Tag: economics
Peter Navarro

MAGA Media Blame Advisers For Trump Tariff Nightmare

Numerous right-wing media figures are placing blame for the chaos and confusion over Trump’s “reciprocal” tariffs on two of his top economic appointees — senior trade adviser Peter Navarro and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick — rather than on Trump himself.

When announced, Donald Trump’s April 2 “Liberation Day” tariffs amounted to one of the largest tax hikes in American history, and despite being labeled “reciprocal,” they had absolutely nothing to do with foreign tariff rates. These new rates, the highest in more than 100 years, caused widespread market volatility and are projected to raise costs for the average American family by thousands of dollars while also increasing the risks of a recession — if they go into effect.

A week after announcing the various tariff rates on dozens of countries, Trump announced a 90-day “pause” — after his press secretary previously called reports of such a pause “fake news” — aside from a universal 10% rate on every country except China, which now has a 145% tariff rate. The Trump administration then amended the tariff rate for Chinese-exported consumer electronics to 20%. This followed comments from Lutnick about a different tariff for electronics, specifically a sectoral tariff on semiconductors.

Pro-Trump media figures on Fox and elsewhere have been blaming Lutnick and Navarro for tariff-related confusion over the past week:

  • Fox reporter Jacqui Heinrich: “Some confusion was spurred from the mixed messaging” from Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. Heinrich aired a clip of Lutnick saying on ABC’s This Week that consumer electronics will be “exempt from the reciprocal tariffs” but will soon receive their own sectoral tariff. Earlier in the segment, Heinrich reported that Trump “said they are still subject to that 20% charge he imposed over fentanyl.” [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 4/14/25]
  • Fox Business anchor Maria Bartiromo blamed confusion on Lutnick and Navarro saying different things on different news programs. In an interview with Trump National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett, Bartiromo said: “You had some of your colleagues out — Howard Lutnick was on one show, Peter Navarro was on the other show — and, you know, with some of them saying, well, there are no exemptions. And then somebody else saying, well, they’re going to be in a different bucket. It created some confusion.” [Fox Business, Mornings with Maria, 4/14/25]
  • Fox Business anchor Cheryl Casone: “I'm so glad he made that clarification on Air Force One. That's why it’s so good to have the president himself come out, because they’ve had some messaging missteps — not him, people underneath him.” Host Maria Bartiromo agreed with a guest who said, “I think this back-and-forth, this confusion that I feel after reading about this all weekend long is definitely part of the strategy in keeping the other side guessing what’s going on.” [Fox Business, Mornings with Maria, 4/14/25]
  • Former Trump adviser Steve Bannon: “Let me be blunt. Lutnick, who was Elon’s pick for secretary treasury, I think he’s close to being an unmitigated disaster. We should see a lot less of Lutnick on TV.” [Real America’s Voice, War Room, 4/14/25]
  • Fox Business host Charles Payne: “Mixed and confusing messaging” from Navarro and Lutnick “has the same gut-wrenching impact as an unnecessary holding penalty that negates a touchdown.” Payne also wrote: “Some people said I was too hard on my old friend Peter Navarro on Wednesday, but I was hard on messaging from him and Lutnick.” [Twitter/X, 4/13/25]
  • Fox Business senior correspondent Charles Gasparino quoted an anonymous “senior Wall Street executive w ties to the Trump White House,” saying: “Susie (Wiles) needs to get control of Lutnick. He is a wrecking ball.” Gasparino added that his source “described @howardlutnick’s comments about the temporary nature of the tariff exemptions as ‘off message.’” Gasparino’s quote continued: “Now the market will open way down again since it appears the administration is totally confused.” [Twitter/X, 4/13/25]
  • The Daily Wire’s Ben Shapiro: “If you wanna see a real bull market, the president should fire Peter Navarro today.” Shapiro added: “It would be stupid to continue running full speed into a wall in the name of Peter Navarro's benighted idiocy with regard to trade.” [The Daily Wire, The Ben Shapiro Show, 4/10/25]
  • Shapiro: Navarro “should be nowhere near trade policy.” Shapiro also said: “Peter Navarro, who is the architect of much of this trade policy, a man who used to be a zero-growther, actually, in his early career, and then called himself Ron Vara in his own writings to create a fake name under which to attribute many of his writings. It was like Voldemort. His last name is Navarro. Get it? Ron Vara? Get it? You don't? It's dumb.” [The Daily Wire, The Ben Shapiro Show, 4/9/25]
  • MAGA personality Ian Miles Cheong: “Navarro is out. He f’d everything up.” In an earlier post, Cheong wrote: “Navarro needs to go. Thank God Bessent was there.” [Twitter/X, 4/10/25, 4/9/25]
  • Trump operative Roger Stone: “The economy? More Bessent, less Lutnick.” [Twitter/X, 4/9/25]
  • Washington Examiner senior writer David Harsanyi: “Navarro is the Fauci of finance. I hope he's done.” [Twitter/X, 4/9/25]
  • Fox Business host Dagen McDowell ridiculed Navarro for “his reciprocal trade-girl math that's kneecapping the United States.” McDowell added: “The quicker that they get him off of TV and away from numbers, the better.” Co-host Jackie DeAngelis agreed, adding: “I actually think they realize that. I think they realize Bessent should be the point person on this, and they're putting him out there. I think they're gonna pull back on Lutnick, I think they're gonna pull back on Navarro a little bit too. They need to get clear on their messaging and make sure there's no nuance in there.” [Fox Business, The Bottom Line, 4/7/25]

