Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with BFMTV Senior International Correspondent Thierry Arnaud; Interview with Director of the Instituto Affari Internazionali and Foreign Policy Adviser Nathalie Tocci; Interview with The Vaccine Alliance Gavi CEO Dr. Sania Nishtar; Interview with Geopolitical Strategist Tina Fordham, Interview with "Chokepoints" Author Edward Fishman. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired March 31, 2025 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
France's far-right leader, Marine Le Pen, found guilty of embezzlement and barred from running in the next presidential election. How the ruling is
upending French politics.
And as a top vaccine official is forced out of the FDA, is the U.S. at war with vaccines and what could be the global impact? I speak to Dr. Sania
Nishtar, CEO of Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance.
Also, ahead, Wall Street sinks as the world braces for the next phase of Trump's trade war. What's next with geostrategists Tina Fordham.
And --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
EDWARD FISHMAN, AUTHOR, "CHOKEPOINTS": Under Trump, we've seen a much more expansive use of tariffs that looks much more like economic warfare and
less like a tool of standard economic policy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- Former State Department Official Edward Fishman tells Michel Martin how Trump's use of tariffs is testing the limits of American power.
Welcome to the program everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
Guilty. French politician Marine Le Pen has been convicted of embezzling more than 4 million euros of European Union funds, which now means she
faces potentially years behind bars, 100,000 euro fine and perhaps more crucially, an immediate ban from running for public office.
Now, this means the perennial presidential nominee will no longer be allowed to run in the next election in 2027 if she is unable to
successfully appeal her verdict, something she has vowed to do.
Now, it's a shock wave for French politics. Le Pen has run for the presidency in every election since 2012 with her support swelling in recent
years. So, what does this mean not just for France or Europe, but for the world? Joining me now on this is veteran French reporter Thierry Arnaud and
Nathalie Tocci, a former foreign policy adviser to the European Union. Welcome both.
Thierry, first, your reaction. Obviously, there had been a lot of buildup and anticipation in this case, and ultimately, the judge's ruling. Were you
surprised, however, with the decision the judge ultimately reached?
THIERRY ARNAUD, SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT, BFMTV: Considering all the elements that the prosecutor put forward initially, the result doesn't
come as a surprise. The question was really whether they were going to take into account political factors and the consequences of putting a person who
is, in fact, the runaway favorite for the next preside presidential election in a position to withdraw from the race because she cannot run
with all the consequences that we are seeing today.
They decided that they would judge the case on the merit. The decision is very severe. As you said, it has an immediate impact, but to me it's not a
surprise.
GOLODRYGA: And does it surprise you though that the party had no real contingency plans, given that we've known now for a few months what the
prosecution was asking for in terms of a leader who would replace Marine Le Pen if, in fact, she could not be the face of the party and run in the
election? As you know, there's a lot of questions as to whether Jordan Bardella has what it takes to lead the party, whether he is experienced
enough at his young age.
ARNAUD: Yes, it is a surprise to some extent, but you have to realize that had she been in a position to work on a plan B and demonstrating that she
was working on a plan B, in a sense, it would've been an admission of defeat before today's decision. So, the course she chose to follow was to,
you know, be determined to saying that she was hoping she was going to be innocent, that she couldn't imagine for a second that she was guilty of
anything and that therefore, the decision today would come her way. You can argue it maybe some sort of denial in a way, but from a political
standpoint, it was, from her perspective, the best possible strategy.
GOLODRYGA: And, Nathalie, no surprise that Marine Le Pen there, we see her walking out before the judge even ruled in the case, no surprise as to what
her reaction has been, and that is calling this a witch hunt. And I say that because that is almost the exact same language that she used
describing a similar case back in 2017, also as a politically motivated attack in an interview with Christiane Amanpour. Let's play sound from that
interview.
[13:05:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: You are being asked, the party, the For National (ph), to repay nearly 300,000 euros to, I
believe the E.U. because of what they're saying is an investigation into fraud, into conspiracy to commit fraud because of two assistants who've
been paid that they're investigating, they're saying that it's not quite what it seems. Are you able to repay nearly 300,000 euros?
MARINE LE PEN, THEN-LEADER NATIONAL FRONT PARTY (through translator): No, not at all. This is a political attack. It's inadmissible. We have been
persecuted by the E.U. parliament. They are our adversaries.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Nathalie, what do you make of that defense?
NATHALIE TOCCI, DIRECTOR OF THE INSTITUTO AFFARI INTERNAZIONALI AND FOREIGN POLICY ADVISER: Well, I mean, I think, you know, this is really part of a
very standard playbook that the far-right has used, which has really seen as the main political opponent even more than other political parties,
state institutions, and in particular the judiciary and an independent judiciary.
And of course, the way of undermining the independence of the judiciary is precisely that of attacking the judiciary, accusing it of being
politicized, right? So, in a sense, it is no surprise that not only that was her response back then but that this will be the response from now on.
