More Trump Tariffs Are Coming

From The New York Times, I'm Natalie. Kitroeff. This is The Daily. >> For people right across America, everything has been getting more. expensive. From food to fuel, healthcare. to heating, >> [music]. >> everyone's feeling the pain. >> Our CBS News poll says that seven in 10. Americans say they are frustrated or. even angry with the administration's. approach to the economy. >> At a moment when inflation and. affordability are on everyone's mind. >> A new analysis from the Federal Reserve. Bank reveals nearly 90% of President.

Trump's tariffs in 2025 were paid by. consumers and [music] businesses. >> And when economists are saying that. tariffs are partially to blame for the. relentless rise in prices, my colleague. Ana Swanson talked to the most. influential driver of President Trump's. tariff policy, [music]. Jamison Greer. Greer told her that despite tanking. public opinion, the Trump administration. is now planning a new slate of tariffs. that it believes will survive any legal.

challenge. >> So, according to your own metrics, are. tariffs working? >> They are, yeah. >> [music]. >> I think we've been wildly successful. >> Today, why Greer thinks that Trump's. tariff policy has been a success and why. the administration is doubling down. >> Whenever you're trying to change policy. in a big way and you're upending special. interests or corporate interests, people. are going to come back and try to fight. that. They want the status quo. We don't. want the status quo.

>> It's Monday, July 20th. [music]. Anna, you spent hours with Jamison. Greer. Not a household name, but someone. who is very important in crafting US. trade policy as the US trade. representative. So, just say why this. guy matters and how much. >> Yeah, so he has become very influential. So, the fascinating thing about Jamison. Greer is he's not your typical Trump.

appointee. He's not a billionaire. He's. not brash. You might remember we had. Peter Navarro on this show before as. well. >> Yep. >> Navarro is kind of more of a loose. cannon, but Greer on the other hand is. quite considered. He's more of a quiet, low-key type of guy. But, he has a lot. of knowledge in the trade law. He has a. lot of experience in trade. And, he. really is the brains behind a lot of the. trade agenda at this point. >> Okay. So, after you sat down with him a.

couple times, I understand. What was your main takeaway? >> So, even though he's facing a lot of. headwinds, including the fact that. public sentiment for Trump is low. You've got these legal challenges. against the administration's tariffs. The Supreme Court overturned a big swath. of the trade agenda. >> Right. >> Greer has not been dissuaded by any of. this. In fact, he's proposed a lot of. new tariffs to essentially recreate the. tariffs that were overturned by the. Supreme Court. And, he remains very.

intent on this policy and the benefit he. thinks it will bring to the country. >> And, why? Why are none of those. obstacles that I think would normally be. considered pretty big dissuading this. guy? >> Because according to him, the tariffs. are working. >> They're working. How? Like, help me understand that. >> So, there are a lot of reasons that he. gives disputing all the arguments that. people make about tariffs, all the.

complaints that people have. But, I. think to really understand why he thinks. tariffs are working, you have to. understand how he became such a die-hard. believer in tariffs in the first place. >> Hey, how are you? >> Good to see you. Want to sit there? Is. this a good setup? >> So, I went to his office with colleagues. from the daily. >> Welcome to this building, which used to. be part of the war department. >> Right, this is a very historic building, right? >> second oldest federal building in. Washington after the White House. But, there's less gold in here than there is.

in the White House. >> All right, okay. >> And we started talking to him about. those early experiences that he had that. shaped the way he thinks about trade and. tariffs and how the US needs to change. the way that it's trading with the. world. >> Um just quickly I'll go back a little. bit more. Um and we just briefly talk. about your background and how you got to. this position. Can you describe your. childhood? >> I was born in a town called Gridley, California, which is the kiwi capital of the United. States. And then when I was two, we.

moved to Paradise, California. Went to Paradise High School. It was the. only public high school in town. And I did pretty normal things. I ran. across country, I did student. government, I worked in the local. McDonald's, I. was a Little League umpire with the. parents yelling at me. So, I had a very. normal American style childhood. >> So, grew grew up in California, not. coastal California, San Francisco or LA, but in the northern central part of the. state. It's a town called Paradise that.

