The Daily Signal - Tucker Carlson: Yes, Trump Is Willing to Negotiate with China on Tariffs

Episode Date: April 13, 2025

President Donald Trump is using tariffs to apply heavy pressure on China, but the president remains open to negotiations with China, according to Tucker Carlson. “Well, of course he is,” Carlson said when asked if Trump is willing to negotiate with China. “I mean, the question is, who needs the other more? Does the U.S. need China more or China need the US? I can't answer that,” Carlson told The Daily Signal. Only hours after new tariffs went into effect on about 90 countries around the world, Trump announced a 90 day pause on the “reciprocal tariff,” but an increased tariff on goods from China. “Based on the lack of respect that China has shown to the World’s Markets, I am hereby raising the Tariff charged to China by the United States of America to 125%, effective immediately,” Trump wrote on Truth Social, Wednesday. China and the U.S. “need each other,” Carlson said. “The deal has been for the past 30 years, we’ll buy your underpriced consumer goods, you buy our overpricing debt. And you know, in some ways that's worked great, in other ways it hasn't worked at all.” Carlson was at the White House last week when Trump stood in the rose garden and announced his plan to increase tariffs on nations around the world. Despite knowing Trump for years and the president’s interest in tariffs as a negotiation tool, the conservative news commentator and former Fox News host said he was “shocked” by Trump’s new tariffs. “I wasn't against what Trump was saying, but I was like, ‘Oh my gosh, that's shocking that he said that. You can't erect trade barriers.’ ... It's like all the childhood orthodoxies were still rattling around in my head.” Carlson sits down with The Daily Signal at The Heritage Foundation’s Annual Leadership Conference to discuss Trump’s recent use of tariffs and what the results may be. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

At Desjardin, we speak business. We speak equipment modernization. We're fluent in data digitization and expansion into foreign markets. And we can talk all day about streamlining manufacturing processes. Because at Desjardin business, we speak the same language you do. Business. So join the more than 400,000 Canadian entrepreneurs who already count on us. And contact Desjardin today.

We'd love to talk. Business. Well, he said it was his plan. He said this, you know, several thousand times in public over 40 years. I was still shocked by the press conference. Even though I knew that those were his beliefs and I basically agree with him, I was, it was one of those moments. I was like, wow, I've marinated in libertarian economics for so long, my entire life living in D.C. where everybody's a free market person, including me, free minds, free markets or whatever dumb slogan I repeated all those years. I didn't really, I was just, I wasn't against what Trump was saying, but I was like, oh my gosh,

that's shocking that he said that. You can't erect trade barriers? I mean, like what? It's like all the childhood orthodoxies were still rattling around in my head. Well, Tucker, thank you so much. Oh, thank you for having me. Are you kidding?

This is a joy. So we're speaking at the Heritage Foundation's annual leadership conference in Florida. You're giving an address on the main stage. You're kind enough to give us a little bit of time. Oh, I love that. One of those big, big questions, obviously right now that folks are looking at is what's going on with tariffs

and sort of these different shifts and power plays that are being made. really fascinating this week to see Trump say, okay, these reciprocal tariffs are going into effect. Then on Wednesday, he said, no, we're doing a 90-day pause on all reciprocal tariffs, but on China we're raising tariffs to 125%. Yes. Was this kind of always, do you think Trump's plan to put on this pressure of tariffs and then say, maybe we're going to pull up on other countries, but to leave that pressure on China? Well, he said it was his plan. He said this, you know, several thousand times in public over 40 years.

So none of it should be surprised. And yet I was surprised. I was actually at the White House last Wednesday. It just happened to be not having anything to do with tariffs. But I was sitting in someone's office who was a former employee mine. So I were to go say hi before I went to the meetings that I had. And I happened to be sitting in this person's office and he had the TV on and the press conference is going on, the Rose Garden and live and I'm just watching this.

