June 1, 2025 • 43 mins
Steve Milloy, Senior Energy & Environment Legal Institute Fellow and former Trump EPA Transition Team Member, is calling on the Trump SEC to require companies to disclose their reliance on China.
Marc L Busch
Karl F. Landegger Professor of International Business Diplomacy | Law Center - Adjunct
Professor of Government and Professor of Business Administration
Marc L Busch
Karl F. Landegger Professor of International Business Diplomacy | Law Center - Adjunct
Professor of Government and Professor of Business Administration
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:10):
This is Made in America with Rich Rothman.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
Hey, a great big welcome to everybody joining us right
now on Made in America this week's edition. I'm really
happy to have you here. Today. We have a terrific show,
and listen, we always have a terrific show because there's
so much stuff happening right now. Every day there is
something very exciting happening, and you know that because you're
being bombarded by it right now. But just so you know,
(00:34):
on the show today we have Steve molloy who's been
on our show years ago. He's a senior Energy and
Environment Legal Institute fellow and former Trump EPA transition team member.
He's been on the show. We've talked about things that
are important, and today we're gonna be talking about energy.
We're gonna be talking about the one big, beautiful bill
that the House passed and the Senate's working on right now.
(00:57):
And our second guest today is going to be Mark Bush,
Doctor Mark Bush. He's a Professor of International Business Diplomacy
at the Law Center, Professor of Government, Professor of Business
Administration at Georgetown University, and he's an expert in trade
and tariffs. And everybody's being I mean, everyone knows about
tariffs right now. All of a sudden, people who never
understood tariffs are understanding tariffs. They're all involved in it
(01:20):
right now. They're very excited by it. But I got
to tell you, you know, I find what I find very
intriguing is that we have a situation where we're hearing
from the Democrats that we're so you know, split, we're
so you know, diverse in what we're talking about, and
you know, one side can't get along with the other side,
and the other side doesn't want to get along with
(01:41):
the other side, and no one's getting along with any side.
And we're finding out that the Democrats have a well,
they're trying to have a plan. I don't think they
have a plan. Do you think they have a plan?
I don't see. Their plan doesn't exist for me, But
I do hear that, you know, their plan is basically
anything that Trump is doing, then I want to take
the opposite side, and therefore that's their plan. So they're obstructionists.
(02:05):
They don't want to get things accomplished. I don't think
they really care about the average American citizen. I really
just don't. I don't think if they did, then maybe
they would try and get something done. But it seems
to me the only thing that I'm hearing from the
Democrat side, the left side, the progressive side, well those cats,
is that you know what we have to fight. I mean,
(02:26):
we have to fight where someone's got to fight for you.
We're going to fight for you. What they haven't figured
out is who the you are. That's what they haven't
figured out. We're not fighting, you know, they're not fighting
for you. They're fighting against god knows what, anything that
happens to be opposite of what we want. And that's
who the you really is. It's the people who are
(02:48):
out there who By the way, in the election, seventy
nine percent of the country, almost eighty percent of the
country went for the Republican, didn't go for the Democrat.
So then why do we hear constantly that, well, you know,
you know, we have to really fight. We're out there fighting.
We just haven't gotten our message together. Well that's a
bunch of bs, and I'm tired of listening to it.
(03:08):
Let me tell you why we're in a really weird place,
all right, Phil, Let's play clip number six. Jessica Tarlow
is talking about AOC and Bernie Sanders, and if she
actually says they're very effective messengers who bring compelling energy
and question what is the policy, their answer is, it's
(03:28):
not about policy. Let's take a listen me open up.
Speaker 3 (03:31):
To Jessica Ben like, do you think they have a
messenger now that is effective?
Speaker 2 (03:36):
Yeah?
Speaker 4 (03:36):
I do.
Speaker 3 (03:37):
I think Bernie Sanders and AOC are very effective messenger.
But that's what a Who's going to be.
Speaker 2 (03:44):
That's what like a Rama Manuel is saying that.
Speaker 3 (03:47):
And I enjoy listening to Rama Manuel and hearing from him,
and I'm glad that he is all over the media
circuit as well. But there is something compelling in the
energy that AOC and Bernie are bringing, and you see
that in the reaction of people one of these rallies
to say, this isn't even my politics. I think that
Iowa is full of the Idaho.
Speaker 4 (04:05):
It's like energy, but the policies are terrible.
Speaker 3 (04:07):
It's not about policy. Right now, we're not the election
is eighteen months away for the midterms, even not even
the presidency. People are desperate to see that Democrats have
a pulse. They like Chris Murphy right now, who has
a completely moderate set of policies, he has. If you
watch him, he's creating content constantly. So right now walking
across the state of Connecticut.
Speaker 2 (04:27):
So I got to ask you a question. I mean,
this is the stuff that drives me, and it's got
to drive you crazy too. Makes me insane. First of all,
I can't stand listening to Jessica. She drives me nuts.
But the point of the matter is, who is she
saying is desperate for a plan? From the Democrats? Who's desperate?
What is their plan? They had four years? What did
(04:47):
they do? They destroyed the economy, They destroyed the border,
They destroyed criminality in the United States, law and order
that's out the window. They destroyed foreign policy. They kok
inflation to the highest rate that we had since Jimmy Carter.
They destroyed the military. People wouldn't even enlist in the
military anymore under the Democrats. So who's desperate for what?
(05:11):
And I'm not so sure. I can't who's no one's
desperate for what they got because no one knows what
they got because guess what, they don't have anything. So
having said that, I find Jessica and Bernie Sanders, Are
you kidding me? Bernie Sanders and aoc I didn't even
want to be at a rally where these people are
(05:32):
actually listening to Bernie Sanders. This is the guy that
got thrown out of you know when he was in
you know, with a bunch of hippies. They threw amacus.
All they did was complain. I can't handle that. No no, no, no, no,
no no no no. All right, we're gonna come right
back after the break. We're gonna have a great conversation
with Steve malloy. We're gonna be talking about the beautiful,
(05:52):
big bill and green energy. Don't go anywhere. Okay, Welcome
back to May in America. This is Rich Roffman, and
I'm your host, and we're having a great conversation. We're
talking to Steve molloy. Steve is the senior Energy and
(06:14):
Environment Legal Institute fellow and former Trump EPA transition team member. Actually,
Steve was a guest on Made in America with Neil
and myself years ago before he got involved with the
President Trump. Great guy. Really excited to listen to him.
He's got great insight, Steve. What is going on? You know,
everyone's talking about this big, beautiful bill and it's remarkable
(06:37):
and we need and we know we needed to have it.
I mean, there's no question we didn't get that. We're
in big trouble. You know, we got lots of sound
bites for that. But let'sten. I want you to give
us your perspective on that, and then I want to
what people don't understand is that something really weird happened
in the last couple of weeks relating to you know,
green energy products being produced in China. That's not good.
(06:59):
So Steve made in America.
Speaker 5 (07:01):
Well, Rich, thanks for having me back. It's great to
be here. So with respect to the big beautiful bill,
as you said, we must have it because it's got
the tax cuts, and tax cuts don't pass, Republicans are
going to have a really hard time holding onto the
House next year and it's going to get really ugly.
So it's got to pass. That said, you know, Republicans
(07:23):
have a sort of unique opportunity to roll back a
lot of bad stuff that came out as a bid administration.
One of those things is the climate spending in the
Inflation Reduction Act. The Inflation Reduction Act, as you might recall,
was passed through the reconciliation process. Ultimately, it needed the
(07:45):
vote of Kamala Harris to get out of the Senate.
And it contained about a trillion one point two trillion
dollars worth of spending on you know, climate crap, wind
turbans and solar panels, evs and batteries and sure for
all kinds of stuff. So, and you know, when President
(08:05):
Trump came to town and Doge was unleashed in EPA,
you know, we found out that this money is really
being squandered. Even Stacy Abrams and her one hundred dollars
organization got a two billion dollar check that was slated
to get two billion dollars out of this kind.
Speaker 2 (08:20):
Of Hey listen, Steve, when I think of energy, I
think it's Stacy. Oh wait a minute, So I'm sorry
I got confused.
Speaker 5 (08:31):
Yeah, hey, so and Biden had spent about one hundred
and fifty billion dollars of that one point two trillion already,
So it's about trillion dollars left now. You know, because
the Big Beautiful Bill is a reconciliation bill, it could,
by the same mechanism as the inflation reduction that came
into being, you could repeal it. But of course, you know,
(08:51):
when Biden spent one hundred and fifty billion dollars in
twenty twenty four. He purchased a lot of red state politicians.
And now those red state politicians don't want to give
up their subsidies for green crap. You know, no surprise there, right,
It's really easy to buy politicians with money. So so there,
you know, last week as the as the Big New As,
(09:13):
the Big Beautiful Bill was debated in the House, I
think it's last week. You know, time just runs together
now the last couple of weeks, you know, most of
that the initial version of that bill had left in
the vast majority, like seven hundred to nine hundred billion
dollars worth of the spending. By the time the bill
passed the House last week, there was only about five
hundred billion dollars worth of spending. It was all very
(09:36):
round numbers. It's hard to know exactly what would happen,
but let's say five hundred million so that, you know,
that means that the House took out about half of
the green new scam spending that was remaining in the
Big Beautiful bill. And you know, really the number should
be zero. On the other hand, you know, if it's zero,
(10:00):
then the bill doesn't maybe doesn't get out of the
house because all these Republicans have purchased. So you know,
it's it's sausage making for sure, you know, except worse
because you know, you don't get a product that tastes
good in the end. So you know, a lot of
the big beautiful bill which must pass, will get rid
of a lot of the green new scam spending. But
(10:22):
there's still a lot in there.