had this massive wildfire subsequently. >> Paradise, California in Butte County. This is deep red California, deep in the. woods, logging country. You know, we had. something every year called the Gold. Nugget Festival. I mean, it was gold. country. So, it was very much a working-class. kind of place. >> He's one of five kids. His mom worked as. a bank teller for Wells Fargo for many. years. His dad on the other hand did a. variety of jobs. >> We actually moved to Paradise because he. was going to take a job in plastic. injection molding. There was a small.

industrial park there. So, he was going. to do that before those jobs went to. Asia. >> He worked at auto dealerships in the. maintenance and service shop and he. worked in pest control. >> parks. I grew up in a mobile home, not. in a mobile home park, you know, but in. a mobile home. >> Even though they weren't very well off, his parents really valued education. >> We had a subscription to National. Geographic, you know, famous magazine. with the yellow border. So, always had a. desire to go out and do more. >> And his family is also Mormon, so he. goes to Brigham Young University in. Utah.

And he studies international relations. And then after he graduated from. university, he decided to go to law. school, and he ends up joining the. military. >> And again, when you grow up in a place. like Paradise, it's not unlike being in. Appalachia in a lot of ways, right? It's. kind of poor area, more working class. Doesn't look like there are a lot of. ways for social mobility there, and you. know, you go to the military and so. >> He worked as a military lawyer in. Kansas, Turkey, and Iraq. >> I ended up getting connected with a a. head hunter who was really helpful and.

>> And he finds a job that combines his. interest in the law and in international. relations working at a prestigious law. firm in DC called Skadden. >> You know, my head hunter said, "Hey, I. think you'd be interested in this group. at Skadden and where they're doing this. international trade work for, you know, American manufacturers.". >> And he finds himself on this team where. he's defending US companies against. unfair trade from other countries. And. it ends up becoming this very formative. experience for him. How so? So, at the.

time when he starts working there in. 2012, this is a period where. globalization is going full steam ahead. Companies are offshoring to China. China. is expanding into different markets. And Greer was representing US steel. companies that are dealing with this. onslaught of cheap steel coming out of. China. They're subsidizing their. industry. [music]. They're pricing things unfairly low and. basically undercutting US companies and.

putting US steel mills out of business. There were rules around this kind of. behavior, but a lot of multinational. companies actually benefited from trade. with China. And so, they turned a blind. eye to China's unfair trade practices. and a lot of politicians did the same. >> You know, if you look back at 2012-2013, this was a time when in Washington. in fact, particularly among Republicans. and the US business community, the view was the purpose of trade is.

efficiency, purely. [music]. That's all we're looking for. We're. looking for efficiency and we want to. have good relations with China and trade. deficits don't matter and if we're. losing steel mills, that's okay because. everyone's going to transition to. services jobs that are better and. software development and health care and. all these different things. [music]. This was the prevailing view. >> And within this international trading. system, Greer is working to get. protections for US manufacturers. He's taking foreign companies to court.

>> One, they have massive subsidies and it. becomes very difficult for American. workers and the companies that employ. them to compete with a Chinese or a. Vietnamese steel company that doesn't. have to make money, right? Or if they. lose money, they're going to get a. subsidy from their government and the. subsidy. >> He's arguing that they're using unfair. trade practices. >> Oh, look at this. Actually, you're. selling below cost or you're selling at. no profit and you're doing that length. >> And he's actually winning his cases.

>> And what does it mean to win? What. happens when he wins these cases? >> So, the big consequence is that the. Commerce Department, because of these. court rulings, puts tariffs on these. countries. But the problem is this. process takes a long time and the. tariffs are narrow in scope. >> You know, they're country specific, they're company specific, they're. product specific. And I just thought, well, this is we're taking care of this, but it's quite laborious. >> And China and other countries are also. really good at finding loopholes, finding other ways to ship cheap steel.

into the US. >> So, it becomes a whack-a-mole issue, right? It's not just in steel, solar. panels, right? Maybe you shut down. access for Chinese solar panels into the. US and they just move to Southeast Asia. or somewhere else. >> You crack down on Chinese steel. shipments in one place and they just. kind of pop up somewhere else. So, Greer. is experiencing firsthand all of the. challenges in the system and that it. takes a really long time to prove that. foreign companies are cheating.