And I was like shocked by it. even though, you know, I mean, I spent a lot of time around the president and I've known him for, you know, 20 years. I've watched him for even longer than that. And he was he basically said in the Rose Garden what he's been saying all these years, but I was still like, even though I'm not a libertarian at all and I was, but I'm no longer. And even though I agree with the basic idea, of course, strongly, I was still shocked by the press conference, even though I knew that those or his beliefs and I basically agree with him. It was one of those moments.

I was like, wow, I've marinated in libertarian economics for so long, my entire life living in D.C., where everybody's a free market person, including me, free minds, free markets, or whatever dumb slogan I repeated all those years. I didn't really, I was just, I wasn't against what Trump was saying, but I was like, oh my gosh, that's shocking that he said that.

You can't erect trade barriers? I mean, like what? It's like all the childhood orthodoxies were still rattling around. around in my head. From reading the news. From reading the news and just living there, living there and just repeating the same bumper stickers for, well, 40 years.

And so, I mean, I could tell you stories, but look, I can't assess, you know, there's a lot that I can't assess about economic questions and I rarely weigh in because I'm just not an expert, you know, happy to interview Scott Bacent or someone who I think is credible. And I think he is credible, which I have, right. So I was that happened to be there that day. And I knew the Treasury Secretary. I was like, hey, why don't you, you know, tell us what you think about tariffs. And I just like sat there like a mute like I tried to do and just shut up and listen and ask dumb questions and see and just let him talk.

Yeah. But big picture, you know, there's going to be a disengagement from China. I hope it doesn't become like total disengagement. And I certainly hope there's not a military conflict. I don't think we'd win. Well, we wouldn't win at this point. But there needs to be some kind of disengagement on trade. Again, not total break or anything like that, but the U.S. has to produce pharmaceuticals, for

example, has to produce critical military components. You have to be able to build a jet engine exclusively in the United States and not rely on supply chains 10,000 miles long or on countries that are hostile to you. I mean, that's crazy. It's just basic stuff. And we have the resources to do that. we have, we actually do have the people to build the criticals. I mean, I don't think we're going to be building screw factories in the United States anytime soon, hope not.

But certainly we can build microchips and we can put together pharmaceuticals. They're designed mostly here. We can make them here. Like in New Jersey, like we used to, like 20 years ago, we made them all here. And now we don't. So, you know, you can unsure that. But that process has to start at some point. And it, you know, despite a lot of talking about it during COVID, it was like, oh, we don't even make.

PPP equipment, you know. I can't remember what PPP stood for, but, you know, it's bullshit masks or whatever they were. But like, personal protective. Something. One of those fake acronyms. But here's my point. Everyone was like, oh, my gosh, we don't even make critical medical supplies. But then, of course, there were no one like made any effort to make them.

Yeah. Right? Because it's easy to complain, which I do for a living. And much harder to like build a factory that makes plastic gloves or I don't know, makes erythromycin or whatever you need. Antibiotics. I don't think any antibiotics made in the United States. I don't think vitamins are produced here.

I don't think there is a vitamin C facility, manufacturing facility in the United States. There wasn't last I checked a few months ago. So that has to change. Those are critically important to national security. Common sense tells you that. And just stuff like, you know, I don't know, you probably should have a robust agricultural sector,

especially when you have the Great Plains in your own country. And you don't need to, you know, let some, some nonprofit, some 501c3 in D.C.C.3 in D.C.C. like, force you into ethanol subsidies, which is a great way to cause a famine. You know, growing stuff to burn it in your car when we have ample fossil fuels in the ground. Are you joking? It's like insane. Just stuff like that. Just common sense. Common sense. Yeah. Don't let your resources get sold to countries that hate you. And anyway, that's a whole process that I don't think is necessarily radical.

It doesn't have to be radical. It just has to be like, I don't know, based in reason. But it needs to start at some point, and I think this is the beginning of it. One of the things that the Treasury Secretary said during your conversation with him is that Trump has been very clear. He's always thought of terrorists as a powerful tool to negotiate. In regards to China, though, do you think that Trump is interested in negotiating with China? Well, of course he is.

