U.S. President Donald Trump said on the 2nd (local time) that he would impose reciprocal tariffs on major trading partners, which shocked governments and financial markets around the world. While Trump argues that this action is aimed at correcting unfair trading practices, the market perceives it as a de facto economic attack. Reports suggest that at the center of this policy is Chairperson Stephen Miran of the White House Council of Economic Advisers (CEA), who is often referred to as ‘Trump’s economic strategist.’
Chairperson Miran is a key figure in designing the Trump administration’s protectionist trade policy and tariff policy. He majored in economics, philosophy, and mathematics at Boston University and earned a doctoral degree in economics from Harvard University. He then served as a chief strategist at multi-billion dollar global investment firm Hudson Bay Capital Management and currently is a co-founder of Amberwave Partners and a part-time researcher at the conservative think tank Manhattan Institute.
During the Trump administration’s first term from 2020 to 2021, Miran served as an economic policy advisor under Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, gaining experience in government positions. Based on this background, Miran is building the theoretical and practical foundations for the new tariff policy being pursued by President Trump.
Miran views trade deficits and currency imbalances as structural issues in the U.S. economy, arguing that tariffs should be actively used as a means to resolve them. He noted, “Most economists and investors view tariffs negatively, but they are wrong,” emphasizing the effectiveness of tariffs.
One of his prominent analyses is the ‘Miran Report,’ which runs 41 pages. In the report released last November, Miran argued that a shock therapy approach through tariffs is necessary to simultaneously reduce trade and fiscal deficits, and that the next step should be to induce adjustments in the exchange rates of major currencies. This is a solution to escape the so-called ‘Triffin dilemma.’
The Triffin dilemma refers to the contradiction faced by countries that issue reserve currencies. If a reserve currency such as the dollar is widely issued, it leads to growing deficits for the issuing country; conversely, if the issuing country has a trade surplus, it results in a situation where less currency is released, causing disruptions in the flow of international payments.
What gives concrete form to this is the proposal of the ‘Mar-a-Lago Accord.’ The idea is to gather leaders of major countries at Trump’s resort in Mar-a-Lago and negotiate to forcibly appreciate key currencies such as the euro, yen, and yuan in exchange for reducing punitive tariffs. Miran has also suggested the idea of offloading zero-interest 100-year U.S. government bonds to foreign entities. The logic is that if the counterpart purchases ultra-long-term government bonds, it will maintain the dollar’s reserve currency status.
In a speech at the Hudson Institute, a prominent U.S. think tank, on the 7th, he pointed out that “most trade models used by economists do not reflect trade deficits, making them disconnected from reality.” This suggests that existing theories underestimate the effectiveness of tariffs. In fact, Miran argues that the U.S. can secure an advantageous position in a game of chicken based on its strong domestic demand and capital market.
His vision extends beyond a simple trade dispute to a structural reorganization of America’s foreign economic strategy. It aims to induce global trading partners to reassess currency values, expand domestic industrial investment, and ultimately increase the acquisition of U.S. government bonds to enhance fiscal stability.
While the market views President Trump’s recent 90-day suspension of reciprocal tariff imposition as a temporary easing, Miran indicates a willingness to maintain the policy by stating, “The effects of tariffs are not exaggerated.” There are assessments in the international community that his ideas have now been raised on a new testing ground that directly impacts global currency and trade order beyond White House policy.