“I don’t need a deal.” Top Trump Economic Adviser is completely busy with his China Hardball

The first 100 days of the second Trump government were a whirlwind. And Stephen Miran, the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors of President Trump, is central to what he calls ‘the volatility’. Mr. Trump has increased import taxes to levels that have not been seen since the 1930s. And commercial discussions to roll them back – or not – are in Flux, so that the process of the US economy, consumer prices and the global trade in Limbo is lagging behind.

Miran, a Ph.D. Economist trained on Harvard – who is known for floating The idea of ​​a Mars-A-Lago agreement Unpleasant “Restructuring the global trading system” – is placed in the position to explain the thinking and ultimate goals of the president.

On Wednesday, just before the United States and Great Britain announced a framework for a trade agreement and for trade discussions this weekend between the administration and Chinese officials, Miran spoke with the Timon Joseph Smith at his office next to the White House. And he stood with the president’s unconventional movements.

The interview is slightly processed for length and clarity.

You have said in public comments that you are not in the negotiating team, but as an economist you believe that the economy of this country can maintain what the Minister of Finance has called the “embargo” level of the current rates for China?

Yes, so look, the president has acted with historical scope and speed to put American employees on a fairer land compared to our trading partners. I don’t think anyone might say that the policy adjustment was not historical or extraordinary. And as a result, there has been volatility in the financial markets. There can also be volatility in economic data, but I think it is important to understand that volatility does not necessarily mean something bigger for the long term.

And so it is possible that economic activity is replaced from one month to another? Yes. Do companies wait to find out the results of the negotiations? Yes. Are they waiting to find out that the tax assessment is being assumed and that we will avoid the largest tax increase in history next year because the tax reductions of the President 2017 will not end? Yes, they are waiting for that too.

But when you wait for a decision because you are waiting for information, this does not mean that you postpone that decision forever.

In China, the president has said in recent days in particular that we don’t even have to close a deal. That has left market participants that I speak, very confused and consumers quite anxious.

So the president said two things. He said, one, he thinks we will have a deal. He often said that. And two, we don’t need a deal. They can both be true.

You all swept in function on the back of frustration with regard to the costs of living and inflation. Housing was high on that list. So what is the policy of this administration to tackle the housing shortage?

Regulations throughout the economy prevents companies from producing what they could do to increase the offer. If you do not have enough delivery of something, if the prices are too high, the best you can do, simply get rid of the government and have companies made more of it. And that is why the Trump administration is working on a whole government regulation drive.

The previous administration and some in the congress wanted to commit themselves to federally guided policy measures on a dual basis to, for example, give “roots” to jurisdictions that decided to get certain rules and zoning plans in a way that could make more building, and to remember those extra funds from jurisdictions that did not do that. Is something similar from you all in that spirit, or do you see this as a state and local problem that does not relate to what you all do from the White House?

No, I see that we can encourage states and places to follow ourselves in our deregulating agenda.

But I ask specifically within home regulation and zoning plans.

It would be useful if other areas of law followed the example.

Average followed on what? Because this might be my ignorance, but I have not seen anything of this white house so far. Admittedly, it’s early.

No, you are right. You are right. You are right that it is early and that we are focused on trade. We are focused on the tax assessment.

Why did DOGE not achieved his declared savings goals? Because there is a shortage of the Promised trillions.

Even cutting hundreds of billions is, I think, an enormous achievement. I think doge has done fantastic work.

A big goal of this administration is to repeat production. We saw a production construction from 2020 to 2024. Since autumn it has fallen. Should we expect, as a barometer of success for this administration, that production of production will rise again?

Production construction that I expect will rise as a result of our policy. And by the way, it’s not just trade and insulation, it’s trade, tax and deregulation, right? And if you make the United States a much more competitive environment by offering further tax reduction, by reducing regulations that make it easier to build things here, make things here, and you start tackling asymmetries and acting through rates and negotiations and other policies, then you make the United States to do things to do things.

