He began with a frank assessment of the CFR’s “establishment, technocratic, and globalist ideology” and contrasted it with the Trump administration’s “America First” policy.
“CFR has been uniformly anti-tariff and anti-Trump, and highly skeptical of an America First form of policy that, in truth, is restoring our trade balance, rebuilding our industrial base, strengthening alliances like NATO, keeping –and as we just saw in the Mideast, negotiating– broader peace, and reasserting American sovereignty on the global stage,” Navarro began.
The Council on Foreign Relations states that its role is “to inform U.S. engagement with the world.”
Their official mission statement reads: “Founded in 1921, CFR is a nonpartisan, independent national membership organization, think tank, educator, and publisher, including of Foreign Affairs. It generates policy-relevant ideas and analysis, convenes experts and policymakers, and promotes informed public discussion—all to have impact on the most consequential issues facing the United States and the world.”
Navarro said “the obvious question” is: How did the gulf between the Council on Foreign Relations and Trumpworld grow so wide?”
“If you ask an AI search engine — try it, I did — it will tell you the Council on Foreign Relations embodies an establishment, technocratic, and globalist ideology, uncomfortably wedded with Wall Street and the multinational corporations that love open borders, cheap offshore labor, and an endless stream of subsidized imported goods,” he said. “By contrast, the Trump administration, since 2017, has stood squarely with the people who make and grow things in this country, our farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, and workers.”
“What many in this audience dismiss as ‘populism’ or ‘nationalism’ simply means doing what is best for Americans first, protecting their jobs, communities, and industrial base,” he said.
“This is what the Council on Foreign Relations has never understood: weakening our industrial base has never strengthened our strategic position. It has only invited aggression. That’s why, in Trump world, we do not trade off economic security for national security — we believe economic security is national security.”
“Memo to CFR,” Navarro said. “You cannot project power if you’ve surrendered production. You cannot deter aggression when your supply chains run through your opponent’s ports. You can’t lead the free world if you can’t make what the free world needs.”
“During the Trump first term, and you all remember this, CFR’s predictions of economic calamity widely missed the mark. The inflation and recession you forecast never came. The alliances you said would disintegrate have endured. Those wars you predicted? Four peaceful years during the Trump first term. China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia kept their powder dry,” Navarro continued. “Now, in his second term, President Donald John Trump is once again performing beautifully. And it’s long past time for the Council on Foreign Relations to catch up with the world it refuses to understand.”
“In closing, I come to you today not to quarrel, but to simply challenge — respectfully — the assumptions that still dominate this room. The world has changed. The American people have changed. The age of blind globalization is over,” he said.
Full transcript:
PETER NAVARRO, WHITE HOUSE TRADE ADVISER: I’d like to thank the Council on Foreign Relations for this kind invitation. After all, it’s not every day I get to speak before an audience that has opposed nearly every policy I’ve ever helped advance in the White House. But let’s be honest with each other — CFR has been uniformly anti-tariff, anti-Trump, and highly skeptical of an America First foreign policy that, in truth, is restoring our trade balance, rebuilding our industrial base, strengthening alliances like NATO, and as we just saw in the Middle East, negotiating a broader peace and reasserting American sovereignty on the world stage.
So let’s ask ourselves the obvious question: How did the gulf between the Council on Foreign Relations and Trump world grow so wide?
If you ask an AI search engine — try this, I did — it will tell you that the Council on Foreign Relations embodies an establishment, technocratic, and globalist ideology, one comfortably wedded with Wall Street and the multinational corporations that love open borders, cheap offshore labor, and an endless stream of subsidized imported goods.
By contrast, the Trump administration since 2017 has stood squarely with the people who make and grow things in this country — our farmers and ranchers, our manufacturers and workers. What many in this audience dismiss as populism or nationalism simply means doing what’s best for Americans first, protecting our jobs, communities, and the industrial base that anchors our national strength.
History is indeed a harsh mistress here.
Exhibit A: Council on Foreign Relations members helped negotiate NAFTA, which hollowed out the U.S. manufacturing base and triggered one of the largest illegal mass migrations in modern history. CFR analysts championed China’s 2001 entry into the World Trade Organization — the single worst trade deal in American history. Then came the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Forgive me here, Mike — CFR sold it as a geopolitical rampart against the rise of China, yet the TPP would have surrendered much of America’s manufacturing base, including our crucial auto and auto parts sectors, to Japan, Vietnam, and ironically, ultimately China itself.
President Trump saw this very clearly and tore up the TPP on day one. I was standing right behind him on that beautiful day.
This is what the Council on Foreign Relations has never understood: weakening our industrial base has never strengthened our strategic position. It has only invited aggression. That’s why, in Trump world, we do not trade off economic security for national security — we believe economic security is national security.
Memo to CFR: you cannot project power if you’ve surrendered production. You cannot deter aggression when your supply chains run through your opponent’s ports. You can’t lead the free world if you can’t make what the free world needs.
Here’s the second big problem with the Council’s free-trade dogma: the belief that the World Trade Organization somehow delivers fair trade. By its own rules, it does not. The WTO’s “most favored nation” rule says you must treat all partners the same, but what it doesn’t say is that everyone must charge the same tariffs.
So what happens? Virtually every country in the world charges America far higher tariffs than we charge them. Germany, for example, charges us 10% on autos; we charge them 2.5%. The result: Bavaria sells us seven cars for every one Detroit sends to Germany.
That’s the tilted playing field that the Council on Foreign Relations has defended — and the one President Trump has begun to level with his policy of reciprocal tariffs.
Of course, the moment President Trump uses the “T-word,” CFR waves the bloody shirt of — you know what I’m about to say — inflation and recession. But the record tells a very different story. Under President Trump’s first term, inflation stayed low, growth was strong, and the American manufacturing base saw its first real revival in decades. Far from tariff chaos, Trump world had price stability and the strongest job market in modern history.
Let’s be clear: the inflation we’re living with today did not come from tariffs. It came from Joe Biden’s reckless fiscal expansion, his neglect of our supply chains, and a hopelessly politicized Federal Reserve that accommodated the Biden bonfire. That’s why we in Trump world now hold the credibility high ground on tariffs.
Exhibit B: During the Trump first term — and you all remember this — CFR’s predictions of economic calamity widely missed the mark. The inflation and recession you forecast never came. The alliances you said would disintegrate have endured. Those wars you predicted? Four peaceful years during the Trump first term. China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia kept their powder dry.
Now, in his second term, President Donald John Trump is once again performing beautifully. And it’s long past time for the Council on Foreign Relations to catch up with the world it refuses to understand.
In closing, I come to you today not to quarrel, but to simply challenge — respectfully — the assumptions that still dominate this room. The world has changed. The American people have changed. The age of blind globalization is over.
If the Council on Foreign Relations wants to be relevant, it must stop mistaking nationalism for isolationism, sovereignty for retreat, and strength for aggression. For ultimately, MAGA and the America First movement isn’t about pulling back — it’s about standing tall. It’s about defending what we make, who we are, and the nation we love.
Thank you for your time. I look forward to your questions — and Anna Swanson of the “conservative” New York Times is going to grill me here.
0 Comments