Now, of course, you know, as this trial will move into its appeal phase the question really will be whether the judiciary will continue to abide by the
merit, which is what was decided in this first judgment or whether indeed those political considerations will be taken into account. In a sense, it
is no surprise that the assumption was that they would be taken into account because, of course, who was making those assumptions are precisely
forces that don't really, as I say, look at the judiciary as something that really stands aside from politics but is really looked at as a political
instrument.
GOLODRYGA: And, Thierry, the deciding judge here, the ruling judge said this today. She said, she and her fellow judges had weighed the, quote,
"two risks" in their sentencing, the risk of a person convicted for embezzlement being elected for political office and the, quote, "major
risk" to public order if a likely presidential candidate was banned from running.
So, clearly, they weighed heavily on what was at stake here and ultimately still ruled the way they did. But of course, you have party leaders and not
just Marine Le Pen calling this, including Jordan Bardella, calling this an attack of French democracy that is being executed here. Do you think that
this will hold up among her supporters, among the party supporters, and perhaps those who had been undecided up until this point?
ARNAUD: Yes, I think it will. I think the question for her is really more a legal one, I was going to say a legally technical one, whether she can
have enough time to appeal, whether the timetable will allow her to go this far, whether the decision on appeal would be cutting her sentence in such a
way that she would be able to run again. But I think her supporters will be behind her 100 percent.
And you can see that even for those to whom the evidence was clear and overwhelming and justified today's decision, the political ramifications
are a problem and that includes the current prime minister, for example, Francois Bayrou, who is an opponent of Marine Le Pen, but realizes that if
it is not a new position to run, then it is a problem for the way the French democracy is working.
And not only in the perspective of the 2027 presidential election, but let's not forget that we are in a very unstable political environment in
France at the moment. There is no clear majority, and what that means is Marine Le Pen is also in a position to overthrow the government. And she
might decide that as a consequence of what happened today, she will be more inclined to do that.
Now, one of the consequences of today's decision is that she cannot run for any public office. So, not only the presidential election. But if, for
example, you would imagine a scenario in which the parliament is dissolved in the summer and there's a new parliamentary re-election, then she cannot
run for a parliamentary seat as well. So, you see a room for maneuver, it's both limited and quite complicated.
[13:10:00]
GOLODRYGA: And the real test for judicial independence and integrity is not just focused in France. This is a conversation being had in many
countries throughout Europe and here in the United States as well, where you have political leaders really attacking the judiciary personally,
personal attacks, not just traditionally what would amount to an appeal, but going a step further and saying that this was a rogue judge, a witch
hunt, as being described by Marine Le Pen.
And, Nathalie, there's support right away after this decision was ruled upon by some of her supporters and allies in far-right parties throughout
Europe. In Hungary, Viktor Orban posted on X, je suis Marine. Italian far- right leader Matteo Salvini also voiced his support. And even the Kremlin weighing in saying that her conviction showed Europe was, quote, "trampling
on democratic norms." Let's not forget what we heard from the vice president of the United States a few months ago -- or a few weeks ago when
he was in Munich as well, really questioning European judiciary decisions. What are the consequences of this in your view?
TOCCI: Yes. Well, I mean, I think, you know, it will be extremely important to -- and it will not be easy to make certain distinctions. So,
let's just take, you know, two cases, which are, you know, on the surface could look similar, but in practice they're really diametrically opposite.
So, let's take what has just happened in France and what has been happening in Turkey, right, where the main leader of the opposition, the only real
candidate that could actually beat Recep Tayyip Erdogan in a presidential election that is the mayor of Istanbul, Ekrem Imamoglu, has been imprisoned
also on the basis of "corruption," quote/unquote.
Now, it is very clear that whereas in the French case, this is the story of an independent judiciary that rightly or wrongly is so independent and so -
- in a sense not wanting to meddle in politics that it's basically saying we need to look at its case on its merit, right? And perhaps this may
politically backfire because it could actually galvanize support for the far-right, even more, right? We don't know.
And certainly, the case will be made by that far-right, that this is a politically motivated trial as opposed to the case of Turkey where it's
actually the executive power, i.e., it is the presidency that has already politicized the judiciary and is using the judiciary as a politicized
instrument to exclude the opposition from political power.
So, these are two situations which in actual fact are diametrically opposite given the situation and the role of the judiciary in these
respective countries, but the way in which they're going to be portrayed, and as I said, the way they're going to be used to galvanize support for
the far-right is actually quite similar.
GOLODRYGA: Thierry, I'm going to ask you the final question here, and that is from a headline of our own cnn.com reporting on this story and whether
or not Marine Le Pen, who seems politically dead, can the far-right now in France go on without her?
ARNAUD: First of all, I think it's too early to say that she's politically dead. I mean, as I was saying, the path for candidacy is very, very, very
narrow but it still exists and I think she'll try as everything -- to throw everything at it in order to be able to, you know, push through and being
candidate in 2027.
Now, if she can't, the issue will come as to who will be able to take over from her. And then you will see a big fight between Jordan Bardella, who is
officially the head of a party, even though she's really running the show. The more conservative candidates on the right, the likes of Laurent Ruquier
(ph) or Bruno Rotello, which will try to occupy the space that she will have left.