international trade rules and even when. you can prove it, the protection that US. companies get in return ultimately isn't. that effective. >> That's right. And he's also seeing the. impact of this on everyday Americans. >> When we're bringing in people to testify. before the International Trade. Commission about the effect of trade. policy on them, we're bringing in people. on the line, we're bringing in people. who wear hard hats, we're bringing in. people who wear safety glasses and do. eye wash at the end of the day cuz of. chemicals. These are the people we're. ultimately trying to benefit. >> And this really helps to shape Greer's.

view of trade and how trade is impacting. the country. And then. >> [music]. >> his boss at Skadden, a guy named Bob. Lighthizer, is appointed to become the. top trade negotiator in Trump's first. term. >> [music]. >> and Greer gets tapped to become. Lighthizer's chief of staff. >> Which is a big deal, right? Because it. gives him the chance to take all of the. stuff that he learned as a trade lawyer. and now presumably directly affect US. trade policy. >> Right. >> [music].

>> And one of the key actions that they. take in that first Trump term is they. issue broad tariffs on China. They hit. hundreds of billions of dollars of. Chinese goods with tariffs. And these. actions were quite controversial at the. time. But the way Greer explains it, the. US needed to start taking unilateral. action against China or else it would. have just lost more and more of its. manufacturing base to China. >> If America doesn't develop and implement. its own policies to protect its industry.

and its workers, we will end up being. policy takers. Right? So, if we're not. policy makers, we end up being policy. takers, and China is very It's very. strong in making policy. It publishes. every 5 years. They have a 5-year plan. They. >> For years, China has made its ambitions. very explicit in these 5-year plans it. puts out. It has been pushing to become. more self-sufficient, and it has set a. goal to dominate key industries. [music]. >> Listen, China's just going to do this. This is their goal. They don't have a. lot of room for everyone else's.

manufacturing capacity. And guess what? I'm not even going to pass a value. judgment on that. Whatever. That's their. country. That's their economy. That's. how they're working. It's really. important for us, the United States, you. know, if China is not going to change. its practices that we believe are. harmful, then we have to take unilateral. measures. We have to be policy makers. Otherwise, we just have to accept all. these giant surpluses that they're. developing through their own policies, and I'm not going to take that. The. president doesn't want to take that. because he's not just going to take. other countries' policies and say, "Oh, well, okay. I guess we'll just hand over.

our industrial base to everybody else. I. guess everyone else will just have. subsidies, and we'll lay down and take. it on the chin [music] again.". >> And the way that everything rolls out, they end up demonstrating that [music]. the political conversation around trade. had actually changed a lot. And the. Biden administration ends up keeping. Trump's China tariffs even when they. have the chance to remove them. >> I mean, it had become politically. unsustainable, almost bubbling up from. the US population. It was not a top-down. kind of thing. It was There were these. kind of instinctual things that the. American population is feeling that.

Trump tapped into, and he called on. Lighthizer, and Lighthizer brought. together a team to really implement and. attack these issues that the president. had detected personally, but also in the. US population. So, it was a popular. message. I keep using these words like. population and popular. We're populists. >> [music]. >> Okay, let's turn to Trump 2.0. Greenow. has the top trade job. The. administration came out swinging last. year with tariffs, expanding way beyond.

China, hitting almost the entire world. We've covered this a bunch on the show. What was Greer's role in that approach? >> So, Greer is not the ultimate decider. Trump is the decider. But, Greer, as the. trade lawyer, is preparing kind of the. legal basis for it, and he becomes the. face of it. He's negotiating with. foreign governments and companies and. Congress. He's the one who executes this. plan. >> Which ultimately fails, right? The.

