Latest news with #economic policy
CBS News
3 days ago
- Business
- CBS News
Transcript: Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan," July 20, 2025
The following is the transcript of an interview with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick that aired on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan" on July 20, 2025. MARGARET BRENNAN: For more on the Trump administration's economic policy, we go now to Commerce Secretary, Howard Lutnick. Welcome back to Face the Nation, Mr. Secretary, COMMERCE SECRETARY HOWARD LUTNICK: Great to be here. MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, you heard in our polling some of the perceptions of the economy; 61% of Americans believe the administration is putting too much focus on tariffs, 70% say the administration is not doing enough to lower prices, and 60% oppose new tariffs on imported goods. This is a centerpiece to your policy plan. How do you reverse public opposition? SEC. LUTNICK: They're going to love the deals that President Trump and I are doing. I mean, they're just going to love them. You know, the president figured out the right answer, and sent letters to these countries, said this is going to fix the trade deficit. This will go a long way to fixing the trade deficit, and that's gotten these countries to the table and they're going to open their markets or they're going to pay the tariff. And if they open their markets, the opportunity for Americans to export, to grow the business, farmers, ranchers, fishermen, this is going to be- the next two weeks, are going to be weeks for the record books. President Trump is going to deliver for the American people. MARGARET BRENNAN: Next two weeks for the record books, because you have that August 1st deadline. But, President Trump sent letters to most of the major trading partners announcing higher tariff rates effective August 1. That could hit countries accounting for three-quarters of US imports. Let's talk about Canada, one of the big ones. Their Prime Minister said this past week, there's not a lot of evidence they can get a trade deal with the U.S. that avoids tariffs. Is your message to Canada, Mr. Secretary, that no matter what they offer at the negotiating table, free trade is gone, there will be a tariff in place? LUTNICK: Now, see, that's silly. We have a plan called USMCA. U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement. Virtually 75% of all goods coming from Mexico and Canada already come in tariff-free. The President said look, unless you stop this fentanyl and close the border, we're just going to keep tariffs on the other 25% and that's what he has on. So, don't be confused about it. The President understands that we need to open the markets. Canada is not open to us. They need to open their market. Unless they're willing to open their market, they're going to pay a tariff. That's a simple message the President has. It's fair trade. It's reciprocal trade. Why should we have our country be wide open while theirs is closed? This is an 80-year wrong that President Trump is trying to fix, and our businesses are going to really, really enjoy it. I think the President is going to open between three and $400 billion of opportunity for Americans. That's 1.5%- up to 1.5% GDP growth, because the president's going to open all these markets up. You saw it with Vietnam. You saw it with Indonesia. You're going to watch all these other countries decide if they want to do business with America, let's just open our market up to America. That's the opportunity that President Trump is bringing. MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, we saw framework announcements with those countries you just mentioned, but back on what the Canadian Prime Minister, the man you're negotiating with, said, he's assuming there's going to be a tariff here. There's already this baseline 10% tariff that we are seeing from the administration. Is that set in stone, or is it going to go to like 15 or 20%? SEC. LUTNICK: Well, I think what you've got is you should assume that the small countries, you know, the Latin American countries, the Caribbean countries, many countries in Africa, they will have a baseline tariff of 10%. And then the bigger economies will either open themselves up or they'll pay a fair tariff to America for not opening themselves up and treating America unfairly. So, what the President's view is, and what he's instructed me to do is say, look, if you're willing to open yourself up and really open your economy to American business, to ranchers, fishermen, farmers, and businesses, then of course, we'll make a better deal with you. But if you're going to keep your tariffs and your tariff barriers holding us down, then of course, it seems fair that you should pay a tariff to do business with the greatest customer