April 17, 2025

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to “Amanpour and Company.” Here’s what’s coming up.

Could chaos from Trump’s trade war cause a major global realignment? I asked Kurt Campbell, architect of U.S. China policy under Presidents Obama

and Biden.

Then, “A State of Rage.” A new documentary looks at how Palestinian and Israeli children are impacted by occupation and conflict on the West Bank.

And Michel Martin speaks to two American entrepreneurs about how tariff uncertainty disrupts their business and their lives

Welcome to the program, everyone. I’m Christiane Amanpour in London.

This stark warning on terrorists from the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank chair, Jerome Powell, sent stocks tumbling today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JEROME POWELL, FEDERAL RESERVE CHAIR: The level of tariff increases announced so far is significantly larger than anticipated, and the same is

likely to be true of the economic effects, which will include higher inflation and slower growth. Both survey and market-based measures of near-

term inflation expectations have moved up significantly, with survey participants pointing to tariffs.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: This kind of intervention is rare from a Fed chief and Trump was quick to attack the messenger. Powell’s termination cannot come fast

enough, he posts. But countries around the world are asking a fundamental question, is it in our best interest to align more closely with China or

with the United States?

The Wall Street Journal reports, the Trump team led by the Treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, is using tariff negotiations to pressure allies

to limit trade with China. While China seeks to position itself as a force for stability and peel business away from the United States. China may be

pushing on an open door, as economist, Mark Blyth tells the New York Times, the whole world has decided that the U.S. government has no idea what it’s

doing.

Kurt Campbell helped guide China policy — China-U.S. policy through multiple administrations, and was deputy secretary of State under Joe

Biden. He joins us now for his first interview since leaving government. Kurt Campbell, welcome back to our program. It’s a long time we — since

we’ve spoken.

So, what do you think about this big strategic picture that the Trump administration appears to be thinking about as reported by The New York

Times, to gather its trading partners and to essentially, I don’t know what the right word is, gang up or isolate China, you know, and make it come to

the negotiating table? What do you think is that a possibility?

KURT CAMPBELL, FORMER U.S. DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE: Christine, first of all, it’s great to be with you. Thank you so much for having me back on the

program. Thank you for raising the pressure of my first interview, but I’ll do my best to not let the side down.

Look, the first question that every government or representative asks me is, does the Trump team have a larger plan as sort of a strategic approach?

And I think it is fair to say, in many of these circumstances, they’re sort of playing it as it goes. I’m not sure they had originally decided that

part of the negotiating plan with allies and partners would be to pressure them about their trade or their economic relations with China. Most of the

focus, as you know, have been about the bilateral relationships between these countries and the United States and trade imbalances there. And so, I

think these negotiations that are just beginning.

I do want to underscore the idea that you can complete 90 negotiations or even 10 or 15 in 90 days is just remarkably challenging. Some of the

negotiations that we’ve had on trade with countries and partners, like with Japan, Christiane, the so-called SII talks, the strategic impediment talks

of the 1980s and the 1990s, what looked at why it was difficult for American exporters to penetrate the closed Japanese market, those

negotiations went on for years.

Now, I think there is some incentive to move more quickly now, but at the base of this is that, unfortunately, many of the countries that we would

count as our closest partners right now, Japan, South Korea, Europe, Austria, they’re all feeling the heat and they have as many questions now

about Washington as they do about Beijing, and that’s not in our strategic interests.

AMANPOUR: OK. But in terms of the question about the Trump administration’s apparent strategy, yes, you say that, and we’ve seen them

punish allies as well as adversaries with these tariffs. We’ve got the Italian prime minister in the White House today talking on behalf of

Europe.

But is it a smart idea to get trading partners to, I use the word gang up, but I’m not sure what the right word is, against China, who the U.S.

considers, as you know, to be involved in unfair trade practices, et cetera, and thus force China? Because China seems to be doing the same

thing. It’s going around to its allies in the region and even reaching out to E.U. and all the rest of it seeming to want to do the same thing, say,

come to us. We’ll be trading partners in this climate.

CAMPBELL: So, look, Christiane, I think there are some critical issues in which coordination and close alignment between the United States and

partners is essential. Technology, advanced areas like A.I., quantum computing, synthetic biology, you can go down the list. I think those areas

require much closer engagement between the United States and its partners, not only to advance certain technologies, but to restrict the flow of

certain technologies to China.

I think those are appropriate areas of engagement. And there are other strategic elements, strategic minerals and the like, where organization of

the partners is essential. But to go beyond that, to sort of the normal flow of economic intercourse, consumer goods and the like, I think that’s

going to be harder to get countries and partners to restrict those investments and engagements.

And so, the truth is, Christiane, they are talking about trying to get countries to work with the United States, but we don’t know what the terms

are. We don’t know the subject areas. And so, we’re waiting to see what the initial discussions with Japan, with Italy and other countries, what is the

framing for what the administration is seeking in these bilateral talks.

And in truth, I will tell you quietly, most of the countries that go into these talks find themselves sort of waiting to hear at the table what the

United States is proposing.

