>> I think we're a long way from considering whether Ukraine would be part of NATO.

We hope it can remain an independent country, a sovereign country, and kick Russia out.

So let's accomplish that first.

>> Hello and welcome to "GZERO World."

I'm Ian Bremmer.

And I'm dressed for Utah, because I'm talking today with Senator Mitt Romney, though, at his office in Washington, D.C. We'll discuss congressional debt-ceiling drama, as well as the biggest foreign-policy challenges facing this country.

I'll ask the senator, who sits on the Foreign Relations Committee, about the threat that Russia poses today, where China stacks up in the mix, and much, much more.

And later, the United States isn't the only one with a debt problem.

Debt is going global.

Don't worry -- I've also got your "Puppet Regime."

>> Hi, guys.

Vladimir Putin here.

>> But, first, a word from the folks who help us keep the lights on.

>> Major corporate funding provided by founding sponsor First Republic.

At First Republic, our clients come first.

Taking the time to listen helps us provide customized banking and wealth-management solutions.

More on our clients at firstrepublic.com.

Additional funding provided by... ...and by... ♪♪ >> Are you having trouble sleeping?

Close your eyes and listen to my voice.

Discretionary spending.

House appropriations.

Budget reallocation.

It's true -- the debt-ceiling debate currently dominating Washington, D.C., sounds about as exciting as me talking about doing my taxes, which, by the way, you really ought to do, as well.

But the stakes could not be higher.

On January 19th, the United States government reached its debt limit of $31.4 trillion.

That seems like a lot of money.

The maximum amount the United States is allowed to borrow to pay its bills.

The debt ceiling, created as a safeguard against overspending and overtaxation, has been raised 102 times since 1945.

And until fairly recently, it was not a partisan issue.

Well, then again, neither were M&M'S.

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen soon announced that her department had begun using extraordinary cash-management measures to prevent a credit default until June 5th.

The clock is ticking.

If Congress fails to increase the debt ceiling by the time the Treasury runs out of cash, then the U.S. government could default on its loans for the first time in history.

Not only would this shake investor confidence in U.S. bonds, raising the prospect of an American recession, but because U.S. debt is the cornerstone of the global economy, it could also spark a financial calamity more broadly.

So what's the hold-up?

Politics, of course.

Republican House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, who handed the hard-right delegation of his party everything short of a kidney to secure his leadership role, is signaling that the only way Republicans will agree to increase the debt ceiling is if President Biden works with them on spending cuts in the federal budget.

That's a budget that has grown nearly 30% over the last three years.

>> I don't know anyone who agrees with the president that we should just raise the debt limit and have no negotiations, that they believe there's no area in government that we can eliminate waste.

>> McCarthy's senior-most ally in the Senate, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, has plenty of experience mud-wrestling over the debt limit during the Obama years.

Apologies for that mental image.

But, interestingly, he's not touching this latest squabble with a 10-foot pollster.

>> I think the final solution to this particular episode lies between Speaker McCarthy and the president.

>> President Biden, for his part, has made clear that he's not going to, as he puts it, let a far-right Republican House hold the American economy hostage.

But the fight over the debt ceiling is just the first of many bitter government standoffs to come, especially given McCarthy's razor-thin majority in the House and the Democrats' control of the Senate and The White House.

What happens, you ask, when Congress must tackle crises far more urgent and unexpected than a long-awaited debt-ceiling increase?

And what can the more moderate Republican members of Congress do, if anything, to rein in their hard-right colleagues?

I'm talking about that today, as well as some of the most urgent foreign-policy challenges facing the country with Republican Senator from Utah Mitt Romney.

And here's our conversation.

Senator Mitt Romney, thanks so much for joining me today.

>> Thanks, Ian.

Good to be with you.

>> So, we'll get to foreign policy, but I want to start with Washington.

Now, no one's expecting a lot of legislation to come out of a divided House and Senate, but on the debt limit, I mean, historically, when it gets towards crisis, everyone recognizes you can't default.

You have to actually come together.

But are we right to not be panicked about that?

>> I hope so.

And I'm not panicked, but I'm clear-eyed enough to know that we're in uncharted water, in part because there are some individuals who are saying they will not vote to increase the debt limit no matter what.