Speaker 2 (10:25):
Okay, So I'm going to go back to this conversation
about China. You know what I find amazing, Steve, is
that in spite of what you're saying, which is so true,
and in what came out in the last few weeks
where China could actually shut down our solar panels. Yeah,
that's a pretty scary thought, don't you think.
Speaker 5 (10:45):
Well, yeah, so you know, we we have learned that,
you know, a lot of electronic components evs, wind turb
and solar panels among them, all contain communications devices that
allow for updating, right, and they're supposed to be fire
and they're all made in China, and they're supposed to
be firewalled against China. But we have recently learned that
(11:06):
not all these devices are really fired walls firewalls, So
China can you know, we hypothetically control them, which means well,
which you know, possibly means they could shut down our grid,
or shut down those panels, or shut down wind turbines,
or shut down evs and in attack, this is a
legitimate concern. In the UK, they're worried about the same thing.
(11:27):
They're worried about Chinese made evs that have communications devices
that can be run from China or or someplace but
controlled by China. So uh, you know, this is this
is another argument against all this green use scam spending
because all the wind solar ev stuff, ultimately it all
comes from China. You can't do any of this stuff
(11:48):
without China. And do we really want to become even
more dependent on China? And then more than that, you know,
have have all this green tech stuff, I mean live
physically controlled by China, you know China. Should China be
able to dial up and turn off your eed or
you know, screw the grid or who knows, I mean,
(12:09):
who knows?
Speaker 2 (12:10):
Yeah, But you know what you know, Steve, what I
find amazing is Yes, what's what you're saying right now
is very scary. It is a national security concern. They
could shut down the grid. You know, I have to
think of the worst case scenario when it comes to no,
not the best case scenario. But what I find amazing
is that when we've had these conversations about green energy
(12:31):
and who enures the best benefit and pushing forward with
the lefties green energy with all this insanity, where they're
you know, virtue signaling basically, because I don't know what
you're saving the world with when you buy a tesla.
I'm not against a tesla now, you know. I want
to support you know, I want to support Musk. I
(12:51):
want to do that, but I'm not quite sure that
buying a Tesla is going to save the world. It isn't.
But I will say this that the products that we
needed for green energy, for evs and so forth, really
don't benefit the US here as much as they do
the folks who are producing it. So China does really well.
The folks who have the elements to produce the batteries
(13:12):
are doing really really well. But we really don't, and
I think we're kidding ourselves. So we have always since
the lefties have wanted us to go this route and
push it very very heavily. China Democrats, Biden, and god knows,
in that mix, someone's making a lot of money somewhere
along the way. But the point of the matter is
it has always been to the benefit of China. It
(13:34):
has always been to the money going out of this country.
It has always been to the lack of security for
our energy grid, the lack of security for our ability
to transport, and relying more heavily on people who really
don't wish us well, Am I getting that one wrong?
Speaker 5 (13:49):
Oh no, He've got a you know, nail on the head.
I mean, not only is China making the bulk of
the money, China's share of the Inflation Reduction Act and
Solar text this is about one hundred and twenty five
billion dollars, so it's a lot. But not only that,
they also benefit by being able to control this stuff.
(14:12):
So you know, in the case of let's say there
was conflict over Taiwan, I mean, the United States would
have to think twice, three times, ten times whether he
wanted to risk, you know, defending Taiwan and having its
grid shut down. So, I mean it's these two things.
It's the money and it's the national security risk.
Speaker 2 (14:35):
So it's got to be screaming at us that this
is a dangerous place to be. And so what do
you suggest? What are you suggesting, Steve?
Speaker 5 (14:42):
Well, Okay, so three years ago I petitioned the sec
IS Security Exchange Commission to require companies to disclose their
reliance on China. We have got to get a handle
on how much of our economy depends on I mean,
it's China, and exactly what parts of our economy depend
(15:03):
on communist shining. You know, like President Trump says, who
cares if you know plastic trash cans come from from China,
That's not what we're talking about. But you know, communications
devices to you know, all our technology, antibiotics, that stuff.
We cannot depend on China for this. We need to
find out, you know, what we're relying on China for
and then fix that problem because we are vulnerable as
(15:25):
a nation, Our economy is vulnerable, our national security, you know,
we are all vulnerable to China right now, and we
have no idea how much that is. So it's very
hard to even you know, move the agenda forward because
you know, you have all these people that China has
bought saying, oh it's nothing, don't worry about it. Yeah,
(15:46):
there's everything's fine. You know, we just need the information
so that we can we can present reality to people
and you know, advocate.
Speaker 2 (15:57):
Well, I think you're right. So let's think about this
for a second. Something's going to scream at us along
the way. So here we are saying we are I
am a conservative, we are conservatives that we need to
have this data. We need we must have this information
because we need to know how deep that security concern
really is. Okay, great, we got that. So that means
(16:19):
who is arguing that point. Who's taking the opposing Oh,
that's right, it's going to be the Democrats, right, they're
against this. I mean they got to be against us.
They're the ones that passed the bill with Biden, so
we know that somehow they got their hand in that deal.
Something's going on there. So where do we go with this? We,
I guess we have to we have to go forward
(16:39):
and understand where the data comes from, to understand how
to deal with the lefties who want the data to
be controlled by them. This is really a conundrum, isn't it.
Speaker 5 (16:49):
Well, I mean yes and no. I mean it's very
difficult to do obviously, because the force is working against
common says our legion. But you know, we as generally
where the opposition is going to come from. It's going
to come from multinationals who are dependent on China. It's
going to come from Wall Street, It's going to come
from universities and politicians that have been purchased by China.
(17:10):
China has really uh as you know, as we're seeing
with this struggle with Harvard against China. You know, the
Chinese tentacles are everywhere in our society. And you know
that's another thing we really don't have a good grip on.
You know, lots of people have been arrested for espionage
against China or against the United States from China. But
but I think it's only the surf. You know, we
(17:32):
just scratching the interm of the iceberg. So, you know,
we we need a lot more data. We need to
be a lot more aggressive, a lot more aware of
the problem of China. But it's very hard to do.
And and you know, our politicians, there are some politicians
(17:52):
that are very good on this, Tom Cotton, for example,
but there's not enough. Tom Cotton's in Congress, and you know,
and Trump, I know, is his work is doing the
best he can but there is just this incredible amount
of pushback that you know, China has funded. Obviously, who
else is defending China? But you know China and China
funded people.
Speaker 2 (18:12):
Right, and Chinese companies are funding this fight against what
we're trying to do. So who you just said, Tom,
who's taking who? If we're thinking of like one or
two people in Congress and said, who's taking the lead
on this, who's really fighting this for us?
Speaker 5 (18:27):
Well? I think Tom conn has taking the lead. You know,
he's got a new book out there, he talks about it.
You know, there are other Republicans I think you know
Mark or Rupiet, Well he's not in the conversation in
the Senate anymore, but you know he's very keen on this. Obviously,
he had a bill last year to reverse or you know,
to block China from getting one hundred twenty five billion
dollars in solar tax credits from the place to reduction.
(18:48):
I yeah, there are people out there, but there are
many people who have Chinese times who don't want anything
to happen.
Speaker 2 (18:57):
It's sitious, isn't it. I Mean it's reallydious, it's really
but hey, but listen, we had that beautiful Helium, that
wonderful balloon that went across the United States just checking
us out. Oh that's right, that was Biden. They came
up with all the good reasons, so we shouldn't do it. Listen,
Steve has been it's great to have you on the show.
I have to tell you that I enjoy your dialogue
(19:17):
an awful lot. So we had Steve malloy and see
where can people catch you to hear what you have
to say or read some of the stuff that you've
written writing.
Speaker 5 (19:25):
Best place to catch me every day is on X
at Junk Science.
Speaker 2 (19:31):
There you have it all right, Steve mlloy, Senior Energy
and Entertainment Legal Institute fellow and former Trump EPA transition
team member. We are so glad you're on Made in America.
We got to get you back real soon. Promise, Steve,
you bet we're gonna be right back. We have a
tremendous amount of information coming out. We're gonna be talking.
What a surprise, Traffs. Don't go anywhere.
Speaker 1 (20:12):
Promoting American industry.
Speaker 4 (20:14):
This is Made in America with Rich Rothman.
Speaker 2 (20:18):
Hey, welcome back to Made in America. I'm Rich Roffman,
your host. Delighted to have you here today. So you know,
in the first half we're talking about hats of the show,
I should say, we're talking about, you know, the big
beautiful bill and what it means. We're discussing products coming
out of China, and the bill could also you know,
we have to really cap what we're doing with China.