AMANPOUR: So, it’s all kind of a surprise to them as well. But China has been very defiant publicly. There’s no doubt about that. President Xi

himself has said things, their foreign ministry spokespeople, and all sorts of independent, you know, analysts and experts with obviously close

government ties, like Victor Gao, who runs a think tank in Beijing. He’s been quite robust on what he’s saying. This is his latest on this issue.

Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VICTOR GAO, CHAIR PROFESSOR, SOOCHOW UNIVERSITY: China is, at this moment of truth again, we are mobilizing all domestic demand, try to accommodate

whatever that could not be sold to the U.S. market. We’re exploring all the possible overseas market to make up for whatever businesses lost in the

U.S. market.

So, eventually, I think, we are faced with a possible situation where trade between China and the United States, both way, will grind to a halt. And

China, U.S., economically speaking, will have decoupling. But what will be the consequence? That will not make America stronger or greater, that will

make the United States probably more miserable.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: Kurt Campbell, he’s raising the real threat of a complete decoupling. You, you know, have sort of treaded a hardline stance in terms

of — under the Obama administration, the Biden administration with trying to deal with China. Democrats and Republicans have a fairly similar view on

what economic threat China poses and even military threat. How bad would decoupling be?

CAMPBELL: Look, Christiane, I do not think either China or the United States are prepared for a full decoupling. And I think the art of the deal

here is to find what elements of commerce are unobjectionable and that you would want those to continue and people to people engagements that — so

that there is appropriate economic and commercial interaction between the United States and China, and restrict those areas that have true national

security significance.

I think the point that you’re getting at, Christiane, is this, that there are no two countries that are frankly today more interdependent than the

United States and China across every possible vector, manufacturing, finance. Look at how many treasuries the Chinese hold in American dollars.

But at the same time that there is this deep integration that has been built up over decades. Again, in everything, in pharmaceuticals, in

manufacturing, in agriculture. At the same time, both countries are deeply uncomfortable with that interdependence and are seeking to ease it in

various ways, but that process takes time. It is challenging given, you know, the mutual vulnerabilities.

And so, I think what’s happening right now, I do not believe either China nor the United States seeks a full out economic crisis. But I also think

that neither side knows how to climb down right now, how to create the venues for appropriate dialogue.

I think we know in the last couple of days, the United States, you know, told China that President Trump would be prepared to accept a call from

President Xi. That’s a hard way to get dialogue started just at the very top with no clear parameters about what either side would discuss.

So, I think the key is to find those lines of communication that allow for, you know, feeling each other out in terms of what’s possible and then build

towards more high-level engagement. I think that’s the challenge right now. And it’s not clear that either side is prepared to take those steps. Steps

that are frankly essential for the global economy.

AMANPOUR: Yes. So, as if the global economy wasn’t important enough, there’s another huge macro picture as well, and that is increasingly being

talked about overseas for sure, who’s going to lead the world order, the next world order that comes out of this?

CAMPBELL: Yes.

AMANPOUR: And we hear reports from China, even some from Russia, who seem to be thrilled that the United States seems to be shooting itself in the

head, and potentially, certainly, we’ve heard that from a former conservative British prime minister who says any sort of cozying up with

these adversaries and distancing from allies just makes Xi and Putin, quote, “dance a jig.” And they think that they are, or at least certainly

China, which is the big hegemon, will replace American leadership, that they see the decline of America. They’re only too eager to facilitate it.

And you’ve written, Washington would be particularly unwise to go it alone in a complex global competition. By retreating to a sphere of influence in

the Western hemisphere, the United States would cede the rest of the world to a globally engaged China. Discuss.

CAMPBELL: Christiane, look, let me just say that I think, over the course of the last several years, it was China’s overreach, it was Xi’s tendency

to use hard power with neighboring countries and other players on the international stage that, frankly, alienated some of China’s natural

interlocutors.

And I think it was the United States that tried to build allies and partnerships and innovative new gatherings like the Quad. I think the hope

is and the belief is that the challenges are so enormous that the United States is better off working closely with allies and partners. And frankly,

I put Europe, first and foremost, in that everything that the United States has ever done of significance on the global stage we’ve done with Europe,

but also, the connections between Europe and the Indo-Pacific, Japan, Australia, South Korea, increasingly India, these countries, I think, want

to partner with the United States, it has undeniably become more difficult under President Trump.

The hope is — and look, there are still lots of issues that are yet to be worked at in the Trump administration, and there are a number of

traditional Republicans who believed fundamentally that strong allies and partners is the key ingredient in sustaining American power in a complex

and increasingly challenging world.

Now, I don’t know where the Trump administration will ultimately land, and like you, I’m troubled by some of the language we hear coming out of

Washington about Europe. But the hope is with more engagement, more dialogue with allies and partners, they will understand the stakes and the

strategic significance that the United States cannot afford, Christine, to go it alone. We don’t have the power, we don’t have the capacity, we don’t

have the markets.