Supreme Court ruled that many of these. tariffs were illegal. But, for a while there, for about a. year, Trump was able to impose tariffs. any day of the week, whenever he wanted. He imposed them against India for buying. Russian oil. He imposed them on Brazil. for prosecuting their former president. These moves caused massive economic. disruption and also really hurt. America's relationships with its allies. What did Greer have to say about that? >> Yeah, those are fair questions, and I.

did ask him about it. >> It was very important to the president, and we understood it was important to. the president to move very quickly, because in our view, this was an. emergency. >> And he said the president wanted to move. fast, and they considered the trade. situation an emergency. So, Greer. thought this was a legally defensible. strategy. >> Our trade deficit exploded by 40% in the. 5 years before President Trump's second. term. It was a $1.2 trillion. at the end of 2024. This is crazy. So, for us, this is an emergency because.

that deficit represents jobs and. production going overseas that could be. here. So, the president declared an. emergency. We set tariffs as soon as we. could. We set them in a way that could. really send a strong market signal that. production needs to come back to the US. And then it resulted in all these deals, which opened markets overseas. So, I. think it was critical and important that. we used this statute because we were. responding to an emergency and we had to. move very, very quickly and we had a lot. of good outcomes from doing it. >> And he also argues that the way that. they rolled this out gave the.

administration a lot of leverage over. other countries. It allowed them to. negotiate trade deals with a lot of. partners including the UK, the EU, Indonesia, India, and Japan. And when I've talked to experts, many of. them are actually surprised about how. much the US was able to get in these. deals. But it was then incredibly. chaotic period. Companies were. complaining that the tariffs were. totally unfair. They were suddenly hit. by these massive bills that they had to. pay to the government. They had to.

figure out how to come up with the. money. So there may have been bipartisan. support for the more targeted tariffs. that had been done in Trump's first. term, but when they did these super. sized ones in the second term, Americans. seemed very unhappy. >> You were able to move quickly, you know, the president was able to change tariffs. when he wanted. But I mean on the other. side, you know, all of that money has. had to be paid back. The deals are. slowed, right? So I mean isn't that a. major setback?

>> Well, I I take a broader perspective on. this. I mean we've had. we had the same trade policy from like. post World War II until the middle of. President Trump's first term, right? So. that's like that's a long period of that. trade policy. The past 8 years or so, it's modified. and now in this year, we've essentially. upended 70 years of trade policy in 1. year. >> So you don't have any regrets in terms. of that legal strategy? >> No, I don't have any Well, I regret that. the Supreme Court went the wrong way,

right? But I mean that's their fault. That's not ours. >> So it doesn't sound like he actually. regrets pursuing tariffs this way even. though those tariffs were later struck. down by the courts. >> No, he said he doesn't regret it. >> Well, we're always going to get sued. There's always going to be people who. are trying to make a buck on the back of. the American worker And they're always. going to want to sue to maintain their. business model. My message is that these. business models are not sustainable. politically or economically in America. anymore. They could. >> But what does he have to say about the. fact that they now have to refund.

billions of dollars to these companies? >> So, he does think refunding all of these. companies is a major setback for the. administration because they lose a huge. source of revenue. But he says he's talking to many. companies who had actually benefited. from the tariffs, companies that are. manufacturing in the United States. >> I have folks in California, for example, where I'm from, where they do plastic. injection molding small batch. They're a. small business. Now they feel like they. can actually compete with the Chinese.

and Asian producers. >> Which is what your dad did, right? Actually. >> Yeah, that's actually an excellent. point. Yeah. So, for every, you know, small business. person that says, "Well, my business. model is to import from China a finished. good, market up, and resell it to an. American.". Could that impact their business? Yeah, of course it could. I mean, >> And for those that have been hurt by the. tariffs, he said he doesn't really feel. sorry for them if they structured their. business models around importing cheap. stuff from China and from other. countries. >> So, whatever strategy you choose, there.

are upsides and downsides. And when. you're talking about a presidential. term, you've got 4 years. This is a very short time. You know, we. could do what the Biden people did. They. came in and they said, "We're going to. have a worker-centered trade policy. We're going to keep what the Trump. people did in the first term because it. made sense. And we're going to study. these issues." And so, the Commerce. Department, all these folks, they. studied supply chains for batteries, for. pharmaceuticals, for renewable energy. products, all these things. And they. created these great reports, which I've. read, and I appreciate them.

But they didn't really do anything. Could we have refined things? Could we. have made it much more nuanced? Could we. have done all that? Yeah, but it would. not have nearly been as effective. I. mean, we're acting right now. And by the. way, it's not like we acted with. nothing. We've spent years thinking. about this. This is an extension of the. president's original trade policy in his. first term. So, it didn't come out of. nowhere. You just lose time, and we're. already way far behind. We are already. behind the curve. There's just no time. to waste.