Green energy is not good. We know that in the
last few weeks we found out that solar panels produced
(20:41):
in China. What a shock. You know, we're able to
be controlled by the Chinese government, so in the fact
they could be closing down, you know, our ability to
produce electricity. Not a good idea, probably not, but equally
important and something that I mean, every minute on the
air we're talking about terroriffs. So I'm really delighted to
have Mark Busch. Mark is a professor of International Business
(21:01):
Diplomacy at the Law Center. He's an adjunct professor of
Government and Professor of Business Administration at Georgetown University. And
I am delighted to have Mark on the show. Mark,
Welcome to maide in America.
Speaker 1 (21:14):
Thanks for having me.
Speaker 2 (21:16):
Really excited to have you here. So, I mean, oh
my god, Mark, anytime you turn on any any cable
channel or anything on news and so forth, whether it's
going to be serious XM or whatever. Even AM radio
and US it's it's tariffs. Tariffs has gone main street.
I mean, all of a sudden, everyone's talking about tariff's.
We need a little clarity here, Mark, give us a
(21:36):
little clarity. What is going on? Why is everybody so concerned?
It's obviously very important, so let's talk about it for
a second. So what's the skinny on the tariff thing
and why should people be concerned?
Speaker 1 (21:48):
Well, the big development in the past forty eight hours
has been the decision by the Court of International Trade
to declare illegal President Trump's various tariffs under the International
Emergency You Can Only Powers Act. And this has led
the administration to get rather concerned about all those negotiations
(22:11):
that had been issued with countries since the April second
Liberation Day announcement. So you've got the central plank of
the president's trade policy at issue, and now we're off
to the Appeals Court and potentially to the US Supreme Court.
And as I'm sure your listeners know only too well,
(22:34):
a tariff is a tax on trade. And they're the ones,
as importers who are going to pay the tax.
Speaker 2 (22:40):
Uh huh. I'll tell you what. Phil. Let's play cut
number one. Jonathan Turley. I'd like to see what he
has to say here.
Speaker 1 (22:49):
What are the administration's options Now? Obviously the tariffs are
temporarily back, but what are the options for them going forward?
Speaker 6 (23:00):
Well, I think you raised the right point here. We've
got to keep in mind that AIPA has never been
used for tariffs. It has never been used in this way.
And these judges were saying they just don't see that
what they called unbounded authority under this act. But the
Trump administration is correct that Congress has through the years
(23:21):
deferred to presidents on tariffs, including passing laws that give
them authority to impose tariffs. And he can now go
ahead and use some of those laws. And you know,
some of them allow for one hundred and fifty days
to be have tariffs put on and then during that
period you do an investigation and then they can be
(23:42):
left on if you find the requisite market conditions. And
these are very discretionary types of decisions made by presidents
under these laws.
Speaker 2 (23:58):
So Mark, so where does he go with? I mean,
it seems like, obviously it seems that we've had some unilateral,
you know, actions occurring here, and does it remain that way?
Speaker 1 (24:10):
Mark sure? And the little clip there is highlighting in
a rather unintelligible way that there are alternative means by
which the president could issue executive orders under different legislative
pieces to get some of his tariffs on the books.
The section one twenty two for balance of payments issues
(24:31):
is a maximum of fifteen percent for one hundred and
fifty days. The section three oh one, which is a
go to for Trump under Trump one point zero, requires
an investigation and it's about enforcement with legislative requirements that
he report back to Congress every so often and do
a study so they're not as sweeping and easy to
(24:53):
implement as he thought he was going to be able
to pull off with the IEPA tariffs, and that is
going to frustrate him a great deal going forward. But
there's a bigger question that has to get asked at
all of this. It's a real shame if we buy
into the logic of needing these terrorists. A bigger question
for small business, for manufacturers in the United States is
(25:15):
why and on what timeframe are these terrats allegedly going
to be paying off for American workers, businesses, et cetera.
Speaker 2 (25:25):
Well, that's a really good question. You know, since we're
the country has as a backbone of job creation sme
small to mid sized corporations. Seems to me that they're
the ones that take the biggest hit and have the
biggest problem. So how does that really thing? For a second,
for small items, I mean, in an article that was
out there that you were involved with it, someone selling Barretts,
(25:49):
for example, for a woman's hair it's three ninety nine
a barett. I mean, it could make it, you know,
impossible for certain people to get out there and sell
products that really don't go for tons of bucks that
all of a sudden they're going for twice what they
were costing before, and therefore you're impinging upon the ability
to distribute these products. It just seems to me that
(26:11):
it's a dispassionate discussion and disparate in the sense that
you know, the small companies are going to take a
bigger hit. The big companies can always absorb something, but
you know, Mark, the smaller people will get hurt in this, you.
Speaker 1 (26:22):
Think absolutely, And the SMBs are really in for it.
They can't adjust the supply chain they can't eat the tarraffs.
Their margins are too low. And these terrafts are getting
stacked one upon another. So when you take a look
at some of the data on China, for example, you've
got to remember that these are all being added one
(26:43):
on top of another. That means a lot of what
an SME thought it could shell out to bring in
volume isn't there anymore. And that really is the predicament
in which so many companies, big and small find themselves.
But it's the SMEs that are gonna be punished, and
they're the engine of jobs. They're the ones who employ
(27:06):
a lot of Americans, and disproportionately so in a lot
of these retail businesses, and those jobs are going to
disappear really quickly if there isn't some sanity brought to
the tariff tumult.
Speaker 2 (27:20):
Well, I think what concerns me. I mean, I'm an entrepreneur,
I'm a small business obviously, have five hundred or less
and employees that were less. What I find interesting, Mark
is very interesting when you listen to Jonathan. I mean
we've all been listening to Jonathan for years. He's pretty eloquent.
I think he is. I have never heard him fluster
(27:43):
looking for words. Did you notice that he lost his
He's looking for his adverbial phrases. Man, they're not there, Mark,
And he was trying to dice and slice and figure
out how to get through this discussion right now. Because
what seems to me, and whether good, bad or indifferent,
I don't think it endures any great benefit to anybody
(28:06):
in the world. If we're constantly every other day we're
going up, we're going down, we're going up, we're going down,
and and you know we're in My offices are in Miami.
My background's on international trade. I've spent forty some odd
years involved in Pan Hemisphere trade and global trade here
in Miami, in the World Trade Center. I'm the former
(28:26):
chair of the World Trade Center, vice chair on board
of the FTAA with Jeb Bush. I mean, doing some
pretty significant stuff. I've got to tell you. Every year,
the largest food and beverage show in the hemispheres North
and Southern Hemisphere, Pan hemispherically speaking, all right, has been
the America's Food and Beverage Show, done by the World
Trade Center. It has been growing like a bandit It's huge, huge,
(28:50):
you know, thousands and thousands of legitimate people coming through
trying to buy products, tons of boosts. Do you know
this year as of just the other day, because I'm
still involved with them, it's very, very questionable. Not that
it's not gonna happen. It's gonna happen, great, it's gonna
be wonderful. But a lot of people are waiting till
the last minute to find out what's going on. Why,
(29:11):
because it's so mercurial. That's the word I would use,
wouldn't you. It's a mercurial environment and trade can't be
that way because things happen way in advance. What are
your thoughts?
Speaker 1 (29:22):
Absolutely, we need predictability, we need stability, and those are
both scarce at the moment. And to your point about
student beverage, let's take the case of alcohol. You've got
to remember, as to your listeners, that we haven't even
faced European retaliation yet, but we have in the past
under Trump one point zero, and that almost did away
(29:45):
with artistical distilleries in the United States because with a
twenty five percent tax on their alcoholic beverages exported to
the EU, they were effectively shut out of that market.
And it's a big, rich market so this is really
traumatic stuff, and they didn't really bounce back from Trump
(30:08):
one point zero. If the EU retaliates shortly, which it
will if it doesn't get a deal with the Trump administration,
all those teriffs go back up. I like to think
about EU retaliation in terms of lobsters. They're angry under
the prior under Trump one point zero, Europe lashed out
(30:28):
at four different tariff lines on lobsters. In their most
recent filing, they're gearing up to hit lobsters with fifteen
different tariff line tariffs. This is big, and it's going
to be targeted at a lot of SMEs and a
lot of them are food and beverage.
Speaker 2 (30:48):
Well, you're right, I know that. And hey, I can
tell you that there are countries that normally take fifteen
twenty thirty booths at this event. It's not inexpensive. It's
pretty expensive to big commitment to come here from all
over the world. And and they're just you know, they're
gonna come, they think, but they're gonna, they're gonna they
(31:08):
want to see where this is going to and and uh,
it's very very hard to have something happen on an
hourly basis. And I try to be very supportive of
the administration. But I find this to be a conundrum.
I find this to be very difficult as for a
small business to be able to adjust to this. Man,
(31:30):
you've got to turn on a dime. And you know,
I'm not Matt Dillon, and the folks out there can't.
They can't turn on a dime. They got to figure
this one out. But I am concerned, very much concerned
with the ability for the small to mid sized corporations
to look out, look for investment and grow their company.
You know, I do that. I've been doing that for
(31:51):
forty one years. It's very hard to know where you're
going to be. And I own trade magazines, Mark, I mean,
I own Latin Trade, Latin CEO of South Floid to
CEO Miami Business, China Trade. You know, I've had quite
a few kind of kind of that's our favorite area.
