Peter Navarro faces bipartisan wrath over 'exceptionally stupid' claim that 'tariffs are tax cuts'

[Eugene]

Peter Navarro faces bipartisan wrath over ‘exceptionally stupid’ claim that ‘tariffs are tax cuts’ (The Independent)

‘They think you are stupid,’ Pradeep J. Shanker, a contributor for the conservative National Review magazine, said about Navarro’s claim

Donald Trump’s tariff czar Peter Navarro insisted that with “Liberation Day” approaching, the president’s sweeping round of tariffs on foreign goods shouldn’t be seen as an import tax but rather the “biggest tax cut in American history.”

“The message is that tariffs are tax cuts, tariffs are jobs, tariffs for national security, tariffs are great for America, tariffs will make America great again,” the White House senior counselor for trade and manufacturing declared on Fox News Sunday.

The Orwellian assertion, which runs counter to what nearly every economist has said about tariffs' impact on the American consumer and economy,

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-tariffs-peter-navarro-criticism-b2724646.html

Alternate link: https://www.yahoo.com/news/peter-navarro-faces-bipartisan-wrath-145558062.html

[JohnSJ]

1. Navajo is absolutely certifiable. He is a loony from way back.

[bucolic_frolic]

2. But to billionaires, that's exactly what tariffs mean. Tax cuts for them. /nt

[LetMyPeopleVote]

3. Navarro is a true idiot

[peggysue2]

4. Navarro is goose-stepping to the wing-nut tune

Did it before and he's doing it again for the Upside Down World believers.

[Norrrm]

5. 'Tariffs Are Tax Cuts'?

Says 'Tariffs Are Tax Cuts'?

[Ol Janx Spirit]

6. I'm guessing Art Laffer will have to return that Presidential Medal of Freedom that

DJ Tariff gave him in 2019--and maybe have to pay restitution--for writing that “[a] 25 percent tariff would not only shrink, or possibly eliminate, profit margins for U.S. manufacturers but also weaken their ability to compete with international rivals." /s Of course this is the guy that both brought us the Laffer curve and co-wrote the book Trumponomics where he claimed that the 2017 tax plan would raise growth rates to as much as 6% and not increase budget deficits. Pandemic aside that was not going to happen, so I guess we have to take his analysis with a grain of salt. However, the fact that even magical-thinking Laffer doesn't seem to agree with Navarro is noteworthy since this seems like the level of magical-thinking ol' Art could get behind. Maybe he's embarrassed that he didn't come up with it first. I mean, it's kind of ingenious isn't it? Raising taxes is actually a tax cut! I expect all agencies in this Administration to now take the same tack: cutting cancer research will lead to cures for cancer; cutting food assistance will feed children; using unsecure tech platforms actually increases national security; taking money out of your pocket every month will make you rich! Brilliant... SMH.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

7. The ex-con who repeatedly cited a fake expert asked whether he has more "credibility" than mainstream economists. He mig

The ex-con who repeatedly cited a fake expert asked whether he has more “credibility” than mainstream economists. He might not like the answer.

Peter Navarro wants to know who’s more credible, he and his White House colleagues or mainstream economists.

That’s a conversation I’m eager to have with the guy who, among other things, wrote books quoting “Ron Vara” — a fake person Navarro concocted. www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddo...

— Steve Benen (@stevebenen.com) 2025-08-15T17:30:33.690Z

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/white-houses-navarro-picks-fight-cant-win-economic-credibility-rcna225229

The White House’s Peter Navarro, Donald Trump’s top trade adviser, appeared on CNBC this week and tried to argue that the president’s trade tariffs should be seen as “tax cuts.”

That was, of course, utterly absurd. In fact, CNBC’s Sara Eisen quickly reminded her guest, “Many economists would say they are tax hikes because ultimately a consumer will pay for some of those increased prices.” Navarro was incredulous.

NAVARRO: Are tariffs price hikes or tax cuts? I say they're tax cuts

EISEN: I mean, many economists would say they are tax hikes because ultimately a consumer will pay for some of those increased prices

NAVARRO: Most economists just don't agree with us. Who has credibility here?

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2025-08-14T15:32:41.871Z

...This appeared to be a rhetorical question, as if the answer were a foregone conclusion. But if Navarro is actually interested in knowing who has more credibility, there’s a perfectly good answer that’s readily available.....

As longtime readers might recall, in 2016, then-candidate Trump directed Jared Kushner to help bolster his views on China. The son-in-law went to Amazon.com, was impressed by the title of a book Navarro wrote, and cold-called him. Navarro joined Team Trump as an economic adviser soon after.

In the years that followed, Navarro became a strange political voice on the Republican’s White House team. In early 2020, for reasons that went unexplained, Trump tapped Navarro to serve on the White House Coronavirus Taskforce, where he earned a reputation for picking strange fights in the Situation Room over hydroxychloroquine.....

Just as notable is the fake expert Navarro concocted named “Ron Vara.” Remember this 2019 report from The New York Times?

Ron Vara has appeared as a cryptic voice of economic wisdom more than a dozen times in five of Mr. Navarro’s 13 books. ... But Ron Vara, it turns out, does not exist. At least not in corporeal form. He is apparently a figment of Mr. Navarro’s imagination — an anagram of Mr. Navarro’s surname that the trade adviser created as a Hitchcockian writing device and stuck with as something of an inside joke with himself.

Yes, the ex-con who repeatedly cited a fake expert asked a national television audience whether he and his colleagues have more “credibility” than the consensus views of mainstream economists. Navarro acted as if the answer were obvious.

Oddly, I think it’s obvious, too.