Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.
Speaker 2: The White House vound to a pale after a federal
Speaker 2: court ruled against President Donald Trump's Liberation Day tariffs, joining
Speaker 2: us now to discuss the seeing a White House Trade
Speaker 2: advisor Peter Navara Dot Navara, Welcome back to the program Sir.
Speaker 2: First of all, I think we've got to get into
Speaker 2: the ruling overnight. Have you spoken to the President and
Speaker 2: ultimately what's this reaction to what we heard.
Speaker 1: Haven't spoken to the president yet, but they've spoken to
Speaker 1: people who have spoken to the President. Lord, We're in
Speaker 1: a situation now.
Speaker 3: Big picture here is i IPO.
Speaker 1: We were using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. There's
Speaker 1: no question that there's an economic emergency with respect of
Speaker 1: both uses.
Speaker 3: That we had.
Speaker 1: One is we are in a world where China has
Speaker 1: killed over a million Americans with fatanyl poison, and we
Speaker 1: took this step to stop that. We will continue to
Speaker 1: press on that. At the same time, we invoke that
Speaker 1: rule to stop what has been twenty million illegal abling
Speaker 1: and streaming into our country, driving down wages, taking jobs away.
Speaker 1: That's an economic emergency. On top of that, the world
Speaker 1: continues to steal about trillion dollars a year and is
Speaker 1: measured by the trade deficit, and that's an economic emergency
Speaker 1: because it's transferring our wealth abroad. So we think we
Speaker 1: have a strong case. Yes, we will immediately appeal and
Speaker 1: try to stay the ruling. But at the same time,
Speaker 1: the court, interestingly enough, basically said we were right, just
Speaker 1: use different rules and laws. So nothing has really changed
Speaker 1: here in that sense. We're still as we speak, having
Speaker 1: countries call us and tell us they want a deal.
Speaker 1: So these deals are going to happen. So that's kind
Speaker 1: of where we're at. And it's troublesome here because if
Speaker 1: you look broadly at the pattern, we've got courts in
Speaker 1: this country who are basically engaged in attacks on the
Speaker 1: American people. The President ran on stopping the fentanyl poison,
Speaker 1: stopping international trade unfair practices from stealing our factories and jobs,
Speaker 1: and courts keep getting in the way of that. The
Speaker 1: court's getting the way of our trying to deal with
Speaker 1: the border issues. Now they're getting in the way of
Speaker 1: our trying to deal with the fentanyl crisis. And that's
Speaker 1: where we stand here. And I think part of what's
Speaker 1: going to be important about this ruling demonstrates yet again
Speaker 1: to the American people that the judiciary in this country
Speaker 1: has been weaponized ways which are contrary to their interests.
Speaker 2: Well, Pety, you would have heard a lot of people
Speaker 2: come on this program and ultimately say, you still have
Speaker 2: tons of options, and you've alluded to one of them.
Speaker 2: You will, of course appeal, but could you describe what
Speaker 2: you might do in the interim, the way you might
Speaker 2: pursue your ultimate objective anyway, with the tools you have
Speaker 2: still available to you.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna let Jamison Greer, the USTR, inform you on that,
Speaker 1: and you'll be hearing from him soon on that. But look,
Speaker 1: any trade lawyer knows there's just a number of different
Speaker 1: options we can take. If you look at the kind
Speaker 1: of things we've already done, it kind of give you
Speaker 1: a roadmap on that. There's all sorts of numbers out there.
Speaker 1: There's one twenty two, there's three oho one, there's two
Speaker 1: thirty two, there's three, three eight.
Speaker 3: There's all sorts of things we can do well within
Speaker 3: the law.
Speaker 1: But look, we think that what we've done already is
Speaker 1: perfectly ap So that's why the appeal will take case.
Speaker 1: But you know, it's like interesting enough, I was scheduled
Speaker 1: to come on the program today to talk about the
Speaker 1: bond market and the Big Beautiful tax bill. But there
Speaker 1: is a there is a bridge to that, and if
Speaker 1: I may, we have a situation where the bond market
Speaker 1: we've seen like a fifty to fifty basis point increase
Speaker 1: in yields in the ten year.
Speaker 3: Since April second.
Speaker 1: And a lot of the hysteria around the Big Beautiful
Speaker 1: tax bill centers on the Congressional Budget Office scoring that
Speaker 1: bill in a way which says there's going to be
Speaker 1: a three point seven trillion dollar addition to America's national
Speaker 1: debt over the next ten years, and so of course
Speaker 1: you got to finance that, and that drives interest rates
Speaker 1: up and heads explode, when in fact, if you do
Speaker 1: the math properly and you like look at his the
Speaker 1: history of the CBO forecast, you actually see about a
Speaker 1: five trillion dollar swing to a two trillion dollar surplus
Speaker 1: from the bill. And I'd like to get you walk.
