Abel, Amiti, Deitz, Heise and Montalbano argue in Liberty Street Economics that tariff price increases may continue

Abel, Amiti, Deitz, Heise and Montalbano argue in Liberty Street Economics that tariff price increases may continue

The post was published on July 8, 2026. Jaison R. Abel, Mary Amiti, Richard Deitz, Sebastian Heise and Nick Montalbano report that many firms that paid tariffs still plan to raise prices to offset those costs. In the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s May 2026 regional business surveys, 47 percent of tariff-paying service firms and 44 percent of tariff-paying manufacturers said they had more tariff-induced price increases to come. Some firms planned increases more than six months later. The authors describe two reasons for delayed increases: fixed-price contracts can prevent firms from changing prices until contracts expire, and some firms raise prices gradually rather than sharply. Uncertainty about future tariff policies may also encourage incremental pricing. The authors argue that a tariff-related price-level change often described as “one-time” may stretch over time, with inflationary pressures lasting “for some time to come.” They say it is not clear whether firms are responding to one round of tariffs or to successive increases.

Publication: 6c2bca33-a608-2e21-1727-42aeba6459f2

attribution — pass: The reading attributes the post to Jaison R. Abel, Mary Amiti, Richard Deitz, Sebastian Heise and Nick Montalbano in Liberty Street Economics. It also attributes the surveys to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Both match the byline and citation. The findings and arguments are framed as the authors' reports, not as established facts.

Jaison R. Abel, Mary Amiti, Richard Deitz, Sebastian Heise, and Nick Montalbano

summary — pass: The reading leads with the authors' finding that many tariff-paying firms still plan price increases. It gives the survey shares, the two reasons for delay and the policy-uncertainty factor. It preserves the authors' argument that a 'one-time' adjustment may be drawn out, and their stated uncertainty about single versus successive tariff rounds. The question follows directly from that stated uncertainty. The terms are plain enough for a general reader.

It is not clear whether firms are responding to a single round of tariffs or to the sequence of increases that has unfolded over the past year or more.

date — pass: evidence.originalPublished is 2026-07-08T11:00Z, and the reading states July 8, 2026. This matches the page dateline and the citation. The survey is stated at month precision (May 2026), as in the source. Planned price increases are reported as firms' plans, not outcomes. There is no hindsight framing, and the page is not an archive copy.

July 8, 2026

support — pass: All four claims are directly supported by the source: the 47 and 44 percent shares, the 16 and 7 percent planning increases more than six months out, fixed-price contracts and gradual 'trickle up' pricing, and possibly persistent inflationary pressure. The source's own hedges on policy uncertainty ('may be causing') and persistence ('may well last') are preserved. No unsupported benefits, costs or forecasts are added.

some businesses reported taking a “trickle up” approach to price increases, where they gradually raise prices over time rather than immediately raising prices to fully cover tariffs

media — pass: No media is selected, and no verified media candidates were supplied. Selecting none is appropriate.