So, there will be a candidate, you know, of that there is no doubt running on the platform that will be very similar to hers. Whether it will be her
or somebody else is the question to be, you know, decided over the next few months and years. But I think the amount of popularity she's been getting,
not only for her as a person, but for her platform or her ideas will -- is here to stay and we will -- will be represented one way or the other in the
next presidential election in France.
GOLODRYGA: But, you know, Thierry, don't count her out just yet. And we will be paying close attention to this story. Thierry Arnaud, Nathalie
Tochi, thank you so much for joining the program.
TOCCI: Thank you.
ARNAUD: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: And later in the show, the Trump administration is turning on vaccines. What this could mean for vulnerable people around the world.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:15:00]
GOLODRYGA: Next, misinformation and lies. Those are the words of the top vaccine official at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration aimed directly at
RFK Jr. Dr. Peter Marks slamming the U.S. Health Secretary for trying to create an environment of what he calls subservience while undermining
competence and well-established vaccines.
Now, this public condemnation comes as the Trump administration continues its assault on vaccines. According to reports, it now intends to terminate
its support for Gavi, an international organization that for 25 years has helped developing countries purchase lifesaving vaccines.
Joining me now on the global impact of such a move is Dr. Sania Nishtar, CEO of Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance. Dr. Nishtar, thank you so much for
taking the time. So, as we note, the top FDA vaccine official, Dr. Peter Marks, was resigned, given two options actually, be fired or resigned. And
he took the latter.
And in his parting statement, he said that the U.S. health secretary is, quote, "undermining confidence in well-established vaccines," which he says
is a, quote, "clear danger to our nation's health, safety, and security."
You are in Washington now, coincidentally, as you're trying to secure funding for Gavi. I'm just wondering your reaction to this news and what
message, if any, you have to health officials who are concerned about the future of vaccines, well-established vaccines for viruses that are now
spreading in this country, and of course, viruses to come.
DR. SANIA NISHTAR, CEO, GAVI, THE VACCINE ALLIANCE: Well, thank you very much for your attention to this matter. We heard a few days ago that there
was a list circulating on which Gavi, The Vaccine Alliance was listed in a category where the administration intended to terminate the contracts. Now,
this came is quite a shock to us because we have enjoyed support from both sides of the aisle in the U.S., including strong support during President
Trump's last presidency.
And in fact, we were looking forward to engaging with the administration to discuss ways of operationalizing the budget, which the Congress approved a
few days ago. So, this news and this list came as a shock to us. It's disturbing, which is why I'm here this week to talk to the U.S.
administration and members of the Congress about the importance of the work Gavi does.
GOLODRYGA: Tell me a little bit more and tell our viewers more about the work that Gavi is doing.
DR. NISHTAR: Well, Gavi vaccinates children around the world. We provide access to vaccines for countries that would not otherwise be able to access
vaccines. Over the next five-year period, we plan to vaccinate 500 million children. And given that the U.S. underwrites around 15 percent of our
budget, if the U.S. pulls out, this means reduced stability to vaccinate 75 million children. This would translate into around 1.3 million deaths of
babies from vaccine preventable diseases.
[13:20:00]
The other important area of our work relates to disease security. Let me explain what I mean by that. If our funding is reduced by 50 percent, this
will reduce our ability to contain outbreaks. Vaccines are the first line of defense against outbreaks because vaccine -- and Gavi maintains the
stockpiles of vaccines. We have the special funding instruments which make money available, allowing us to act very quickly.
And if that ability is watered down, if that ability is compromised, it means diseases like Ebola will reach the United States very readily. So,
these are two very important aspects of our work. And our work also deeply matters for the United States industry. For example, we procure $4 billion
worth of vaccines from the United States over a five-year strategy period. Whereas over the same strategy period, the United States contributes around
a billion dollars. In the past strategy period, they contributed around a billion dollars towards our overall budget.
And on the other hand, we procured $4 billion worth of vaccines. And of -- so, we contribute to the U.S. economy as well. And all these abilities will
be will be reduced if the U.S. funding is pulled out.
GOLODRYGA: It makes perfect sense, Doctor, when you talk about diseases that are in other countries right now, thousands of miles away, really
threatening the United States at some point sooner rather than later if they're not dealt with and eradicated as much as possible in their current
location.
But given that we already have a very serious deadly disease outbreak here in the United States, and I'm speaking of measles, which has had a long and
proven and safe vaccine, readily available. I'd like to quote from you what I just heard from Dr. Paul Offit, a renowned doctor and pediatrician at
Children's Hospital in Philadelphia when I spoke to him in the last hour about Dr. Marks resigning from his post at the FDA.
And here's what he said. He said, Marks knows that the current measles epidemic is much worse than claimed and will likely result in another child
death soon. And his argument is he believes that leadership at HHS doesn't want to hear this.