>> So, he really thinks the tariff policy. is working as intended, and he has a. whole new plan [music] to keep tariffs. going. >> At the end of the day, we are winning in. changing the trade policy. We're winning. in getting the trade deficit down. We're. winning in reshoring. We're winning in. wages. We're winning on all these. things. So, I'm happy with where we are. and where we're going. >> [music]. [music].

>> We'll be right back. So, Anna, you said Greer has a new plan. to now keep tariffs going. Tell us about. that. >> So, the administration right now is. working to recreate the tariffs that the. Supreme Court struck down earlier this. year, and they're using a legal. justification that they think will be. much more durable. So, they've already proposed one big. tranche of tariffs, which are related to.

other countries' lack of laws when it. comes to forced labor, like slave labor. or other coercive labor practices. That will bring tariffs of around 10%. into effect against more than 80. countries probably by later this month. And then they're preparing another huge. swath of tariffs related to the unfair. trade practices that other countries use. to build up their factories, their. manufacturing sectors, like subsidies,

currency manipulation. So, that could then lead to an. additional tariffs on more than 40. countries after that. And again, we're. looking at the highest tariffs that the. United States has had on the world in. roughly a century. >> So, big plans, basically doubling down. on all of this. How exactly is Greer determining that. the tariffs are working like they. should? Like what evidence does he point. to? Because my understanding is that. tariffs so far have not actually been.

very effective at bringing back. manufacturing jobs, and that seemed to. be one of the key goals of the policy. And then at the same time, they've. increased prices for Americans. >> Yeah, I generally agree. So, he told us. that when he came into office, he had. three main goals with tariffs. Increase. manufacturing as a percent of GDP, reduce trade deficits, and increase real. wages. So, on the first metric. >> the manufacturing share of GDP, I.

haven't really seen that move yet, but a. lot of indicators on manufacturing have. gone up. Manufacturing productivity is. at the highest it's been in years. Manufacturing overtime hours are going. up. Manufacturing labor wages are going. up by 5% last year. And manufacturing. jobs actually were a net positive in the. first quarter of 2026 for first time in. a few years. So, all of those indicators. are going the right way. >> So, he says one of the reasons they. haven't seen manufacturing move up as a. percent of GDP is that it takes time to. build a factory. But, he argues he sees.

some promising signs that there's a. revival in manufacturing. >> Look at the pharmaceutical industry. where we have new facilities going up in. North Carolina, in Indiana, Southern. California, in Georgia. I mean, this is. real concrete progress. So, I'm just. seeing this happen in real time, and people are telling me tariffs are. part of this. >> So, when I look at the data, it does. look like manufacturing is picking up,

but I don't think that's because of. tariffs. I think manufacturing is being. driven right now by other things like. the boom in AI and data centers in the. US. >> We want the trade deficit in goods to go. down. >> Greer also argued that the trade deficit. has fallen pretty significantly. >> That's gone down by 25% in the past. year. With China in particular, it's. gone down 30%. >> So, he's right that the trade deficit. with China has fallen a lot, but the. overall trade balance is not that. different than pre-Trump. It's fallen a. little bit, but overall it's not down.

that much. >> What about that third metric, wages? If. this policy is supposed to be protecting. wages, maybe even boosting them, how are. we doing on that front? >> So, we talked about it. And then just. digging into wages as well. So, wages. are rising, but that's kind of the. long-term trend. And inflation is now. outpacing wage growth for the first time. since 2023. So, wages have gone up, but. so is inflation, in part because of.

tariffs. >> I disagree with that. I disagree with. that squarely. I I mean. first of all, wages have outpaced. inflation for all of the Trump second. Trump administration except for the last. couple of months, driven by energy. Because we have our operations in Iran. Everyone knows this. So, before that, real wages have grown. They've outpaced. inflation, but for this exceptional. event in Iran. >> Greer's right that before the Iran war, wages were rising faster than prices.

