Schumer warns Trump’s tariffs will destroy NYC’s economy, drive recession: ‘What you’re doing is ugly’

New York Post - Apr 7th, 2025

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has issued a stark warning that President Trump's new tariff strategy could severely impact New York City's economy, potentially leading it into a recession. Schumer emphasized that Trump's 'pinball tariff strategy' would directly cost the city nearly $20 billion and put approximately 260,000 jobs at risk across key sectors such as finance, tech, and tourism. He urged President Trump to reconsider his approach, labeling the tariffs as detrimental not only to New York but to the entire nation. Schumer highlighted the city's vulnerability due to its status as a major trade hub and noted the potential for retaliatory measures from the European Union and Asia.

Trump, however, remains steadfast in his tariff policies, which include a recent announcement of a 10% baseline tariff on all US imports and higher duties on select goods. He argues that these 'reciprocal' tariffs are necessary to counteract foreign duties and will ultimately benefit domestic manufacturing jobs. Despite Schumer's warnings and the stock market's negative response, Trump encourages patience and strength, assuring that 'greatness will be the result.' The escalating tariff situation has sparked fears of a recession, with financial forecasts suggesting a heightened risk for New York City compared to the rest of the country.

Donald Trump Economy New York City Tariffs Chuck Schumer Jp Morgan Recession

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

5.8

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article provides a timely and relevant discussion of the potential economic impact of Trump's tariffs on New York City, primarily through the lens of Chuck Schumer's critical perspective. It successfully highlights a topic of significant public interest, with potential implications for employment and economic stability. The article is clear and readable, making complex economic issues accessible to a general audience.

However, the article's accuracy and balance are limited by its reliance on a single viewpoint, lacking diverse sources and in-depth analysis to substantiate the claims made. The lack of transparency regarding the data and methodology behind Schumer's assertions further undermines the article's credibility.

Overall, the article effectively raises awareness of a controversial issue but would benefit from a more balanced and well-supported exploration of the topic to fully inform readers and foster meaningful discussion.

Accuracy

The story presents several claims that require verification, particularly Chuck Schumer's assertion that Trump's tariffs could result in a nearly $20 billion hit to New York City and threaten 260,000 jobs. These figures are significant and would need to be substantiated with data or studies, which the article does not provide.

Moreover, Schumer's reference to JPMorgan's prediction of a 60% likelihood of a US recession is mentioned as a basis for his argument, but the article does not provide a direct source or context for this statistic. The claim about the European Union seeking to retaliate against the financial sector is also presented without supporting evidence or quotes from EU representatives.

The article includes a statement from Trump on Truth Social, which is accurately quoted, but the broader economic implications of the tariffs, such as their impact on the stock market and retirement accounts, are generalized without specific data points or expert analysis to back them up.

Balance

The article primarily presents Chuck Schumer's perspective on the impact of Trump's tariffs, with limited representation of opposing viewpoints. While it includes a brief mention of Trump's rationale for the tariffs, describing them as 'reciprocal' and intended to boost domestic manufacturing, it lacks depth in exploring the potential benefits or alternative analyses of the tariffs' effects.

The article could have been more balanced by including insights from economists or industry experts who could provide a counterpoint to Schumer's claims. Additionally, perspectives from businesses that might benefit from the tariffs would offer a more rounded view of the issue.

Overall, the article leans heavily towards Schumer's critical stance without adequately exploring the broader context or diverse opinions on the matter.

Clarity

The article is generally clear in its presentation of Schumer's statements and the overall narrative regarding the potential impact of tariffs on New York City. The language is straightforward, and key points are highlighted effectively, making it easy for readers to follow the argument.

However, the article could benefit from a clearer structure that separates Schumer's claims from the factual reporting and analysis. This would help readers distinguish between opinion and verified information.

The tone remains neutral, avoiding sensationalism, but the lack of detailed explanations for certain claims slightly affects the overall clarity of the piece.

Source quality

The article relies heavily on statements from Chuck Schumer, a credible political figure, which lends some authority to the claims made. However, it lacks a diversity of sources, such as economic experts or industry representatives, who could provide additional context or verification of the claims.

The inclusion of Trump's statement from Truth Social is a relevant primary source, but the article would benefit from more third-party analysis or data to substantiate the economic impacts discussed. The absence of such sources limits the depth and reliability of the information presented.

Overall, the reliance on a single political figure and the lack of varied sources slightly undermines the article's source quality.

Transparency

The article does not provide sufficient transparency regarding the basis of the claims made by Chuck Schumer. For instance, the 'crunched numbers' mentioned by Schumer are not detailed or explained, leaving readers without a clear understanding of the methodology behind the $20 billion impact claim.

Furthermore, the article does not disclose any potential conflicts of interest or biases that might influence Schumer's statements or the reporting itself. The lack of context about the economic models or data sources used to predict job losses and economic impact is a significant gap.

Transparency would be improved by including more detailed explanations of how figures were derived and acknowledging any limitations or uncertainties in the data.