Read Full Transcript EXPAND
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to “Amanpour.” Here’s what’s coming up.
Israel strikes Damascus in a serious escalation in Syria. Former British spy chief John Sawers explains what’s at stake and the wider global
context.
Then is the world in a trade war yet? Do foreign governments know what concessions Trump wants from them? Amid confusion over tariffs and
deadlines, former White House economic adviser, Jason Furman and Global Financial columnist Gillian Tett join me.
And later —
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. WES MOORE (D-MD): The way you win elections is by actually doing what you say you are going to do, and that’s exactly what we’ve done in the
State of Maryland.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: — a Democrat stands up to Trump’s challenges as his national profile grows. Michel Martin speaks with Maryland Governor Wes Moore.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I’m Christiane Amanpour in London.
Fighting is intensifying again inside Syria after Israel launched a powerful series of airstrikes on the Capitol Damascus. The IDF claims the
strikes are part of a commitment to defend the Druze and Arab minority, which has been loyal to Israel. But Secretary of State Marco Rubio says the
U.S. is very concerned and they’re trying to de-escalate the situation.
And as conflict in the Middle East escalates, Russia launched massive airstrikes on Ukraine, which come just days after the White House announced
new military aid including Patriot missile systems, sent via NATO.
President Zelenskyy’s home city was particularly hard hit again. Yet, even as the White House works with Western allies to arm Ukraine, it’s
disrupting trade relations with the E.U., threatening to impose a 30 percent tariff on European goods starting August 1st.
So, to assess all of this, this complicated global landscape let us bring in Sir John Sawers, who served as Britain’s ambassador to the U.N. and as
chief of MI6, the Foreign Intelligence Service. John Sawers, welcome back to the program.
JOHN SAWERS, FORMER CHIEF, BRITAIN’S SECRET INTELLIGENCE SERVICE AND FORMER U.K. AMBASSADOR TO THE U.N.: Christiane, thanks for having me back.
AMANPOUR: Should we be concerned? We should always be concerned. Why is Israel bombing Syria? And does that make any sense given that the United
States, certainly President Trump has met the new leader, they’ve lifted sanctions, they want to — you know, they want to try to move this forward
in a more peaceful way.
SAWERS: I think the Israelis were always ambivalent about the old regime in Syria, the Assad regime. They didn’t like its links with Iran, but they
were quite comfortable with the way that they had a deal about how to manage their mutual border. And so, when the Assad regime fell, the
Israelis, they were concerned about what might follow, but their response has been not to see a consolidated Syria, but to try to fragment Syria.
Now, I don’t —
AMANPOUR: This Israel?
SAWERS: Israel.
AMANPOUR: To try to fragment it.
SAWERS: Fragment.
AMANPOUR: Which is everybody’s worst nightmare.
SAWERS: Well, you would have thought that was the case. I don’t actually believe the Israeli line that they are intervening in in Southern Syria in
order to support the Druze as if they have concerns about the Druze. The Druze are Arabs, they’re Muslims, they are a part of the network of ethnic
groups and religious groups inside Syria.
What Israel is looking for, I think, is a fragmented Syria. One which is weak and divided, a bit like Lebanon has been for much of the last 40
years, a bit like Somalia has been. I think as a miscalculation myself. I think one of the good things that President Trump has done in the Middle
East was lift the sanctions on Syria after he met Ahmed al-Sharaa, the president of — at least interim president of Syria. I think it’s in all
our interests to have a single government in Syria.
Now, al-Sharaa has a dubious background. We all know he started as a jihadist, as a — with connections to Al-Qaeda, but he’s been doing and
saying the right thing for much of the last six or eight years. And I think it’s important that we back him. I don’t think the Israeli actions were at
all helpful.
AMANPOUR: So, why would — I mean, you mentioned Lebanon, you mentioned Somalia. I mean, two prime examples of — well, certainly, Somalia for a
long time, maybe it’s still categorized, but as a failed state, and it brought Al-Qaeda, Al-Shabaab terrorism to the world. Lebanon, which is on
Israel’s border, you know, has had Hezbollah there. Why on earth would they want to recreate something like that?
SAWERS: Well, that’s a question you’d have to put to Israelis. But the — I think the Israelis are concerned that they might have an Islamist
government on their borders who might allow for attacks over the Golan Heights. I don’t think there’s any sign that that Sharaa is interested in
that. Indeed, he’s even talked about his commitments to have a normal and friendly relationship with Israel. And there’s been some speculation that
he might join the Abraham Accords.
Now, all that is something which I think the Israelis would try to work on. But they’ve got in their mind that they can somehow control Syria by
working with the Kurds, working with the Druze, working with the Alawites, and working with the Christian elements inside Syria in order to weaken the
power of the central government.
And I think that’s misguided and wrongheaded. But I think that’s what’s driving their calculation of destroying Syria’s armed forces and backing
militias like the Druze militias in the south.
AMANPOUR: They say they hit a Syrian ministry of defense —
SAWERS: I saw.
AMANPOUR: — facility. But here’s the thing, Secretary of State Rubio has been quite prominent. A lot of lines came out of the State Department today
about — they were concerned about this. They’re working to de-escalate it. They think they will de-escalate it. What can the U.S. do? I mean, can do a
lot, right, or can it not?
SAWERS: Well, the U.S. has got a lot of influence over Israel. It can certainly hold back the Israelis if President Trump and Secretary Rubio so
decide to put some pressure on Israel. I think Israel has, obviously, had a terrible experience in October, 2023. You know, and it’s fought back very
effectively.