on Earth, the American consumer. MARGARET BRENNAN: Okay, so just quickly, are you going to renegotiate that free trade deal, the USMCA? LUTNICK: Oh, I think the President is absolutely going to renegotiate USMCA, but that's a year from today. MARGARET BRENNAN: Exactly. LUTNICK: Of course, 75% comes in free but of course, should you expect us to renegotiate it? It makes perfect sense for the President to renegotiate it. He wants to protect American jobs. He doesn't want cars built in Canada or Mexico when they could be built in Michigan and Ohio. It's just better for American workers. The President's got the American workers back. That's why they elected him. That's why the stock market is at all-time highs. They understand the President actually understands business and is doing it the right way. MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, okay, let me ask you about Europe. Boeing airplanes, Kentucky bourbon. These are some of the things that the Europeans are looking to target if we get into a trade war as retaliation by them-- SEC. LUTNICK: --they're not going to do it-- [CROSSTALK STARTS] MARGARET BRENNAN: You just met with-- SEC. LUTNICK: --they're just not going to do that– MARGARET BRENNAN: -- the European trade negotiator. He came out kind of downbeat. You disagree, you think we are going to get a deal with the European Union? LUTNICK: You know, I was on the phone with the European trade negotiators this morning about a half hour ago, so there's plenty of room. Look the president and the European Union, these are the two biggest trading partners in the world talking to each other. We'll get a deal done. I am confident we'll get a deal done. Okay, and it will be great for America, because the President has the back of America. So I think all these key countries will figure out it is better to open the markets to the United States of America than to pay a significant tariff, and Donald Trump has made that point clear. No one has protected America the way Donald Trump has protected America. It is so fun to work for him, because I have him behind me saying the right things for America, and I get to do those negotiations with all these countries, and you are going to see the best set of trade deals you've ever seen for America and for the American people. MARGARET BRENNAN: Is that August 1st deadline with the EU a hard deadline? Are you going to get a deal since you were just on the phone? SEC. LUTNICK: I can't hear anything. MARGARET BRENNAN: Can you- can you hear me, Mr. Secretary? It looks like your shot just froze up on my end. It looks like our remote shot with the secretary is frozen. So we're going to take a commercial break, try to fix it, and try to finish a conversation on the other side of this. [ COMMERCIAL BREAK ] MARGARET BRENNAN Right now, we want to go back to the Commerce Secretary, who I believe can hear me now. Mr. Secretary? SEC. LUTNICK: I can hear you now MARGARET BRENNAN: All right, but to pick up where we left off before the technical issues, August 1st, is it a hard deadline with the EU, or is that going to slide? SEC. LUTNICK: No, no, that's a hard deadline. So, on August 1, the new tariff rates will come in. But, nothing stops countries from talking to us after August 1, but they're going to start paying the tariffs on August 1. Now remember, the world is paying 10% right now, and China's paying 30%, so that's right now- and that's why we're running at about plus $30 billion a month for the American people. You got to remember, this is going to pay off our deficit. This is going to make America stronger. We are finally protecting America. MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, you'll have that income if you keep them in place. But, if you're negotiating them away, then they won't be there. So, I that that is contradictory to me. But -- SEC. LUTNICK: No, no, no, no, no. – MARGARET BRENNAN: -- So you're not negotiating the tariffs away? -- SEC. LUTNICK: Nothing is getting negotiated away. We have 10% of the world. No, no. 10% is definitely going to stay. Many countries will pay higher, like Vietnam and Indonesia, right? There 19 and 20%. Most countries will pay higher. The small countries are likely to be 10%, but the bigger countries are likely to pay higher. That's just the way it's going to be, because we can't have these $1 trillion trade deficits. It's just wrong for America, and Donald Trump is going to fix it. MARGARET BRENNAN: And American corporations are just going to swallow that, and not pass that price increase on to consumers? What's your projection? SEC. LUTNICK: What's so interesting is that you're worried about the importers. How about the people who build and employ Americans here? – MARGARET BRENNAN: – No I'm asking about people who go to the store to buy – SEC. LUTNICK: The people who