May 29, 2025 • 9 mins
White House trade adviser Peter Navarro says the Trump administration will challenge a US court ruling that blocks some tariffs on imports from dozens of countries. “There’s no question that there’s an economic emergency," Navarro said on "Bloomberg Surveillance." He also talks about trying to stop fentanyl from China and getting Trump's tax bill passed by Congress. Navarro spoke with Bloomberg's Jonathan Ferro and Lisa Abramowicz.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
The White House vound to a pale after a federal
court ruled against President Donald Trump's Liberation Day tariffs, joining
us now to discuss the seeing a White House Trade
advisor Peter Navara Dot Navara, Welcome back to the program Sir.
First of all, I think we've got to get into
the ruling overnight. Have you spoken to the President and
ultimately what's this reaction to what we heard.
Speaker 1 (00:27):
Haven't spoken to the president yet, but they've spoken to
people who have spoken to the President. Lord, We're in
a situation now.
Speaker 3 (00:34):
Big picture here is i IPO.
Speaker 1 (00:37):
We were using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. There's
no question that there's an economic emergency with respect of
both uses.
Speaker 3 (00:47):
That we had.
Speaker 1 (00:49):
One is we are in a world where China has
killed over a million Americans with fatanyl poison, and we
took this step to stop that. We will continue to
press on that. At the same time, we invoke that
(01:10):
rule to stop what has been twenty million illegal abling
and streaming into our country, driving down wages, taking jobs away.
That's an economic emergency. On top of that, the world
continues to steal about trillion dollars a year and is
measured by the trade deficit, and that's an economic emergency
(01:34):
because it's transferring our wealth abroad. So we think we
have a strong case. Yes, we will immediately appeal and
try to stay the ruling. But at the same time,
the court, interestingly enough, basically said we were right, just
use different rules and laws. So nothing has really changed
(01:57):
here in that sense. We're still as we speak, having
countries call us and tell us they want a deal.
So these deals are going to happen. So that's kind
of where we're at. And it's troublesome here because if
you look broadly at the pattern, we've got courts in
this country who are basically engaged in attacks on the
(02:23):
American people. The President ran on stopping the fentanyl poison,
stopping international trade unfair practices from stealing our factories and jobs,
and courts keep getting in the way of that. The
court's getting the way of our trying to deal with
the border issues. Now they're getting in the way of
our trying to deal with the fentanyl crisis. And that's
(02:46):
where we stand here. And I think part of what's
going to be important about this ruling demonstrates yet again
to the American people that the judiciary in this country
has been weaponized ways which are contrary to their interests.
Speaker 2 (03:02):
Well, Pety, you would have heard a lot of people
come on this program and ultimately say, you still have
tons of options, and you've alluded to one of them.
You will, of course appeal, but could you describe what
you might do in the interim, the way you might
pursue your ultimate objective anyway, with the tools you have
still available to you.
Speaker 1 (03:19):
I'm gonna let Jamison Greer, the USTR, inform you on that,
and you'll be hearing from him soon on that. But look,
any trade lawyer knows there's just a number of different
options we can take. If you look at the kind
of things we've already done, it kind of give you
(03:39):
a roadmap on that. There's all sorts of numbers out there.
There's one twenty two, there's three oho one, there's two
thirty two, there's three, three eight.
Speaker 3 (03:50):
There's all sorts of things we can do well within
the law.
Speaker 1 (03:53):
But look, we think that what we've done already is
perfectly ap So that's why the appeal will take case.
But you know, it's like interesting enough, I was scheduled
to come on the program today to talk about the
bond market and the Big Beautiful tax bill. But there
is a there is a bridge to that, and if
(04:16):
I may, we have a situation where the bond market
we've seen like a fifty to fifty basis point increase
in yields in the ten year.
Speaker 3 (04:26):
Since April second.
Speaker 1 (04:29):
And a lot of the hysteria around the Big Beautiful
tax bill centers on the Congressional Budget Office scoring that
bill in a way which says there's going to be
a three point seven trillion dollar addition to America's national
debt over the next ten years, and so of course
you got to finance that, and that drives interest rates
(04:51):
up and heads explode, when in fact, if you do
the math properly and you like look at his the
history of the CBO forecast, you actually see about a
five trillion dollar swing to a two trillion dollar surplus
from the bill. And I'd like to get you walk.