But one of the risks with Israel is that they overreach, they overplayed their hand. And having got to a strong position, having done serious damage
to Hezbollah and Hamas, having weakened Iran and exposed Iran’s vulnerabilities, having seen the back of the Assad regime, I think they now
need to look at what their medium, longer-term interests are and allow a new Syrian government to take control, which can take control of the whole
of the country and not to break it up into ethnic fragments.
AMANPOUR: You know, a lot of analysts say that Israel may be good at military and that intelligence, but generally, doesn’t marry it to politics
and to an end game and a day after strategy. And that is particularly being, you know, leveled at them regarding Gaza.
SAWERS: Yes.
AMANPOUR: Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, former Secretary of State, has said recently and others have that essentially Israel achieved what it
could achieve against Hamas, the legitimate, you know, degradation of Hamas after October 7th this time last year, and that they could have gone into a
U.S.-backed, you know, and regionally-backed proper ceasefire that would benefit Israel, the Palestinians, the region, and they just didn’t.
So, I don’t know whether you are aware, but a very, very deeply reported New York Times investigation in the last several days essentially showed
how Netanyahu had at one point thought that he could get a ceasefire and an end of this war with Hamas some six months in, but pressured by his
coalition and also by his own survival chose his own survival in terms of politically and chose not to go to jail if he was found guilty under the
criminal trials that he’s under.
What do you make of that and what’s been allowed to happen in the intervening year?
SAWERS: Well, I think, first of all, Prime Minister Netanyahu is a very skillful politician. He’s kept himself in power on and off for almost 30
years now in Israel, and he’s had a long spell at the helm. He is — he has personal political interests that tied up in this. As long as he’s prime
minister he’s not going to be held to account in the Israeli courts for some of the allegations and charges that have been made against him.
I think he’s also knows that his legacy is seriously tarnished by 7 October. And he wants to redress that and correct that. And as I say, I
think there’s a sense of Israeli hubris that’s developed over their military successes and undoubted intelligence successes. Not only one has
to hand it to Mossad —
AMANPOUR: Except for on October 7.
SAWERS: That — well, that was a Shin Bet failure, I think. But the Mossad had been extraordinary in their penetration and reach around the region,
and especially in Iran.
AMANPOUR: Sorry, Benjamin Netanyahu, according to this article, refused to entertain the, intelligence you know, concerns that were brought to him by
the military intelligence and others just before October 7th. But anyway —
SAWERS: Well, I think there was a failure of the entire Israeli system. I don’t think you can pin all of that on Netanyahu, although Netanyahu has to
take his share of the blame for what was a catastrophic failure of the Israeli security system.
Now, so quite where the balance lies, it’s hard to get inside the head of a politician as to exactly what is — what factors are in their mind. But I
do think that the end of the war in Gaza brings obvious political problems for Netanyahu because of his choice of coalition partners in Ben-Gvir and
others on the far-right.
So, it probably would lead — the end of the war probably would lead to early elections. And Netanyahu, like many other politicians, isn’t going to
entertain elections until he has a decent chance of winning them. And the elections don’t have to take place for another 15 months, I believe that’s
the case. Autumn next year. So, we’ll see how it goes. I mean, you can’t blame a politician for acting politically.
AMANPOUR: No, but you can raise questions about —
SAWERS: You certainly can.
AMANPOUR: — the cost and the cost in lives in Gaza. I mean, every day you’re looking at —
SAWERS: I know.
AMANPOUR: — shoot to kill, you know, from the IDF and those who are meant to be patrolling this humanitarian center. You’ve got nearly 60,000 people
dead, you know, a lot of them, children and women. And what —
SAWERS: Sorry.
AMANPOUR: Just for the Palestinians on a humanitarian level, and they’re under siege in terms of humanitarian aid, but also for Israel’s reputation
and the rest of the region.
SAWERS: Well, I, as you know, Christiane, I share many of your concerns on this and those of your listeners. I think the Israeli operations in Gaza
have been relentless. They’ve been of questionable legality in the measures that they’ve used. They seem to have lost a strategic purpose. And the way
in which the humanitarian effort there has been militarized, I think is a very bad move indeed. And the recklessness with which Palestinian civilians
are being killed is incomprehensible, really.
So, a lot of things are going wrong there. I think the efforts that have been made by the U.S. administration, by the Egyptians, the Qataris, and
others, in order to create a new ceasefire deal between Hamas and Israel, I think that is that is welcomed. Let’s see if it succeeds.
But in the end of the day, there are 2 million Palestinians living in Gaza. They’re not going anywhere. And they have to be allowed to have some sort
of decent standard of life in what is otherwise going to become, you know, a closed encampment and a closed prison for these people.
AMANPOUR: I’m going to — if I have time, I’ll ask you a couple more on that. But just about Ukraine. So, here you are in — you know, we’re in
Europe-ish. And —
SAWERS: Britain is still part of Europe.
AMANPOUR: Yes. OK. Just not the E.U. In any event. As Trump said, post- Brexit was handed sloppily, I think you’ll agree, handled sloppily. But what do you make of this fanfare around what’s being described as a Trump
U-turn on weapons to Ukraine, when, if you just look at it, it’s actually weapons that are being bought by Europe from the United States to give to
Ukraine? Just your view on the messaging around it and also the effect that it will have.