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters.

As Markets Plunge, CNN Supercut Shows Trump Warning Of Crash (Unless He Won)

As Markets Plunge, CNN Supercut Shows Trump Warning Of Crash (Unless He Won)

President Donald Trump notably stayed away from cameras on Monday, as Wall Street experienced its worst day in years as investors react to a climate of economic uncertainty.

On Monday evening, CNN host Anderson Cooper reminded viewers that despite normally being willing to take questions from reporters in the Oval Office, Trump was "nowhere to be seen" following a "massive stock sell off that began the moment the bell rang." Cooper noted that the Dow Jones Industrial Average was "down almost 900 points," while the Nasdaq Composite "took the worst beating" of the day, down by four percent after the conclusion of trading on Monday. He also remarked that today marked the biggest single-day decline since September of 2022.

"More than an hour after markets closed, the White House did finally put out a statement touting the president's economic agenda and first term record on the economy. It didn't mention the massive drops today, nor what sparked it," Cooper said. "The culprit wasn't a poorly received report of jobs, GDP or consumer spending. as is often the case. It was what the president himself said."

Cooper then aired an excerpt of an interview the president gave to Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo, in which he waffled when she asked him if he was "expecting a recession this year."

"I hate to predict things like that. There is a period of transition because what we're doing is very big. we're bringing wealth back to America. That's a big thing," Trump said. "And there are always periods of, it takes a little time."

Cooper then noted that Trump was similarly cagey with reporters on Air Force One when they asked for clarity on what he told Bartiromo, with one reporter pointing out that he "hesitated" at the recession question.

"I tell you what, of course you hesitate. Who knows?" Trump responded. "All I know is this: We're going to take in hundreds of billions of dollars in tariffs."

Cooper contrasted Trump's tone with that of Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, who proclaimed in a recent interview that there was "no chance" of a recession. He observed that Trump has "no such confidence," which he said was "notable" given his recent bullish attitude after the February jobs report showed the U.S. economy adding more than 100,000 new jobs.

"Perhaps it's not surprising he didn't want to be on camera today as the markets crashed. After all, he has often tied a president's performance as a leader to the stock market," Cooper said. "During a brief dip in the markets in late October and early November, Trump blamed it on Democrats."

According to Cooper, "one line [Trump] used repeatedly throughout much of 2024" was that a Democratic victory would result in a poor economy.

"If Harris wins this election, you will quickly have a Kamala Harris economic crash," Trump said. "You're going to have a crash."

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

MAGA Media Knew Trump Would Wreak Economic Havoc --- And Now He Is

MAGA Media Knew Trump Would Wreak Economic Havoc --- And Now He Is

For months, MAGA sycophants and right-wing media personalities have been warning that President Donald Trump’s agenda to gut the federal government and institute widespread tariffs could devastate the economy, which they attempted to spin as an important step to restoring the balance supposedly missing from the strong economy Trump inherited from the Biden administration.