And I see what's going on, and it's very very
(32:13):
disconcerting that a small company can't adjust to this fast
enough because before you know it, your next quarter is
upon you and you're screwed. It's too late to be
able to do something, so you're gonna lose half a year,
you know, in terms of making things happen for yourself.
So I'm not keen on that. I'd like to get
(32:33):
when we come back from a break, and we're gonna
take a short break in a minute, I want to
continue this conversation because one of the things that really
bothers me the most, and one of the things that
we talk about and I've been doing for six sixteen
years on this show, is talk about job creation. And
I am very, very concerned. Ironically, we're supposed to be
talking about creating things good for America to have job creation,
(32:55):
but when you can't plan out where you're going to be,
it's very very hard because you need capital to do
all of that, and that takes a while to happen.
All Right, we're gonna be right back with Mark Bush.
We're talking about the tariffs. When we come back, we're
going to continue this dialogue. Don't go anywhere. You're on
Made in America. Stay there, Okay, welcome back to Meadian
(33:30):
in America. We're on the air right now with Mark Bush.
Mark is with Georgetown University. He's a professor of International
Business Diplomba. So you know, Mark, I should have told you.
I actually one of the best things I ever did
in my life was being an associate professor of English
at Nova University, so I taught college for a while.
Actually I loved it. I was probably one of the
(33:52):
better parts of my life that I really felt I
was doing something significant that was great justified my father's
expense at Syracuse University for seven years and three degrees.
But let's go back at this for a second. We've
got about four and a half minutes. Mark, let's talk
about job creation. How do we god what do you
suggest that the average person who's running an SME, how
(34:17):
do they approach this?
Speaker 1 (34:20):
The problem that we're seeing play out in terms of
trade policy. The administration doesn't have nearly the trade policy
problem it thinks it has. What it has is a
technology problem, and as labor costs continue to rise, you're
going to get businesses, including SMEs, switching to automation, switching
to the high end technologies that we're always dazzled by,
like the AI that everyone wants to witness firsthand. The
(34:46):
challenge going forward in terms of being an SME is
really going to be making sure that you are able
to hire the skilled talent that can integrate well with
the technology that's going to make your cost of doing
business less and that's not going to be easy to pull.
But as you point out, there are lots of places,
including Nova, where you can get that kind of skill set,
(35:07):
and we should be doing more. I even like the
President's comment the other day about investing more in trade
and other colleges. This is really going to be crucial,
and it already is informing how the AI revolution is unfolding.
It's interesting to note in this regard that autonomous trucks
are still designed with passenger seats. That is not by mistake.
(35:30):
And the more that we can get people comfortable around
some of the AI and integrating with the AI, the
happier we're going to be. But in terms of how
we get there, I hate to say it because it
sounds awful self serving for a professor to say it,
but it's going to be education. And that's why a
(35:51):
lot of places are rushing online courses for free to
the public, and we're going to have to do something
that's a little more concerned to get people ready for
this technological revolution. It's just everywhere, and it's not simply
at low wage jobs. It's at all wage jobs, and
it is here.
Speaker 2 (36:13):
Well, it's very interesting you say that. This week we
did an experiment. You know, we own we've had about
fifteen magazines. My partner and a real journalist. I mean,
I went to New House. I got my master's at
New House. My partner was at Dartmouth and then he
got his j degree at University of Florida. He's Pulitzer nominated.
He's really he's brilliant. He's just brilliant. So we tried
(36:35):
chat GDP you know AI this week he did because
he it was intriguing him, you know, and he is
a hardcore writer. He's just brilliant. Mark he'd love his writing.
And so he gave the He fed in you know,
a number of articles that he's written over the last year,
just so I guess you have the AI has to
get the cadence of what you're doing and so forth. Okay,
(36:58):
So then he gave the parameters for an article and
he's like, you know, twenty minutes later, thirty minutes later,
this article comes out. Granted it needed you know, wordsmithing,
that's for sure, but it took a three hour scenario
for someone to write and edit and so forth and
get it down down to an hour an hour, and
(37:22):
my partner JP was like stunned because we would never
you know, it's not that's not our it's outside of
our comfort zone, so to speak, which is what I
think they're talking about. Why do you put why do
you put seats in a in an autonomous truck because
it's comfortable to have the seats because we can't get
beyond that yet, you know what I mean, Well, there's
gotta be seats. No, there doesn't have to be seats,
(37:44):
you know, it doesn't have to have we tried it.
And I gotta tell you, I got to reread Isaac
Asimov because I'm going to read read Rossam's Universal Robots.
I gotta listen to his warnings because I find this
very undaunting. Mark and and and it's can be very
interesting wherever you're going to go in international trade with AI,
(38:04):
because I don't know, good bad are indifferent. You know,
I'm a product of Rod Serling, and I don't know
if I trust all this stuff. You know, it's a
good life, it's a good life. It's a good life.
I don't know. It scares the hell out of me
a little bit. Mark.
Speaker 1 (38:20):
Final word, let's hope that your listeners are aware of
the fact that it was small businesses, not big ones,
who filed against Trump's AIPA tariffs, and it's small businesses,
not big ones, who are the most vocal right now
demanding a tariff rebate. And interestingly, the administration has just
(38:41):
announced that if the IIPA terriffs are found to be illegal,
that's exactly what they're going to get. So let's end
on a positive note. If you're an SME, do not despair,
way in get political because this is important for your
bottom line, for your companies, very survival. This is not
(39:01):
the time for indifference. It's time to get political.
Speaker 2 (39:06):
God, that sounds like seventeen seventy six. I'm very impressed. Mark. Hey, listen,
Mark Bush, thank you so much for me Made in America.
I want to get you back soon. I want to
have another academic discussion. I enjoyed that so much. Georgetown University, Mark,
every great weekend, take care of herself.
Speaker 5 (39:21):
Bye bye.
Speaker 2 (39:22):
So I gotta tell you what I find intriguing. We
were talking about Jonathan Turley and never in the years
that I have been listening to Jonathan Turley speak, and
I think he's brilliant I think he's a great speaker.
I trust what he says. I think he really he's
always on target, and I have an enormous amount of
respect for his intellect in the field that he specializes in,
(39:45):
which is law. But he had a SoundBite the other day,
but I absolutely love Phil Let's play number three.
Speaker 6 (39:52):
You know, the important thing is that Trump has been saying,
you know, using these tariffs like a gun to the
head of these other countries, and the court just remove
the bullets.
Speaker 2 (40:02):
I think that kind of summarizes it, doesn't it that.
I mean talk about taking it to main street. This
just took it to street. And the point of the
matter is that, yes, we know President Trump has been
using these terriffs for a reason, and the reason is
to equalize trade, to make it equitable trade, fair trade,
not just free trade. There is no free trade. That's nonsense.
(40:24):
Fair trade so others. So it's a win win for everybody.
But he's using the tariffs as a as a leverage device. Well,
I guess a gun's a leverage device because we're getting
mugged with someone holding a gun. You sure don't want
to get involved with any things that, you know, you
give them whatever you want, so it sounds like you
know that's what he wants to do. So then the
(40:45):
question is what do these corporations out there really think
about it? And we talked about the SMEs. Okay, I
understand that because they're very emotional, as they were during COVID,
and they should be, because a lot of them are
family run, they're owned by the employees, they're highly leveraged,
and they're very mercurial and capricious in the sense that
(41:06):
what's good today could be bad tomorrow. But what I
find interesting is what the gender GM CEO Mary Bearra,
who happens to back Trump's auto tariffs to protect US manufacturing.
Let's listen to some of this. Number one, number nine,
here we go. Number nine aligned with Trump.
Speaker 4 (41:26):
No, this is where I think the President and I
are aligned because we do believe that we need to
have strong manufacturing and frankly, we need to level the
playing field from a US perspective. When we look globally,
it hasn't There's been terriffs and non tariff trade barriers,
and so making sure that we can not only build
covers for this market for US citizens, but also we
can have jobs here that allow and we can be
(41:49):
exporting to other markets. I think is very important. So
tariffs are one tool to help us enable that and
level the playing field.
Speaker 2 (41:58):
So she gets it, you know what she's been saying.
And there are other soundbites that I don't know if
we have the time to play this all of it
right now. But she's increasing the number of parts in
GM cars, parts that are made in America because a
lot of them were made in Mexico and some of
them in China and other places. GM had a lot
of manufacturing in China years ago. I covered that in
(42:19):
China Trade Magazine. She's manufacturing their brand new next generation
V eight engine going into their trucks. They're gonna be
built in Upstate New York, which is great because I
know I spent many years that I have a lot
of friends in Upstate New York. I went to school there,
and they were in an economic downturn for decades. This
(42:41):
is a great opportunity. GM is investing eight hundred million
dollars in Upstate New York. That is great job creation.
That is a great opportunity that's going to turn the
economy around in Upstate New York and rule New York
in the urban environment. It's a suburban environment. It's so
so important. It's a really good thing. And what the
(43:05):
CEO understands and explain that she supports what President Trump
is doing because she wants to see and she's putting
her money almost a billion dollars in upstate New York,
where her mouth is, where her thoughts are to do
the right thing. Ultimately by making things in America, which
(43:26):
is basically the name of our show, Made in America.