Are you facing an uphill battle in trying to get funding for Gavi when you see the reaction and the response, or maybe lack thereof at the rate that
it should be to a disease that's already spreading here in the U.S.?
DR. NISHTAR: Well, we don't work in the United States. We work in the poorest countries of the world. And of course, when confidence in routine
vaccination is compromised, families tend not to vaccinate their children. Outbreaks of measles are like a cannery in the coal mine, they basically
tell you that routine immunization is not as effective as it should be.
But I want to tell you the other side of the story. We work with 57 countries, the poorest countries of the world. And over there, we have more
demand from -- for vaccines more demand than what supply can keep up with. Governments realize that this is the best buy in public health. And parents
realize that this is a very important tool to prevent their children from dying needlessly.
I mean, you have to be on the ground to realize how important it is, watching a child convulse with malaria is one of the most heart-wrenching
scenes.
GOLODRYGA: Yes.
DR. NISHTAR: And --
GOLODRYGA: I would imagine. I mean, the reason I asked the question the way I did is I'm curious what you will be saying to U.S. officials as you
are making the case that you are so eloquently making to our audience right now. When you see what's happening here in the U.S. itself, you don't even
have to talk about what's happening in countries thousands of miles away. I mean, we're dealing with a growing crisis in our own country and real
concern about leadership in vaccine skepticism.
DR. NISHTAR: Well, of course we will make a strong case for the importance of vaccines, because vaccines are one of the most important public health
tools. Since the '90s, vaccines have helped save 154 million lives. It's one of the best buys in public health. It's the tugboat for all kinds of
public health activities at the primary healthcare level.
You have vaccines in countries where there is no other facility available. The -- and I'm talking a little bit about our sphere of influence, perhaps
not directly addressing your question. But these two things are interlinked. Vaccines is one of the most important public health tool, and
every country of the world should prioritize vaccination and routine vaccination. And this is part of the reason why Gavi should be supported.
[13:25:00]
GOLODRYGA: The U.S. contributes about 13 percent of Gavi's budget, but it's not just the U.S. that is cutting back on contributions to your
organization. We're also seeing the United K -- the U.K. also your largest donor, I believe, announcing that it would slash development assistance by
half a percentage point of GDP to now 0.3 percent of GDP. France has also cash strapped questions about whether Germany can continue its commitment,
where it is now to the WHO, even Japan raising some questions given the economic uncertainties they're facing.
So, this is a worldwide phenomenon that is now happening. How is this impacting your work and are you now in the position of having to have
similar types of meetings with world leaders, not just here in the United States now?
DR. NISHTAR: Well, you're right that we are in a very new environment, but no other sovereign donor has signaled an intent to pull out from Gavi
funding. In fact, we continue to have strong support in other countries of the world that are our traditional donors.
But coming to your point about the overall environment, it is precisely in environments like these that donors should make should make choices. And we
do development very differently. Gavi's model is actually very suited to a context where the financial space for aid is constrained.
I mean, we have a model where everybody pays. Europe pays its fair -- its share. Europe underwrites 35 percent of the Gavi budget. The United States
pays around 15 percent. Countries pay. And that's a very important point, because in no other international agencies do countries pay hard cash
towards the cost of the operations and towards the cost of the vaccines.
In Gavi's model, this is hardwired in our DNA. Countries pay and there's a clear path towards transition and country sustainability. Since Gavi has
been in operation, 19 countries have graduated out of Gavi support. Going forward in our five-year strategy period countries will be underwriting 40
percent of the cost of their vaccines. And over a period of time, transitioning from support. And this is exactly the kind of development
model that should be prioritized in an environment which is financially constrained.
GOLODRYGA: Yes.
DR. NISHTAR: I mean, aid is not meant to underwrite costs forever. Aid is meant to be catalytic. And that is that is exactly how Gavi's model --
that's exactly what Gavi's model is grounded in.
GOLODRYGA: And the final seconds that we have, just to be clear, of all of your contributors, it is only the United States at this point that has said
that it would withhold aid now?
DR. NISHTAR: That is correct.
GOLODRYGA: OK. It's important to note. Dr. Sania Nishtar, thank you so much for joining the program.
DR. NISHTAR: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: And coming up after the break, another wave of Trump tariffs to be announced this week. What we can make of their potential impact on the
United States and abroad. That's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:30:00]
GOLODRYGA: Now, the world is bracing for the impact of a new phase of Trump's trade war this week. On Wednesday, which President Trump is
branding as Liberation Day, sweeping new tariffs are set to come in on, well, actually, we don't know yet.
The White House only teasing at who's being targeted and how high these tariffs could be. Regardless, in Asia, in Europe, and on Wall Street
markets are sinking as dread sets in with Goldman Sachs now raising the odds of a U.S. recession in the next 12 months to 35 percent.
So, how should allies respond and is there a way out of the spiraling trade war? Tina Fordham is geopolitical strategist and co-founder of Fordham
Global Insight, and she joins a program from London. Tina, welcome to the program.