Speaker 3: You through the map there.
Speaker 1: It's like the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office historically has
Speaker 1: been very bad at estimating impacts of tax bills. In
Speaker 1: the twenty seventeen tax cut that President Trump did.
Speaker 3: They got that totally wrong.
Speaker 1: They underestimated the GDP growth by a full percentage point.
Speaker 1: And what that does if they make that same mistake here,
Speaker 1: which they have done, will you add that that's about
Speaker 1: two trillion dollars of additional revenue because you got greater
Speaker 1: economic activity.
Speaker 4: And then, Peter, you also have the revenue from the tariffs,
Speaker 4: which I saw your opinion piece in the Hill.
Speaker 3: I don't want to get.
Speaker 4: Back to the tar I just want to get back
Speaker 4: to the tariff because you don't have that revenue.
Speaker 3: Well, that's another two trillion if you.
Speaker 4: Don't have the authority to use it, though, But can
Speaker 4: I just ask you mentioned j Ambassador Greer. We're going
Speaker 4: to hear from him soon. Are we going to hear
Speaker 4: from USTR about the bridge potentially? What John was talking about.
Speaker 4: If you can't use AEBA potentially, are you going to
Speaker 4: come out the administration say we're going to use one
Speaker 4: twenty two in the interim?
Speaker 1: Well, the court did in some sense tell us to
Speaker 1: do that, which is interesting. But look, here's the thing
Speaker 1: we Fennyl I just people need to wrap their heads
Speaker 1: around the fact that every day here in America people
Speaker 1: die because communists. China puts fifty gallon barrel, your fifty
Speaker 1: gallon drums full of these chemicals that come over to
Speaker 1: the Mexican cartels and then are made not just into fentanyl.
Speaker 1: They use the fentanyl to spike heroin, de spike meth amphetamines,
Speaker 1: to spike ecstasy, and they're eating putting it in prescription
Speaker 1: drugs like xanax and valium, and people are dying. It's
Speaker 1: been over a million people, a million Americans, and it's
Speaker 1: an economic emergency because a lot of those people are
Speaker 1: prime age working force here in America. So this kind
Speaker 1: of court ruling the judge, I mean, look, the lead
Speaker 1: court said.
Speaker 4: If the ruling said Peter, and we've been talking about this,
Speaker 4: page thirty four to thirty five. They say, basically, you
Speaker 4: are in your right if you use section one twenty two.
Speaker 4: Why didn't you guys do that from the beginning?
Speaker 1: Well, Section one twenty two only gives you one hundred
Speaker 1: and fifty days.
Speaker 3: So there's your answer right there.
Speaker 4: So are you section one twenty two if you use
Speaker 4: this now for one hundred years, got to be a
Speaker 4: bridge to three oh one or a bridge to two
Speaker 4: thirty two?
Speaker 3: What are you thinking?
Speaker 4: More long term?
Speaker 3: You can be the strategist on that. But those are
Speaker 3: the kinds of thoughts.
Speaker 1: And look, look, if anybody thinks this caught the administration
Speaker 1: buyers and price, think again, okay, because you could see
Speaker 1: in the oral arguments where those judges were going, and
Speaker 1: the lead judging this, I mean, the problem with that court.
Speaker 3: It's such an.
Speaker 1: Obscure court, but it's consistently been globalist pro importer.
Speaker 3: Giving us bad rules.
Speaker 1: The lead judge there ruled against the two thirty two's
Speaker 1: originally and had to get overturned by the appeals court.
Speaker 1: So that gives you an idea of the bias against
Speaker 1: the president's tariff policy right on that court. But I
Speaker 1: think the big picture here is we've got a very
Speaker 1: strong case with AIPA, but the court basically tells us
Speaker 1: if we lose that we just do some other things.
Speaker 1: So nothing's really changed. I want to say this to
Speaker 1: the world, you're cheating us. We're coming after you deal
Speaker 1: and let's make this right, because ultimately what's at stake
Speaker 1: here here is the global international environment getting in in
Speaker 1: a way where it's fair to America, and there thereby,
Speaker 1: if it's fair to America and we westructure this thing
Speaker 1: in a way we'll have just more stability in terms
Speaker 1: of financial flows and capital and everything like that.
Speaker 3: Dunton Varra hidly out of balance.
Speaker 2: Now we've got to run, but it's quite to catch
Speaker 2: up these and we look forward to singing the next step.
Speaker 2: So just got to tell you one thing. You're not
Speaker 2: allowed to hire on Marie. She's with us so right.
Speaker 2: The sty in White House tried advice of paid a
Speaker 2: Navio paid it. Thank you, sir, Dunleavada on the Trite
Speaker 2: story