With many of Trump’s policies going into effect or scheduled to begin soon, economists, analysts, and news organizations are already pointing to new indicators of a pullback in consumer spending, weak consumer confidence, worsening inflation expectations, and higher than expected weekly jobless claims as evidence that the promised economic mayhem is already beginning.

Economists and news outlets say new economic indicators show economic trouble ahead

  • University of Michigan economist Justin Wolfers: Census Bureau data shows that “Americans responded (sharply!) to the Trump tariffs *before* they were even imposed” by importing extra goods to avoid “paying the higher prices that would occur when he was in office.” Wolfers added: “This also gives you a sense of who to blame for somewhat higher inflation in January. No, he wasn't in office yet. But suppliers know buyers need to buy ahead of future tariff-afflicted price hikes, and so likely felt little pressure to offer their usual discounts.” [Bluesky, 2/28/25, 2/28/25]
  • University of California, Berkeley economist Jesse Rothstein: “It seems almost unavoidable at this point that we are headed for a deep, deep recession” due to Trump’s policies. Rothstein wrote: “Just based on 200K+ federal firings & pullback of contracts, the March employment report (to be released April 4) seems certain to show bigger job losses than any month ever outside of a few in 2008-9 and 2020.” [Bluesky, 2/18/25]
  • Washington Post economic columnist Heather Long, citing new data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, wrote: “Warning sign for the economy: Big drop in consumer spending in January. Personal consumption expenditures *decreased* 0.2%.” Long added: “Look at the categories with big drops -- car parts, recreational stuff, appliances, furniture, clothing -- a lot of this is ‘nice to haves’ that people cut first when times get tough.” [Twitter/X, 2/28/25]
  • Center for Economic and Policy Research senior economist Dean Baker noted that “January had the largest drop in consumption spending in four years,” and called it a “recession-type drop in spending.” [Twitter/X, 2/28/25, 2/28/25]
  • Former Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Jared Bernstein: The drop in consumer spending is “concerning and consistent with consumer angst re tariffs, uncertainty.” [Twitter/X, 2/28/25]
  • Center on Budget and Policy Priorities senior director for federal fiscal policy Brendan Duke on the drop in consumer spending: “Do wonder if a big economic effect of the Trump Administration's attacks on federal employees and contractors is that they and their families are pulling back on consumer spending because they are *worried* about losing their jobs even if they haven't lost them yet.” [Twitter/X, 2/28/25]
  • Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman on the drop in consumer spending: “Consumers already seem worried about policy madness, and they ain't seen nothing yet.” [Bluesky, 2/28/25]
  • According to two surveys, consumer confidence has slumped to a level that “usually signals a recession ahead.” Two consumer confidence surveys for February, released just days apart, indicated that public perceptions of the economy have worsened significantly since Trump took office, with fears of “tariff-induced price increases” dragging down consumer sentiment in a survey published by the University of Michigan, and nagging worries about “income, business, and labor market conditions” driving down sentiment in a survey published by The Conference Board. Both surveys were weaker than economists had expected, with the University of Michigan’s index registering the highest inflation expectations since 2023, and the Conference Board’s survey falling to a level that “usually signals a recession ahead.” [The Wall Street Journal, 2/21/25; The Conference Board, 2/25/25]
  • CNN: “The stock market had its worst week of Trump’s presidency – the Dow lost 1,200 points over the course of Thursday and Friday” as “investors grew fearful that the weakening consumer sentiment could lead to a pullback in Americans’ shopping habits.” CNN also quoted FWDBonds chief economist Chris Rupkey telling investors, “The public’s fears have soared in just the last two weeks showing the blizzard of changes coming from the president’s desk have spilled over the line between pro-growth into the realm of pro-inflation. … Once inflation expectations start moving higher it is only a matter of time before actual inflation takes off.” [CNN, 2/24/25]
  • CNBC: “Weekly jobless claims jump to 242,000, more than expected in latest sign of economic softening.” On February 27, CNBC reported that “jobless claims for the week ended Feb. 22 totaled a seasonally adjusted 242,000, up 22,000 from the previous week’s revised level and higher than the Dow Jones estimate for 225,000.” CNBC explained that “the level of claims matched the highest since early October 2024 and comes amid questions over broader economic growth and worrying signs in recent consumer sentiment surveys” and amid Trump “taking aggressive measures to reduce the federal workforce.” [CNBC, 2/27/25]
  • Bloomberg: “Trump Risks American Consumer Backlash Over Tariffs, Poll Shows.” Bloomberg reported that a Harris Poll found that “almost 60% of US adults expect Trump’s tariffs will lead to higher prices,” and “44% say the levies are likely to be bad for the US economy.” [Bloomberg, 2/27/25]
  • CNBC: “The Federal Reserve’s favorite recession indicator is flashing a danger sign again.” CNBC reported: “The 10-year Treasury yield passed below that of the 3-month note in trading Wednesday. In market lingo, that’s known as an ‘inverted yield curve,’ and it’s had a sterling prediction record over a 12- to 18-month timeframe for downturns going back decades.” [CNBC, 2/26/25]