Speaker 3 (05:12):
You through the map there.
Speaker 1 (05:13):
It's like the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office historically has
been very bad at estimating impacts of tax bills. In
the twenty seventeen tax cut that President Trump did.
Speaker 3 (05:29):
They got that totally wrong.
Speaker 1 (05:31):
They underestimated the GDP growth by a full percentage point.
And what that does if they make that same mistake here,
which they have done, will you add that that's about
two trillion dollars of additional revenue because you got greater
economic activity.
Speaker 4 (05:50):
And then, Peter, you also have the revenue from the tariffs,
which I saw your opinion piece in the Hill.
Speaker 3 (05:56):
I don't want to get.
Speaker 4 (05:57):
Back to the tar I just want to get back
to the tariff because you don't have that revenue.
Speaker 3 (06:00):
Well, that's another two trillion if you.
Speaker 4 (06:02):
Don't have the authority to use it, though, But can
I just ask you mentioned j Ambassador Greer. We're going
to hear from him soon. Are we going to hear
from USTR about the bridge potentially? What John was talking about.
If you can't use AEBA potentially, are you going to
come out the administration say we're going to use one
twenty two in the interim?
Speaker 1 (06:22):
Well, the court did in some sense tell us to
do that, which is interesting. But look, here's the thing
we Fennyl I just people need to wrap their heads
around the fact that every day here in America people
(06:42):
die because communists. China puts fifty gallon barrel, your fifty
gallon drums full of these chemicals that come over to
the Mexican cartels and then are made not just into fentanyl.
They use the fentanyl to spike heroin, de spike meth amphetamines,
to spike ecstasy, and they're eating putting it in prescription
(07:05):
drugs like xanax and valium, and people are dying. It's
been over a million people, a million Americans, and it's
an economic emergency because a lot of those people are
prime age working force here in America. So this kind
of court ruling the judge, I mean, look, the lead
court said.
Speaker 4 (07:26):
If the ruling said Peter, and we've been talking about this,
page thirty four to thirty five. They say, basically, you
are in your right if you use section one twenty two.
Why didn't you guys do that from the beginning?
Speaker 1 (07:37):
Well, Section one twenty two only gives you one hundred
and fifty days.
Speaker 3 (07:41):
So there's your answer right there.
Speaker 4 (07:43):
So are you section one twenty two if you use
this now for one hundred years, got to be a
bridge to three oh one or a bridge to two
thirty two?
Speaker 3 (07:51):
What are you thinking?
Speaker 4 (07:51):
More long term?
Speaker 3 (07:52):
You can be the strategist on that. But those are
the kinds of thoughts.
Speaker 1 (07:57):
And look, look, if anybody thinks this caught the administration
buyers and price, think again, okay, because you could see
in the oral arguments where those judges were going, and
the lead judging this, I mean, the problem with that court.
Speaker 3 (08:13):
It's such an.
Speaker 1 (08:14):
Obscure court, but it's consistently been globalist pro importer.
Speaker 3 (08:19):
Giving us bad rules.
Speaker 1 (08:20):
The lead judge there ruled against the two thirty two's
originally and had to get overturned by the appeals court.
So that gives you an idea of the bias against
the president's tariff policy right on that court. But I
think the big picture here is we've got a very
(08:42):
strong case with AIPA, but the court basically tells us
if we lose that we just do some other things.
So nothing's really changed. I want to say this to
the world, you're cheating us. We're coming after you deal
and let's make this right, because ultimately what's at stake
here here is the global international environment getting in in
(09:04):
a way where it's fair to America, and there thereby,
if it's fair to America and we westructure this thing
in a way we'll have just more stability in terms
of financial flows and capital and everything like that.
Speaker 3 (09:18):
Dunton Varra hidly out of balance.
Speaker 2 (09:20):
Now we've got to run, but it's quite to catch
up these and we look forward to singing the next step.