SAWERS: I think President Trump is gradually coming to understand what many of us have felt for the last two or three years, which is that
President Putin in Moscow has a very single and serious ambition to subjugate the entirety of Ukraine to the Kremlin. He’s not interested in
just 20 percent of the territory. It’s not an issue of territory. It’s about the issue of whether Ukraine could be allowed to be an independent
state.
And I think President Trump initially came in with some sort of almost respect and admiration for President Putin, you know, smears of influence,
that big powers should dominate their region and so on. But he’s beginning to realize just what a lethal — the monomaniacal figure that President
Trump — President Putin is. And I think the move to agree to more weapons being supplied to Ukraine is a welcome one.
Now, we’ve known for some time that that President Trump and his supporters in the Republican Party are very averse to providing more money, more
congressional provision for arms for Ukraine and Europeans are prepared. You know, Europeans have always given more money than the United States has
to Ukraine, but there are certain categories of weapons which are beyond Europe’s capacity to produce. And these include the air defense missiles,
it includes some of the longest-range attack missiles into — that can be used into Russia.
So, the fact that Europeans are paying for this, obviously, it’s not ideal. Why shouldn’t Americans be paying for the aid that they’re giving to
Ukraine? But nonetheless, it’s better that the military support is being given than it wasn’t before. So, it’s an important step both in terms of
President Trump’s understanding of the reality on the ground there and in terms of support for the Ukrainian government.
AMANPOUR: So, this understanding is coming incredibly late because we’ve had six months of his administration where no weapons were going in terms
of — you know, he put a stop on them. Some trailing from the Biden administration, but then there was a pause and we’ve had seven months in
the previous year during the election campaign when he stopped the Republicans from agreeing to send weapons to Ukraine.
All of this means that for some 13 months, Ukraine has been essentially fighting with his arms behind its back. And Russia, as we’ve seen, I mean,
we just have to look at the TV, just have to be in Kyiv to know, has upped the ante massively and still thinks it can win. I mean, Putin still thinks
they can win.
So, you’re the former intelligence chief and you stay very current. What do you think we’re going to see in the next month or so on the battlefield?
SAWERS: First of all, I think we have underestimated Ukrainian resolve and determination. And innovation as well. I mean, three years ago, no drones
were being produced in Ukraine. This year, somewhere between 3.5 and a half and 4 million drones have been manufactured and deployed by the Ukrainian
Armed Forces. That’s a massive uplift of their own defense industry. And there is a real determination on the part of Ukrainians to stand up to
Russia.
This has not led to the collapse of Ukrainian nationalist feeling. On the contrary, it’s reinforced. It is a defining moment in Ukrainian’s national
story, which will last for generations to come. Now, in a war of attrition, the bigger more populous wealthier power is more likely to prevail, which
is why European countries, NATO countries, have been so strong in their support for Ukraine, because if Russia does succeed in Ukraine, then who’s
going to be next? Where is Putin’s ambitions going to take him to next?
Now, Ukraine, in some ways, is in a category of its own, but he really wants to return the situation in Europe back to what it was before 1989,
before the collapse of the wall where the whole of Central Eastern Europe is basically under Russian tutelage. Now, that’s not never going to be
achieved. These are NATO countries now. But if he can undermine and weaken the resolve of NATO, he will do so once he’s finished in Ukraine.
So, it’s really important we stand up for Ukraine. It’s really important that President Trump understands the scale of the stakes involved here.
It’s not just about the Donbas and Crimea, it’s more than just the 20 percent of the Ukrainian territory that Russia occupies at the moment.
So, quite how it’s going to go, the — I think one thing we’ve seen in Ukraine is that defense is easier than offense. When the Ukrainians tried
to move forward in the summer of, when was it, 2023 —
AMANPOUR: Yes.
SAWERS: — they made precious little progress and they lost a lot of people. Now, the Russians are trying to drive forward in the east of the
country. They’re losing thousands of people every week, thousands of people every week, and not even Russia can withstand that for long.
Now, the Russian economy seems to be performing over the last two or three years rather better than many Western experts had expected under the scale
of sanctions. But the signs are beginning to — signs of strain are beginning to come through in Russia. Now, that’s not going to slow down
Putin, but it might make others in Russia think that this this something where we’ve got to find a way out at some point.
Now, there are no early signs of that, but I think the U.S. administration, I think Secretary Rubio has always had a fairly clear-eyed view of what was
happening on the ground in Ukraine. If the administration as a whole, under the president’s leadership comes to understand that there is no early
ceasefire deal, which will be sustainable, then continued support for Ukraine is going to be an essential part of it.
AMANPOUR: Essential, yes. Indeed. Sir John Sawyers, thank you very much indeed. And now, later in the program, a new set of Trump tariffs are meant
to drop on the 1st of August. Bracing for impact. That’s next.
AMANPOUR: Now, the drumbeat of tariff headlines continues out of the White House. It says, a new trade deal with Indonesia will slap a 19 percent levy
on all goods from that country. A 35 percent tariff threat on Canadian goods comes on the heels of an earlier hours of 30 percent on both Mexico
and the European Union. And critical industries are also targeted, like pharmaceuticals and semiconductors.
For American consumers, the impact of the tariff wars are starting to bite. U.S. inflation heated back up in June, rising to its highest level in four
months. All this as President Trump continues to sow doubt about the future of the Fed chair, Jerome Powell.
And to make sense of it — let’s try to make sense of it with Jason Furman who served as chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers under
President Obama and Gillian Ted, columnist for the Financial Times and provost of King’s College Cambridge. Welcome to the program, both of you.