But, in the last couple months, since. the war started, prices have risen a lot. more than wages. And they've actually. jumped enough to offset all of the wage. gains since Trump took office. >> Hmm. >> And then we had a back and forth on. what's driving inflation. >> And your your point that you know, you. just kind of said that tariffs drive. inflation, and I just disagree with that. 100%. I I if you look at the first Trump. administration, we put tariffs into. place in July 2018 on China, which is a.

huge part of our imports, and our. inflation at the time was about 2.7%. By the time we got to the next year, we. had escalated tariffs on China, inflation was down to like 1.7%. So, it's just not one-to-one. And when you. look at the Biden administration, their. inflation peaked at like 10% in 2022, and at that point they hadn't changed. tariffs at all up or down. >> So, he argues that tariffs aren't. driving inflation. He says the money. supply, the Iran war, things like. healthcare, education are driving.

inflation. >> So, this idea that tariffs are driving. inflation is crazy to me. I mean, there. are a million factors that go into. inflation, most importantly, money. supply, and now some of the inflation. we're feeling is from Iran. And the. other inflation we're feeling, it's not. so much on goods, it's on services. Things like education, healthcare, and. insurance, I mean, things that were. demo- cratic policies for a generation. have driven prices up. >> So, those are certainly factors driving.

up prices over the long term, but that. doesn't negate what many economists. argue, which is that tariffs more. recently have also added to prices on. goods. And so, I pushed him on that. But. if you listen to the Fed, I mean, the. Fed does talk frequently about how. tariffs have raised inflation for goods. The New York Fed had a study showing. that consumers bore the brunt of the. tariffs. There was another Fed study. that showed that tariffs were. responsible for all of the extra. inflation that we've seen in core goods.

>> Well, I mean, if you look at the Fed. studies over years, their whole schtick. was, we need to import as much as. possible, we need to be as efficient as. possible, cuz that's going to help. American workers, and that was just. false. So, the Fed and the various. Reserve Banks and their economists, they. are the ones that led us down this path. to begin with. So, they don't have a lot. of credibility in my eyes. Just look at. the actual data. If you're telling me. prices are going up, look at the. inflation data. The inflation is not. coming from goods, right? It's coming. mostly from services. Again, putting.

energy aside. So, it's just. that that is a narrative that they're. only supporting by their theories. They're not looking retrospectively at. the best data. >> But even if he doesn't believe that. tariffs are driving inflation, does he. get that many Americans maybe blaming. tariffs for inflation and that that is. probably testing their patience right. now just given how much affordability. and the cost of living are on people's. minds? >> I asked him about that. A recent NYT. poll put President Trump's approval.

rating at 37%. with voters expressing concerns about. his handling of the economy, cost of. living, the war with Iran, and recent. polls have also indicated that the. majority of Americans are against. tariffs, connect them to the increased. cost of living. Do you worry that your. tariff policy has been too aggressive. and that the kind of pendulum of public. opinion has swung back against the. administration? >> So, I don't think it's been too. aggressive. Again, I look at this in the. long span of history of decades of a bad.

trade policy that we're now changing. You know, we know people have concerns. about the cost of living. We all do. Like no one wants to be dismissive of. that. We've made huge progress on that. in the Trump administration. We have a. lot of core staples, you know, when you. look at dairy products and eggs and. cheese and flour, all these things, prices have gone down for those. So, we worry about living. We don't see. it as something that is going to change. the trade policy. The trade policy is. really about wages and protecting. manufacturing and agricultural.

production. And I think that the American people are. going to see this over time. I mean, again, we've had huge tariffs on China. since 2018. We've had tariffs on steel. and aluminum since 2018. We're making. more steel in America than Japan is. making now. I mean, this is a huge. turnaround. So, there's a lot of success. there and we've made a lot of progress. in the administration, but there's. certainly more work to do. >> Are you worried that if Americans don't. see faster results, they'll start to. lose faith in this vision of reshoring. and the shift in trade increasing real. wages?