It's like, well, that's an unusual stance to take, because the debt limit being increased is required to pay Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid and our hospitals and our schools and all the things that government pays for.

We talk about it paying the interest on the debt.

Yes, that's really important, but it also pays all those other things.

And, therefore, not raising the debt limit would mean that the entire, if you will, economy of our country would be dramatically impacted almost immediately and would have extraordinary negative consequence for the American people.

So will we act?

Yeah, probably, because we'll recognize that if we don't, we're going to get blamed.

And the question will always be, "Who's going to be blamed?

Republicans or Democrats?"

That will tell you who will cave.

But I hope, instead of going through these kinds of games of chicken, that we're able to have The White House and the House leadership work together and say, "Hey, let's take this opportunity to rein in our spending problem."

>> I mean, don't the Republicans and Democrats understand that the reason that we continue to have these larger and larger deficits that are unfunded is because of decisions that they were both very happily complicit with?

>> Yeah, but 2/3 of spending is automatic.

That's part of our challenge.

1/3, we vote on.

2/3, we don't vote on.

So the sense is, "Alright, we've got to come together in such a way that we don't keep on adding to the to the debt."

We're at $31 trillion in debt now.

We have more debt than the size of our total economy.

And so we probably need to take some action to see if we can't slow down the growth in debt.

Hopefully, The White House gets that and says, "Alright, we understand the American people voted for a Republican House.

The Republican House wants to get in place a process that reins in the excessive spending and slows down the growth in debt.

It can't be Draconian, but something's got to happen."

As opposed to what we're seeing now, where The White House says, "We're not going to do -- We're not going to negotiate."

Well, that's a missed opportunity for them and for us.

>> Now, you represent Utah, so I don't want to ask if you were a betting man, but, nonetheless, I want to say, you feel fairly strongly, though, at the end of the day, we're not going to see an actual default on obligations by the U.S. government.

>> Yes, I'm quite confident that, at the end of the day, we will not default.

The question is, how close will we come?

What political cost will there be?

And I'd like to see this resolved sooner rather than, you know, getting to a point where people are nervous.

>> I want to ask you a little bit about all of this wokeism.

There seems to be so many Republicans today that are running more heavily, whether it's Trump, whether it's Nikki Haley, whether it's Ron DeSantis, on big cultural issues, on critical race theory, on how we educate children in the schools.

Is this a distraction?

Is this a critical thing to push for the base?

Is this the way you want to see the Republican Party heading?

>> Well, it works.

Populism works.

And, I mean, if you watch the news at night, why, these little personal-interest stories are always what gets the most attention.

And the left is canceling, and the right is canceling.

I mean, that generates a lot of anger, passion, and gets people to the polls.

And, by the way, it leads to contributions coming in in the mail.

So I think as you watch our politics today, more and more is focused on things that excite and anger and less is focused on big issues, like how are we going to deal with China as an emerging threat?

How are we going to deal with artificial intelligence and put guardrails around it somehow?

How about social media?

How are we going to find a way to keep it from affecting our kids?

What are we going to really do on climate change that makes a difference not just to the local advocates in the U.S., but actually makes a difference globally?

I mean, these are big issues.

>> You do not think that these culture-war issues should be political priorities for the U.S. government.

>> Well, they work for the policy.

>> I understand that, but you don't think they should be policy.

>> Well, I think the American people want to make sure that they have a bright future for themselves and for their kids.

That's what they want to see.

And when we're not talking about the biggest challenges that we have, I think we're shortchanging the American people.

>> I want to ask a couple quick questions on that -- things that are much more important that you just brought up.

So, for example, social media.

Would you support a ban on social media for, say, children under 16, under 14?

Do you think that's a credible thing for America to do?

>> Yeah, I wouldn't be inclined to have a ban against young people.

I would want to educate parents about what the impact is.

But I also might want to say, look, let's make sure that all the social-media companies have a responsibility for at least one of their services to be populated only by human beings and to verify that a real human is behind who is posting information.

>> So every account, for example, on Twitter or on Facebook would be a verified account.

>> Well, they might have some that are not verified.