Trump supporters have been warning that his agenda calls for “hardship”

  • Elon Musk said during an October 25 telephone town hall that Trump’s agenda “to reduce spending to live within our means … necessarily involves some temporary hardship.” Since then, Musk has become the embodiment of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which is reportedly responsible for many federal firings and spending freezes. [The New York Times, 10/29/24; The Associated Press, 2/21/25]
  • Musk later agreed with an X user who wrote that there will be an “initial severe overreaction in the economy” and that the “market will tumble” as Trump enacts his agenda. Musk replied on October 29, “Sounds about right.” [The New York Times, 10/29/24]
  • Fox News host Laura Ingraham: Trump’s agenda will be “tough for the economy. There is no doubt about it.” Ingraham added: “People have to get, as my father would have said, real work, real jobs. People are going to have to get jobs and they're going to be scrambling.” [Fox News, The Ingraham Angle, 11/20/24]
  • Podcaster Jason Calacanis: “DOGE is going to require collective sacrifice.” He wrote: “Getting Americans & their representatives to decline funding the government has ALREADY promised them, and that they fought hard to get, is going to be an extremely difficult task.” [Twitter/X, 11/22/24; Vox, 11/12/22]
  • Then-Fox contributor Tammy Bruce (now a government spokesperson): People are going to lose their jobs, “and it's going to be good, because yes, more jobs will be created in the private sector for them.” [Fox News, Hannity, 12/5/24]
  • Fox host Todd Piro: “Now, admittedly, we're going to have some tariffs, and that's going to raise prices. But the overall impact on the economy, hopefully, when Trump takes over, will make people feel better. And then when people feel better, the economy is better.” [Fox Business, Varney & Co., 12/11/24]
  • Heritage Foundation economist Stephen Moore on government jobs: “I guarantee you that number is going to be down next month, because we’re already seeing the Trump administration really shred jobs in the government sector.” [Media Matters, 2/7/25]
  • Fox Business host Charles Payne: “States are going to have a lot of their own sort of comeuppance, if you will” from the Trump administration cutting spending. Payne also claimed the Biden administration “tried to goose these numbers” with “a lot of money [that] was parceled out to states.” [Fox Business, Mornings with Maria Bartiromo, 2/7/25]
  • Faulkner on DOGE gutting the federal government: “There will be some fallout, because people will be losing their jobs.” [Fox News, Outnumbered, 2/18/25]
  • MAGA radio host Dan Bongino: People need to “take it on the chin” and “sacrifice for a little bit” for Trump’s policies. Bongino said: “We’re just asking you to sacrifice for a little bit for the long-term prosperity of the United States. Now’s the time. … We’re all going to take it on the chin a little bit. Rich guys, poor guys, middle class guys, someone’s going to lose their tax cut. It is time to take it on the chin. We have to fix this thing now, not tomorrow.” [The Dan Bongino Show, 2/18/25]
  • Payne suggested it could be positive if Trump creates a recession. After a guest pointed out that President Ronald Reagan “came into office in 1981, that he slashed federal head count and actually put the economy back into the double dip recession of 1980 and 1981,” Payne responded: “I agree with you 1,000% that when you change something that's like this, lot of cash floating around, maybe there's a little temporary pain. We also end up calling it investing.” [Fox Business, Making Money, 2/26/25]

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters.

Donald Trump

Trump's Return To Presidency Would Bring Economic Ruin

Following the Eating Pets imbroglio, one would think that undecided voters would have their doubts quelled about how to vote in November. What more is there to say?