We want this to happen. This is all good, This
is what the show is about. Pay attention to CEO
Mary Bearra from General Motors. Take a look what Ford's
gonna do. Take a look at the Chrysler group and
see what they're gonna do. But in the meantime, I'm
gonna see you next week right here on our next
(43:48):
journey for Maide in America. Looking forward to seeing you. Then,
take care, have a great week.
This is Made in America with Rich Rothman.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
Hey, a great big welcome to everybody joining us right
now on Made in America this week's edition. I'm really
happy to have you here. Today. We have a terrific show,
and listen, we always have a terrific show because there's
so much stuff happening right now. Every day there is
something very exciting happening, and you know that because you're
being bombarded by it right now. But just so you know,
(00:34):
on the show today we have Steve molloy who's been
on our show years ago. He's a senior Energy and
Environment Legal Institute fellow and former Trump EPA transition team member.
He's been on the show. We've talked about things that
are important, and today we're gonna be talking about energy.
We're gonna be talking about the one big, beautiful bill
that the House passed and the Senate's working on right now.
(00:57):
And our second guest today is going to be Mark Bush,
Doctor Mark Bush. He's a Professor of International Business Diplomacy
at the Law Center, Professor of Government, Professor of Business
Administration at Georgetown University, and he's an expert in trade
and tariffs. And everybody's being I mean, everyone knows about
tariffs right now. All of a sudden, people who never
understood tariffs are understanding tariffs. They're all involved in it
(01:20):
right now. They're very excited by it. But I got
to tell you, you know, I find what I find very
intriguing is that we have a situation where we're hearing
from the Democrats that we're so you know, split, we're
so you know, diverse in what we're talking about, and
you know, one side can't get along with the other side,
and the other side doesn't want to get along with
(01:41):
the other side, and no one's getting along with any side.
And we're finding out that the Democrats have a well,
they're trying to have a plan. I don't think they
have a plan. Do you think they have a plan?
I don't see. Their plan doesn't exist for me, But
I do hear that, you know, their plan is basically
anything that Trump is doing, then I want to take
the opposite side, and therefore that's their plan. So they're obstructionists.
(02:05):
They don't want to get things accomplished. I don't think
they really care about the average American citizen. I really
just don't. I don't think if they did, then maybe
they would try and get something done. But it seems
to me the only thing that I'm hearing from the
Democrat side, the left side, the progressive side, well those cats,
is that you know what we have to fight. I mean,
(02:26):
we have to fight where someone's got to fight for you.
We're going to fight for you. What they haven't figured
out is who the you are. That's what they haven't
figured out. We're not fighting, you know, they're not fighting
for you. They're fighting against god knows what, anything that
happens to be opposite of what we want. And that's
who the you really is. It's the people who are
(02:48):
out there who By the way, in the election, seventy
nine percent of the country, almost eighty percent of the
country went for the Republican, didn't go for the Democrat.
So then why do we hear constantly that, well, you know,
you know, we have to really fight. We're out there fighting.
We just haven't gotten our message together. Well that's a
bunch of bs, and I'm tired of listening to it.
(03:08):
Let me tell you why we're in a really weird place,
all right, Phil, Let's play clip number six. Jessica Tarlow
is talking about AOC and Bernie Sanders, and if she
actually says they're very effective messengers who bring compelling energy
and question what is the policy, their answer is, it's
(03:28):
not about policy. Let's take a listen me open up.
Speaker 3 (03:31):
To Jessica Ben like, do you think they have a
messenger now that is effective?
Speaker 2 (03:36):
Yeah?
Speaker 4 (03:36):
I do.
Speaker 3 (03:37):
I think Bernie Sanders and AOC are very effective messenger.
But that's what a Who's going to be.
Speaker 2 (03:44):
That's what like a Rama Manuel is saying that.
Speaker 3 (03:47):
And I enjoy listening to Rama Manuel and hearing from him,
and I'm glad that he is all over the media
circuit as well. But there is something compelling in the
energy that AOC and Bernie are bringing, and you see
that in the reaction of people one of these rallies
to say, this isn't even my politics. I think that
Iowa is full of the Idaho.
Speaker 4 (04:05):
It's like energy, but the policies are terrible.
Speaker 3 (04:07):
It's not about policy. Right now, we're not the election
is eighteen months away for the midterms, even not even
the presidency. People are desperate to see that Democrats have
a pulse. They like Chris Murphy right now, who has
a completely moderate set of policies, he has. If you
watch him, he's creating content constantly. So right now walking
across the state of Connecticut.
Speaker 2 (04:27):
So I got to ask you a question. I mean,
this is the stuff that drives me, and it's got
to drive you crazy too. Makes me insane. First of all,
I can't stand listening to Jessica. She drives me nuts.
But the point of the matter is, who is she
saying is desperate for a plan? From the Democrats? Who's desperate?
What is their plan? They had four years? What did
(04:47):
they do? They destroyed the economy, They destroyed the border,
They destroyed criminality in the United States, law and order
that's out the window. They destroyed foreign policy. They kok
inflation to the highest rate that we had since Jimmy Carter.
They destroyed the military. People wouldn't even enlist in the
military anymore under the Democrats. So who's desperate for what?
(05:11):
And I'm not so sure. I can't who's no one's
desperate for what they got because no one knows what
they got because guess what, they don't have anything. So
having said that, I find Jessica and Bernie Sanders, Are
you kidding me? Bernie Sanders and aoc I didn't even
want to be at a rally where these people are
(05:32):
actually listening to Bernie Sanders. This is the guy that
got thrown out of you know when he was in
you know, with a bunch of hippies. They threw amacus.
All they did was complain. I can't handle that. No no, no, no, no,
no no no no. All right, we're gonna come right
back after the break. We're gonna have a great conversation
with Steve malloy. We're gonna be talking about the beautiful,
(05:52):
big bill and green energy. Don't go anywhere. Okay, Welcome
back to May in America. This is Rich Roffman, and
I'm your host, and we're having a great conversation. We're
talking to Steve molloy. Steve is the senior Energy and
(06:14):
Environment Legal Institute fellow and former Trump EPA transition team member. Actually,
Steve was a guest on Made in America with Neil
and myself years ago before he got involved with the
President Trump. Great guy. Really excited to listen to him.
He's got great insight, Steve. What is going on? You know,
everyone's talking about this big, beautiful bill and it's remarkable
(06:37):
and we need and we know we needed to have it.
I mean, there's no question we didn't get that. We're
in big trouble. You know, we got lots of sound
bites for that. But let'sten. I want you to give
us your perspective on that, and then I want to
what people don't understand is that something really weird happened
in the last couple of weeks relating to you know,
green energy products being produced in China. That's not good.
(06:59):
So Steve made in America.
Speaker 5 (07:01):
Well, Rich, thanks for having me back. It's great to
be here. So with respect to the big beautiful bill,
as you said, we must have it because it's got
the tax cuts, and tax cuts don't pass, Republicans are
going to have a really hard time holding onto the
House next year and it's going to get really ugly.
So it's got to pass. That said, you know, Republicans
(07:23):
have a sort of unique opportunity to roll back a
lot of bad stuff that came out as a bid administration.
One of those things is the climate spending in the
Inflation Reduction Act. The Inflation Reduction Act, as you might recall,
was passed through the reconciliation process. Ultimately, it needed the
(07:45):
vote of Kamala Harris to get out of the Senate.
And it contained about a trillion one point two trillion
dollars worth of spending on you know, climate crap, wind
turbans and solar panels, evs and batteries and sure for
all kinds of stuff. So, and you know, when President
(08:05):
Trump came to town and Doge was unleashed in EPA,
you know, we found out that this money is really
being squandered. Even Stacy Abrams and her one hundred dollars
organization got a two billion dollar check that was slated
to get two billion dollars out of this kind.
Speaker 2 (08:20):
Of Hey listen, Steve, when I think of energy, I
think it's Stacy. Oh wait a minute, So I'm sorry
I got confused.
Speaker 5 (08:31):
Yeah, hey, so and Biden had spent about one hundred
and fifty billion dollars of that one point two trillion already,
So it's about trillion dollars left now. You know, because
the Big Beautiful Bill is a reconciliation bill, it could,
by the same mechanism as the inflation reduction that came
into being, you could repeal it. But of course, you know,
(08:51):
when Biden spent one hundred and fifty billion dollars in
twenty twenty four. He purchased a lot of red state politicians.
And now those red state politicians don't want to give
up their subsidies for green crap. You know, no surprise there, right,
It's really easy to buy politicians with money. So so there,
you know, last week as the as the Big New As,
(09:13):
the Big Beautiful Bill was debated in the House, I
think it's last week. You know, time just runs together
now the last couple of weeks, you know, most of
that the initial version of that bill had left in
the vast majority, like seven hundred to nine hundred billion
dollars worth of the spending. By the time the bill
passed the House last week, there was only about five
hundred billion dollars worth of spending. It was all very
(09:36):
round numbers. It's hard to know exactly what would happen,
but let's say five hundred million so that, you know,
that means that the House took out about half of
the green new scam spending that was remaining in the
Big Beautiful bill. And you know, really the number should
be zero. On the other hand, you know, if it's zero,
(10:00):
then the bill doesn't maybe doesn't get out of the
house because all these Republicans have purchased. So you know,
it's it's sausage making for sure, you know, except worse
because you know, you don't get a product that tastes
good in the end. So you know, a lot of
the big beautiful bill which must pass, will get rid
of a lot of the green new scam spending. But
(10:22):
there's still a lot in there.
