Summary: Economists have lost standing in U.S. policymaking as populist currents, presidential styles, and changes in the information environment erode trust in technocratic trade-off analysis. Both Trump and Biden have at times sidelined mainstream economic advice, contributing to policies such as tariffs and large stimulus packages that economists criticized. Many economists now favor an “abundance” agenda to expand supply rather than resorting to price controls, but political traction remains limited without a clear, persuasive plan for easing voters’ immediate concerns about prices.
Why Economists Lost Influence in U.S. Policy — And What That Means
Economists once occupied a central, technocratic role in U.S. policymaking: their models and trade-off reasoning shaped decisions on inflation, regulation, and growth. Over the past decade, however, that deference has eroded across both major parties. Personality, populist politics, and structural shifts in the economy and media environment combined to sideline economic expertise — with consequences for policy design and public confidence.
How We Got Here
A mix of factors explains economists' declining influence. On the right, Donald Trump’s outsider, zero-sum worldview and willingness to flout free-market orthodoxy displaced the GOP’s free-market establishment. On the left, rising progressive criticism blamed neoliberal economics for rising inequality and hollowed-out communities, eroding Democrats’ trust in technocratic trade-off analysis.
Structural changes also mattered: the internet and social media weakened traditional gatekeepers, letting viral narratives and moral-framing often outcompete careful, technical analysis. And presidents with different personal styles — less interested in highfalutin academic debate — relied more on lawyers, activists, nonprofit experts, and political advisers than on economic wonks.
Policy Consequences
The practical outcomes are visible: broader tolerance for tariffs, public discussions of price controls, more policies advanced without rigorous economic modeling, and heated attacks on the independence of institutions like the Federal Reserve. Examples include the Trump-era tariff strategy and debates over the size of pandemic-era stimulus under Biden, where some mainstream economists warned of inflation risks that were, at best, partially heeded.
Result: More policies that mainstream economists say are likely to raise costs or create distortions — and a political environment where economic analysis is sometimes sidelined in favor of populist promises.
Why Economists Still Matter
Despite the decline in status, economists retain useful tools: incentives analysis, modeling of market behavior, and cost-benefit thinking that help policymakers design effective, durable policies. Many economists advocate an “abundance agenda” — focused on increasing supply (housing, clean energy, streamlined permitting) — as a politically and economically viable alternative to blunt measures such as price controls.
But there’s a political problem: economists are more influential when leaders believe their advice will noticeably improve voters’ lives. Today, with persistent price pressures and unclear macro prospects (some warn of modest stagflation), economists lack a simple, widely accepted playbook — which reduces their immediate political utility.
What Comes Next
If economists want to rebuild influence, they must do two things: (1) offer clearer, actionable solutions to problems voters feel most acutely (notably high prices), and (2) communicate trade-offs and benefits in ways that resonate beyond wonk circles. Otherwise, short-term populist fixes may continue to displace careful analysis — at the possible cost of higher prices, misallocated resources, and weaker long-term growth.
Note: This reporting was supported by a grant from Arnold Ventures; Vox retained editorial control of the work.
