A CNN panel on Saturday challenged Market Rebellion CEO and Senior Market Strategist Marc LoPresti after he argued that the U.S. economy was “actually doing quite well” despite turmoil tied to President Donald Trump’s ceasefire announcement, new tariff plans, rising oil prices and inflation concerns.

CNN’s Table for Five host Abby Phillip said markets had erased gains made after what the source described as Trump’s premature ceasefire announcement. Phillip also reported that Trump was announcing new tariffs of between 10 and 12 percentage points on dozens of U.S. trading partners, while rising oil prices and inflation fears were unsettling the world’s largest bond market and pushing the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield “to its highest level since Trump reclaimed office.” The 10-year Treasury yield is closely watched because it helps set borrowing costs across the economy, including mortgages, business loans and other credit.

LoPresti disputed the framing during the Saturday morning discussion.

“I kind of respectfully disagree with some of the fundamental premises there. I mean, the economy is actually doing quite well,” LoPresti said. “We just were in the middle of another earnings season where earnings are beating on average expectations. That makes the earnings quarter over quarter in a row of earnings that have beat expectations of high average individuals.”

CNN Global Affairs pundit Sabrina Singh responded that LoPresti was referring to corporate performance rather than household conditions.

“You're talking about corporations,” Singh said. “Yeah, corporations are doing great.”

“Well, that's an indication of how the economy is doing,” LoPresti argued.

“I would say the family that's going to fill up a gallon of gas that's over $4 from where it was in May, would say it does not,” Singh replied.

Phillip said the economy had remained resilient, but argued that resilience had come despite Trump’s war and tariff policies, which she said had added unnecessary costs for Americans.

LoPresti defended the administration’s approach, saying the policies were intended to produce longer-term benefits.

“What the president's been trying to do, as it relates to tariffs and other policies, are to level the playing field, it's long-term gain for some short-term inflationary pressure,” he said.

“For who,” Phillip asked.

“For everyone,” LoPresti said.

“What do you mean ‘leveling the playing field’? Who is paying the tariffs?” Phillip pressed.

Tariffs are duties charged on imported goods. They are typically paid by importers at the border, but the cost can be absorbed by companies, passed along to consumers through higher prices, or shared across supply chains depending on contracts, competition and market conditions.

Singh then interjected: “The tariffs get shifted to the consumer, which are Americans who buy goods from countries that are being taxed like Canada or Mexico.”

“The last three quarters of corporate earnings nave not demonstrated that,” LoPresti said.

Singh again pushed back, saying corporate earnings did not reflect the economic experience of an average household.

“You’re talking about corporate earnings, which is very different from a family living in Michigan, who is going to the gas pump to fill up with either diesel or gas, and they're seeing higher gas prices, higher diesel prices, and then they go to the grocery store,” Singh said. “So, on top of the higher gas prices, then they get to get the gift of driving to the grocery store to see grocery prices higher. Because guess what diesel does? It takes the goods coming off of those trucks and [makes them more costly.] So yes, those supermarkets or the corporations might be getting a higher earning paycheck here, but the average family is not.”

“That's not the message that I'm trying to transmit here,” LoPresti said. “In breaking down corporate earnings reports since Liberation Day, corporations have reported by and large that they are not raising prices and passing the costs.”

“That's not true,” Singh answered. “They absolutely are. Grocery prices are higher.”

Kmele Foster, editor at large at Tangle News, said LoPresti’s argument reflected the corporate perspective and was unlikely to persuade voters who felt economic pressure in their daily lives. The exchange underscored a common split in economic debates: broad indicators such as corporate earnings and market performance can look strong at the same time households focus on prices for fuel, groceries and other recurring expenses.

“Actually, it seems like any single any moment you have politicians and pundits who are saying things are actually pretty good when in fact people feel otherwise is probably [not a good look.]” Foster said.

LoPresti later said there was “no economic patriotism.”

YouTube