And so, this next six-to-eight-month period for the administration, frankly, is going to be central as they conduct all these negotiations and

try to position themselves globally.

I will say, and again, we all have an interest in a degree of success here. I am struck at how many actors, internationally and domestically, the Trump

administration is reaching out against as opposed to trying to bring on board.

AMANPOUR: Well, look, I mean, you know, as a European it’s hard to hear that we are pathetic and freeloaders and all the rest of it, given the

amount of cooperation that Europe has had over the decades with the U.S.

But — so, on the diplomatic side, and you were deputy secretary of state and you see that Secretary of State Rubio is talking about, or at least

their reports, that the administration is looking to close nearly 30 embassies and consulates around the world. Rubio announced he’s shutting

down the State Department office that battles foreign disinformation. We’ve seen that.

And I just want to play this really interesting soundbite from James Mattis, former general who was Trump’s first defense secretary. This, he

said, you know, years before he was in the Trump administration, but it was about diplomacy versus the military. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAMES MATTIS, THEN-COMMANDER, U.S. CENTRAL COMMAND: If you don’t fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition ultimately. So,

I think the — it’s a cost benefit ratio. The more that we put into the State Department’s diplomacy, hopefully the less we have to put into a

military budget as we deal with the outcome of an apparent American withdrawal from the international scene.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: So, right now, Rubio and others, Witkoff, the special envoy, are in Paris meeting President Macron and basically trying to, you know,

discuss the whole — well, many things I’m sure, but also the Ukraine- Russia situation.

So, when you see how many diplomatic crises and challenges exist on the horizon right now, what do you think would happen if that number, and we

don’t know where, of embassies and staffing and various consulates are cut back?

CAMPBELL: Look, Christine, those reports affect me and concern me more than just about anything else. Like you’ve indicated, I’ve had the honor of

serving a couple of different times at the State Department. These are some of those patriotic tremendously determined and dedicated individuals I’ve

ever worked with. And the idea somehow that this agency is not working to support American interests and has to be tamed or cut back, I just think is

just flat wrong. And I worry that the kinds of cuts that are being discussed would, you know, pose just a devastating hit to an institution

that always struggles, I think as you know, financially.

If you look at the various bureaucracies, Christiane, the Pentagon really is an institution and our intelligence agencies almost on steroids. They

have a lot of support, bipartisan. The State Department, we do have our supporters on Capitol Hill, but almost always its budgets are a little bit

on life support in comparison.

And so, it always struggles. And I think the most recent reports of cutting way back in Africa and Europe are not going to be in American strategic

interests. My hope will be that determined bipartisan actors on Capitol Hill and elsewhere will make clear that these are not simply decisions that

the executive branch can take and that there are other agencies and actors that have a say in these decisions. And I think you’re beginning to see key

voices on Capitol Hill speak up about sustaining American purpose internationally.

AMANPOUR: OK. So, that brings me to a little bit of — something that Senator Lisa Murkowski said that has gone viral.

CAMPBELL: Yes.

AMANPOUR: Because you’re talking about people speaking up. Many people say it has to be Republicans. You know that Senator Marco Rubio, as a senator,

was much more a traditional Republican when it came to foreign policy than he is now as a Trump secretary of state.

But here’s Lisa Murkowski talking about the difficulty of speaking up, especially if you’re a Republican here.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. LISA MURKOWSKI (R-AK): We are all afraid, OK? It’s quite a statement.

But we are — we’re in a time and a place where, I don’t know, I certainly have not — I have not been here before. And I’ll tell you, I’m oftentimes

very anxious myself about using my voice because retaliation is real. And that’s not right.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: Right. Well, I don’t know how much you were able to hear of that. It was subtitled, but basically, she says, we are all afraid. She

herself says she’s very anxious about using my voice because retaliation is real. But then, she goes on to say, I will use my voice in the right lanes

and in the right way. How — what’s your gut reaction to that?

CAMPBELL: I mean, it concerns me about the American system, and I can tell you that, you know, I spent a lot of time in my previous incarnation at the

White House and the State Department meeting with key partners on both sides of the aisle, Christiane, up on Capitol Hill, in the Senate and the

House, talking about American pursuits internationally. I didn’t find any of those guys lacking in courage or having any hesitation about being

direct with me.

And I just — I think maintaining that voice is going to be central. I would also just underscore, and this is something that I don’t think is as

well appreciated, much of what we’ve done with allies and partners, really the topics that you’re discussing, our China play, how we’ve engaged allies

and partners, has had a remarkable amount of bipartisan support over the last four or five years. True engagements on both sides of the aisle, on

technology policy and efforts that we’ve tried to do in terms of, again, working with allies and partners militarily, strategically, and

diplomatically.

Increasingly, the Trump approach is somewhat different than both the Democratic and Republican approaches. And the hope will be over time where

there are growing concerns. And I agree with Senator Murkowski, who I think does a fine job not only representing Alaska’s interests, but helping us

think particularly about our responsibilities in the Indo-Pacific.