That'd be one service you could choose on Twitter, but the other service you could choose would say "verified only," these are real people, and perhaps we don't know their name.

Perhaps it's a, you know, hidden name, but at least someone would know the name.

>> I know some senators that have dabbled in that.

>> I still do.

Absolutely.

Pierre Delecto is not going away.

But make sure that they're human beings as opposed to bots and foreign entities that are trying to influence and create anger here and resentment.

I do think that parents are increasingly aware that having young people on social media has the potential of creating some real problems for their young people.

>> Okay, let's move to big foreign-policy issues that you and I talk about a lot.

Start with 10 years ago.

Actually, it was 11 at this point.

I remember a debate that you had with Barack Obama where you said that Russia was the biggest national-security threat to the United States, and Obama almost mocked that response.

Do you feel like maybe he should be rethinking that these days?

>> Well, my comment was that Russia was the biggest geopolitical adversary.

No question about it.

Every initiative that we had at the UN, they would block.

They supported the world's worst actors and they were fighting against us, if you will, politically, geopolitically, on every front.

There's no question but that Vladimir Putin wants to re-establish what was once the Russian Empire, the old Soviet Union, in one form or another, and that he would be belligerent in doing so and malevolent in doing so.

And he has been.

You know, I think there was a recognition, even in the Obama administration at that time, that I was right, but in politics, you're looking for, you know -- >> Did Obama ever come back to you privately and like, "Yeah --" >> Yeah, no, we haven't had that conversation.

>> Never?

Never?

>> We haven't had that conversation, no.

>> Well, there's still time.

>> Yeah, exactly.

>> There's still time.

>> Exactly.

But, look, we all recognize that Russia is a bad actor.

And at the same time, today, looking the long term, what's the greatest threat to our national security?

Probably the emergence of China as a great power.

They're not an adversary, militarily, today.

Hopefully never will be.

Hopefully, we can get them to divert from a course of confrontation to one of competition and maybe collaboration on some fronts, but they're not there today.

>> Now, on Russia specifically, what sort of limits should there be in terms of U.S. and NATO military support for the Ukrainians?

Is this a slippery slope?

Do you worry about that or are you very -- Are you really aligned with what the Americans are doing right now?

>> Well, I'd step back and say, first of all, how is Ukraine going to win this conflict?

What is the pathway?

And maybe there's some alternatives.

But let's describe first what it is that we're looking to achieve, and then how do you get there?

And what weapons are necessary to get there?

I don't know that we've done that.

I hope it's done at the State Department or the Department of Defense.

But I haven't seen a strategy laid out.

And it may be, "Look, it's not up to us.

It's up to the Ukrainians to produce that."

But someone's got to lay out how we get where we want to get, as opposed to just hoping that the extraordinary resolve of the Ukrainian military and of their people, that that'll be enough.

I understand the Ukrainians' position.

"Hey, give us everything.

We want everything."

But they're in an extraordinarily disadvantaged position right now, because Russia attacks them, sends in missiles, takes out infrastructure, and they can't attack back.

That's a -- It'd be like in a boxing match with someone and saying, "Okay, you can slug as hard you want, and I'm just going to defend."

It's, like, kind of hard to win that match.

>> Now, the Ukrainians are being invited into the European Union.

There is no plan to integrate them into NATO at this point.

Do you think, given what we've experienced over the last year, that that position should be changed?

>> I think we're a long way from considering whether Ukraine would be part of NATO.

We hope it can remain an independent country, a sovereign country, and kick Russia out.

So let's accomplish that first.

But even if we were able to be successful in doing that, if putting Ukraine into NATO were to cause another conflict and massive loss of life, I don't know that it would be worth it for Ukraine.

We'd have to assess whether it's worth it for the rest of us.

But we're providing extraordinary support to Ukraine.

That ought to continue.

>> Now, move to China.

As you say, we're not in a military confrontation with China.

We are certainly in a heated economic battle with China.

There's been a lot of focus recently on export controls, including advanced semiconductors, on 5G, on Huawei, which now looks to be prepared to really ban Huawei completely from being able to do business with the U.S., maybe with allies, as well.

Is that the correct focus for U.S. policy vis-à-vis China right now?