So just got to tell you one thing. You're not
allowed to hire on Marie. She's with us so right.
The sty in White House tried advice of paid a
Navio paid it. Thank you, sir, Dunleavada on the Trite
story
Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
The White House vound to a pale after a federal
court ruled against President Donald Trump's Liberation Day tariffs, joining
us now to discuss the seeing a White House Trade
advisor Peter Navara Dot Navara, Welcome back to the program Sir.
First of all, I think we've got to get into
the ruling overnight. Have you spoken to the President and
ultimately what's this reaction to what we heard.
Speaker 1 (00:27):
Haven't spoken to the president yet, but they've spoken to
people who have spoken to the President. Lord, We're in
a situation now.
Speaker 3 (00:34):
Big picture here is i IPO.
Speaker 1 (00:37):
We were using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. There's
no question that there's an economic emergency with respect of
both uses.
Speaker 3 (00:47):
That we had.
Speaker 1 (00:49):
One is we are in a world where China has
killed over a million Americans with fatanyl poison, and we
took this step to stop that. We will continue to
press on that. At the same time, we invoke that
(01:10):
rule to stop what has been twenty million illegal abling
and streaming into our country, driving down wages, taking jobs away.
That's an economic emergency. On top of that, the world
continues to steal about trillion dollars a year and is
measured by the trade deficit, and that's an economic emergency
(01:34):
because it's transferring our wealth abroad. So we think we
have a strong case. Yes, we will immediately appeal and
try to stay the ruling. But at the same time,
the court, interestingly enough, basically said we were right, just
use different rules and laws. So nothing has really changed
(01:57):
here in that sense. We're still as we speak, having
countries call us and tell us they want a deal.
So these deals are going to happen. So that's kind
of where we're at. And it's troublesome here because if
you look broadly at the pattern, we've got courts in
this country who are basically engaged in attacks on the
(02:23):
American people. The President ran on stopping the fentanyl poison,
stopping international trade unfair practices from stealing our factories and jobs,
and courts keep getting in the way of that. The
court's getting the way of our trying to deal with
the border issues. Now they're getting in the way of
our trying to deal with the fentanyl crisis. And that's
(02:46):
where we stand here. And I think part of what's
going to be important about this ruling demonstrates yet again
to the American people that the judiciary in this country
has been weaponized ways which are contrary to their interests.
Speaker 2 (03:02):
Well, Pety, you would have heard a lot of people
come on this program and ultimately say, you still have
tons of options, and you've alluded to one of them.
You will, of course appeal, but could you describe what
you might do in the interim, the way you might
pursue your ultimate objective anyway, with the tools you have
still available to you.
Speaker 1 (03:19):
I'm gonna let Jamison Greer, the USTR, inform you on that,
and you'll be hearing from him soon on that. But look,
any trade lawyer knows there's just a number of different
options we can take. If you look at the kind
of things we've already done, it kind of give you
(03:39):
a roadmap on that. There's all sorts of numbers out there.
There's one twenty two, there's three oho one, there's two
thirty two, there's three, three eight.
Speaker 3 (03:50):
There's all sorts of things we can do well within
the law.
Speaker 1 (03:53):
But look, we think that what we've done already is
perfectly ap So that's why the appeal will take case.
But you know, it's like interesting enough, I was scheduled
to come on the program today to talk about the
bond market and the Big Beautiful tax bill. But there
is a there is a bridge to that, and if
(04:16):
I may, we have a situation where the bond market
we've seen like a fifty to fifty basis point increase
in yields in the ten year.
Speaker 3 (04:26):
Since April second.
Speaker 1 (04:29):
And a lot of the hysteria around the Big Beautiful
tax bill centers on the Congressional Budget Office scoring that
bill in a way which says there's going to be
a three point seven trillion dollar addition to America's national
debt over the next ten years, and so of course
you got to finance that, and that drives interest rates
(04:51):
up and heads explode, when in fact, if you do
the math properly and you like look at his the
history of the CBO forecast, you actually see about a
five trillion dollar swing to a two trillion dollar surplus
from the bill. And I'd like to get you walk.