I do believe behind closed doors there are people that are feeling that they have to speak out more, and I think we’re seeing signs of that. I

cannot believe the American system is facing a situation that a powerful extraordinarily accomplished senator, like Senator Murkowski, feels fear to

speak out, that’s not something that we can be comfortable with.

AMANPOUR: Yes. She says she continue — she will continue to. Kurt Campbell, thank you very much indeed for joining us.

Now, to the crisis in the Middle East where Israel’s ban on humanitarian aid in Gaza leaves children malnourished and clean water

scarce. Defense Minister Israel Katz has said the siege will not be lifted because it is, quote, “one of the main pressure leavers preventing Hamas

from using it as a tool with the population.”

Just a note, it was similar talk of starvation of Gaza civilians that landed then-Defense Minister Yoav Gallant with an indictment from the

International Criminal Court.

Today, with Gaza’s buildings in rubble, Israeli forces are targeting tents, carrying out deadly airstrikes on displacement camps in the north and the

south. Israel is also applying so-called Gaza tactics in the occupied West Bank.

The U.N. reports that almost a thousand Palestinians were killed there since October 7th, the Hamas attack there, a large-scale military operation

named Iron Wall has left thousands more homeless now.

Now, a new documentary called “A State of Rage” aims to put a human face on all of this through the eyes of children on both sides of the conflict.

Here’s a bit of the trailer.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): Come on, surrender yourself.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): Come to the garbage, to the garbage.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): I sometimes dream and suddenly someone comes and stabs me. And then, I am martyred.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): Hands up.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: The director is Marcel Mettelsiefen. He joins us now. And you’re in Ecuador. We’ll talk about why in a second. But you are, you know, in

your — continuing your program of exploring the world through the eyes and the experiences of children. So, tell me what drew you to the one that

we’re talking about, “A State of Rage.”

They basically, I’ll just put it out. Jana and Heba are two 10-year-old Palestinians in the Janine refugee camp and in the settlement, Khavat

Gil’ad, Renana and Naomi are two sisters. And you focus quite a lot on the older one, Renana. It’s really interesting to see it from both sides. What

— how did you choose them? What brought you to this place?

MARCEL METTELSIEFEN, DIRECTOR, “A STATE OF RAGE”: Thank you for having me, Christiane. Yes, it was, I think would be fair to say it’s one of the most

difficult and complicated films of my career. When October 7th happened, the terrible attack in Israel, I was here in Ecuador actually working on my

film I’m doing right now.

And I immediately thought I need to go to Israel. And I arrived I think on October 25th, means there have been 15 days after — about 15 days after

the attack, and I needed to decide where to go, what to do. Over a thousand journalists been already in the country gaining access to the hostage

families. And I thought, OK. I’m not able to go to Gaza. I going to look into the other — to the West Bank where nobody’s looking.

And I think if the — this country, these two people want to have something called a future, they need to find a way of coexistence. So, I said, OK,

let’s go and look into the most extreme parts in the West Bank, which is on the Palestinian side is the three areas which are controlled by the so-

called armed resistance against occupation, which is Jenin, Tulkarm and Nablus refugee camps.

And I decided to go and look into Jenin because of different reasons. It’s small enough in order to be able to walk around, and I very quickly met

Jana and her family context, father, somebody who’s, yes, afraid that the – – especially his son is picking up arms. And you have this loving grandma. And they’re living amongst, yes, the 20,000 people within this refugee

camps surrounded by funerals every day, demonstrations and yes, in the context of pain, hate, and rage.

On the other side, I decided, OK, whom can I follow there? And I very quickly said, OK, I need to look as well on the most extreme part the scale

of the Israeli population and — which are the separates. And I was much harder to gain access. And it took me a while until I got to have Khavat

Gil’ad, which is the post next to Nablus where I met Yael (ph).

AMANPOUR: Yes.

METTELSIEFEN: Mother of five.

AMANPOUR: Yes. So, the —

METTELSIEFEN: And it was —

AMANPOUR: Yes. I just want to interrupt you because I want to play some of your soundbites that you got from them. It’s actually both extraordinary

families. And the settler family, the father, Rabbi Rael Shaak (ph), was killed in a terror attack in the Northern West Bank in 2018. And you talked

to the daughter and the mother. But we’ll get to — let’s talk about the kids first. Here is what — here is what Renana, the oldest sister, the

oldest daughter of this rabbi who was killed tells you about October 7th and how that affected her. Here’s what she says.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

RENANA (through translator): Since October 7th my opinion hasn’t changed too much, but it has sharpened. Up until now, I thought they were heartless

people, bad people with no manners. No forgiveness. None of them are innocent. Anyone of them could get up one day and decide to kill and they

would do it. They are cannibals.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: So, extremely upset, extremely angry, hate-filled, fear-filled. Now, I’m going to play this — the young girl. On the Palestinian side who

she’s there standing on rubble, the sisters — oh, I think they’re sisters. They are basically standing in front of a poster of a dead Palestinian

militant. Here’s what one of them says.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): God chose him to die a martyr. God loved him and chose him. He will be at the gates of paradise. He’s in a

better place. For sure. We must defend ourselves and fight them. We shouldn’t remain silent while they kill us. We should stand, even as little

ones and wage jihad for the sake of God. Every little child should carry a weapon and resist and fight them.