>> Yeah, the answer is yes, in my opinion, which is -- Both the Trump administration that really raised the specter of China, I think, to the public awareness, and now the Biden administration has taken it even further.

And Secretary Blinken has laid out a strategy for how we're going to deal with China, in broad strokes.

He's described that, which I think is right.

But let's just note that the engine that fuels their ambition is their economy.

And they don't play by the same rules that Western nations play by.

They don't have to.

It's not part of their law.

So we, for instance, make it illegal to engage in predatory pricing or we make monopolies illegal.

They don't do those things.

And by carrying out these kinds of predatory behaviors, they're able to take over major parts of the global economy, make a lot of money, and fuel their military.

We've got to make sure that they play by the same rules the rest of us do.

We haven't gotten there yet, but there's an effort to do so.

And I applaud that effort and think that we and our friends around the world ought to say to China, "Play by these rules or you're not going to have the free access to our market and to our products that you've had in the past."

>> So reciprocity is kind of a critical focus here.

Now, on that issue, we talked a little bit about social media.

Of course, U.S. social-media companies don't have access in China -- not the big ones, like Facebook, for example, Insta, and Twitter.

TikTok is the most popular social media in the United States among young people right now.

They're Chinese-owned.

Should that be banned because of reciprocity with Chinese?

>> I think that's the kind of question that has to be addressed.

And my answer would be yes, which is, we have to have a reciprocal relationship.

If they're going to have their products being sold here, then our products have to be sold there.

And with regards to -- >> I hope you've discussed this with your grandkids, by the way.

>> [ Laughs ] Well, with TikTok, I mean, one of the questions is, is there the capacity of the Chinese Communist Party to be able to spy on American citizens by using TikTok?

If there is, then have to prevent it from being used here.

We have to recognize that we are in a competition with China.

We want to, if you will, move them from confrontation to a fair competition.

But if they're going to be engaging in malevolent tactics, why, we have to shut them down.

>> The former speaker, Nancy Pelosi, made a trip to Taiwan.

Biden didn't really want her to go.

She went anyway.

Now we hear McCarthy is planning his own trip to Taiwan.

A lot of posturing here?

Are these things that you like to see senior members of U.S. government engaged in or should they actually be following the administration?

>> You know, I don't think it makes a lot of sense for provocative actions to be taken either by the former speaker or the current speaker.

Look, we've shown our commitment to Taiwan.

If there's a reason for a trip, in terms of meeting people, why, let's just not do it in a way that gives, if you will, propaganda fodder to the Chinese Communist Party to take action that might not be in Taiwan or our interest.

We just have to be careful not to provoke at a time, by the way, where Taiwan is not as, if you will, militarily ready as we might like to see.

And, frankly, we're not as militarily ready as we would like to see in the Pacific.

Our Navy is smaller than it should be.

Some of our systems are not up to date.

So let's let time pass before we decide to, you know, poke an angry -- a potential adversary.

>> So a four-star general just a few days ago, Mike Minihan, said that he believed that war between the U.S. and China was likely by 2025.

Can we just, for the record, say that's insane?

>> You know, I don't know that it's insane, but I'm glad that our military makes preparations of that nature.

Certainly, that's not something we should go out and publish and say, "Hey, this is what we want to tell the world."

But for generals to tell their soldiers, "Hey, get ready," yeah, of course get ready, but we don't expect that to happen.

I think that's extremely unlikely.

It's not in our interest.

It's not in China's interest.

But being sure that we are militarily so strong that China would never think about testing us militarily is the right way to proceed.

>> Okay, one more region for you.

We just saw some drone strikes against Iran.

It's become the friend without global limits for Russia.

Perhaps Russia had hoped China was going to occupy that position.

They're not.

But Iran much more of a rogue state.

What can, what should be done by the United States and its allies to try to contain that threat?

>> Well, as you know, one of the challenges is that we've already got crippling sanctions on Iran, and it hasn't crippled them sufficiently to keep them from building their, you know, military.

>> Feels like North Korea.

>> Yeah.

>> They've got a lot of nukes now.

>> There's only so much you can do.

I mean, I think -- You know, I was raised in a time when what said, you know, went for the world.

I mean, we had the power.