Let me start with you in the United States, Jason Furman. Are we — actually, I’m going to ask you both. Are we yet in a full-scale trade war?
What do you think? Jason first.
JASON FURMAN, FORMER CHAIRMAN, COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS: It’s a unilateral war for the most part, but the United States has the highest
tariffs it’s had in at least 80 years, potentially further than that. You have to go back to the 19th century if we do all the tariffs that we’ve
promised.
What hasn’t happened on a large-scale so far is retaliation by other countries, whether they are, you know, keeping their powder dry, waiting
for something else, and that’s when it will be a full-scale war.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, Gillian, you are in the other countries, and I wonder how you analyze when it could be or what will constitute a full stage, you
know, war in terms of trade? So, I just want to quote for you, Marta Bengoa, who’s a professor of international economics at the City,
university of New York, said this to your paper, The FT. “Unlike in the 1930s when countries had more balanced trading relationships, today’s world
features a hub-and-spoke system with the U.S. at the center. That makes retaliation economically less desirable for most countries, even when it
might be politically satisfying.”
Is that what’s going on, do you think, Gillian?
GILLIAN TETT, FINANCIAL TIMES COLUMNIST AND PROVOST, KING’S COLLEGE CAMBRIDGE: Well, I think you’re absolutely right. I mean, it’s a hub-and-
spoke system in particular around financial links, the dollar, because the dollar is at the center of these trading links. But the question right now
is, what is the E.U. going to do? Because if the E.U. retaliates after the 1st of August, then I think we really are in a serious trade war. And
transatlantic trade is so important for the global economy, that if that’s disrupted, that’s going to be very nasty.
But right now, the E.U. is trying to play a long game. They’re buying into the Trump always chickens out, the so-called TACO trade that’s been so
dominant in the financial markets until recently. And so, I think the real question now is what is the E.U. going to do and will Trump crack or not?
AMANPOUR: And, Jason, other countries as well, because some have been, you know, described as timid, not daring to respond to Trump and his and his
tariffs, but others have called it economic rationality, given as we’ve talked about the size of the U.S. consumer market and Trump’s willingness
to escalate. Do you think other countries like the E.U. as a bloc and other countries are playing a smart game, and what do you think — what level do
you think will force them to retaliate?
FURMAN: Look, the difficulty any country including our economy, like the E.U. has, is if they retaliated, it hurts the E.U. as much as it hurts the
United States. Modeling of Canadian retaliation showed that it actually hurt the retaliation in Canada was going to do, hurt Canada even more than
it hurt the United States.
Now, you still might want and need to do that to get the United States to change its behavior, but you’re incurring a big sacrifice on top of the
pain you already got from American tariffs. And that is only worth doing if you think it’ll change Trump’s mind. And one country that has been
successful in doing that and getting it to change Trump’s mind is China. And that’s because the world is hub-and-spoke on trade, but the hub is more
China than the United States and they have more leverage than any other country in the world on these issues.
AMANPOUR: That’s interesting. I see you wanting to get in, Gillian, because a lot of this directed at China. Trump is trying to really put the
brakes on China and other countries that might, you know, work with China, so to speak.
TETT: Absolutely. And I’ve got two points to make. The first is that as far as the White House is concerned, they think their strategy is working,
and the reason is this. They’ve now raised the level of revenue they’re getting from tariffs to about 50 billion, which is dollars, which is a lot
more than they’ve ever had for a number of decades. And most countries, thus far, as Jason says, have not retaliated. So, as far as they’re
concerned, they’re bullying the rest of the world into swallowing some of these tariffs without actually imposing tariffs of their own.
Now, as you say, China is the one country which has really stood up effectively to America and essentially forced Trump to back down. Why?
Well, it was primarily because of their control over the rare earth minerals, and particularly the export of magnets that are so crucial for so
many American industrial processes.
And there’s a much bigger story here, which is that if you look at the global system today, China basically has hegemonic power, i.e., dominance
because it controls key supply chain nodes in industry. America has financial hegemonic power, i.e., financial dominance because of the dollar.
And what America’s essentially trying to do is undermine China’s dominance of manufacturing and protect its dollar dominance. And of course, China’s
trying to do the reverse. And so, that is really why China has been able to stand up to America in a way that most other countries have not thus far.
AMANPOUR: So, Jason, then Gillian just laid out and the — basically, the income that the U.S. has taken already from these tariffs, and they’re not
even at full-scale tariffs yet. So, they are sitting pretty and thinking that this working. But you in April warned of the destabilizing effects of
sudden tariff changes, like you talked about enormous shocks. Do you think that could come down the line? Do you think what’s happening right now is a
short-term reaction in terms of income and that something might make it worse for the American consumer, the American economy, and actually the
global economy?
FURMAN: Yes. So, we’re already suffering. Now, it’s not dramatic and apocalyptic, but it looks like in the first half of this year our growth
rate will be something like 1.2 percent. Last year it was about 2.7 percent, so that growth rate is down a decent amount. Our inflation rate in
the first half of this year, excluding the volatile food and energy, looks like it’ll be around 2.9 percent. That was headed to the Fed’s target of 2.
Instead, it’s now headed away from that 2 percent target. And I expect inflation is going to get worse and go above 3 percent before it gets
better.
So, it’s not the dramatic pyrotechnics, but it is a meaningful and noticeable worsening of just about every aspect of what you’d care about in
the economy.