The whole Al-Katiba battalion was killed. No one is left in (INAUDIBLE). But we will always resist. Even though we’re young. This is our country and

there is no war that we will leave. We will never give up.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): God willing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: Wow. I mean, both of them are so powerful. Both the Israeli and the Palestinian kids who you profile is so powerful. I guess, it’s very

dark. Did you see anything other than that, anything else from those kids? Was there any hope or do you think it’s baked in?

METTELSIEFEN: Well, look it’s a film, which is it’s a dark film. I normally try to look for the light and the darkness. I — for hope. And

I’ve been struggling. I went back and forth for nine times over a year trying to see if there is something beyond hate, beyond rage. I tried to

use the word rage hoping that there is still, yes, the way to stop all this. And that’s basically where it lands.

The clear message, a simple message that it needs to stop now because otherwise, the scale of this violence, of this spiral violence just going

further and further, because that’s what it’s interesting with this families is that both families Yael (ph) and mothers of the settlers and

the father realizes that this is a young generation, which is just becoming more radicalized.

And none of those two set of children chose where to be born. And yet, they are shaped by this — by the context where they live in. And in a very

unbalanced conflict we have to really understand this, that it’s not a balanced situation. It’s an unbalanced conflict. One of these groups are

occupied and not able to choose anything and the others are able to choose and deliberately choose where to live.

But I think, for me, it was very important to say, I’m not comparing victimhood, I’m not comparing the two realities. What I do compare and what

I try to show is the mechanism of this anger, the mechanism of radicalization through the eyes of girls, not boys. Again, something I

deliberately try to look for, because otherwise, you would immediately say, well, why should I care for these boys who are going to become the next

terrorist or —

AMANPOUR: Yes, that’s so interesting. Yes, yes.

METTELSIEFEN: The settler violence with be there as well.

AMANPOUR: Yes. That was really interesting to see those girls and also the mother, as you say, the Israeli mother, Yael Shaba (ph) who says, or you

say that she’s an immigrant from Paris. And she’s been thinking since October 7th more and more, as she says, in the film about the environment

in which she’s raising her kids. And here she’s talking, in your film, about what’s kind of changing her thought process. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

YAEL SHABA (PH) (through translator): I think what awakened for me all of a sudden, I was aware of living here surrounded by people I don’t know,

people with whom I don’t share a language. I don’t know their culture.

I look at myself intellectually and think, how do I raise children this way? Who aren’t aware of their surroundings? Who don’t ask questions about

who’s next to them? And who don’t want to know, even worse than being unaware they don’t want to know.

For me, I need to recalibrate because I hasn’t noticed this before. I want to pay attention to it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: It is really interesting because it’s very introspective and she becomes more and more introspective and very different to the tone of her

young 16-year-old daughter. I found that really an interesting observation because the parents can see what’s happening and how their kids or the next

generations will be radicalized one way or the other.

METTELSIEFEN: Absolutely. Now, Yael (ph) is an extraordinary character and so is as well the grandmother on the Palestinian side. For me it was —

well, the amount of dehumanization, especially from the settlers’ side towards the Palestinian, something I was not prepared for and I did not

expect. And it was actually Yael (ph) who surprised me, and that’s why I picked her, because I thought to pick somebody who is absolutely without

limits, radicalized, what’s the point?

I — and I was looking for something which just gives an arc of development. Although it’s obviously naive to think that there is something

which changes from one day to the other, but it’s a process. And I think that’s what I tried and that’s why I struggled to find a landing point. And

we reduced it to this very, very, very simple message of enough is enough.

AMANPOUR: Yes. And as you mentioned on the Palestinian side, the father of the boy, you know, the brother of these two girls was very concerned that

he shouldn’t, this young boy, grow up as a militant or anything like that. And the grandmother, as you point out, was incredibly loving and trying to

shield the girls.

What — you know, you are doing another film on kids in Ecuador. You’ve done, you know, kids under the Taliban and elsewhere. What is the common

thread? What are you finding in Ecuador right now? What did you find, you know, in Afghanistan?

METTELSIEFEN: Well, what I’m trying to do is always trying to find this little microcosmos and tell the bigger context through the strong

characters I’m able to gain access to. And here in Ecuador, I’m in a country which used to be the safest place in Latin America, one of the

safest countries in Latin America. And since COVID, it became the most dangerous country in Latin America.

My mother is from Ecuador. I’m familiar with this country and we do have now a new president, Noboa, who is likely as — Bukele trying to fight

violence with even more violence. And I think I’m doing a film here right now which shows how far can a country go in their quest to fight evil. And

I think that’s when it starts to become, again, very universal.

And through the children, obviously, it’s the next generation. We are in times where everything is so divided, so polarized, and I think the lack of

dialogue just fuels the incapacity of — put ourselves in the shoes of the other, of the — and this just creates this split more and more and more.