Speaker 2 (10:25):
Okay, So I'm going to go back to this conversation
about China. You know what I find amazing, Steve, is
that in spite of what you're saying, which is so true,
and in what came out in the last few weeks
where China could actually shut down our solar panels. Yeah,
that's a pretty scary thought, don't you think.
Speaker 5 (10:45):
Well, yeah, so you know, we we have learned that,
you know, a lot of electronic components evs, wind turb
and solar panels among them, all contain communications devices that
allow for updating, right, and they're supposed to be fire
and they're all made in China, and they're supposed to
be firewalled against China. But we have recently learned that
(11:06):
not all these devices are really fired walls firewalls, So
China can you know, we hypothetically control them, which means well,
which you know, possibly means they could shut down our grid,
or shut down those panels, or shut down wind turbines,
or shut down evs and in attack, this is a
legitimate concern. In the UK, they're worried about the same thing.
(11:27):
They're worried about Chinese made evs that have communications devices
that can be run from China or or someplace but
controlled by China. So uh, you know, this is this
is another argument against all this green use scam spending
because all the wind solar ev stuff, ultimately it all
comes from China. You can't do any of this stuff
(11:48):
without China. And do we really want to become even
more dependent on China? And then more than that, you know,
have have all this green tech stuff, I mean live
physically controlled by China, you know China. Should China be
able to dial up and turn off your eed or
you know, screw the grid or who knows, I mean,
(12:09):
who knows?
Speaker 2 (12:10):
Yeah, But you know what you know, Steve, what I
find amazing is Yes, what's what you're saying right now
is very scary. It is a national security concern. They
could shut down the grid. You know, I have to
think of the worst case scenario when it comes to no,
not the best case scenario. But what I find amazing
is that when we've had these conversations about green energy
(12:31):
and who enures the best benefit and pushing forward with
the lefties green energy with all this insanity, where they're
you know, virtue signaling basically, because I don't know what
you're saving the world with when you buy a tesla.
I'm not against a tesla now, you know. I want
to support you know, I want to support Musk. I
(12:51):
want to do that, but I'm not quite sure that
buying a Tesla is going to save the world. It isn't.
But I will say this that the products that we
needed for green energy, for evs and so forth, really
don't benefit the US here as much as they do
the folks who are producing it. So China does really well.
The folks who have the elements to produce the batteries
(13:12):
are doing really really well. But we really don't, and
I think we're kidding ourselves. So we have always since
the lefties have wanted us to go this route and
push it very very heavily. China Democrats, Biden, and god knows,
in that mix, someone's making a lot of money somewhere
along the way. But the point of the matter is
it has always been to the benefit of China. It
(13:34):
has always been to the money going out of this country.
It has always been to the lack of security for
our energy grid, the lack of security for our ability
to transport, and relying more heavily on people who really
don't wish us well, Am I getting that one wrong?
Speaker 5 (13:49):
Oh no, He've got a you know, nail on the head.
I mean, not only is China making the bulk of
the money, China's share of the Inflation Reduction Act and
Solar text this is about one hundred and twenty five
billion dollars, so it's a lot. But not only that,
they also benefit by being able to control this stuff.
(14:12):
So you know, in the case of let's say there
was conflict over Taiwan, I mean, the United States would
have to think twice, three times, ten times whether he
wanted to risk, you know, defending Taiwan and having its
grid shut down. So, I mean it's these two things.
It's the money and it's the national security risk.
Speaker 2 (14:35):
So it's got to be screaming at us that this
is a dangerous place to be. And so what do
you suggest? What are you suggesting, Steve?
Speaker 5 (14:42):
Well, Okay, so three years ago I petitioned the sec
IS Security Exchange Commission to require companies to disclose their
reliance on China. We have got to get a handle
on how much of our economy depends on I mean,
it's China, and exactly what parts of our economy depend
(15:03):
on communist shining. You know, like President Trump says, who
cares if you know plastic trash cans come from from China,
That's not what we're talking about. But you know, communications
devices to you know, all our technology, antibiotics, that stuff.
We cannot depend on China for this. We need to
find out, you know, what we're relying on China for
and then fix that problem because we are vulnerable as
(15:25):
a nation, Our economy is vulnerable, our national security, you know,
we are all vulnerable to China right now, and we
have no idea how much that is. So it's very
hard to even you know, move the agenda forward because
you know, you have all these people that China has
bought saying, oh it's nothing, don't worry about it. Yeah,
(15:46):
there's everything's fine. You know, we just need the information
so that we can we can present reality to people
and you know, advocate.
Speaker 2 (15:57):
Well, I think you're right. So let's think about this
for a second. Something's going to scream at us along
the way. So here we are saying we are I
am a conservative, we are conservatives that we need to
have this data. We need we must have this information
because we need to know how deep that security concern
really is. Okay, great, we got that. So that means
(16:19):
who is arguing that point. Who's taking the opposing Oh,
that's right, it's going to be the Democrats, right, they're
against this. I mean they got to be against us.
They're the ones that passed the bill with Biden, so
we know that somehow they got their hand in that deal.
Something's going on there. So where do we go with this? We,
I guess we have to we have to go forward
(16:39):
and understand where the data comes from, to understand how
to deal with the lefties who want the data to
be controlled by them. This is really a conundrum, isn't it.
Speaker 5 (16:49):
Well, I mean yes and no. I mean it's very
difficult to do obviously, because the force is working against
common says our legion. But you know, we as generally
where the opposition is going to come from. It's going
to come from multinationals who are dependent on China. It's
going to come from Wall Street, It's going to come
from universities and politicians that have been purchased by China.
(17:10):
China has really uh as you know, as we're seeing
with this struggle with Harvard against China. You know, the
Chinese tentacles are everywhere in our society. And you know
that's another thing we really don't have a good grip on.
You know, lots of people have been arrested for espionage
against China or against the United States from China. But
but I think it's only the surf. You know, we
(17:32):
just scratching the interm of the iceberg. So, you know,
we we need a lot more data. We need to
be a lot more aggressive, a lot more aware of
the problem of China. But it's very hard to do.
And and you know, our politicians, there are some politicians
(17:52):
that are very good on this, Tom Cotton, for example,
but there's not enough. Tom Cotton's in Congress, and you know,
and Trump, I know, is his work is doing the
best he can but there is just this incredible amount
of pushback that you know, China has funded. Obviously, who
else is defending China? But you know China and China
funded people.
Speaker 2 (18:12):
Right, and Chinese companies are funding this fight against what
we're trying to do. So who you just said, Tom,
who's taking who? If we're thinking of like one or
two people in Congress and said, who's taking the lead
on this, who's really fighting this for us?
Speaker 5 (18:27):
Well? I think Tom conn has taking the lead. You know,
he's got a new book out there, he talks about it.
You know, there are other Republicans I think you know
Mark or Rupiet, Well he's not in the conversation in
the Senate anymore, but you know he's very keen on this. Obviously,
he had a bill last year to reverse or you know,
to block China from getting one hundred twenty five billion
dollars in solar tax credits from the place to reduction.
(18:48):
I yeah, there are people out there, but there are
many people who have Chinese times who don't want anything
to happen.
Speaker 2 (18:57):
It's sitious, isn't it. I Mean it's reallydious, it's really
but hey, but listen, we had that beautiful Helium, that
wonderful balloon that went across the United States just checking
us out. Oh that's right, that was Biden. They came
up with all the good reasons, so we shouldn't do it. Listen,
Steve has been it's great to have you on the show.
I have to tell you that I enjoy your dialogue
(19:17):
an awful lot. So we had Steve malloy and see
where can people catch you to hear what you have
to say or read some of the stuff that you've
written writing.
Speaker 5 (19:25):
Best place to catch me every day is on X
at Junk Science.
Speaker 2 (19:31):
There you have it all right, Steve mlloy, Senior Energy
and Entertainment Legal Institute fellow and former Trump EPA transition
team member. We are so glad you're on Made in America.
We got to get you back real soon. Promise, Steve,
you bet we're gonna be right back. We have a
tremendous amount of information coming out. We're gonna be talking.
What a surprise, Traffs. Don't go anywhere.
Speaker 1 (20:12):
Promoting American industry.
Speaker 4 (20:14):
This is Made in America with Rich Rothman.
Speaker 2 (20:18):
Hey, welcome back to Made in America. I'm Rich Roffman,
your host. Delighted to have you here today. So you know,
in the first half we're talking about hats of the show,
I should say, we're talking about, you know, the big
beautiful bill and what it means. We're discussing products coming
out of China, and the bill could also you know,
we have to really cap what we're doing with China.
Green energy is not good. We know that in the
last few weeks we found out that solar panels produced
(20:41):
in China. What a shock. You know, we're able to
be controlled by the Chinese government, so in the fact
they could be closing down, you know, our ability to
produce electricity. Not a good idea, probably not, but equally
important and something that I mean, every minute on the
air we're talking about terroriffs. So I'm really delighted to
have Mark Busch. Mark is a professor of International Business
(21:01):
Diplomacy at the Law Center. He's an adjunct professor of
Government and Professor of Business Administration at Georgetown University. And
I am delighted to have Mark on the show. Mark,
Welcome to maide in America.