AMANPOUR: So, let me ask you both then, because today all sorts of more shakiness around the future of the Fed chair, Jerome Powell. There’s this
report that the president consulted with Congress, his allies anyway, circulated a letter that he might write about firing Powell. And yet, in a
White House, Oval Office, you know, photo op today, he said, oh, I’m not — you know, at the moment he said, I have no plans to, or whatever. What
effect does that have if he should fire Jerome Powell?
FURMAN: It’s bad.
TETT: Well, it would obviously be extremely bad.
FURMAN: And it could be very bad.
TETT: I mean —
AMANPOUR: Sorry, sorry. I’m going to let Gillian go first and then you. But you both said bad. Go on, Gillian.
TETT: Well, I think both Jason and I thoroughly agree on this. Point is, it would be very bad. And it’d be bad for two reasons. Firstly, Scott
Bessant, Treasury Secretary Bessant, have to sell $9 trillion worth of treasuries over the next year. Think about that, $9 trillion worth. That’s
a bigger sum than most economies in the world. And he’s selling those bonds into really bad conditions, which is that inflation’s rising and people
expect it to go higher. You’ve got the debt exploding. You’ve got — potentially with dollars already weakened quite a bit.
And if people stop having faith that the Federal Reserve is independent, they’re going to worry even more about inflation. So, for the treasury to
see essentially doubts cast on the Federal Reserve’s independence right now is really bad news if they’re trying to sell treasury bonds.
And the second problem is that what’s happening right now with the tariffs and all of this chatter around the Federal Reserve is creating a cancer of
uncertainty. It’s not a heart attack. As Jason said, we’re not seeing this — the economy stop because of the tariffs, but what you’re seeing is this
cancer of creeping uncertainty about whether investors can trust what’s happening in terms of the Federal Reserve, whether businesses can trust
that they know what the outlook is for tariffs.
And that’s a very subtle, pernicious problem that I think is going to hang on the U.S. economy for a long time.
AMANPOUR: Jason, I want to get your take. You said bad as well. Can the president even fire the chairman of the Fed? I mean, how does it actually
work? I thought it was an independent body.
FURMAN: He can’t fire him without cause. The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed that, but they would argue that there were a set of causes.
Those causes I think are complete pretext. Things like the cost of a building renovation, have nothing to do with the real reason being fired.
My hope is the Supreme Court would reinstate him. But there’d absolutely be a lot of uncertainty about it.
I also agree with everything Gillian said, and perhaps I’m about to make a mistake here. I think Donald Trump is rational enough that he’s not going
to actually do this. Because yelling at Powell, talking about 1 percent, that’s bad for the economy, but it’s good for something else he’s trying to
do, which is lay the predicate that if anything goes wrong in the economy, he can blame Jay Powell and say it wasn’t Donald Trump’s fault.
He fires Powell not only do bad things happen in the economy, but he owns those bad things to a much greater degree. So, I think in some ways the
best thing for him politically is to have Powell there and be able to blame Powell, and that’s why Powell will stay there through the end of his term
in May of next year. But, you know, with Donald Trump, who knows?
AMANPOUR: OK. So, what about the idea — we’ve talked about the economic, the trade, all, what Donald Trump believes about this topic, but when it
comes to Brazil, for instance, he’s threatened now a 50 percent tariff on all Brazilian goods. Talked a little — talked about, you know, the trade
reasons for it, but also it’s a political reason that he’s said.
I mean, he’s talked about how he thinks the current Brazilian government and the judicial process is, quote, “unfair” to his pal, the former
president, Bolsonaro, that he’s on a witch hunt against Bolsonaro. I mean, where does this end then? I mean, when you watch from afar, Gillian, do you
see — well, what do you think about that? Because that’s ideological and political and not about necessarily trade.
TETT: Absolutely. And to my mind, this really is the epitome of what people are calling geoeconomics, which is really about the idea that
economics is no longer king and it was — as it was for the last 50 years, where people thought that economics drove politics, not the other way
around.
Instead, it’s politics driving economics. And all these different things like trade and finance and military issues being jumbled together, and
we’re seeing that very clearly in their dealings with Brazil.
AMANPOUR: Let me just play this before you jump in, Jason, because Trump spoke to CNN’s Kaitlan Collins about this. Here’s what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAITLAN COLLINS, ANCHOR: How do you justify putting tariff on Brazil if they have a surplus with the United States?
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: We out to do it because I got to — because I’m able to do it. Nobody else would be able to do it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: I mean that’s pretty stunning. First of all, she pointed out correctly that the U.S. has a massive trade surplus with Brazil. And he is
like, well, only I can do it.
FURMAN: Yes. Look, there’s a lot of people who are like, what is the one reason Donald Trump loves tariffs? And there’s not an answer to that
question because there’s not one reason. He likes them because he thinks the world is zero sum. He likes them because he thinks other countries pay
for them. He likes them because he thinks they’re a way to achieve his geopolitical goals. He likes them because he thinks they’re going to lower
trade deficits.
You know, most of those are mistakes and wrong understanding of the world. But fundamentally, he likes tariffs. He just really, really likes them.
And, you know, can barely let a day go by without wanting to make news by talking about a new tariff.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, in our last little question I want to ask you both, because also, the overarching reason, according to President Trump and his
economic team, is to bring back manufacturing and, you know, the sort of old way the — it was done in the United States. The economist, Pietra
Rivoli, recently told the United States that — sorry, The New York Times that yes, she thinks tariffs are bad. She doesn’t agree that the rest of
the world is ripping off the United States, but she also thinks that there is some logic, some industries could be tempted back to the United States.
