Waters and Treasury’s Scott Bessent clash over Trump tariffs as hearing erupts — “Can you shut him up?”
Rep. Maxine Waters and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent clashed February 4, 2026, during a House Financial Services Committee hearing over President Trump’s tariffs, debating their inflationary effects, impacts on housing affordability and whether Bessent would urge a rollback.
Key takeaways
- Waters pressed Bessent to say whether he would urge President Trump to lift tariffs she said are harming consumers and housing; reporting cited Fortune.
- Heated exchange: Waters demanded a yes-or-no response and — as video shows — told someone in the room, “Can you shut him up?” (coverage at Fox News).
- Bessent’s defense: He disputed that tariffs are the main driver of inflation, citing long-run data and other forces and pointing to immigration and housing supply as factors (see Fortune).
Main content
The clash on the Hill
Rep. Maxine Waters, ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee, repeatedly pressed Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to answer whether he would “be the voice of reason in this administration and urge President Trump to stop waging a war on American consumers, harming housing affordability, and putting the economy at risk.” She insisted on a yes-or-no reply and said, “You don’t have to explain,” before Bessent attempted to respond — an exchange documented by Fortune.
“Can you shut him up?” — Rep. Maxine Waters, as Bessent interjected during questioning (widely circulated video; see Fox News).
Committee Chairman Rep. French Hill noted Waters’ time had expired; Waters countered that interruptions by Bessent had consumed her time. Video clips of the confrontation circulated across outlets and social platforms, contributing to the intense media coverage (related reporting at Economic Times).
Tariffs and inflation: the arguments
Waters’ position: she argued that tariffs raise prices directly for Americans and cited prior comments by Bessent — including a 2024 letter to investors and public remarks suggesting lowering tariffs on coffee and bananas could “bring the prices down very quickly” — to press that tariffs hit consumers (Fortune; Fox News).
Bessent’s response: he disputed that tariffs are a primary driver of inflation, pointing to long-term historical data, research from the San Francisco Fed and what he described as “150 years of data.” Bessent emphasized that large shocks — wars, oil crises — have historically driven headline inflation more than tariff adjustments and has previously used the phrase “tariff derangement syndrome” in testimony (Fortune).
Economic research does show a pass-through effect: tariffs on specific goods generally increase retail prices for those goods, and construction materials or durable goods can be meaningfully affected. Still, many economists note tariffs alone rarely explain broad headline inflation because services are a larger portion of the economy (Fortune).
Housing affordability pushed into the spotlight
Waters urged that tariffs on lumber, steel and appliances have slowed housing construction, contending they have blocked “half a million” homes and worsened affordability. She referenced administration reports suggesting lifts on some housing-related tariffs were under consideration (reported in Fortune and shown in hearing video).
Bessent shifted some focus away from tariffs, citing immigration and a shortfall in housing stock as drivers of price pressure. He referenced migration figures in the millions and noted lumber futures had fallen from recent peaks, arguing multiple influences affect construction costs (Fortune).
Supreme Court and the limits of presidential authority
The hearing occurred as the Supreme Court prepares a ruling on whether some 2025 trade duties exceeded presidential authority. A decision against the administration could require rolling back duties and reshape how future tariffs are imposed, a point Democrats used to press Bessent on his willingness to advise restraint (Fox News).
Media coverage and courtroom video
Reporters described portions of the hearing as chaotic: shouting, personal rebukes and contentious back-and-forths made testimony harder to follow. Video clips — including a Bloomberg/YouTube segment capturing questioning on coffee, bananas and housing goods — circulated widely and amplified the exchange (Bloomberg/YouTube clip; Fortune).
What the research shows
Studies find tariffs tend to pass through into prices for targeted goods, so tariffs on lumber or appliances can raise construction costs and slow building activity. However, the aggregate effect on headline inflation is often limited because services and other sectors dominate total spending; thus, reversing tariffs could ease some price pressures but likely would not alone solve broad inflationary trends (Fortune).
Implications for United States of America
Economic impact:
- Tariffs on materials like lumber, steel and appliances can raise costs for builders and buyers, slowing home construction in some markets (Fortune).
- If the Supreme Court limits presidential tariff authority, some duties could be rolled back, potentially lowering prices for certain goods (Fox News).
- Bessent’s emphasis on energy, supply shocks and demand shifts suggests tariff reversals would help some families but not fully resolve inflation (Fortune).
Political consequences:
- The hearing intensified partisan debate over the administration’s economic approach, with Democrats arguing tariffs harm consumers and Republicans defending trade tools as strategic (Fortune).
- A Supreme Court ruling against the administration could shift trade-policy power back to Congress and spark further legislative fights (Fox News).
Social effects:
- Higher construction costs tied to tariffs can slow entry-level housing supply, hitting first-time buyers and lower-income families hardest (Fortune).
- Public frustration over rising prices may increase calls for policy changes, from tariff rollbacks to targeted housing relief.
Cultural relevance:
- The hearing highlighted a national split over trade policy — protection for domestic industry versus the consumer cost argument — with implications for campaign messaging and media narratives (Fortune).
Practical applications for Americans:
- Home builders, developers and first-time buyers should monitor the Supreme Court decision closely; rulings may affect material costs and project timelines (Fox News).
- Consumers may see price changes on specific goods if tariffs are adjusted, though broader inflation depends on energy, wages and supply chains (Fortune).
