Former US Trade rep explains why the SCOTUS tariff ruling is not devastating to Trump

And that's the RIF. All right. Joining me now, my very dear friend, the famed trade expert and former U.S. trade representative, Mr. Robert Lighthizer, Bob Lighthizer. Welcome back. It's been a while. So give me give me give me your quick take. I'm sure I got many things wrong in my RIF. I'm not a lawyer, but I want to hear what I want to hear. You tell me what you want to say on this one. Well, well, first of all, you know, let's remind ourselves what hasn't changed. President Trump's prescription that the old trading system has been bad has slowed economic growth for at least 30 years. It slowed down American innovation. It's had drastic effects on our working people, on their wages, on their jobs and a whole lot of other bad outcomes that have been very bad for the country. None of that has changed. It wasn't talked about by the Supreme Court. The president is going to change the system. He started in the first term. It wasn't really altered very much in the Biden administration. And he's taking the logic, the logical next step. Now he's not. This is something he's worried about and cared about these working people and this economic growth since he was 35 years old. None of that has changed. So he used IEPA. It was simple. It was flexible. I believe he had the better economic argument. I'm sorry, the better legal argument. But the fact is, it was always potentially a problem that it would be overruled. And I think that the administration has prepared for that. They didn't talk about it. They're very smart lawyers. Jamison Greer knows how all this works. They have a backup plan. You saw the beginning of it today. It's going to be messier. It's going to be more complicated. It will not change the president's leverage at all on things about economic policy and trade. And I think in the final analysis, the tools we're going to use to correct this very bad situation is still going to be tariffs. And as the president has evolved into, it's going to be proportional. The worst countries are going to get the highest tariffs. And our friendly trading partners are going to get modest tariffs. And we're going to have a new regime that's going to turn the economy around and it's going to help workers. And its longevity is not going to be dictated by the Supreme Court, but rather by the results we see in the next two or three years. So I don't I you know, I I see who's who's celebrating. It's none of the friends of the of working people in America. And and I and I tell them not to celebrate and the workers don't despair. The result is the president is still there. He's got the tools. He's going to get it done. And one last thing I'd like to see Congress get involved. Congress ought to be giving the president some of this authority. I think there's a consensus in this Congress that we have to change the old system. And I hope that they will take this as an opportunity to do that. You know, I think that I would say the reciprocal trade policy has been working. I mean, I think he's lowered a lot of barriers. He's brought a lot of money into the US. He's helped restore a lot of manufacturing activity. We're in the middle of a business capex boom between the trade reciprocity policy and the deregulation and the one big, beautiful bill tax cuts. Bob, I mean, he's done tremendously. There's a boom going on. We didn't have a strong GDP today's number because of the Democratic shutdown. But basically, we're in a boom. And but anybody would say that. And I just don't know why the Supremes want to stick their nose into it. Because after all, here's another point. I made this I made it when I sat down with him a week ago in the interview. But I've made it for several years now. Look, he uses trade and tariffs with foreign policy diplomacy. He uses them and they use them hand in glove. And I don't see what's wrong with that. And that should be able to continue. And that's why I was hoping the Supremes would stay out of this because it makes eminent sense. And that's IEPA. That's what the thing was all about. Well, you know, I, I, I agree with what you're saying. I think that Justice Kavanaugh had the right analysis. I said that from the beginning. On the other hand, it is a question. I think the Supreme Court's function is a very narrow, very, very technical function. Yes, the president thinks there's politics involved. It's hard to say that there isn't with respect to the three liberal justices. But with respect to the other six, I think they're honest people that took a look at it. They came to the wrong conclusion, in my opinion. But but but I just don't want it to to to deflect us away from the fact that we have a huge problem and the president is solving that problem and using tariffs. And on your GDP point, we have to remind ourselves trade deficits are subtracted directly from GDP. They are they are a you know, it's plus, you know, net trade exports, net exports. So the reality is that we've seen a lot of these good numbers because the trade deficit is is going down in the last several months. We combine that with economic growth, manufacturing increasing, particularly, I think, in the months ahead, manufacturing jobs. And this the president will be proven right. And in ten years, five years, everybody's going to forget about the Supreme Court part of it. And remember what the president did to help working people. So here I am, a non lawyer. And you and I are agreeing you a brilliant, distinguished trade lawyer whom I've known for many years. We both go all the way back to the Reagan administration, if such a thing is possible. And we just agreed, I think I heard you agree with me that this was a technical decision by the Supremes. And that's why I say, you know, it's much sound and fury signifying nothing. I don't even know why they had to do this. They could have saved everybody some angst. And then they walk away from the issue of returning the tariff revenues. I love that. They don't even mention that as a thing. It's not that hard a thing for the Treasury to do, but they don't even bother to mention that they just cut and run for God's sakes. Well, let me just say, Larry, on that point, that question wasn't really before the court. I like courts dealing with precisely what's in front of them. And that's something that's going to have to be worked out. And I think a lot of people have to sort of think it through. And the final analysis, my guess is that money is going to be refunded, except in cases where somebody, for some reason, has forfeited their rights. And I think that's a significant negative effect. But I mean, I'm just telling people on our side of the issue, on the president's side of the issue, this is really just a very small bump in the road and not even one that was unpredictable. He has the right policy. It's really, really one of the most important things he's doing. And he's going to continue. And I think in the next year, it's going to show its success. And everyone is going to endorse it, everyone with any sense. All right. I agree. I'm with you on this one, Jack. I have to you taught me so much of this trade stuff in the first term and we're on the China trade team. There's much more you and I can talk about. We'll do it in another segment. We're so delighted to welcome you back on the show. It's a rare Bob Lighthizer sighting. I just.