I think she talked about pharma and all the rest of it. So, Gillian, what do you think could be onshore again in the U.S.?
TETT: Well, here’s the issue that everyone should ask themselves, if Donald Trump using tariffs as a strategy to re-industrialize America or
just as a tactic to try and create leverage to force other things to happen? And the answer is he’s using it for both. But insofar as it’s a
strategy to re-industrialize America, you can say that actually an industrial policy might make sense if you believe that America has been
hollowed out. But tariffs are just one component of a bigger industrial policy. The other elements you need are workforce training, infrastructure,
investment, loans to kind of businesses and sectors you wanted to encourage. And right now, we haven’t seen the other elements of a serious
industrial policy, and that’s the biggest problem in my mind with this whole approach.
AMANPOUR: And I guess, Jason, to you. Do you see the ability of — well, what’s your response to that part of the Trump goal, to bring back those
kinds of industrial factories and things?
FURMAN: Yes, I very much agree with Gillian. Let’s say we want a drone industry here in the United States because we think it’s important to the
future of war. Doing some combination of tariffs on imported drones, subsidies for drone factories, and paying for research on drones would make
a lot of sense. But right now, we see tariffs on things like bananas and coffee that have nothing to do with American industrial recovery.
We see tariffs on things like copper, which we’re going to have a really hard time making at scale in the United States, but a lot of industries
really need it. So, when the cost of copper goes up, it actually hurts American industry.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
FURMAN: And then at the same time, on legs two and three of that stool, the investing in those particular industries and doing the research that
underlies them were moving in the wrong direction.
AMANPOUR: All right.
FURMAN: So, this not the way it’s being done in effective industrial strategy.
AMANPOUR: And we’ll see how the American consumer responds if it all does go in the direction that it might do. Jason Furman, Gillian Tett, thank you
very much indeed.
And we will be right back after this short break.
AMANPOUR: Toughen up. Those are the stern words of former President Obama to his fellow Democrats in the wake of President Trump’s unpopular domestic
policy bill. As the Democrats search for their way forward, Obama implored his party to stand up for the things that you know and you think are right.
And Maryland Governor Wes Moore is committed to doing just that.
In his state. He speaks to Michel Martin about how he’s going to be doing it.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, Christiane. Governor Wes Moore, thank you so much for talking with us.
GOV. WES MOORE (D-MD): Thank you so much. Great to be with you.
MARTIN: So, Governor, obviously, we wanted to talk to you. You’re highly visible, you’re the first black governor of Maryland, but you are also in
such close proximity to the nation’s capital that you’re experiencing what a lot of people are calling the Trump triple whammy. So, why don’t we start
with just the whole economic picture.
Maryland, by the state’s own numbers, lost some 3,500 federal positions earlier this year, which is a big number in a state where nearly 7 percent
of the working population is or was federally employed. So, how are you thinking about this moment? How are you thinking about navigating this?
MOORE: There’s no doubt this a really challenging moment because Maryland has a greater level of exposure to these federal cuts than any other state
inside the country. You know, you mentioned I have over 260,000 federal jobs, federal employees in the State of Maryland, over 160,000 federal jobs
within the State of Maryland.
So, when we’re talking about things like cuts to the NIH, when we’re talking about cuts to social security, you know, these aren’t just real
institutions that serve people within our country, these are oftentimes Marylanders who are now losing their jobs. And so, we’ve just been having
to be very aggressive and very thoughtful about ways we can support our federal workers. And, you know, we were the first state in the country to
announce the platform called the Feds to Eds, which is basically saying if a person is a laid off federal worker and they have an interest and also a
skillset to become an educator, to become a teacher in the State of Maryland.
Then we were going to streamline that process, cut the red tape, get them inside of classrooms. And already we’ve seen that even in these first
months, that initiative alone has been able to cut about 10 percent of our teacher shortage that existed in the State of Maryland. That we’ve been
working with our private sector partners to be able to identify how can we make sure that those skills that Marylanders utilize can actually fulfill
their needs as well.
And thus far, we’re really proud of the results where Maryland is one of the fastest job growth rates in the entire country. That our unemployment
rate right now is 3.2 percent, which is more than a full point lower than the national average. So, I’m really proud that Maryland has really helped
to meet this moment despite the fact that the relationship between the federal government and our states has really been severed.
MARTIN: The other thing about Maryland, it’s a very diverse state. I mean, it’s got urban centers, but it also has rural areas.
MOORE: Right.
MARTIN: These Medicaid cuts that have — that are part of the president’s sort of big tax and spend bill, you know, the Republicans don’t call it
cuts, but everybody else calls them cuts because, you know, these work requirements — the working assumption is that these work requirements will
cause certain people to be dropped from the roles and also just the reimbursement rates. I mean, it’s a very technical issue, but the concern
is that hospitals, particularly in more rural areas, will not be able to make it. Is that a concern of yours?
MOORE: It’s a very real concern. And this a devastating hit, particularly to our rural hospitals. And you’re absolutely right. The number one
industry in the State of Maryland is agriculture. And so, rural supports, rural hospitals are crucial to our economic growth and our economic
advancement in addition to our healthcare.
And, you know, I was actually just recently out in the eastern shore of Maryland speaking to folks because we just finished making historic
investments in rural hospitals, both in the eastern shore and also in Western Maryland.