This sociopath stood by while his violent mob smashed their way into the Capitol searching for the vice president in order to lynch him for disloyalty. When asked about this later, Trump didn't deny encouraging the attempted murder. He justified the mob.

This would-be autocrat has called for military tribunals to try his critics, promised pardons for the Jan. 6 insurrectionists and cannot focus sufficiently to remember at the end of a sentence what he started to say at the beginning.

Though his supporters perceive him to be strong, he is in fact a weakling looking for approval from the thugs of the world. He will abandon Ukraine to suck up to Vladimir Putin, which will end the war all right, but by a method no American should countenance — surrender.

Kamala Harris, by contrast, is a sane, somewhat-left-of-center Democrat who is making a bid for centrist voters by deep-sixing her Medicare for All dalliance and other 2019 bids for progressive credibility. On the matters over which presidents have the most sway, foreign policy, she is more "conservative" than Trump in that she promises unflinching support of NATO, Ukraine and vigorous U.S. world leadership.

On matters over which she has the least scope of action, domestic policy, she is likely to be thwarted by Republicans in Congress. And this is key: She will not attempt to overrule domestic opposition by unconstitutional means.

A June Washington Post survey found that 61 percent of undecided voters rate the economy as the most important issue in the election, and 50 percent of Americans rated inflation as the top concern for the nation. It's worth bearing in mind that inflation has cooled dramatically since its post-pandemic spike to 9.1 percent in June of 2022. In August, the Consumer Price Index dropped to 2.5 percent, low enough for a Federal Reserve rate cut announced on Wednesday. This soft landing is an accomplishment.

It's also true — though the number of voters who believe this can meet in a closet — that presidents have little ability to bring down inflation. Together with Congress, presidents can contribute to inflation, and both Biden and Trump arguably did that. The massive COVID relief bills passed under Trump and Biden flooded the country with cash.

But the relief packages were thoroughly bipartisan efforts, and who's to say they were even wrong? While some of us thought the American Rescue Plan was too much stimulus considering all that had already been passed, one cannot reasonably argue that providing a backstop to the economy in the face of a 100-year health emergency was an example of wasteful spending.

By 52 to 48, voters think Trump is better positioned to handle the economy as president.

Well, that's bonkers. This is where Trump's gross misbehavior may serve him well. His opponents spend so much time responding to his flagrant lies, unprecedented threats, invitations to violence and crude sexual innuendos that we have little bandwidth to deal with his completely fantastical and absurd policy proposals.

Asked about child care costs, he proposes huge new tariffs (anywhere from 20 to 100 percent tariffs), claiming that they would generate so much free money that it would obliterate the federal deficit and have enough left over to pay for everyone's child care. If a high school debater said something like that, he'd be laughed off the stage.

While presidents can do little to bring down inflation, one thing that pretty much all economists agree upon is that presidents can goose inflation by imposing tariffs. The kind of import taxes Trump envisions, according to the Peterson Institute, would cost the average American household an additional $2,600 a year. Tariffs are taxes (repeat three times).

Harris would be better positioned to make this case if Biden had not maintained so many of the Trump-era tariffs, but at least she isn't proposing a blanket 10 percent tax on imports as Trump is (though sometimes he says 20 percent, or 60% percent for China's goods, and 100 percent on countries that abandon the dollar).

Another Trump idea is to deport millions of illegal immigrants. How would this work? At present, ICE has 20,000 employees, and it is believed that this number is inadequate even to cope with border crossers. How many more ICE agents would be required to hunt down, arrest and deport millions of illegal immigrants? Leaving aside the cruelty of this proposal — the American-citizen children whose parents would be deported, the hardship for people who've grown up here and know no other nation/language, the fear and insecurity legal immigrants would suffer — the costs would be astronomical. Prices of food, hotel stays, restaurant meals and new homes would rise. Plus, the taxes illegal immigrants now pay (including to Social Security and Medicare) would be lost.

Trump's most dangerous tendencies concern flouting the law and using the power of the state against his opponents. But those who think his autocratic appetites are acceptable because he knows how to manage the economy are not paying attention to what he's actually saying.

Mona Charen is policy editor of The Bulwark and host of the "Beg to Differ" podcast. Her new book, Hard Right: The GOP's Drift Toward Extremism, is available now.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World