make cars here, people who manufacture here. They don't pay a tariff. They don't pay a tariff at all. So, President Trump says it all the time, build in America, you don't pay a tariff. The idea that these importers are more important than the people who employ Americans, I think, it's just a wrong way of thinking about it. Americans deserve to be employed here and have the best jobs in the world, and that's what Donald Trump is trying to deliver. MARGARET BRENNAN: I was asking about consumer prices, what people will pay when they go to the store -- SEC. LUTNICK: They'll be low. I think they'll be low, shockingly low, MARGARET BRENNAN: Okay. The Consumer Price Index doesn't- doesn't currently reflect that, though. That- the trend is towards higher. SEC. LUTNICK: Well, it just went up, what'd it go up? A tenth of a percent? – MARGARET BRENNAN: – Two-tenths on the core – SEC. LUTNICK: Look, the dollar has declined more than 10%, right? So, the dollar declining sort of softens tariffs completely. These are small numbers. You're going to see, inflation is not going to change. Remember, inflation is an expectation of rates continuing to grow. Tariffs are just going to reset the price level for imports, for certain imports from certain countries. But everybody was building in America. And remember Donald Trump announced over $11 trillion of building in America. All that building in America, the construction jobs here. But then, when those products come on the shelves, they come on much cheaper. Energy is cheaper. I think you're going to see inflation stay right where it is. And Jerome Powell has held these rates up way too high, way too high. You're going to see him cut rates. The Fed is going to cut rates. Mortgages are going to be cheaper, and America is going to be so much better off under Donald Trump. MARGARET BRENNAN: There are reports that the Treasury Secretary has talked the president out of his threat to fire the Fed Chair since the Fed is already expected, on a consensus basis, to be lowering rates. Are you telling us tonight or today that he's not under threat, that he will keep his job? SEC. LUTNICK: The President is an amazingly transparent person. When he thinks something, he says it. So he said, look, this guy is doing the worst job. We have interest rates the same Gabon. You know, Europe- all of Europe, the 27 countries of Europe are in the twos, and we're in the force. That means your mortgage, everybody's watching, the mortgage is two points higher than it should be. So, the Fed should be cutting rates, and Donald Trump's going to try to figure out how to get there. Whether he decides- whether he decides to let Jerome Powell stay in the job or not, I'll leave that to Donald Trump. I think the guy's doing the worst job. He's costing us, you, me, and the American people, more than $500 billion. I think he's costing us $700 billion a year by keeping rates too high. It's just wrong. I don't know why he's torturing America this way. Our rates should be lower. MARGARET BRENNAN: He doesn't unilaterally set those rates, but we have to leave it there. We are out of time. Mr. Secretary, thank you for joining us and sticking through the technical- technical issues we had.
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump says Powell is costing the US a fortune by not lowering rates. But firing the Fed chair may not fix the issue
As part of his campaign to get rid of Jerome Powell, President Donald Trump has blamed the Federal Reserve chair for costing the country 'hundreds of billions of dollars' by not slashing interest rates. 'You have cost the USA a fortune and continue to do so,' Trump wrote in a handwritten note to Powell that he posted on Truth Social last month. 'You should lower that rate by a lot. Hundreds of billions of dollars are being lost.' In the same post, Trump blamed the Fed board, saying, 'If they were doing their job properly, our Country would be saving Trillions of Dollars in Interest Cost … We should be paying 1% Interest, or better!' Trump's focus on interest costs comes at a time of renewed attention on the nation's skyrocketing interest payments on its ever-growing federal debt. Interest payments this fiscal year are nearing $1 trillion for the first time in the nation's history. The president just signed the 'big, beautiful bill,' which is expected to add more than $3 trillion to the deficit over the next decade and push interest rates even higher. And Moody's recently downgraded the US debt in part because of the increase in government debt and interest payment ratios. But even if Trump succeeds in pressuring the Fed to reduce rates, it may not significantly lighten the nation's interest payment burden, experts said. The federal funds rate is only one of the factors that influences the interest rates on the federal debt, which is made up of a mix of short-term, medium-length and longer-duration Treasury securities. 