admin
Peter Navarro told Rob Schmitt Tonight that President Trump is “playing 3D chess” on multiple economic and national-security fronts, arguing that smart energy policy and strategic posture around the Strait of Hormuz are central to stabilizing global markets. Navarro framed control of that chokepoint as an economic imperative, saying decades of instability have imposed a hidden “terror premium” on oil that American leaders must address.
The stakes in the Strait of Hormuz are real: analysts warn that Iranian retaliation or disruption could send shipping costs and oil prices sharply higher, hitting global supply chains and consumers alike. That vulnerability is not an abstract talking point but a clear national-security and economic pressure point that conservative hawks have long warned needs decisive action.
On a domestic front, the Trump team hailed a newly announced $300 billion refinery project in Texas as the first new U.S. refinery in nearly half a century, a centerpiece of an energy-first economic agenda that aims to bring refining back onshore. The announcement — tied to a major international partner and promoted as an America First refining initiative — is being pitched as a game-changer for supply, sovereignty, and industrial revival.
Proponents argue the refinery would break the chokehold that decades of offshoring and regulatory hostility put on American energy capacity, delivering jobs, downstream manufacturing growth, and a healthier trade balance. Skeptics in the establishment press have tried to downplay the impact, but with U.S. refining capacity stressed and inventories low, the timing for a bold project could not be better.
The contrast with the latest labor data is stark: the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported a surprising loss of 92,000 nonfarm payroll jobs in February and an uptick in the unemployment rate to 4.4 percent, a reminder that headline growth still faces significant headwinds. That disappointing jobs report injects immediate urgency into any claim that the economy is fully rebounding, and it strengthens the conservative case for unleashing domestic energy and industrial projects to create real, permanent employment.
Taken together, Navarro’s argument is simple and unapologetic: secure the energy lifelines, knock down foreign manipulative leverage, and rebuild American manufacturing capacity so policy doesn’t float on wishful thinking. This administration’s energy-first approach — from bold refinery deals to a tougher posture in key maritime chokepoints — is presented as the pragmatic path to both prosperity and security.
Critics will shriek about carbon footprints and foreign partners, but conservative realists see the larger picture: a stronger domestic fuel and refining base reduces dependence on hostile regimes, shields consumers from price shocks, and helps keep workers employed in high-paying industrial jobs. If policymakers want to move beyond talk, the lesson is clear: prioritize energy sovereignty and industrial investment, because strategic wins at Hormuz and in the Gulf Coast refineries will ripple through the economy in ways partisan pundits prefer to ignore.