Speaker 1 (21:14):
Thanks for having me.
Speaker 2 (21:16):
Really excited to have you here. So, I mean, oh
my god, Mark, anytime you turn on any any cable
channel or anything on news and so forth, whether it's
going to be serious XM or whatever. Even AM radio
and US it's it's tariffs. Tariffs has gone main street.
I mean, all of a sudden, everyone's talking about tariff's.
We need a little clarity here, Mark, give us a
(21:36):
little clarity. What is going on? Why is everybody so concerned?
It's obviously very important, so let's talk about it for
a second. So what's the skinny on the tariff thing
and why should people be concerned?
Speaker 1 (21:48):
Well, the big development in the past forty eight hours
has been the decision by the Court of International Trade
to declare illegal President Trump's various tariffs under the International
Emergency You Can Only Powers Act. And this has led
the administration to get rather concerned about all those negotiations
(22:11):
that had been issued with countries since the April second
Liberation Day announcement. So you've got the central plank of
the president's trade policy at issue, and now we're off
to the Appeals Court and potentially to the US Supreme Court.
And as I'm sure your listeners know only too well,
(22:34):
a tariff is a tax on trade. And they're the ones,
as importers who are going to pay the tax.
Speaker 2 (22:40):
Uh huh. I'll tell you what. Phil. Let's play cut
number one. Jonathan Turley. I'd like to see what he
has to say here.
Speaker 1 (22:49):
What are the administration's options Now? Obviously the tariffs are
temporarily back, but what are the options for them going forward?
Speaker 6 (23:00):
Well, I think you raised the right point here. We've
got to keep in mind that AIPA has never been
used for tariffs. It has never been used in this way.
And these judges were saying they just don't see that
what they called unbounded authority under this act. But the
Trump administration is correct that Congress has through the years
(23:21):
deferred to presidents on tariffs, including passing laws that give
them authority to impose tariffs. And he can now go
ahead and use some of those laws. And you know,
some of them allow for one hundred and fifty days
to be have tariffs put on and then during that
period you do an investigation and then they can be
(23:42):
left on if you find the requisite market conditions. And
these are very discretionary types of decisions made by presidents
under these laws.
Speaker 2 (23:58):
So Mark, so where does he go with? I mean,
it seems like, obviously it seems that we've had some unilateral,
you know, actions occurring here, and does it remain that way?
Speaker 1 (24:10):
Mark sure? And the little clip there is highlighting in
a rather unintelligible way that there are alternative means by
which the president could issue executive orders under different legislative
pieces to get some of his tariffs on the books.
The section one twenty two for balance of payments issues
(24:31):
is a maximum of fifteen percent for one hundred and
fifty days. The section three oh one, which is a
go to for Trump under Trump one point zero, requires
an investigation and it's about enforcement with legislative requirements that
he report back to Congress every so often and do
a study so they're not as sweeping and easy to
(24:53):
implement as he thought he was going to be able
to pull off with the IEPA tariffs, and that is
going to frustrate him a great deal going forward. But
there's a bigger question that has to get asked at
all of this. It's a real shame if we buy
into the logic of needing these terrorists. A bigger question
for small business, for manufacturers in the United States is
(25:15):
why and on what timeframe are these terrats allegedly going
to be paying off for American workers, businesses, et cetera.
Speaker 2 (25:25):
Well, that's a really good question. You know, since we're
the country has as a backbone of job creation sme
small to mid sized corporations. Seems to me that they're
the ones that take the biggest hit and have the
biggest problem. So how does that really thing? For a second,
for small items, I mean, in an article that was
out there that you were involved with it, someone selling Barretts,
(25:49):
for example, for a woman's hair it's three ninety nine
a barett. I mean, it could make it, you know,
impossible for certain people to get out there and sell
products that really don't go for tons of bucks that
all of a sudden they're going for twice what they
were costing before, and therefore you're impinging upon the ability
to distribute these products. It just seems to me that
(26:11):
it's a dispassionate discussion and disparate in the sense that
you know, the small companies are going to take a
bigger hit. The big companies can always absorb something, but
you know, Mark, the smaller people will get hurt in this, you.
Speaker 1 (26:22):
Think absolutely, And the SMBs are really in for it.
They can't adjust the supply chain they can't eat the tarraffs.
Their margins are too low. And these terrafts are getting
stacked one upon another. So when you take a look
at some of the data on China, for example, you've
got to remember that these are all being added one
(26:43):
on top of another. That means a lot of what
an SME thought it could shell out to bring in
volume isn't there anymore. And that really is the predicament
in which so many companies, big and small find themselves.
But it's the SMEs that are gonna be punished, and
they're the engine of jobs. They're the ones who employ
(27:06):
a lot of Americans, and disproportionately so in a lot
of these retail businesses, and those jobs are going to
disappear really quickly if there isn't some sanity brought to
the tariff tumult.
Speaker 2 (27:20):
Well, I think what concerns me. I mean, I'm an entrepreneur,
I'm a small business obviously, have five hundred or less
and employees that were less. What I find interesting, Mark
is very interesting when you listen to Jonathan. I mean
we've all been listening to Jonathan for years. He's pretty eloquent.
I think he is. I have never heard him fluster
(27:43):
looking for words. Did you notice that he lost his
He's looking for his adverbial phrases. Man, they're not there, Mark,
And he was trying to dice and slice and figure
out how to get through this discussion right now. Because
what seems to me, and whether good, bad or indifferent,
I don't think it endures any great benefit to anybody
(28:06):
in the world. If we're constantly every other day we're
going up, we're going down, we're going up, we're going down,
and and you know we're in My offices are in Miami.
My background's on international trade. I've spent forty some odd
years involved in Pan Hemisphere trade and global trade here
in Miami, in the World Trade Center. I'm the former
(28:26):
chair of the World Trade Center, vice chair on board
of the FTAA with Jeb Bush. I mean, doing some
pretty significant stuff. I've got to tell you. Every year,
the largest food and beverage show in the hemispheres North
and Southern Hemisphere, Pan hemispherically speaking, all right, has been
the America's Food and Beverage Show, done by the World
Trade Center. It has been growing like a bandit It's huge, huge,
(28:50):
you know, thousands and thousands of legitimate people coming through
trying to buy products, tons of boosts. Do you know
this year as of just the other day, because I'm
still involved with them, it's very, very questionable. Not that
it's not gonna happen. It's gonna happen, great, it's gonna
be wonderful. But a lot of people are waiting till
the last minute to find out what's going on. Why,
(29:11):
because it's so mercurial. That's the word I would use,
wouldn't you. It's a mercurial environment and trade can't be
that way because things happen way in advance. What are
your thoughts?
Speaker 1 (29:22):
Absolutely, we need predictability, we need stability, and those are
both scarce at the moment. And to your point about
student beverage, let's take the case of alcohol. You've got
to remember, as to your listeners, that we haven't even
faced European retaliation yet, but we have in the past
under Trump one point zero, and that almost did away
(29:45):
with artistical distilleries in the United States because with a
twenty five percent tax on their alcoholic beverages exported to
the EU, they were effectively shut out of that market.
And it's a big, rich market so this is really
traumatic stuff, and they didn't really bounce back from Trump
(30:08):
one point zero. If the EU retaliates shortly, which it
will if it doesn't get a deal with the Trump administration,
all those teriffs go back up. I like to think
about EU retaliation in terms of lobsters. They're angry under
the prior under Trump one point zero, Europe lashed out
(30:28):
at four different tariff lines on lobsters. In their most
recent filing, they're gearing up to hit lobsters with fifteen
different tariff line tariffs. This is big, and it's going
to be targeted at a lot of SMEs and a
lot of them are food and beverage.
Speaker 2 (30:48):
Well, you're right, I know that. And hey, I can
tell you that there are countries that normally take fifteen
twenty thirty booths at this event. It's not inexpensive. It's
pretty expensive to big commitment to come here from all
over the world. And and they're just you know, they're
gonna come, they think, but they're gonna, they're gonna they
(31:08):
want to see where this is going to and and uh,
it's very very hard to have something happen on an
hourly basis. And I try to be very supportive of
the administration. But I find this to be a conundrum.
I find this to be very difficult as for a
small business to be able to adjust to this. Man,
(31:30):
you've got to turn on a dime. And you know,
I'm not Matt Dillon, and the folks out there can't.
They can't turn on a dime. They got to figure
this one out. But I am concerned, very much concerned
with the ability for the small to mid sized corporations
to look out, look for investment and grow their company.
You know, I do that. I've been doing that for
(31:51):
forty one years. It's very hard to know where you're
going to be. And I own trade magazines, Mark, I mean,
I own Latin Trade, Latin CEO of South Floid to
CEO Miami Business, China Trade. You know, I've had quite
a few kind of kind of that's our favorite area.
And I see what's going on, and it's very very
(32:13):
disconcerting that a small company can't adjust to this fast
enough because before you know it, your next quarter is
upon you and you're screwed. It's too late to be
able to do something, so you're gonna lose half a year,
you know, in terms of making things happen for yourself.