So, these tariff tensions have fueled some $5 trillion in market selloff in just the past six weeks alone. And we should note that President Trump,
through his actions, has lifted America's effective tariff rate to about 8 percent from 2 percent where it was last year. That's the highest it has
been in the United States since World War II. So, I'm curious, what are you gearing up for once Liberation Day or Wednesday comes into play?
TINA FORDHAM, GEOPOLITICAL STRATEGIST: It's a very good question because the signaling or the lack of signaling coming from the White House really
has businesses and heads of state on the back foot. Nobody knows what to expect. Will they be blanket tariffs? Will there be carve outs? And at this
point, I feel it's really important to put into context for your viewers that this is another example of geopolitics, the decision how and whether
to use tariffs is one instrument of economic statecraft, and it's one that nobody really expected to see coming from the United States at this level,
given that it has been the United States that can constructed the global system in the first place.
GOLODRYGA: And it was President Trump that rewrote NAFTA to USMCA during his first term. I think many people had been on board -- and we should note
that president Biden did keep some of the tariffs, specifically as it related to China in place. Think many would've been on board if there had
been more targeted precision tariffs directed at countries like China. But the fact that this seems to be willy-nilly across the board without any
rhyme or reason or expectations about what comes next.
I mean, President Trump was asked about details and -- over the weekend. Here's what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: The tariffs will be far more generous than those countries were to us. Meaning, they will be kinder than those
countries were to the United States of America over the decades. They've ripped us off like no countries ever been ripped off in history. And we're
going to be much nicer than they were to us. But it's substantial money for the country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: And by the way, these are tariffs that we are expecting to be on friend and foe across numerous countries. What do you mean -- what do
you think he means, first of all, when he's describes these tariffs as kinder and more generous?
FORDHAM: Well, we know that President Trump really believes that the rest of the world has been ripping off America. I think most orthodox economists
see it somewhat differently. But getting back to how to interpret might -- what might come next, here's where the signals are really muddy and why we
are seeing the selloff in the markets and when it comes to thinking about everything from the outlook for, you know, U.S. equities versus European
equities or interest rates or consumer sentiments, for the first time, really in our lifetimes, it's coming back to geopolitics and to power
projection from the White House.
It's not just the what, in other words, what will be announced from the White House, but why? Is it for national security, which is often a pretext
for tariffs? Is it for revenue generation, which seemed to be what President Trump was saying in the clip that you just played? There is a
real bewilderment around the world and with the U.S. companies that we talked to for how to make sense of it, but it's also leaving out the risk
of retaliation. And I feel like that is underestimated and somewhat underpriced.
[13:35:00]
GOLODRYGA: On that point of retaliation, and I should note, this is Chinese state media that is reporting this. So, take it with a grain of
salt. But there had been reports that Japan, South Korea are seeking to import semiconductor raw materials from China as sort of a new trading
alliance for lack of a better phrase, in response to these tariffs from the United States, as you noted, retaliatory tariffs. Again, this is coming
from China state media, who may be wanting to take advantage of this.
But the fact that these -- you know, the possibility of these types of new partnerships being created, suggest what to you?
FORDHAM: Well, we've known for some time that the global order was fragmenting. What we're now seeing appears to be the United States kind of
abdicating, removing itself from the rules-based order. And inevitably, in that nature of (INAUDIBLE) of vacuum, other groupings and other alliances
are likely to coalesce.
Whether that's in Asia. We've seen, for example, European Union sentiment increase. We also see things like consumer boycotts, anti-U.S. consumer
boycotts in Canada and elsewhere. So, the unintended consequences emerging from the changes in U.S. policy have the possibility of eclipsing, to some
extent, what the president hopes the tariffs will accomplish for the U.S. economy.
GOLODRYGA: Trump has long been enamored by tariffs viewing them as an effective economic tool in terms of the money that he says it's going to
bring in. Peter Navarro today said that some $6 trillion of revenue will be coming in and as a result of these tariffs over the course of 10 years. Are
tariffs a historically proven effective way to raise revenue?
FORDHAM: Well, you're asking a geopolitical strategist, but the last time we used tariffs at this scale, you know, famously was Smoot-Hawley, which
was followed by the Great Depression. So, there is a kind of a romanticism in this administration with that late 19th century, early 20th century
period. President Trump talks about it a lot, about his affection for President McKinley. There are references to the Monroe Doctrine and
Manifest Destiny, you know, that take us back to this period, which the president really lionizes as perhaps being the peak of U.S. power in
relative terms before the wars.
I do think most of us in the policy world get concerned that turning back the clock is the right thing to do when faced with more competition.
GOLODRYGA: When you look at the polling and the president's approval rating, which, at this point, it's surprising given where his focus was on
the stock market and the economy in his first term. He says he doesn't seem to care about a short-term market sell off. He says, in the long run, this
will all benefit Americans.
But according to the newest polling, Gallup Poll, 41 percent of Americans approve of his handling of the economy, 59 percent disapprove. And you talk
to economists about who will be most impacted by these tariffs. And it is those who are the lower income earners in this country by a significant
margin.