And despite the fact that we, on the state level, my administration, just made historic investments in rural healthcare, we’re now seeing that the
Trump administration is now proposing cutting about a quarter of a billion dollars from Maryland’s rural hospitals. So, this not even an inconvenience
for our rural healthcare industries, this an existential question that you have for many of our hospitals, and that means, does a person have the
ability to get not just specialized care, but just basic primary care? Do they have a chance to get that without having to travel an hour and a half
to go get it?
And so, there’s a deep level of unfairness that exists in this — in the way the that this bill was structured and it’s going to have a significant
impact on rural communities.
MARTIN: Is there anything that you could do about it? I mean, some states are obviously trying to develop kind of a rural health fund. In fact, there
is an element of that in the bill that does offer some support for rural hospitals. But it’s — it sounds like a big number. It’s about $50 billion,
but it’s nowhere near the amount that actually would be cut. It’s like about a third of that amount. So, that — again, that’s arithmetic, not
calculus. So, is there any way for the state to make up that difference?
MOORE: Well, you just said it best. It’s arithmetic, not calculus. I mean, that fund that was being proposed is almost offensive. When you look at
that in comparison to the cuts that are then going to happen to rural healthcare. And the truth is, is that there’s not a single state to include
Maryland that has the resources to be able to make up for when the federal government just the size to cut themselves out of a process. When the
federal government basically looks at all of our states and says, you’re on your own, and looks at the American people and says, you’re on your own.
And so, this this damaging. And we are getting creative. We will continue to be thoughtful. And as we say in the State of Maryland, we leave no one
behind. Yet at the same time, there is no state that has the balance sheet to just simply make up for when the federal government decides that they’re
no longer willing to engage.
MARTIN: The Maryland State House minority leader and about 20 GOP legislators describe the fiscal 2026 budget as a massive tax and spend
budget, and he says that any attempt to couch this as a tax cut budget is just inaccurate. How do you respond to that?
MOORE: I say it’s accurate because numbers don’t lie. I say that 94 percent of Marylanders either just got a tax cut or saw no change in their
taxes at all. The majority of Marylanders, middle-class Marylanders actually just got a tax cut, and the numbers are irrefutable.
And the people who we did ask to invest more, frankly, the overwhelming majority of anyone who saw a tax increase we’re millionaires. And I do not
have an issue. And we worked with everybody across the economic spectrum. I do not have a problem asking millionaires to pay a little bit more so we
can invest in having the best public schools in the country, that we can pay a little bit more to invest and so we’re not laying off police officers
and not laying off firefighters. And we’re continuing to lead one of the fastest drops in violent crime anywhere in the United States of America.
And so, the — you know, I prioritize the middle class. And if you look at what happened on the federal side, you know, with the Republican budget,
that budget prioritized millionaires. And it literally is the largest consolidation of wealth in world history. That’s what they just passed,
giving millionaires a tax cut so they could cut benefits for working families.
And so, in Maryland, I’ve just decided that we are going to move differently than that, that we are going to actually make sure we’re giving
the middle class a break, that we’re going to give working families a break. And yes, we are going to ask people who have done very, very well to
be able to invest a little bit more so we could have the type of society that each one of us can believe in, and each one of us can benefit from and
that (INAUDIBLE) —
MARTIN: Sorry. Forgive me, Governor, is the calculation here that whenever the tax increase is in Maryland is going to be offset by the tax cut on the
federal side? So that the higher earners — or basically it’s going to be a wash? Is that part of the calculation here?
MOORE: Well, the thing we know is that in this most recent budget in Maryland, you know — also, there’s about two and a half billion dollars’
worth of cuts in Maryland’s budget. You know, I’m the first governor now in over a decade to actually have three straight years of decreasing the size
of the general fund, basically decreasing the size of state government. And this the largest cut to the state budget that we’ve seen in 16 years.
So, we’ve shown a very real measure of discipline and modernization and frugalness when it comes to how government is spending. Yet at the same
time, you are absolutely right that the people in Maryland who are being asked to invest a little bit more are also the ones who the Trump
administration just said, and here’s more money. Here’s your tax cut.
MARTIN: There’s always the question of there’s what the numbers show, and then there’s what people feel.
MOORE: Yes.
MARTIN: Is your argument that these investments, as you consider them, are spending, as the Republicans would say, are going to improve the quality of
life in Maryland to the point where people will feel it? Is that your argument?
MOORE: They — absolutely. And I think they already have, where you are now seeing, for example, in public education, where our fourth — our third
grade reading scores have jumped 20 states since I have been the governor, that we have now seen how public safety and violent crime has had amongst
the fastest drops in our state’s history, that we’re seeing population increases in Baltimore City. You’re seeing the largest population increases
that we have seen in recent history.
And so, I think we are showing that you can be an efficient government, you can streamline, you can focus on modernization, where one of the first
hires I made as governor was I actually hired both a chief innovation officer and focusing on modernization. And really focusing on streamlining,
cutting costs, cutting waste, fraud, abuse in a humane way.
And so, I think people in the State of Maryland are seeing that our investments are actually working, that our strategy is actually working.
And yes, at a time when the federal governments is forcing increased prices on everything for working families, we believe that working families and
middle class families actually deserve a tax cut.
MARTIN: So, let’s talk about that homicide drop in Baltimore. I mean, the city recorded just 68 homicides through June, the lowest in 50 years.
That’s like a 23 percent drop from just the first half of 2024. Now, obviously, you’re not the mayor, you know, of Baltimore. But what do you
attribute that decline to? What do you think was the state’s role in this?