And I think, yes, going — finding this kind of strong characters and children’s, obviously, something which is a challenging and sometimes quite

effective.

AMANPOUR: Very effective. And the whole idea of being able to see the story of the other, especially through children’s eyes, is fundamental. We

look forward to your Ecuador film and thank you so much, Marcel Mettelsiefen, for joining us.

And in Europe, you can stream “A State of Rage” right now, including on Channel 4 here in the U.K.

Now, as we have been discussing, President Trump’s tariffs are prompting radical changes for American business owners, like Debbie Wei

Mullin, the founder of a coffee company rooted in Vietnam, and Sarah LaFleur, who owns a clothing brand, which relies on overseas factories.

They speak now to Michel Martin about what this has done to them.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, Christiane. Debbie Wei Mullin and Sarah LaFleur, thank you both so much for joining us.

SARAH LAFLEUR, FOUNDER AND CEO, M.M. LAFLEUR: Thank you for having me, Michele.

DEBBIE WEI MULLIN, FOUNDER, COPPER COW COFFEE: Thank you so much.

MARTIN: So, the reason we called you both is that you have been affected by these promised threatened tariffs. Both of you are entrepreneurs, you’re

— both of your businesses are established. So, before we get into that, why don’t you just start by telling us why you’re in the business that

you’re in. Debbie, why don’t you start?

MULLIN: So, I started Copper Cow Coffee as the first premium Vietnamese coffee company, and it’s a real homage to the way I grew up. My mom is from

Vietnam and I’m really passionate about all things Vietnamese cuisine, and think that Vietnamese coffee, which is the second largest coffee producer

in the world, was really not seen in the U.S. market and really wanted to elevate Vietnamese coffee as a way to bring development to Vietnam.

MARTIN: So you had a mission. It was, it was about the coffee, but it was also about what you could do through the coffee company.

MULLIN: Exactly. So before I worked at, at – before at Copper Cow Coffee, I worked at the World Bank focused on international development and how to bring better economic opportunities to Vietnam.

MARTIN: Interesting. Sarah, what about you? You also have a story that you’ve shared on your website about why you started your business.

LAFLEUR: Yes. I started my business back in 2013. I myself actually don’t come from the fashion world, but I was a management consultant. I found it

very far hard to find good practical but fashionable clothing for professional women. Women on average spend two more weeks per year getting

ready for work versus men. And I really wanted to tackle that challenge.

I was — I partnered with my co-founder, Miyako Nakamura, who came from a high-end fashion background. And our goal has always been to provide, you

know, luxurious fabrics, luxurious manufactured clothing to hardworking professional women.

MARTIN: So, Debbie, Coffee isn’t really grown in the United States, is it? I mean, maybe in Hawaii, right, in Hawaii?

MULLIN: Yes.

MARTIN: But not in the continental United States.

MULLIN: It’s only a fraction of what the U.S. consumes in terms of coffee consumption.

MARTIN: But you couldn’t have the kind of coffee company you have with outsourcing it from Vietnam, right?

MULLIN: Absolutely not.

MARTIN: OK. So, how did you — did — when you first heard that Vietnam was on the schedule of tariffs, and in fact, Vietnam was one of the

countries that was originally supposed to be hit with one of the highest tariffs at like 46 percent, do you remember what went through your mind?

MULLIN: Just complete shock, to be honest. As I’m sure you’re aware, we’ve been suffering through a coffee crisis for the past year and a half, and

with double coffee prices already having to adjust the business to that has been a complete whirlwind. And so, I think that we were really particularly

surprised not only because it’s coffee, which the U.S. primarily doesn’t grow, but also Vietnam really does admire Trump and has been really willing

to concede to whatever demands that he wants. They are really cooperative with him.

So, I think that we went into the tariff — the idea of tariffs being relatively a lower possibility for Vietnam and for coffee. And so I think we were really shocked to be on the, the, the high upper end of what they were.

MARTIN: What would this do if, if, if the 46% tariffs were to hold, what would that, how, how would you absorb that? I mean, what, what would you do?

MULLIN: Honestly, the, the direct to consumer business side is a little bit easier. People are coming to your website. You have real estate to really explain the dynamic. You can instantly change your prices to accommodate these changes. The hardest part is that half of our business today is actually in retailers where it takes a minimum of six months for us to do a price change. And also, we have no idea what that’s going to do with our position, with the company– with, with these, with these clients.

And I think that’s what’s really hard is that Vietnam, the kind of coffee that we grow is much easier to grow. It’s much easier to grow organically. There’s a lot of advantages of what we’re doing for the coffee space to make it more sustainable and much more affordable for organic coffee. And it’s really, it’s, it’s incredible the how much, how much work is being completely basically leveled from these tariffs. In terms of our avail, our ability to make affordable, organic, great tasting coffee no longer, no longer applies with these tariffs that they were to come through.

MARTIN: And I wanna come back more also to your mission with this. I mean, you say on your website, you actually pay these farmers twice what the market rate is. And and why is that? Because you wanna raise the living standards.