And there's also the question about what this does for our global partnerships and relationships, specifically with allies. Is -- it seems to
be rather difficult to separate a trade war from other relationships and other alliances, whether it's sharing intel information, whether it's
collaborating on other projects. Perhaps I'm wrong, but can you walk us through, have we been in a situation like this before?
FORDHAM: I think that we are in the midst of an unprecedented in modern times political experiments. The voluntary dismantling of alliances, which
do span trade and security relationships, right, that's what it means to have alliances. They tend to be comprehensive. The whole notion of national
interests and even values, although, you know, that has a history of kind of waxing and waning over time.
So, how does the U.S. define its national interests and its values? It's a source of confusion being here in Europe as I am, as well as what appear to
be the kind of extraterritoriality sorts of moves, whether that's insisting that companies not have DE and I policies on their books, or that the U.S.
needs to have Greenland. It's confusion about what the U.S. stands for and what the rules are.
[13:40:00]
And if we really want to kind of bring it home, it's what are the rules of the game and who is prepared to observe them and enforce them.
GOLODRYGA: And all this leads to so much uncertainty as well. Tina Fordham, we'll be watching for whatever happens Wednesday. Thank you so
much for joining the show.
And as we've just heard, Trump is waging a global trade war against allies and adversaries alike by weaponizing tariffs. But are they effective tools
to get the U.S. what it wants? Our next guest, Edward Fishman, believes that overusing America's leverage comes with great risks, both to the
nation's economy and the global world order. And he joins Michel Martin to discuss.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, Bianna. Edward Fishman, thanks so much for joining us.
EDWARD FISHMAN, AUTHOR, "CHOKEPOINTS": Michel, it's great to be here. Thanks for having me.
MARTIN: So, in your new book, "Chokepoints," you argue that the global economy has become a kind of a battlefield. And I just want to point out
here that you're a former state department official who actually helped design U.S. sanctions policy. You wrote that, in today's geopolitical
battles business executives have become the frontline troops. They're the ones implementing economic pressure campaigns, not soldiers, not spies, and
not diplomats.
How does that change the way the U.S. has operated on the world stage? Where do we see this show up?
FISHMAN: We see it everywhere. You know, we're living in an age of economic warfare today, Michel, in which sanctions, tariffs, and export
controls have become the primary way that big countries compete with one another. It's certainly true of the United States, but it's increasingly
becoming true of other countries as well. You know, China, the European Union, Russia, they're also developing these tools.
And I think a good way to explain sort of what's changed and why, you know, in the last two decades, we really entered this age of economic warfare. If
you go back to the 1990s when the United Nations imposed an embargo on Saddam Hussein's Iraq, which some people may remember after the Gulf War in
1990 and 1991, in order to stop Iraq from actually selling oil on global markets, the United States and 20 other countries had to patrol the Persian
Gulf 24/7 and inspect cargoes going in and out of Iraq's ports around the clock.
But what happened, Michel, is in the wake of hyper globalization in the '90s, when you bring Russia and China and other countries into the global
financial system and supply chains, we now have a system today where Donald Trump can sign an executive order in the Oval Office and impose dramatic
economic pain on foreign countries just with the stroke of a pen.
And so, the big revolution that we've seen is that the threshold for the use of economic warfare has gone way down, where we no longer need to
deploy the military to make sanctions work, and the impact has gone way up. And so, I think that's why today we are living in such a new age of
economic warfare.
MARTIN: You argue that the U.S. has come to dominate this invisible infrastructure of global finance and trade. How did that happen? Because I
think, again, that's another thing that I think a lot of Americans might be surprised by and also frustrated by, because I think that they look at a
situation like Russia and Ukraine and wonder why hasn't the U.S. been more effective in, you know, in ending this conflict, especially through the use
of sort of economic needs. How did that happen?
FISHMAN: Sure. Yes. So, the reason my book is called "Chokepoints" is that in the wake of hyper globalization in the '90s, when you really do see even
countries like China and Russia enter a dollar-based financial system, when their trade is even being denominated in dollars, when they're not even
transacting with United States, what happens is there are these chokepoints that develop, where one country has a dominant position and there are very
few, if any, substitutes.
The dollar and the financial system is the best example of this, because there really is not a direct substitute for the dollar. There's no other
currency that plays even close to the role that the dollar plays. The vast majority of transactions in the financial system are using the dollar.
But there are other chokepoints too. Semiconductor supply chains is one where Silicon Valley companies dominate, and it's why the U.S. can do
things like impose export controls on big Chinese companies like Huawei that are impactful.
If you're asking why with such power over some of the most important chokepoints, like the financial system and semiconductor supply chains, we
haven't delivered a knockout blow to Russia. I think it's less about Russia finding brilliant ways to evade sanctions and more about us being unwilling
to actually bring to bear the most potent weapons we have.
MARTIN: And why is that?
FISHMAN: Yes, sure.
MARTIN: Why is that?