>> I don't think they will. You know, over. the past year, you know, I I speak to. financial services companies, the. American consumer has been really. resilient and robust. And so, you have. some polls that are consumer sentiment, and then you have some like hard data. that shows what our consumers are. actually doing. And the American. consumer is quite robust. So, we're. confident that that will continue. You. know, I can't account for the 40% of. voters who are just inclined to disagree. with whatever policy President does, cuz. they don't like the president or they. don't agree with or didn't vote for him. So, I kind of take that. And then you. have, you know, folks in the middle who.

are watching their pocketbook. They want. to see what's happening. I'm confident that, uh, you know, this. policy will continue to deliver for. Americans as wages go up, factories come. back. I mean, we're seeing it now. I. think it's really valuable to the. American people. >> Okay. I want to step back, Anna, and ask. a bigger question that I think has been. on a lot of people's minds since Trump. trade war version two began, which is. this trade war seems to have gone from. being mainly about China to being a war.

on everyone. And. if weakening China is still the primary. goal here, doesn't that scorched-earth. approach undermine. that purpose? Like, wouldn't it make. more sense for the US to align with all. of its allies and focus on containing. China rather than risk alienating all of. our friends and going it alone against. China? >> So, this is one of the most common. criticisms I hear of the policy, and I.

think that's a very real argument that. the Trump administration has alienated. partners that they could be working with. on the trade issues that really matter. for the world, like all of the excess. goods that are coming out of China, huge. Chinese exports that are putting a lot. of pressure on American manufacturers. So, why are we putting so many tariffs. on Canada and Europe rather than. countries like China? But, Greer's answer here is really.

interesting. >> So, our role as policy makers is to do. right by the American citizen. We need. to take measures, frequently unilateral. because the rest of the world is all. discombobulated and has different. interests than we do. We have to take. measures to protect our economy, to. protect our industrial base, to protect. our agricultural production, to protect. our factories and farms and families and. the people who work there. That's how I. see it. I hear people sometimes say, "Oh, well, you know, America should just.

get together with the rest of the West. Everyone should gang up and force China. to change." Like, that is not our. policy. We're not really about going out. and changing the world. We're trying to. change the terms of trade, so it does. mean to the extent we have to take. measures on other countries, we will, but it's less that we're anti any. particular country and more we're just. pro-America. >> And that has been a common criticism. You know, the Trump administration is. going very hard against traditional. allies, Canada, Europe, and maybe even. with China kind of getting into a. situation where the US is kind of more.

aggressive in some instances against. traditional allies than it would be. against traditional rivals. You know, how do you think about that? >> Yeah, so again, this is not a foreign. policy shop. This is an economic shop. here. And so, when I look at someone. like the European Union. that blocks American agricultural goods. for species non-scientific reasons, that's a problem. Friend or foe, that's. an issue. And I'm not going to say, "Well, if you guys agree to say nice things. about us.

publicly. and say that we're great partners. I will look past all of this like I have. for the past 30 years. Like that's not. what President Trump was elected to do. It's not what I was appointed to do. >> So, he thinks that traditional trading. partners have also taken advantage of. the US. The US has given them a pass for a long. time. That didn't really work. So, the administration is really. intentionally putting pressure on the. whole world. The other reality is the. Trump administration did try to go up. against China and that really backfired.

for them. So, when Trump imposed high. tariffs on China last year, the Chinese. threatened to cut off rare earth. exports, which would have crippled a lot. of US factories. So, the US found that. they were pretty limited in their. ability to actually confront China. >> I live in the real world. So, you kind. of get these model UN types who are. like, well, you know, let's all get. together and we'll have a meeting at a. summit. We'll have these working groups. and by the end of the day, we'll all. gang up on China. I mean, the reality is. if Europe or someone else has a problem. with China, then they can take measures.

with China and negotiate with China. I mean, I'm not going to give a. concession to some other country to do. something they should do anyway. A lot of countries in this era of. enormous imbalances and non-market. practices, they will find, like the. United States, that it's in their. interest to take measures. Now, I think. there are some instances where it. doesn't have to be unilateral. I just. find that countries like those in. Europe, they tend to be very slow to move. They tend to be very bureaucratic. They. feel more bound by international legal.

norms than we do. So, if we were waiting. for the Europeans to agree or the. Canadians to agree or anybody else, we'd. still be waiting while all this stuff. was being offshored. >> And what grade would you give yourself. on trade policy and achieving your. goals? >> Oh, well, listen, nobody is perfect and. I always see things that I can do better. and retrospect, maybe we could have done. this, could have done that. But, I mean, we hit we have an A. I. mean, when you look at, you know, the. past 70 years and really in the past 30.

years where we saw all the offshoring, that was disastrous. We lost 5 million. manufacturing jobs, 70,000 factories, and China became the world's largest. supplier and manufacturer. That is a. problem, and continuing that policy in. the face of those results, a crazy. person would do that. So, we had to. change that. And this is a lot of. success in a given year. Are there. things we could do better? Of course. Are we going to continue to refine this? Yeah, we are. But, I would give us an A.