MOORE: Well, I think, you know, the state played a really important role, especially when it came to coordinating with our local leaders and the
mayor and the state’s attorneys and local law enforcement. You know, we made the largest investments in local law enforcement in our state’s
history, that we’ve invested in predictive analytics and technologies to be able to stop crime before it happens. And if someone commits a crime,
particularly with a violent crime with a handgun, I want them in handcuffs in 24 hours.
And we’ve been able to invest in community intervention groups and stop retaliatory violence. The most violent year recorded in Baltimore’s history
was 2022, the year before I became the governor. Now, the least violent year in recorded recent history is now 2025, two years into our
governorship. And so, we’ve been able to fundamentally break the back of violent —
MARTIN: That sounds like a correlation, not a causation. I’m asking you what’s the cause?
MOORE: Well, I think the cause is that we’ve actually started working together. And so, we put more boots on the ground. We’ve invested in local
law enforcement. We’ve been able to invest in technology, that we’ve been able to put — we’re one of the few states that actually puts capital into
the U.S. attorney from balance sheet that we’ve been able to focus on juvenile justice reform and be able to have real focus on supporting and
elevating our youth and focus on issues of poverty and employment.
And so, I think we’ve been able to take an all the above approach to include the fact that we’ve been able to put, you know, additional $15
million into the Baltimore Police Department. Those type of things do make a market impact. And I think you’ve been able to see where we have gone
from in 2022, the most violent year in Baltimore’s history to essentially now having the last time the homicides rate were this low in Baltimore
City, I wasn’t born yet.
And you’re seeing it not just in Baltimore City, you’re seeing it all across the State of Maryland. So, it’s really encouraging results, but we
also just know we’re not done yet.
MARTIN: Before we let you go, what do you see as your role right now, particularly at a time when Democrats on the whole nationally are not that
happy with their leadership? They don’t feel that they’ve taken an aggressive stance in addressing the things where there are strong
disagreements with the Trump administration. Many people don’t think they’ve been effective in opposing things with which Democrats profoundly
disagree. Do you see yourself as having a particular role right now? What do you think it is?
MOORE: Yes. I mean, I think my role is to do what we’re doing, which is delivering results for the people of Maryland. That’s why they elected me.
They did not elect me to revive the Democratic Party. They did not elect me to be able to, you know, talk about things that are — should be happening
in other places. They elected me because we could do things like have record drops and violent crime. They elected me because we could have
things like record drops and unemployment. They elected me because we could focus on making Maryland the first state in the country that now has a
service year option for all of our high school graduates. And as you mentioned earlier, that we could, you know, be able to accomplish a
clearing of the federal channel after the key bridge collapse in record speed.
I think the people are seeing that in the State of Maryland and with our — in my administration, we don’t do no and slow. We do, yes and now. And we
make sure we’re providing real opportunities to provide pathways to work wages and wealth for the people of our state. And so, the fact that people
around the country are paying attention to the results that we’re driving in the State of Maryland is very humbling. And I deeply appreciate it.
I also just know that the way you win elections is by actually doing what you say you are going to do. And that’s exactly what we’ve done in the
State of Maryland.
MARTIN: Who do you like for President 2028 as a Democrat? Thoughts?
MOORE: I think right now for anyone who is who is paying attention to 2028, it means you’re not paying attention to 2025. We’ve got real issues
going on right now. We have essentially a full assault that’s taking place from our federal government on the people of our state, on our federal
workers, on families with disabilities, on our seniors, on our students.
And so, I think anyone who is paying attention to what’s going to happen in 2028, they’re not paying attention to what’s happening right now in 2025.
MARTIN: Is this job what you thought it would be?
MOORE: I love this job. I love this job because it’s — you know, having a chance every single day to make policies that you have thought about,
dreamed about, and have a chance to see them in action is really exciting. And again, we spend all of our time out in communities, out in
neighborhoods all over the state, Western Maryland, the eastern shore, everywhere in between. And to see the people of our state knowing that they
have a fighter and excited because they have a fighter as their governor is just very humbling.
MARTIN: Governor Wes Moore, thank you so much for talking with us.
MOORE: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And finally, one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Lift off. We have a lift off. 32 minutes past the hour.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And that was Apollo 11 blasting off 56 years ago today. It was the first ever moon landing in history. Neil Armstrong’s momentous first
steps on the moon, of course, made history. And he was joined by Pilot Buzz Aldrin shortly afterwards. Astronaut Mike Collins stayed on board manning
the command module that would bring them all back to earth. But that didn’t dent his own experience. Here’s what he told me in 2019, two years before
he died.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MIKE COLLINS, APOLLO 11 ASTRONAUT: The question that is usually asked me is, were you not lonely, the loneliest person who had ever been on a lonely
voice around the moon and the lonely orbit you were isolated and your lonely thoughts? Weren’t you terribly lonely? And I was just amazed by
that. I thought, no, I was no way lonely. I felt very much a part of what was going on with Neil and Buzz. I was their ticket home.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Indeed, he was in space. Collins also found himself mesmerized by the view of the blue marble that we all live on.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: At the time, I was really not able to explain that to myself. I know we’re the third rock out from the sun, but I felt an overriding
quality of fragility about the earth as I looked at it. I can remember somewhere along the line, I said, hey, Houston, and I’ve got the world in
my window. And I’m very conscious of that. And I think that’s a feeling the world in your window, your window, Christiane, everyone’s window.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Indeed, a beautiful feeling. That is it for now. Thank you for watching, and goodbye from London.
END