accurately predicting the 2008 financial crisis—has become Trump’s unintended target. His April 2024 report warned that US tariff policies would:
– Reduce global GDP growth by 0.4 percentage points
– Force the Federal Reserve into more aggressive rate cuts
– Trigger retaliatory measures from trading partners
The Consumer Impact Equation
Goldman’s analysis quantified tariff distribution using customs data and supply chain mapping:
– Phase 1 tariffs (2018): 5-10% passed to US consumers
– Current tariffs: 22% consumer burden across affected categories
– Projected 2025 scenario: Up to 67% consumer cost absorption if policies expand
This aligns with Moody’s Analytics findings showing average US households pay $1,700 annually in tariff-related costs.
Corporate America’s Tariff Realities
Recent earnings reports reveal tangible tariff impacts:
– Ford: $1 billion additional costs from steel/aluminum tariffs
– General Motors: 15% margin compression in North American operations
– Whirlpool: $350 million in tariff-related expenses since 2023
The Supply Chain Domino Effect
Companies report these adaptation strategies:
– 42% shifting suppliers to non-tariff countries
– 31% absorbing costs through reduced profits
– 18% increasing consumer prices
– 9% reducing US workforce
Trump’s Pattern of Economic Criticism
The Goldman Sachs clash follows a concerning trend of presidential interference in economic institutions:
Labor Statistics Ousting
After publicly questioning Bureau of Labor Statistics methodologies, Trump fired its commissioner and appointed Heritage Foundation economist EJ Antoni—a critic of ‘government-manipulated data’.
Election Economics Battle
Trump’s campaign attacked Goldman’s September 2023 election analysis predicting:
– 0.3% GDP boost under Democratic victory
– 0.5% GDP contraction under Trump’s policies
White House Economic Advisor Kevin Hassett (凯文·哈西特) publicly demanded Goldman hire ‘more balanced economists’.
Wall Street’s Political Tightrope
Financial institutions face unprecedented tensions:
– Pursuing massive Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac IPO opportunities
– Managing relationships with Trump-aligned policymakers
– Maintaining research independence amid political pressure
The Banking Sector’s Dilemma
Major banks navigate these contradictions:
– Publicly avoiding commentary on administration policies
– Privately adjusting risk models for extended trade conflicts
– Increasingly separating research departments from client advisory teams
Broader Implications for Economic Policy
This confrontation reveals systemic challenges in policymaking:
– Research independence vs. political influence
– Data-driven analysis vs. ideological positions
– Global financial stability concerns
Chilling Effect on Economic Research
Multiple Wall Street economists report:
– Increased legal reviews of sensitive reports
– Avoidance of ‘tariff impact’ terminology
– Reliance on anonymous sourcing for critical findings
The Trump-Solomon clash transcends personalities—it’s a stress test for evidence-based policymaking. As tariff policies evolve into 2025, stakeholders must demand transparent data analysis over political rhetoric. Contact your congressional representatives to support legislation protecting economic research independence, and subscribe to nonpartisan policy updates from institutions like the Peterson Institute for International Economics.