>> We've talked a lot thus far about how. Greer assesses himself and the policies. that he's helped orchestrate. If we're. evaluating the cost-benefit. of this Trump tariff regime, how should. we assess? >> So, I do think tariffs have helped some. businesses that are trying to compete. with cheap products from abroad. But, they have also been a huge drag on. others. Many businesses now owe a big. tariff bill to the government, or they.

have to pay more for their materials. because of tariffs. Consumers are paying. more. There are also geopolitical costs. to think about, to US alliances, maybe. political costs for Republicans in the. upcoming election. But, what's also true is that this. administration has fundamentally changed. the conversation on trade. They did key into some serious. criticisms that people have had for a. long time about trade, and how the past. approach, this kind of unquestioning. devotion to trade and globalization, had.

not worked for a lot of Americans. There's this backlash now against their. tariffs, but when you're thinking about. what comes next, this is a lot for a. subsequent administration to try to. undo. So, some of these changes could be. a very lasting legacy for the Trump. administration. >> You're saying that it may actually end. up being really hard for any. administration that follows this one, even if it is a Democratic. administration, to roll these tariffs.

back. >> Yeah, I think it would be very difficult. to undo them completely. There have been so many different kinds. of tariffs on so many different things, just a lot of complex changes in policy. across dozens of industries. You see. companies start to reorganize their. supply chains. Other countries have. started to reshape the way that they. trade with the United States and other. countries because of these tariffs. And. in the US, the politics of undoing the.

tariffs, too, could be pretty. complicated. In the Biden. administration, we saw that they debated. undoing Trump's China tariffs and. decided to just keep them. Now, of course, these tariffs in Trump's. second term are much more extensive, they're much more global. It's a. different situation. But I think what a future administration. might find is a similar conundrum. It's. just difficult politics to undo these. tariffs. So, the net effect might be.

that the Trump administration really has. reordered the global economy for good. >> [music]. >> Well, Anna, thank you so much for being here. >> Thank you for having me. >> I I see you have a few things signed by. the president. >> I do. I do have a few things. Right? Here he's telling me we had a. press conference about tariffs. He's. signed it. He says, "Great job. Big time." Right? That's a good one.

Just with any boss, you know, the longer. you work with them, the more comfortable. they get with you, unless they fire you, right? So far, not fired, so that's. good. >> [music]. >> Okay. Okay. Fantastic. Well, thank you. so much. Yeah. Oh, and who. >> [music]. >> We'll be right back. >> Here's what else you need to know today. Over the weekend, at least [music] three. US service members were killed in the.

Middle East, making it one of the. deadliest stretches of the Iran war for. US forces. [music]. Two of the service members were killed. during an Iranian attack on an airbase. in Jordan, which left another US service. member [music] missing. Video of the attack showed US soldiers. taking cover as debris fell [music]. around them. The third American was killed during the. disposal of an Iranian attack [music]. drone in northern Iraq.

The deaths came amid a cycle of. escalating attacks that has all but. shredded the ceasefire [music] reached. last month and brought the resumption of. what increasingly looks like full-scale. war. And [music]. >> Spain, FOR THE SECOND TIME IN THEIR. HISTORY, have won the World Cup. >> On Sunday, Spain beat Argentina in extra. time, winning its second ever World Cup. The score was one to nothing.

It was an especially disappointing. defeat for Lionel Messi, [music] who, at. 39, could have played his last World Cup. game. Today's episode was produced by Ricky. Novetsky, Asta Chaturvedi, Caitlin. O'Keefe, and Claire Tannen Getter. It was edited by Lisa Chow, [music]. fact-checked by Susan Lee, and contains. music by Marion Lozano and Diane Wong. Our theme music [music] is by Wonderly.

This episode was engineered by Chris. Wood. Special thanks to Ben Castleman. >> [music]. >> That's it for The Daily. I'm Natalie. Kitroeff. [music]. See you tomorrow.