I mean, the question is who needs the other more? Does the U.S. need China more or China need the U.S.? I can't answer that? It's a speculative question. Then who can endure more pain? Probably the Chinese, I would think. They had famines in my lifetime. So, you know, it's a different culture, a different way of looking at the world.

But both countries need each other. It's symbiotic, of course. And the deal has been for the past 30 years, will buy your underpriced consumer goods, you buy our overpriced debt. And, you know, in some ways, that's worked great. In other ways, it hasn't worked at all. Yeah.

And I think the Treasury Secretary made that point, like drive across the country, as most people don't do, have done. And it's like a disaster, you know? Small-town America, mid-sized America, tertiary cities in America, almost all cities in America. Cities and rural areas are all collapsing.

It's like, this is not working. And I don't know, so you just start there. Like we have a problem. Someone needs to do something about it. Let's try this. He did say a couple of times that, you know, Wall Street's done really well for the past 30 years, particularly since the financial crisis paradoxically and mainstream hasn't. I think you used that phrase a couple of times.

I don't know if this is a way, I mean, this is a way to knock some points off the Dow when they have. Is it a way to elevate Middle America? I don't know. My sense is the tax code has more effect on that. And I do think there are some changes that you could make to the tax code that would suggest greater concern for the majority than the tax code currently does. And one of them is by bringing parity between tax rates on investing and working capital gains versus regular tax rates. And everyone's for lower capital gains, which I agree with, but I think that income taxes should be the same as capital gains. And they should drop at the same rate.

because otherwise you have the system we now have which taxes working labor at twice the rate of investing. And so what message are you sending that it's twice as virtuous to invest as it is to work? Someone who goes to work every day. I mean, I make my money as a wage. I make high wages and rich guy, but I'm still paying full freight in taxes. I paid them today. And so it's a little bit disgusting, actually, and decadent that people in private equity can take their wages as interest through the carried interest loophole and pay half the tax rate that I do. I'm not saying they should be executed, but I'm saying they should be prevented from doing that today. That's totally unfair and disgusting. And until you do something about that, I mean, that is the problem

right there, at least morally, from my perspective, it's like, I'll just, last thing, I'll say, if you don't like something in this country in the West, in general, you tax it. It's why cigarettes are $10 a deck, which they shouldn't be. The poor man's last pleasure, you know, but they are. And cigarettes are, it costs, you know, 20 cents to make a pack of marlboros, and they cost $10 at the convenience store. Why is that? Because they're taxed because smoking is bad. It's the one immoral act.

Castor-eeringer kids is fine. Smoking cigarettes is truly immoral. Okay, that's our position as a society. So if you tax working labor, like I'm sure you make your money from a wage, right? You go to work at the Heritage Foundation. They pay you a check every two weeks, right? Yeah, it's nice. Yeah, it's not.

It's great. No, it's a great setup. Yeah. But you're paying twice the rate of someone who's benefiting from the carried interest loophole scam, the billionaire. And like, Republicans, I guess, have been trained to like ignore this or think that's like capitalism or something. It's not capitalism at all.

It's a scam. And it should end. And so I'll take this administration seriously when I see their tax proposal. And if there's fairness there, you know, if people who work for a wage are paying the same taxes as people who invest for a living, then I'll think that's fair. Yeah. Right? Yeah. Yeah. Makes sense. I don't think that's socialism, is it?

The first time I said that to one of my college roommates, he's like, ooh, that's very left wing. Really? I don't think I'm left wing, actually. I don't think anyone would accuse you of being left wing, Tucker. I don't think I am, but like, that's outrageous. Yeah, yeah. We, you have to run to get you onto the main stage. I'm enjoying myself. I'm enjoying myself too, but I've been given the rap side.

Oh, sorry. There's always someone off camera. Wrap it up. But we could keep going here about an hour. It was always like a very lucky female who do that at my sense. I think you often are ignoring them because your shows are often about three hours now. Now there's no one watching. Exactly.

Good to do what you want. But Tucker always a pleasure. You're so nice to have me. Thank you. Oh, this is Joy. Subscribe to get the news the legacy media won't tell you and only the daily signal can bring to you.