Trump’s anger over Bolsonaro case leaves prime adviser fumbling to justify ‘punishing’ tariffs on Brazil: ‘So, what is it?’ | EUROtoday

Donald Trump’s financial adviser, Kevin Hassett, struggled to justify the rationale for “punishing” new tariffs on imports from Brazil throughout an look on ABC’s This Week.

Host Jonathan Karl questioned the rationale behind the brand new 50 p.c tax on Brazilian items, highlighting the $6.8 billion commerce surplus with Brazil final yr, and noting that the U.S. hasn’t had a commerce deficit with Brazil since 2007.

The Trump administration has argued that tariffs are to counter commerce deficits with U.S. buying and selling companions, and the subject arose in a broader dialogue of the president’s newly introduced tariffs on America’s closest allies, together with Mexico, Canada, and the European Union.

“So why, why, why are we putting a punishing 50 percent tariff on Brazil?” requested Karl.

Hassett, talking from the North Lawn of the White House, started: “Well, bottom line is the president has been very frustrated with negotiations with Brazil and also with the actions of Brazil. In the end, though, you know, we’re trying to put America first. I think that a lot of people, when I’m talking to negotiators from other countries, at some point they’ll say, ‘What did we do wrong?’”

open picture in gallery

“The message we’re all trying to get across is this is about America getting itself ready for the golden age by getting our house in order, by getting our tariff and trade policy and tax policy exactly where it needs to be for a golden age,” he continued.

“And normally, it’s not necessarily about a specific country, but with Brazil, it is. Their actions have shocked the president at times, and he’s … been clear about that.”

Karl pounced, noting that the president has been express as to why he’s imposing such a excessive tax on Brazil.

Trump expressed his anger in a letter to President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva that the trial of former president Jair Bolsonaro for his position in an alleged coup to overturn his 2022 reelection loss was a “witch hunt” and may “end immediately.”

The president particularly stated the 50 p.c tariff was coming partially on account of “Brazil’s insidious attacks on Free Elections.”

Said Karl: “I don’t understand how you’re saying it’s about America because the president has made it quite clear that what he’s upset about is how the Brazilian Supreme Court has handled the criminal case involving former President Bolsonaro.”

Hassett jumped in: “I’m agreeing with you. What I’m saying is that … with most countries was that it’s really about us getting the tariffs in order. And I think that this tariff for Brazil is a lot higher because of the president’s frustration with Bolsonaro.”

Karl persevered: “But can you explain to me, because I find it confusing here … on what authority does the president have to impose tariffs on a country because he doesn’t like what that country’s judicial system is handling a specific case?”

“If he thinks it’s a national defense emergency or if he thinks it’s a national security threat, that he has the authority under IEEPA,” countered Hassett, citing the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, on the heart of a lawsuit over Trump’s “reciprocal” tariffs that’s at the moment earlier than a federal appeals courtroom.

open picture in gallery

“So, how is it a national security threat that, you know, how Brazil is handling a criminal case against this former president?” pressed Karl.

“Well, that’s not the only thing. That’s not the only thing. I mean…” a flustered Hassett replied.

“So, what is it? I mean, I’ve asked what it is,” stated Karl. “I mean, it seems that that’s what President Trump’s talking about. He’s talking about his anger and his frustration. He’s been quite candid about it with the Bolsonaro case.”

Regrouping, Hassett stated: “Right. Well, the bottom line is that what we’re doing absolutely collectively across every country is we’re onshoring production in the U.S. to reduce the national emergency that is — that we have a massive trade deficit, that’s putting it at risk should we need production in the U.S. because of a national security crisis. And this is part of an overall strategy to do that.”

“But again, as we’ve just established, we have a trade surplus with Brazil, not a deficit,” stated Karl, including over an interjected “but” from Hassett, “And we’ve had a surplus with Brazil for 18 years.”

“If you look at an overall strategy, if you don’t have an overall strategy for this, then there’ll be trans shipping and everything else, and you won’t achieve your objectives,” Hassett argued.

“Okay. I’m still confused, but let me move on,” stated Karl, concluding the dialogue none the wiser.