'It seems to be an easier lever to pull for those who want to impact either interest costs on the federal debt or economic growth,' said Shai Akabas, vice president of economic policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center. 'But it doesn't mean that action by the Fed will result in the outcome the president or others may want.' What's indisputable is that America's interest costs have soared in recent years, in part because of the nation's growing debt and in part because interest rates rose after a period of super-low rates as the nation combatted high inflation earlier in the decade. The US shelled out $346 billion in interest payments in fiscal 2020. That figure has jumped to a projected $952 billion for the current fiscal year and is expected to exceed $1 trillion in the coming year, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Interest payments are now the second-largest spending category in the federal budget, surpassing Medicare and defense in fiscal year 2024 and trailing only Social Security. Currently, roughly 18 cents of every dollar in tax revenue goes to paying interest on the debt, Akabas said. By the end of the next decade, that figure will jump to about 25 cents. While cutting the federal funds rate may lower rates on shorter-term securities, it may not reduce rates on 10-year or 30-year Treasury bonds. In fact, a sharp cut may increase longer-term rates for several reasons, including that a steep rate cut could spur inflation or could prompt investors to shift to longer-term securities to lock in higher rates, said Marc Goldwein, senior policy director at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. 'The Federal Reserve only has so much power to lower those interest rates,' he said of the rates on longer duration Treasury bonds. 'There's no guarantee that the Fed cutting rates will reduce interest payments at all.' If Trump were truly interested in reducing interest payments, there is a more efficient way to do that, experts said. He could work to lower the annual deficit — though that would likely involve some politically unpalatable changes to taxes and spending, they said. While Trump's agenda package will make historic reductions to federal spending on the nation's safety net, its hefty tax cuts far surpass the savings and widen the annual deficit. 'If your concern is the hundreds of billions of dollars we're adding to the deficit from higher interest costs, the solution is to enact policies that are deficit reducing, not deficit increasing' Goldwein said. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
CNN
4 days ago
- Business
- CNN
Trump says Powell is costing the US a fortune by not lowering rates. But firing the Fed chair may not fix the issue
As part of his campaign to get rid of Jerome Powell, President Donald Trump has blamed the Federal Reserve chair for costing the country 'hundreds of billions of dollars' by not slashing interest rates. 'You have cost the USA a fortune and continue to do so,' Trump wrote in a handwritten note to Powell that he posted on Truth Social last month. 'You should lower that rate by a lot. Hundreds of billions of dollars are being lost.' In the same post, Trump blamed the Fed board, saying, 'If they were doing their job properly, our Country would be saving Trillions of Dollars in Interest Cost … We should be paying 1% Interest, or better!' Trump's focus on interest costs comes at a time of renewed attention on the nation's skyrocketing interest payments on its ever-growing federal debt. Interest payments this fiscal year are nearing $1 trillion for the first time in the nation's history. The president just signed the 'big, beautiful bill,' which is expected to add more than $3 trillion to the deficit over the next decade and push interest rates even higher. And Moody's recently downgraded the US debt in part because of the increase in government debt and interest payment ratios. But even if Trump succeeds in pressuring the Fed to reduce rates, it may not significantly lighten the nation's interest payment burden, experts said. The federal funds rate is only one of the factors that influences the interest rates on the federal debt, which is made up of a mix of short-term, medium-length and longer-duration Treasury securities. 'It seems to be an easier lever to pull for those who want to impact either interest costs on the federal debt or economic growth,' said Shai Akabas, vice president of economic policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center. 