MULLIN: Yeah. And it’s also just because the kind of coffee that Vietnam grows is robusta coffee, which is historically not been treated as well in its processing and its cultivation. And we’ve proven that if you, if you put much more care into the processing and the way that it’s grown, it can create a delicious cup of coffee. And not only that, it really can make it a very much more sustainable through organic farming ’cause it’s so much more pest resistant.

What’s been really hard is that we’ve done a lot of also investment into the farms, into the processing, into the manufacturing to make organic and the grade of coffee that we have possible on the premise that it will be much cheaper in the long term for our customers to have organic coffee and the tariffs erode those savings. Right. And so then no longer are we gonna be a competitive, a competitive product with what we’ve been working on for the last several years.

MARTIN: Sarah, let’s go to you. You you, you’re a New York based company. So, you know, New York used to be, it’s still a fashion capital, but a lot of the fashion shoes, clothes are manufactured in China. Why is that?

LAFLEUR: When we started our business, we actually did manufacture in the garment district right here in New York City.

And even compared to when I started the business in 2013, the garment district has shrunken dramatically. We manufactured a lot of our clothes until 2017 in New York City. And really as the business grew, which was wonderful, we, we had no choice actually, but to leave a lot of our partners in New York City. And, and at the same time, they were also losing business. And so they were starting to shut down. And so really, I, I wanna say since 2018, we’ve been mostly a hundred percent, you know, manufacturing overseas.

China has been just a, an amazing source of manufacturing. Their skill level is so high. The, the, the craftsmanship you know, it takes really generations to, to create good sewers. You know, everyone thinks that that clothing, oh, you know, some part of it must be automated. And, and yes, there is some machinery involved, but every single thing that you are wearing, someone is sitting behind the sewing machine putting those fabric, pieces of fabric together. And that’s not just a skill you can develop overnight. You know, even some of the best sewers in New York City who still remain, they’re in their seventies and they don’t have anyone to pass it down to. And so I think China does have that craftsmanship. They have that level of skill. And honestly, when we move some of our manufacturing out to New York from out from New York City to China, we were surprised by the level of quality that we were getting.

MARTIN: The argument the administration is making is that the, the whole point of this, they say is to reshore these industries.

How long would it take in from your experience to reshore your operations, assuming it could be done in a way that, that you could sustain your business.

LAFLEUR: It’s obviously not impossible. It would take a ton of infrastructure from the government. We, the – even the factory spaces that you see in the garment district are tiny compared to the, you know, tens of thousands of square footage that you have in factories in China, in Vietnam. And then you’ve got generations of, you know sewers training the next generation. So of course, all of this is possible. It would take enormous resources. And, and also we need to think about how we actually, you know, transport those goods. And so that’s infrastructure at, again, at a different scale. Do we actually have the, the, the tanker ships to, you know, get things over from, I don’t know, New York to, to different parts of the country or trains? I, it’s, it’s, it’s kind of I, you know, I’m, I’m not an economist, but to me that sounds like a lot more money. It has been total chaos with our partners both in Vietnam and China, but specifically in China. My May collection has 90% evaporated overnight because we cannot afford to bring in goods from China.

MARTIN: Wow.

LAFLEUR: You know, the night before –

MARTIN: Wait, lemme understand this. You literally have a collection that you cannot afford to bring in.

LAFLEUR: Correct. I mean, from a cashflow perspective too, I think that’s the other thing people don’t quite understand when they say, well just raise prices. Yes, of course we could raise prices and, and, you know eventually perhaps the customers will cover the cost of the tariff. But if you think about the duty, that is actually the tariffs that we have to pay to the government, we pay that the moment our goods hit the United States border. So from a cash perspective, that’s, that’s an outlay that we are making to the US government. And without certainty that the customer is actually going to be willing to take on those price increases.

MARTIN: Debbie, you were saying that one of your intentions was to improve, you know, standards of living in, in Vietnam, but also to improve the quality of the, the product. And in so doing, you know, improve people’s lives. What are you saying to the farmers that you, you work with?

MULLIN: I haven’t had a chance to talk to the farmers directly, but I’ve talked to, we, we, we coordinate with really amazing co-ops in Vietnam and talking to their leadership. I mean, I think that they’re incredibly stressed out. You know, I think that this is some– they, they see Vietnam and Vietnamese coffee becoming this really exciting space in the US and how that’s a huge opportunity for them to, to have access to much higher rates, if they’re able to cultivate their coffee a certain way. It’s a, it’s again, a really wonderful thing for their farms to be able to eliminate chemical pesticides and for, and fertilizers and to be able to get a premium for that effort in, in the US market. And I think that it’s, it’s, it, I think everybody’s just really sitting on the edge of their seat wanting to see what is the number going to be, you know, if it’s, is it gonna be 10? Is it gonna be 46? Is it gonna be zero ’cause coffee becomes exempt? We, we really have no idea what’s going to happen and know that what what we’re facing is not being taken into account in, in, in this trade war. And so we have to really, really be able to plan whatever, whatever happens to the businesses.