Fixed income investors based in Asia and Europe have told me that they are planning to gradually run from American assets, including bonds. Do you think they are exaggerating? Or that market commentators who deal with these movements overdo it? And second, do you all welcome a weakening of the question of the dollar?

So with the second I have to lead you to my colleagues a few blocks in the Treasury Department. With regard to the first, as I said before, it was really a historically extraordinary policy change, and the fact that there was financial market volatility, should not be surprising.

But when it covers dust, capital investment options will follow. Investment opportunities are a function of economic opportunities, and that is why President Trump is aimed at creating the most dynamic American economy in history.

The president said in an interview with ‘Meet the Press’, “we lost hundreds of billions of dollars with China. Now we are not doing business with China, so we save hundreds of billions of dollars. It’s very simple. ” So that is inaccurate, right? When you advise the president, do you feel comfortable to kill him or check it or or if he is wrong?

So I don’t think the president was wrong. You know, America had a trade shortage. And when trade has started to fall, when trade with China has fallen, you know that part of the trade deficit can fall.

“We are losing hundreds of billions of dollars with China. Now we are not doing business with China,” that’s why we save hundreds of billions of dollars? Do you think that is an accurate representation of how you can talk about trade shortages?

That is how the president understands that. And I think that’s correct. I think the president is correct.

The congress is now trying to make its way through a budget. I know that you are not responsible for the congress, but the administration has discussed an obligation to lower shortages, and yet it also wants tax cuts and a budget for defense of trillion dollars. So how is that right?

So a few things. One is that a higher growth will make up for income. And I think that many people consistently underestimate that and are consistently wrong. There was no evidence that there was a long -term decrease in tax revenues as A result of TCJA – the tax cuts of the president. The growth of the economy is one of the best ways to grow income, and that was the experience with the president’s first tax reductions.

What is it like to keep rates that are high enough to raise hundreds of billions of dollars in income that are consistent with the President’s promise to reduce the costs for companies and consumers?

Because I don’t believe that the rates will ultimately increase the costs. I think that volatility is possible in the short term, but in the long term American consumers are flexible about where we import, and if a country comes to a trade agreement with us, so that they open their markets and allow us to export to their economy as they export to our exports, then we can involve our production from friendly countries, instead of countries that take us off.

But many freight experts think you are wrong; Those supply chains take months, if not years, to move, and so there will be no replacement, there will only be higher costs.

Instead of buying things from China, we could buy things from another country. Or we can make things here. We can shift our question across the boundaries. That makes us more elastic.

It is true that we are early, and it is true that there can be volatility in the short term, but do we have it for a few weeks? Are we talking about a few quarters? Are we talking about a few years?

You have affected something that economists have never really been able to settle for. You know, the truth is that it will vary from product to product, right? And some products, it is probably relatively easy to change suppliers. And other products, it can take years. And so it will vary.

Should we understand from this administration, and that the president is serious about a recovery of global trade markets, and that there will be no major withdrawal of this attitude?

The president has been clear that there can be disturbances. And he spoke about the dolls – He spoke about other things. I think he has been over this all the time.

I think the concern about the dolls – where the president said that instead of 30 maybe a young girl can only get a few or three, is that people are worried about, you know, crucial input for American manufacturers. Forty percent of them use imported parts or finished goods.

The president said there can be disturbances. And there are now many negotiations with nearly 20 different trading partners. The president is one of the biggest, best negotiators in American history.

I have spoken with many economists – many of whom I think you are friendly, as well as market participants, usually on the bond market – who think that to take this position you give up part of your intellectual integrity and are willing to bend the facts and bend economic principles in the service of the political goals of this administration. How do you respond to that opinion?

I find that ridiculous, and I think it is very common for people to project their own political preferences to other people. You know, the administration is aimed at creating a dynamic, healthy, robust economic tree for Americans – and we will do that.

Thank you for reading! We’ll see you Monday.

We would like your feedback. Send an e -mail to your mind and suggestions dealbook@nytimes.com.