So I'm not keen on that. I'd like to get
(32:33):
when we come back from a break, and we're gonna
take a short break in a minute, I want to
continue this conversation because one of the things that really
bothers me the most, and one of the things that
we talk about and I've been doing for six sixteen
years on this show, is talk about job creation. And
I am very, very concerned. Ironically, we're supposed to be
talking about creating things good for America to have job creation,
(32:55):
but when you can't plan out where you're going to be,
it's very very hard because you need capital to do
all of that, and that takes a while to happen.
All Right, we're gonna be right back with Mark Bush.
We're talking about the tariffs. When we come back, we're
going to continue this dialogue. Don't go anywhere. You're on
Made in America. Stay there, Okay, welcome back to Meadian
(33:30):
in America. We're on the air right now with Mark Bush.
Mark is with Georgetown University. He's a professor of International
Business Diplomba. So you know, Mark, I should have told you.
I actually one of the best things I ever did
in my life was being an associate professor of English
at Nova University, so I taught college for a while.
Actually I loved it. I was probably one of the
(33:52):
better parts of my life that I really felt I
was doing something significant that was great justified my father's
expense at Syracuse University for seven years and three degrees.
But let's go back at this for a second. We've
got about four and a half minutes. Mark, let's talk
about job creation. How do we god what do you
suggest that the average person who's running an SME, how
(34:17):
do they approach this?
Speaker 1 (34:20):
The problem that we're seeing play out in terms of
trade policy. The administration doesn't have nearly the trade policy
problem it thinks it has. What it has is a
technology problem, and as labor costs continue to rise, you're
going to get businesses, including SMEs, switching to automation, switching
to the high end technologies that we're always dazzled by,
like the AI that everyone wants to witness firsthand. The
(34:46):
challenge going forward in terms of being an SME is
really going to be making sure that you are able
to hire the skilled talent that can integrate well with
the technology that's going to make your cost of doing
business less and that's not going to be easy to pull.
But as you point out, there are lots of places,
including Nova, where you can get that kind of skill set,
(35:07):
and we should be doing more. I even like the
President's comment the other day about investing more in trade
and other colleges. This is really going to be crucial,
and it already is informing how the AI revolution is unfolding.
It's interesting to note in this regard that autonomous trucks
are still designed with passenger seats. That is not by mistake.
(35:30):
And the more that we can get people comfortable around
some of the AI and integrating with the AI, the
happier we're going to be. But in terms of how
we get there, I hate to say it because it
sounds awful self serving for a professor to say it,
but it's going to be education. And that's why a
(35:51):
lot of places are rushing online courses for free to
the public, and we're going to have to do something
that's a little more concerned to get people ready for
this technological revolution. It's just everywhere, and it's not simply
at low wage jobs. It's at all wage jobs, and
it is here.
Speaker 2 (36:13):
Well, it's very interesting you say that. This week we
did an experiment. You know, we own we've had about
fifteen magazines. My partner and a real journalist. I mean,
I went to New House. I got my master's at
New House. My partner was at Dartmouth and then he
got his j degree at University of Florida. He's Pulitzer nominated.
He's really he's brilliant. He's just brilliant. So we tried
(36:35):
chat GDP you know AI this week he did because
he it was intriguing him, you know, and he is
a hardcore writer. He's just brilliant. Mark he'd love his writing.
And so he gave the He fed in you know,
a number of articles that he's written over the last year,
just so I guess you have the AI has to
get the cadence of what you're doing and so forth. Okay,
(36:58):
So then he gave the parameters for an article and
he's like, you know, twenty minutes later, thirty minutes later,
this article comes out. Granted it needed you know, wordsmithing,
that's for sure, but it took a three hour scenario
for someone to write and edit and so forth and
get it down down to an hour an hour, and
(37:22):
my partner JP was like stunned because we would never
you know, it's not that's not our it's outside of
our comfort zone, so to speak, which is what I
think they're talking about. Why do you put why do
you put seats in a in an autonomous truck because
it's comfortable to have the seats because we can't get
beyond that yet, you know what I mean, Well, there's
gotta be seats. No, there doesn't have to be seats,
(37:44):
you know, it doesn't have to have we tried it.
And I gotta tell you, I got to reread Isaac
Asimov because I'm going to read read Rossam's Universal Robots.
I gotta listen to his warnings because I find this
very undaunting. Mark and and and it's can be very
interesting wherever you're going to go in international trade with AI,
(38:04):
because I don't know, good bad are indifferent. You know,
I'm a product of Rod Serling, and I don't know
if I trust all this stuff. You know, it's a
good life, it's a good life. It's a good life.
I don't know. It scares the hell out of me
a little bit. Mark.
Speaker 1 (38:20):
Final word, let's hope that your listeners are aware of
the fact that it was small businesses, not big ones,
who filed against Trump's AIPA tariffs, and it's small businesses,
not big ones, who are the most vocal right now
demanding a tariff rebate. And interestingly, the administration has just
(38:41):
announced that if the IIPA terriffs are found to be illegal,
that's exactly what they're going to get. So let's end
on a positive note. If you're an SME, do not despair,
way in get political because this is important for your
bottom line, for your companies, very survival. This is not
(39:01):
the time for indifference. It's time to get political.
Speaker 2 (39:06):
God, that sounds like seventeen seventy six. I'm very impressed. Mark. Hey, listen,
Mark Bush, thank you so much for me Made in America.
I want to get you back soon. I want to
have another academic discussion. I enjoyed that so much. Georgetown University, Mark,
every great weekend, take care of herself.
Speaker 5 (39:21):
Bye bye.
Speaker 2 (39:22):
So I gotta tell you what I find intriguing. We
were talking about Jonathan Turley and never in the years
that I have been listening to Jonathan Turley speak, and
I think he's brilliant I think he's a great speaker.
I trust what he says. I think he really he's
always on target, and I have an enormous amount of
respect for his intellect in the field that he specializes in,
(39:45):
which is law. But he had a SoundBite the other day,
but I absolutely love Phil Let's play number three.
Speaker 6 (39:52):
You know, the important thing is that Trump has been saying,
you know, using these tariffs like a gun to the
head of these other countries, and the court just remove
the bullets.
Speaker 2 (40:02):
I think that kind of summarizes it, doesn't it that.
I mean talk about taking it to main street. This
just took it to street. And the point of the
matter is that, yes, we know President Trump has been
using these terriffs for a reason, and the reason is
to equalize trade, to make it equitable trade, fair trade,
not just free trade. There is no free trade. That's nonsense.
(40:24):
Fair trade so others. So it's a win win for everybody.
But he's using the tariffs as a as a leverage device. Well,
I guess a gun's a leverage device because we're getting
mugged with someone holding a gun. You sure don't want
to get involved with any things that, you know, you
give them whatever you want, so it sounds like you
know that's what he wants to do. So then the
(40:45):
question is what do these corporations out there really think
about it? And we talked about the SMEs. Okay, I
understand that because they're very emotional, as they were during COVID,
and they should be, because a lot of them are
family run, they're owned by the employees, they're highly leveraged,
and they're very mercurial and capricious in the sense that
(41:06):
what's good today could be bad tomorrow. But what I
find interesting is what the gender GM CEO Mary Bearra,
who happens to back Trump's auto tariffs to protect US manufacturing.
Let's listen to some of this. Number one, number nine,
here we go. Number nine aligned with Trump.
Speaker 4 (41:26):
No, this is where I think the President and I
are aligned because we do believe that we need to
have strong manufacturing and frankly, we need to level the
playing field from a US perspective. When we look globally,
it hasn't There's been terriffs and non tariff trade barriers,
and so making sure that we can not only build
covers for this market for US citizens, but also we
can have jobs here that allow and we can be
(41:49):
exporting to other markets. I think is very important. So
tariffs are one tool to help us enable that and
level the playing field.
Speaker 2 (41:58):
So she gets it, you know what she's been saying.
And there are other soundbites that I don't know if
we have the time to play this all of it
right now. But she's increasing the number of parts in
GM cars, parts that are made in America because a
lot of them were made in Mexico and some of
them in China and other places. GM had a lot
of manufacturing in China years ago. I covered that in
(42:19):
China Trade Magazine. She's manufacturing their brand new next generation
V eight engine going into their trucks. They're gonna be
built in Upstate New York, which is great because I
know I spent many years that I have a lot
of friends in Upstate New York. I went to school there,
and they were in an economic downturn for decades. This
(42:41):
is a great opportunity. GM is investing eight hundred million
dollars in Upstate New York. That is great job creation.
That is a great opportunity that's going to turn the
economy around in Upstate New York and rule New York
in the urban environment. It's a suburban environment. It's so
so important. It's a really good thing. And what the
(43:05):
CEO understands and explain that she supports what President Trump
is doing because she wants to see and she's putting
her money almost a billion dollars in upstate New York,
where her mouth is, where her thoughts are to do
the right thing. Ultimately by making things in America, which
(43:26):
is basically the name of our show, Made in America.
We want this to happen. This is all good, This
is what the show is about. Pay attention to CEO
Mary Bearra from General Motors. Take a look what Ford's
gonna do. Take a look at the Chrysler group and
see what they're gonna do. But in the meantime, I'm
gonna see you next week right here on our next
(43:48):
journey for Maide in America. Looking forward to seeing you. Then,
take care, have a great week.
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
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!