Everybody had to, you know, bow to what, you know, we were saying had to be done.

That's just not the case anymore.

We can't get everything we want.

And in this case, we're looking at Iran and we say, "What resources do we have to make it harder for them to supply the Russians with the weapons they're using in Ukraine and to deplete their economy?"

And, frankly, they are depleting their economy, as is Russia, as they're carrying out this conflict in Ukraine.

And it's being done, by the way, at huge cost for them.

And I hope Americans recognize that we're battling two very evil forces.

Iran's force, to a certain degree, through the supply they're providing to Russia, but Russia's force, and we're doing so without shedding any American blood.

It's really quite extraordinary.

And it's very much in America's interest for us to stand with the people of Ukraine and to give them the support, because we're decimating the Russian military, a military which is linked, from an ally standpoint, with China, which is a greater long-term threat for us.

And a peaceful, prosperous world is good for America.

>> Okay, so, last question for you.

It appears that, like, having classified documents in your residence is a perk if you're a president or a vice president.

You sure that if we, you know, sort of take a look in your house, we're not going to find any classified documents, hanging around?

You didn't stash any?

>> I asked my counsel to go through all of my records, and they found the remains of Jimmy Hoffa.

So, other than that, I'm pretty clear.

>> All I can say, I suspect that your garage is larger than Biden's garage.

>> I'm not sure the garage is any larger, but my cluttered files are enormous.

But I have never taken, from a government facility, a classified document, so I don't need to search my files.

I must admit that the sloppiness, the carelessness that we've seen from this president and from the prior president is really disturbing and does not look good on them or on our country and is frankly of a danger to our national security.

>> Well, you heard it here first.

Mitt Romney is not Geraldo Rivera, and we're very glad for that.

Mitt, great to see you.

>> Thanks, Ian.

Good to be with you.

>> Yep.

And just because I know you haven't heard enough about sovereign debt yet, simply put, the money a country owes to its creditors around the world, here are a few more fun facts.

Good old Ben Franklin once quipped... Well, America didn't exactly heed that advice, because never in its history did the U.S. hit the hay hungry.

In fact, the nation ended the Revolutionary War years, the infancy of the United States, about $75 million in debt.

U.S. debt hit the billions by the time the Civil War was over.

It was at $22 billion after World War I. Nowadays, we're talking trillions with a "T," of course, and public debt was at 115% of GDP last year in America.

You don't have to be an accountant to know that is a lot of red ink on that balance sheet.

America isn't alone on Debtors' Island.

Based on the International Monetary Fund's 2021 data on the top-six global economies, Japan leads the pack with debt standing at 221% of the GDP, followed by Italy and then the United States.

United Kingdom comes in fourth, followed by France, and then Germany.

China is probably somewhere in that mix, but the IMF can't say for sure, because, unsurprisingly, Beijing isn't too forthcoming with their data.

And if the COVID pandemic taught us anything, it's that when China pretends a problem doesn't exist, everything works out just fine.

And now to "Puppet Regime," where -- Hold on.

Coming in right now, I am hearing we may have a response to my interview with Mitt Romney coming directly from the Kremlin.

>> Hi, guys.

Vladimir Putin here.

Just strolling hallways of my palace of isolation.

I just watched that interview with Mr. Mitt Romney.

And I have to say, I was very moved by this man -- always.

You know, he saw something in me many, many years ago that other people did not see.

For some, I was just two-bit oil-rich autocrat-in-waiting.

But for Mitt, I was number-one geopolitical foe of United States.

Granted, he could have called me, like, number-one geopolitical genius or number-one geopolitical visionary or whatever, but it's okay, it's okay.

I'll take it.

I'll take it.

You know what they say -- there is no bad publicity.

Especially not in Russia.

I would just throw you in jail.

>> That's our show this week.

Come back next week.

And if you like what you see or even if you don't, but you say to yourself, "Hey, I'd love hair like that senator," check us out at gzeromedia.com.

>> Major corporate funding provided by founding sponsor First Republic.

At First Republic, our clients come first.

Taking the time to listen helps us provide customized banking and wealth-management solutions.

More on our clients at firstrepublic.com.

Additional funding provided by... ...and by...