FISHMAN: Because when you think about Russia, the vast majority of the foreign exchange that they're generating is coming through oil and gas
exports. And really, actually, oil exports number one. And the Biden administration, really throughout 2022 and 2023, was very hesitant to do
sanctions that would potentially impede Russia from selling oil on global markets because they were worried about worsening inflation in the United
States and spiking oil prices that may cause Americans to have higher prices at the pump.
[13:45:00]
And by the way, it's possible that Donald Trump will be inhibited by the same concern. You know, we've seen Donald Trump talk about wanting to bring
oil prices down.
MARTIN: Yes.
FISHMAN: And so, you know, that could be part of the reason we haven't seen aggressive sanctions on Russia or Iran for that matter.
MARTIN: Are tariffs a form of economic sanctions?
FISHMAN: Yes. So, it's interesting, because historically, they really haven't been. You know, historically we've used tariffs for more economic
reasons, right? I mean, very early American history, during -- even back to George Washington, tariffs were used to raise revenue for the government.
They were in place before the income tax, for instance.
Mind you, back then, the U.S. government was tiny, right? It was much, much smaller than we have today. More recently and more plausibly, sanctions can
be used to protect domestic industries against foreign competition. A really good example of this is during the Biden administration the United
States imposed 100 percent tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles because they were worried that if cheaper, more efficient Chinese electric vehicles
flooded the American market, it would hurt companies like Tesla who are producing electric vehicles for the United States.
What Trump has done is he's been using tariffs and been claiming to use tariffs to raise revenue and to protect domestic industries, but he's moved
beyond that to say that tariffs are just another form of sanction that we could use tariffs to force the Mexicans to put more troops on the southern
border or compel Canada to become the 51st state, or even, you know, to pressure countries all over the world to stop buying Venezuelan oil, which
is something he's done in recent days. You know, these -- what he's called secondary tariffs.
So, I think under Trump we've seen a much more expansive use of tariffs that looks much more like economic warfare and less like a tool of standard
economic policy.
MARTIN: That's fascinating because, you know, one of the big questions about tariffs, this is one reason why Ronald Reagan, for example, was
opposed to them. I mean, because he was a true conservative who believed -- at least he was a true economic conservative who believed that it wasn't
the government's place to be picking winners and losers.
Is President Trump using tariffs to favor and disfavor certain American industries, or is he using them to advance kind of geopolitical interests
apart from the winners and losers on the American side?
FISHMAN: Sure. I mean, we've seen Trump talk about tariffs as basically a magic bullet to cure all of our problems, right? It's raising revenue, it's
protecting, you know, the steel industry or the car industry, and it's, you know, pressuring other governments to basically bend to his will. He's
trying to use it as this cure-all for all of our problems. I don't think that's a wise use of tariffs personally.
To what you said about Ronald Reagan, I think it's a great point, because something people don't realize and surprising because it's very basic, is
that tariffs are a tax on imports. So, who pays the tariff? It's a United States company that's importing a good.
And the way I think about it is, you know, I make my daughter pancakes every Saturday morning. Canada is a big exporter of maple syrup. If we have
a 25 percent tariff on Canada, I can still buy my daughter's maple syrup. I just have to pay 25 percent more than I would otherwise, right? So, it is
not the most efficient use of economic policy. It is not -- you know, it is government intervention in the economy. It's why, you know, conservatives
like Ronald Reagan haven't liked tariffs.
The thing though, that's interesting, Michel, is if you're thinking about tariffs as a form of economic warfare, they're actually a very weak tool.
So, to go back to the maple syrup example, now, let's say Trump were to impose sanctions on the Canadian maple syrup company, right? I would not be
allowed to buy that maple syrup. It'd be illegal to buy any maple syrup. And more to the point, because that Canadian maple syrup company would no
longer have access to the U.S. financial system, it may well go bankrupt the next day.
So, sanctions are a much, much more powerful geopolitical tool than tariffs are. And you know, Trump clearly loves tariffs. He calls himself a tariff
man. But I think he's going to be disappointed when he tries to use tariffs to really cure all of our problems.
MARTIN: When is this car going to crash? When are American consumers likely to feel the effects of this, or are they already?
FISHMAN: So, I think one of the ironies is so far, right, and I think things could change very soon, Trump has been threatening tariffs and then
retracting them or putting them in place and then pulling back. And so, the irony is that what's happened, and I think what we will see in the data, is
in the first quarter of this year, the U.S. trade deficit has spiked because Americans are panic buying, basically they're hoarding, they're
buying more than they otherwise would be.
And if Trump keeps kind of this, you know, half in, half out approach, I think that's what's going to keep happening. You're going to see more
hoarding and you're not actually going to see the change in behavior that Trump wants.
Let's see a -- let's say Trump does, you know, put these tariffs in place in, you know, this month in April, and they stay in place, right, because
he really wants to re-shore all of the components of the auto industry, right. Americans are going to feel that very soon, right, because it's not
like the auto industry has huge numbers of, you know, cars and inventory that are already built, right?
