Lead: On Feb. 4, 2026, Rep. Maxine Waters and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent clashed during a House Financial Services Committee hearing in Washington over tariffs, inflation and housing affordability. Waters repeatedly invoked her signature parliamentary rebuke — “reclaiming my time” — and, when interrupted, demanded that the chair silence Bessent with the now-viral line, “Can you shut him up?” The exchange combined theatrical confrontation with a substantive debate about whether tariffs or migration pressures are driving higher prices and worsening home affordability for Americans.
Key Takeaways
- The hearing took place Feb. 4, 2026, before the House Financial Services Committee and featured Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent.
- Bessent referenced a San Francisco Federal Reserve review of 150 years of data to argue that large tariff increases do not produce sustained, economy-wide inflation.
- Waters pointed to higher prices for specific goods — notably coffee and bananas — and to tariffs on building inputs (10% softwood lumber, 50% foreign steel) as factors that raise housing costs.
- Macro data for 2025 showed unemployment rising from 4.0% in January to 4.4% in December, while annual inflation fell from about 3% to roughly 2.7%.
- Tariffs acted as an import tax that produced one-time price increases for some goods, while uncertainty and weaker demand tempered broader inflationary pressure in 2025.
- Bessent argued that recent immigration surges increased housing demand in certain cities; Waters countered that immigrants also bolster the construction workforce needed to build more homes.
- U.S. housing supply remains short by about 4 million units versus estimated need, a structural imbalance that both sides identify as central to affordability problems.
Background
Rep. Waters is known for assertive congressional tactics; her 2017 exchange with then-Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin made “reclaiming my time” a viral phrase. That parliamentary shorthand returned in 2026 as a procedural tool during oversight of federal economic policy. The Feb. 4 hearing revisited longstanding debates about trade policy and domestic prices that intensified after the Trump-era tariff program and persisted through policy shifts in subsequent administrations.
Tariffs imposed in the previous administration included a 10% duty on softwood lumber and a roughly 50% duty on certain foreign steel imports, measures intended to protect domestic producers but which critics say raise downstream costs. Separately, population and migration patterns under the Biden administration have increased housing demand in some metropolitan areas — a factor cited by observers arguing prices have risen partly for demand-side reasons.
At the same time, macro indicators in 2025 showed mixed signals: inflation eased slightly while unemployment ticked up, reflecting a complex interplay of supply shocks, policy actions, and private-sector responses. The San Francisco Fed analysis — cited by Bessent — frames tariffs as an import tax that typically produces concentrated price effects and transient demand contractions rather than persistent, economy-wide inflation.
Main Event
During questioning on Feb. 4, Waters pressed Bessent on whether tariffs are inflationary, citing higher retail prices for specific imported goods such as coffee and bananas. Bessent replied that the San Francisco Fed’s long-term review does not support broad-based inflationary claims from tariff hikes. As the exchange escalated, Bessent repeatedly spoke over Waters, prompting her to invoke “reclaiming my time” multiple times.
When procedural appeals failed to stop Bessent, Waters turned to Committee Chairman French Hill and asked him to quiet the secretary — a request that produced the now-noted remark, “Can you shut him up?” Bessent countered sharply, saying, in effect, that Waters misunderstood the drivers of housing price increases and attributing a major role to an influx of immigrants during the Biden years.
Waters replied that tariffs raised input costs for homebuilding — pointing to lumber and steel duties — and that those added costs make buying a home less attainable for many Americans. Bessent disputed the lumber claim by noting lumber prices fell in the second half of 2025, approaching 2022 levels, a development he said undercut the argument that tariffs alone drove recent housing price dynamics.
The back-and-forth blended theatrical confrontation and technical policy claims, with both sides making factual assertions: Waters emphasizing higher prices for particular consumer goods and building inputs; Bessent emphasizing aggregate data and research on the historical macro effects of tariff episodes.