Speaker 3 (05:12):
You through the map there.
Speaker 1 (05:13):
It's like the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office historically has
been very bad at estimating impacts of tax bills. In
the twenty seventeen tax cut that President Trump did.
Speaker 3 (05:29):
They got that totally wrong.
Speaker 1 (05:31):
They underestimated the GDP growth by a full percentage point.
And what that does if they make that same mistake here,
which they have done, will you add that that's about
two trillion dollars of additional revenue because you got greater
economic activity.
Speaker 4 (05:50):
And then, Peter, you also have the revenue from the tariffs,
which I saw your opinion piece in the Hill.
Speaker 3 (05:56):
I don't want to get.
Speaker 4 (05:57):
Back to the tar I just want to get back
to the tariff because you don't have that revenue.
Speaker 3 (06:00):
Well, that's another two trillion if you.
Speaker 4 (06:02):
Don't have the authority to use it, though, But can
I just ask you mentioned j Ambassador Greer. We're going
to hear from him soon. Are we going to hear
from USTR about the bridge potentially? What John was talking about.
If you can't use AEBA potentially, are you going to
come out the administration say we're going to use one
twenty two in the interim?
Speaker 1 (06:22):
Well, the court did in some sense tell us to
do that, which is interesting. But look, here's the thing
we Fennyl I just people need to wrap their heads
around the fact that every day here in America people
(06:42):
die because communists. China puts fifty gallon barrel, your fifty
gallon drums full of these chemicals that come over to
the Mexican cartels and then are made not just into fentanyl.
They use the fentanyl to spike heroin, de spike meth amphetamines,
to spike ecstasy, and they're eating putting it in prescription
(07:05):
drugs like xanax and valium, and people are dying. It's
been over a million people, a million Americans, and it's
an economic emergency because a lot of those people are
prime age working force here in America. So this kind
of court ruling the judge, I mean, look, the lead
court said.
Speaker 4 (07:26):
If the ruling said Peter, and we've been talking about this,
page thirty four to thirty five. They say, basically, you
are in your right if you use section one twenty two.
Why didn't you guys do that from the beginning?
Speaker 1 (07:37):
Well, Section one twenty two only gives you one hundred
and fifty days.
Speaker 3 (07:41):
So there's your answer right there.
Speaker 4 (07:43):
So are you section one twenty two if you use
this now for one hundred years, got to be a
bridge to three oh one or a bridge to two
thirty two?
Speaker 3 (07:51):
What are you thinking?
Speaker 4 (07:51):
More long term?
Speaker 3 (07:52):
You can be the strategist on that. But those are
the kinds of thoughts.
Speaker 1 (07:57):
And look, look, if anybody thinks this caught the administration
buyers and price, think again, okay, because you could see
in the oral arguments where those judges were going, and
the lead judging this, I mean, the problem with that court.
Speaker 3 (08:13):
It's such an.
Speaker 1 (08:14):
Obscure court, but it's consistently been globalist pro importer.
Speaker 3 (08:19):
Giving us bad rules.
Speaker 1 (08:20):
The lead judge there ruled against the two thirty two's
originally and had to get overturned by the appeals court.
So that gives you an idea of the bias against
the president's tariff policy right on that court. But I
think the big picture here is we've got a very
(08:42):
strong case with AIPA, but the court basically tells us
if we lose that we just do some other things.
So nothing's really changed. I want to say this to
the world, you're cheating us. We're coming after you deal
and let's make this right, because ultimately what's at stake
here here is the global international environment getting in in
(09:04):
a way where it's fair to America, and there thereby,
if it's fair to America and we westructure this thing
in a way we'll have just more stability in terms
of financial flows and capital and everything like that.
Speaker 3 (09:18):
Dunton Varra hidly out of balance.
Speaker 2 (09:20):
Now we've got to run, but it's quite to catch
up these and we look forward to singing the next step.
So just got to tell you one thing. You're not
allowed to hire on Marie. She's with us so right.
The sty in White House tried advice of paid a
Navio paid it. Thank you, sir, Dunleavada on the Trite
story
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.