[13:50:00]
Pretty soon, within a few weeks of those tariffs going into effect, you'll see car prices start going up. I think now would be probably the time to
build a car. So, in terms of when things could go off the rails, I mean, the thing I'm worried about is for sure the impact on the American economy.
But I think we also need to zoom out a second and think about what kind of a world does this usher in, right? If there is a world where we're imposing
sanctions and tariffs, not just against the Chinas and Russias of the world, not just against our adversaries, but against Canada, Mexico, the
European Union, basically everyone, we kind of wind up backing into autarchy, you know, this notion where everything has to be just be made in
the U.S.
And that vision is one that historically has inspired things like imperialism and conquest. Because if you don't feel comfortable that you
can just buy resources from a place like Greenland, the mentality is, well, maybe we need to conquer it and plant the flag there, you know, to have
secure access to resources.
And so, I worry, not just so much for the near-term, you know, inflation or, you know, how it's affecting our pocketbooks, I worry about, you know,
the next five to 10 years, what does this mean for the global order? What does this mean for the risk of warfare, not just economic warfare?
MARTIN: Speaking of warfare, let's talk about Russia. The -- we started our conversation by talking about the fact that the Biden administration
did impose sanctions on Russia in an effort to curb, you know, their aggression into Ukraine. So, what about now? Is there additional capacity
there that could bring -- that could put more pressure on Russia to bring them to the negotiating table, to bring this conflict to an end? The
president says that he wants this conflict to end. Are there tools that he's not using?
FISHMAN: For sure. And I think maybe one thing just to level set on, then I'll answer your question directly, is there has been a lot of
disappointment with these Russia sanctions. They -- you know, people think that they haven't worked, right?
But I'll remind folks that, you know, the big Russia sanctions went into effect about three years ago, right, right after the invasion in February
of 2022. And by now, three years later, the Russian economy is poised for zero growth in 2025. And significant inflation with their interest rate
well over 20 percent mortgages in Russia, and you can't get for anything below 30 percent.
So, the Russian economy is not doing very well. And when you think about it, like three years is actually not that long. You know, the Iran
sanctions campaign that led to the nuclear deal started in earnest in 2006, and we didn't get the first nuclear deal until 2013. So, that's seven
years, right? So, these campaigns do take a while.
I think part of the reason, Michel, you're seeing Putin so desperate right now for a bilateral deal with Trump, to try to persuade Trump that we need
to normalize U.S.-Russian relations is because he realizes that his economy can't go on the way it is for another two years, right? He needs some -- a
lifeboat to be sent to him by the United States.
Let's say Trump realizes this and says, you know what, I really want to end the war in Ukraine. He could ramp up pressure and accelerate that timeline.
He could say, well, you know, we are going to impose much more aggressive sanctions on Russian oil and gas. And if we were to do that now, maybe
instead of, you know, facing a crisis in one or two years, Putin may face a crisis in three to six months, in which case he'd have a big incentive to
make a peace deal to today that may not meet his maximalist objectives.
MARTIN: Before I let you go, you started by saying, I know you're concerned that this sort of economic warfare can lead to other forms of
warfare. I mean, a lot of this -- all this debate about and discussion around tariffs is deeply unsettling to the business community, to the
markets, and inevitably to consumers. But do you think that in a way this is elevated our understanding of this to the point where perhaps people are
taking it more seriously and educating themselves about it more?
FISHMAN: I do think so. And what I'll say is, you know, my book, "Chokepoints," came out in the United States at the end of February. And
so, it's been out for a little bit over a month now, and, you know, it's done incredibly well. It's been a, you know, New York Times bestseller,
which I don't think many people would've assumed was possible for, you know, a book on sanctions and economic warfare and tariffs.
I've found audiences, you know, all around the country and soon in other countries, very receptive to this. And so, I'm hopeful that, you know, my
book could play a small role in elevating that national conversation that people are educating themselves about this topic. And obviously, I would
not want these circumstances to be ones in which people are educating them for -- themselves about it.
But I think there's an important point here, which is the age of economic warfare predates Trump, right? This is a secular trend that started during
George W. Bush's presidency, that has accelerated during Obama, then Trump, then Biden, and then, now Trump again. So -- and it's almost certain to
outlast this current Trump administration as well.
So, if this is sort of the push that we all need to learn about these tools, to take them seriously, to keep America and our countries, our
families safe in this age of economic warfare, then maybe that is a silver lining of all the chaos we're seeing today.
MARTIN: Edward Fishman, thanks so much for talking with us and sharing this expertise.
FISHMAN: Thank you, Michel. I really enjoyed the conversation.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
[13:55:00]
GOLODRYGA: And finally, Eid Mubarak to all who celebrate. Muslims around the world are marking the end of Ramadan. In India, worshipers gathered for
prayer in front of the iconic Jama Masjid Mosque. And for many, it's a time for family gatherings and spiritual reflection.
However, in Gaza, displaced Palestinians, once again observed deed under Israeli bombardment. But amidst the war, families are trying their best to
find moments of joy, like providing these swings for children to play. Lovely image to leave you on there.
That is it for now. Thank you so much for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