Analysis & Implications
At stake is how policymakers interpret price movements when designing responses. The San Francisco Fed characterization — that tariffs act like an import tax causing one-time price jumps but not ongoing inflation — implies that monetary policy need not fully counter tariff-driven price changes. Instead, fiscal and trade remedies could be more appropriate to address targeted cost increases.
However, the difference between a “one-time tax” effect and persistent inflation matters less to households feeling squeezed month to month: whether paychecks buy less because of an import tariff or because of broadly rising prices, the outcome is real lost purchasing power. That political reality helps explain why affordability is a dominant voter concern heading into the midterms.
The 2025 macro pattern — unemployment rising to 4.4% and inflation easing to 2.7% by year-end — is consistent with the San Francisco Fed account that tariff shocks can depress demand and hiring in the near term, offsetting some price pressure. But longer-run price levels may remain elevated for affected goods, even after aggregate inflation cools.
For housing specifically, the argument over causation is multi-layered. Immigrants can raise local demand and thus prices in fast-growing cities; at the same time, immigrants supply labor concentrated in construction trades, which helps expand housing supply. Given an estimated shortfall of roughly 4 million homes, addressing affordability will require sustained supply-side measures — permitting, incentives, and labor policies — not just adjustments to tariff or migration policy alone.
Comparison & Data
| Indicator | Jan 2025 | Dec 2025 |
|---|---|---|
| Unemployment rate | 4.0% | 4.4% |
| Annual inflation (CPI headline, approx.) | ~3.0% | ~2.7% |
| Lumber prices (trend) | Higher earlier in 2025 | Sharp fall in 2H 2025; near 2022 levels |
The table shows the key macro movements cited during the hearing. The unemployment rise and easing inflation across 2025 align with the view that tariff-induced uncertainty can suppress demand. Lumber price dynamics illustrate how market behavior (front-loading imports ahead of anticipated tariffs) can temporarily drive prices down, even when tariffs exist.
Reactions & Quotes
Lawmakers and commentators reacted along predictable lines: Democrats framed the exchange as evidence of business and consumer pain from trade policies; Republicans and administration allies emphasized research showing limited macro inflation impact from tariffs. Each side highlighted different pieces of the same empirical puzzle.
“Can you shut him up?”
Rep. Maxine Waters (during the Feb. 4 hearing)
This line captured the public attention and underscored Waters’ frustration with repeated interruptions and with what she characterized as dismissive answers on affordability.
“You seem confused as to the definition of inflation.”
Sec. Scott Bessent (during the Feb. 4 hearing)
Bessent used that retort to press a technical distinction: that certain price increases from tariffs act like taxes rather than signals of broad-based inflation requiring monetary tightening.
“Major tariff episodes often create short-term uncertainty that lowers demand, offsetting some price effects.”
San Francisco Federal Reserve (research summary cited by Bessent)
Experts noted the San Francisco Fed’s long-run review is central to the technical argument Bessent advanced; lawmakers will likely continue to contest how that research maps onto lived consumer experiences and local housing markets.
Unconfirmed
- Bessent’s direct causal claim that immigration was “the biggest reason” for the 2025 housing increase is a contested interpretation and depends on local market analyses not presented in full at the hearing.
- That lumber price declines caused by pre-tariff import surges will persist once stockpiles normalize is uncertain and depends on interest rates, construction activity and future trade policy.
Bottom Line
The Feb. 4 hearing between Waters and Bessent was both spectacle and substantive policy debate. It highlighted a political reality: clear technical distinctions among tariffs, taxes and inflation matter to economists but can be obscured in public debate by visible price changes and household experience.
Policy implications are straightforward but politically difficult. Short-term relief for consumers requires targeted measures (tariff adjustments, exemptions, or assistance), while sustainable affordability gains require supply-side interventions to close an estimated 4 million-home deficit and to stabilize construction input markets. Expect this duel of technical research and political argument to shape the affordability debate through the midterms.
Sources
- CNN coverage of Feb. 4 hearing (news/coverage)
- Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco — research and summaries (official research)
- Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania — housing and labor studies (academic)
- U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics — unemployment and inflation data (official statistics)