'But it doesn't mean that action by the Fed will result in the outcome the president or others may want.' What's indisputable is that America's interest costs have soared in recent years, in part because of the nation's growing debt and in part because interest rates rose after a period of super-low rates as the nation combatted high inflation earlier in the decade. The US shelled out $346 billion in interest payments in fiscal 2020. That figure has jumped to a projected $952 billion for the current fiscal year and is expected to exceed $1 trillion in the coming year, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Interest payments are now the second-largest spending category in the federal budget, surpassing Medicare and defense in fiscal year 2024 and trailing only Social Security. Currently, roughly 18 cents of every dollar in tax revenue goes to paying interest on the debt, Akabas said. By the end of the next decade, that figure will jump to about 25 cents. While cutting the federal funds rate may lower rates on shorter-term securities, it may not reduce rates on 10-year or 30-year Treasury bonds. In fact, a sharp cut may increase longer-term rates for several reasons, including that a steep rate cut could spur inflation or could prompt investors to shift to longer-term securities to lock in higher rates, said Marc Goldwein, senior policy director at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. 'The Federal Reserve only has so much power to lower those interest rates,' he said of the rates on longer duration Treasury bonds. 'There's no guarantee that the Fed cutting rates will reduce interest payments at all.' If Trump were truly interested in reducing interest payments, there is a more efficient way to do that, experts said. He could work to lower the annual deficit — though that would likely involve some politically unpalatable changes to taxes and spending, they said. While Trump's agenda package will make historic reductions to federal spending on the nation's safety net, its hefty tax cuts far surpass the savings and widen the annual deficit. 'If your concern is the hundreds of billions of dollars we're adding to the deficit from higher interest costs, the solution is to enact policies that are deficit reducing, not deficit increasing' Goldwein said.
CTV News
6 days ago
- Business
- CTV News
CTV National News: The crippling impact of Trump's steel tariffs
Watch Amanda Lang breaks down how PM Carney's new measures to protect Canada's steel industry help in the fight against U.S. tariffs and where they fall short.
Malay Mail
12-07-2025
- Business
- Malay Mail
Trump's addictive tariff doctrine: Pinching, pummelling, and the price of global compliance — Phar Kim Beng
JULY 12 — The leaked audio of former President Donald J. Trump during a 2024 fundraiser—recently revealed by CNN—should not be dismissed as mere campaign bravado. When Trump admitted that he had initially asked for one million dollars but walked away with twenty-five times that amount, he sounded both amused and amazed. More revealing, however, was his offhand remark: 'It's about getting into the mindset.' That moment of candour explains far more than his fundraising psychology—it offers a blueprint for his foreign economic policy. Indeed, Trump's second presidency has been shaped not just by tariffs as an economic tool, but by tariffs as psychological warfare. Whether allies or adversaries, all are subject to his self-proclaimed principle of 'maximum extraction.' Tariffs are no longer just about market correction or economic protectionism; they are a means of tribute, coercion, and ultimately submission to Trump's worldview of American primacy. The executive order that redefined trade On January 20, 2025—the very first day of his second term—President Trump signed a sweeping Executive Order instructing the Secretary of Commerce and the Treasury Secretary to ensure that every possible tool be used to extract maximum revenue from global trade. Section B of the second paragraph of that Executive Order makes the objective brutally clear: to increase tariffs, duties, levies, and restrictions to yield up to US$400 billion in revenue for the US government within the calendar year. This is not trading policy. It is economic conquest. Unlike the tariffs of previous administrations that targeted dumping or strategic industries, Trump's approach is indiscriminate. It is premised on the idea that friends are easier to squeeze than enemies because they are less likely to retaliate in kind. 