MARTIN: Sarah, if you can’t afford to bring these these goods in, what’s gonna happen to the company?

LAFLEUR: That’s a really good question. Honestly, I, I’ve been grappling with just what the reality looks like for my business. You know, I think in times of chaos, the advice that I’ve gotten is, move slow. And I think right now things are changing so rapidly. You know, one moment it’s 47%. The next moment it’s 150%.

I don’t actually know what this means. I’m, I’m just trying to take it one step at a time. You know, we are raising prices, we know that we’re doing that. I have already cut costs. And I will probably have to cut some more. I am rejiggering entire collections. I’m now trying, you know, literally in the office next door, I’ve got Portuguese partners who I’m, I’m trying to woo because you know, the tariffs in Portugal are gonna be better than the tariffs in China. It, it is just like a complete upheaval.

I hope my business survives. In fact, I should say, I know my business will survive. You know, COVID was one of those moments where it was so devastating and I didn’t know if we would make it through. And somehow we magically, we magically did through, through the team’s exceptionally hard work. And, and it is one of those moments again, where I’m looking at my team and I’m saying to them, it’s, it’s gonna be another hard, gosh, two, three years. Will you fight this with me? So that’s, that’s what we’re facing right now.

MARTIN: Just a few days ago, the administration decided to exempt certain products from these tariffs, mainly, you know, electronics. And I, Sarah, when you heard that, like, what, what went through your mind? Did you feel, did, did you feel some kind of way about that? Like why that and not this?

LAFLEUR: I mean, I, my honest reaction is I felt angry. You know, I think people with direct access to the White House and that people who have the ability to lobby they, they will get special privileges and advantage that, advantages that small businesses like myself won’t. You know, we are a, a, a small, small business in, in the context of the US economy, but I think it’s also important to remember, US small businesses make up 45% of the country’s GDP. We are not the ones making electronics. We are the ones making clothing, making coffee, engaging in, in agriculture, you know, and, and we’re a really, really important part of the US economy. But we are not capable of, of, of actually making, I think our, our voices heard in a way that the US government will understand.

MARTIN: Debbie, what about you?

MULLIN: I echo everything Sarah says, and I think that additionally, you know, I, I work in food and beverage and I know how much the hyperinflation that Americans have experienced has been so, so detrimental to their everyday life. And I think that this, these tariffs are going to just exacerbate that so much, whether it’s for the raw goods or the packaging or so much of the stuff that, like Sarah said, it’s just the, the US is not, not prepared to be able to, to make everything that the, that Americans have become accustomed to consuming. And to, to be, to be doing this, especially on top of the coffee crisis, I think is something that is just really hurting, especially a lot of coffee is our small businesses. There’s so many small coffee businesses out there, and how we’ve already been suffering so much from, from climate change, from a lot of the things that have been affecting our market. And that these tariffs are just gonna make things so much harder for us, for us smaller players in the market.

MARTIN: The president’s kind of theory of the case as it were, is that, you know, short-term pain for long-term gain. So, so Debbie, and in your case, there’s, there’s really no way you can, you can’t reshore the coffee business from —

MULLIN: No, we can’t. We’re not gonna, I’m not gonna buy farmland here and plant trees and wait for them to, to harvest them five years later. I don’t think that that’s something that the US is in a position to even do. I, I think that it’s been, it’s, it’s one of these things where it feels, it feels like it could be, like Sarah said, I think we’re just trying to see what it is. ’cause there are levels of tariffs where it’s just, it’s just lethal to, to businesses, to small businesses. And whether that’s cashflow because, or if that’s just because your, your, your customers, your grocery stores are gonna drop you because you’re gonna say you’re gonna have to increase prices by 40, 40%. I mean, I, there, I can’t think of a retailer who would, who would possibly let you do something like that regardless of what the macro environment is. And I think that this is just something that, that is, that – it’s just something we’re, we’re, we’re just collateral damage to, to an argument or a strategy that, like you said, what – the long-term gain for who, and I’m really not sure who that is, when it is kind of, it is going to be those who have the money to lobby for protections against these tariffs. And it’s, it’s just something that doesn’t, doesn’t totally make sense to– from where I’m sitting today.

MARTIN: And Sarah, is there any long-term gain that you can envision here?

LAFLEUR: No. And you know, I think we will, we will find a way. We will, we will survive this. That I think I, I am wondering at what cost that, that’s really the main question running through my head right now. I think one of the things that businesses, you know, any business owner will tell you that, that unpredictability is the enemy of, of, of business growth. And, and I think what we are asking for is really communication with a lot of, of advanced notice and a lot of – from communication, a lot of these challenges could be overcome. There are ways that we can get around it with, with advanced notice, but I think right now that is what is, feels, is lacking. We don’t know what to expect. Every day is, is something different.

MARTIN: Debbie Wei Mullin of Copper Cow Coffee and Sarah LeFleur of M.M. Lefleur, thank you both so much for speaking with us.

MULLIN: Thank you so much.

LAFLEUR: Thank you so much.