Inflation slows more than expected in March in first round of data since Trump’s tariffs

New York Post - Apr 10th, 2025

US inflation decelerated more than anticipated in March, marking the first assessment of consumer price data since the implementation of President Trump’s extensive tariff measures. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Consumer Price Index increased by 2.4% over the past year as of March, falling short of the expected 2.6% rise and below February’s 2.8% rate. The Core CPI, which excludes the more volatile food and energy prices, rose by 2.8%, also under the projected 3% and February's 3.1% figures. These inflation metrics prompted futures tied to the Dow Jones Industrial Average, S&P 500, and Nasdaq 100 to drop by 1%, 1.3%, and 1.7%, respectively, reflecting a volatile response following a significant surge the previous day when the Dow soared nearly 3,000 points after President Trump announced a 90-day pause on tariffs.

This temporary halt in tariffs provided relief to Wall Street as investors had been jittery over the potential of escalating tariffs to reignite inflation and risk a recession, triggering a massive sell-off that saw the Dow drop nearly 5,000 points in the preceding week. The slower-than-expected inflation rates may ease some concerns about the economic overheating and provide policymakers with more flexibility in managing interest rates. The development underscores the complex interplay between trade policies and economic indicators, highlighting the ongoing uncertainty in global markets and the cautious optimism that can follow government interventions in trade policy.

Economic Policy Wall Street S&P 500 Consumer Price Index President Trump Nasdaq 100 Dow Jones Industrial Average Us Inflation Tariff Wars

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.0

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article provides a timely and clear account of recent economic data and market reactions, with a focus on the impact of President Trump's tariff policies. While it offers specific figures and a straightforward narrative, the analysis would benefit from a broader range of perspectives and more detailed sourcing. The lack of explicit attribution for some claims and limited transparency regarding data sources slightly undermine its credibility. Nevertheless, the article addresses topics of public interest and has the potential to influence perceptions of economic policy, though its impact is tempered by the absence of diverse viewpoints.

Accuracy

The story provides specific data regarding the U.S. inflation rate, citing a 2.4% rise in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) over 12 months through March. This figure is lower than the expected 2.6% rise. The report also notes a decline in the core CPI to 2.8%, below the projected 3% and February's 3.1%. These figures align with typical reporting from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, indicating a degree of accuracy. However, the story attributes these changes to President Trump's tariff policies, a claim that requires further verification to ensure causality is correctly assigned. Additionally, the market reactions described, such as the Dow Jones losing nearly 5,000 points, should be cross-referenced with financial data sources to validate the scale of these movements.

Balance

The article primarily focuses on the economic data and market reactions without offering a broad range of perspectives. It attributes the inflation slowdown to President Trump's tariff policies, suggesting a causal link without exploring alternative factors that might have contributed to the economic changes. The piece could benefit from including viewpoints from economists or financial analysts to provide a more balanced understanding of the situation.

Clarity

The language used in the article is clear and straightforward, making it accessible to a general audience. The structure logically progresses from presenting the economic data to discussing market reactions, aiding reader comprehension. However, the article could provide more context about the broader economic environment and the potential long-term impacts of the tariff policies to improve clarity.

Source quality

The article references data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a credible source for economic statistics. However, it lacks direct citations or quotes from experts or economists who could provide deeper insights into the implications of the data. The absence of diverse sources limits the depth of the analysis and the reliability of the conclusions drawn.

Transparency

The article does not explicitly disclose the sources of its expectations for inflation rates or the projections for core CPI. Additionally, while it mentions market reactions, it does not detail the methodology used to assess these changes. Greater transparency regarding the data sources and analytical methods would enhance the article's credibility.