'It's easier to get more from friends—they won't fight back,' he was heard saying in another portion of the leaked audio. This has led to punitive tariffs on countries like Japan, South Korea, Germany, and Malaysia—nations that have historically enjoyed stable ties with the United States. Tariffs as tools of tribute Trump's method of tariff pummelling has three consistent features: First, it begins with a shock tariff—a sudden, often unannounced imposition of duties. This was evident on July 8, 2025, when the White House abruptly imposed 25 percent tariffs on key sectors from Asean, Japan, and South Korea, well before the previously floated deadline of August 1. The idea is to throw diplomatic teams off balance and create maximum psychological leverage. Second, Trump offers exemptions or 'carve-outs' as bargaining chips. Malaysia, for example, found its exports of semiconductors and integrated circuits—making up the bulk of its US$80 billion two-way trade with the US—exempted from the new tariffs. But this was no accident. Malaysia had just announced the purchase of 30 Boeing aircraft. The pattern is unmistakable: pay tribute in kind (defence purchases, foreign direct investments, or public endorsements of Trump), and you might receive reprieve. Third, he escalates the pressure through vague threats of future penalties. These are often announced at rallies or in interviews, keeping the world perpetually guessing about what comes next. The unpredictability is intentional, a form of controlled chaos that he believes gives America the upper hand in negotiations. Why the addiction? Trump's use of tariffs is not simply strategic. It is compulsive. The psychological high he receives from watching countries scramble to adjust, to mollify, or to appease him, feeds into a cycle of economic brinkmanship. His personal satisfaction seems rooted not in policy outcomes but in submission rituals—press conferences by foreign leaders pledging allegiance to US supply chains, or headlines about retaliatory restraint from trading partners. As former National Security Adviser John Bolton once observed, Trump sees foreign policy as a series of transactions. But in his second term, it has evolved into something more primal. The leaked audio proves that Trump sees economic policy as theatre—and he, the self-appointed master of ceremonies. The world is a stage for his psychological dominance. The friends he loves to punish The irony of Trump's doctrine is that it targets allies far more often than adversaries. China, for all its geopolitical rivalry with the US, remains cautiously respected by Trump for 'playing hardball.' On the other hand, allies like Canada, Germany, and South Korea are routinely slapped with tariffs not because they are unfair traders—but because they are perceived as 'too comfortable' under the US umbrella. In Asean's case, Trump's tactics are creating deep anxiety. Malaysia, as Group Chair of Asean and Chief Coordinator of Asean-China relations, finds itself pulled in multiple directions. While attempting to chart a neutral and balanced foreign policy, it is simultaneously exposed to unilateral US economic coercion. Even though key exports like semiconductors remain exempted, the message is clear: exemptions today can become punishments tomorrow, unless political alignment is made explicit. Revenue as power, not policy The US$400 billion target is not just about balancing America's books. It is about transforming revenue into geopolitical leverage. Trump believes that with enough economic weight, the US can force the world to comply with its rules—whether on trade, technology standards, digital taxation, or military basing rights. The logic is rooted in power, not principle. For Trump, tariffs are not a bridge to negotiation; they are a test of fealty. Countries that comply may get exemptions or defence guarantees. Those that resist face tariffs, travel bans, or diplomatic snubs. This reconfiguration of trade as tribute has turned even America's closest allies into cautious participants in an asymmetric relationship. Asean's narrow path Asean now faces the challenge of balancing Trump's tariff addiction with its own strategic autonomy. The region must avoid being perceived as either too accommodating or too resistant. Countries like Malaysia, Indonesia, and Vietnam must reinforce intra-regional trade, accelerate digital transformation, and deepen supply chain resilience to avoid being trapped in Trump's tariff vise. Track 2 diplomacy, regional summits, and multilateral coalitions—whether through Brics+, Asean+3, or the East Asia Summit—must be mobilised not to oppose the US, but to insulate against its erratic policies. If Trump's first term taught the world about disruption, his second term is teaching them about addiction—to tariffs, tribute, and total control. In conclusion, the Trump Doctrine in 2025 is not just about 'America First.' It is about 'America Extracts.' And as long as this addiction goes unchecked, the world must brace itself—not for another trade war, but for a global system held hostage by a leader who equates economic pain with political gain. * Phar Kim Beng is a professor of Asean Studies and Director of the Institute of Internationalization and Asean Studies at the International Islamic University of Malaysia ** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
