Return to Transcripts main page

Fareed Zakaria GPS

Interview with Former Danish Prime Minister Helle Thorning- Schmidt; Interview with Alexander Dugin. Interview With Girton College President Elisabeth Kendall; Interview With The Council On Foreign Relations President Michael Froman. Aired 10-11a

Aired March 30, 2025 - 10:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[10:00:38]

FAREED ZAKARIA, CNN ANCHOR: This is GPS, the GLOBAL PUBLIC SQUARE. Welcome to all of you in the United States and around the world. I'm Fareed Zakaria coming to you live from New York.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ZAKARIA: Today on the program.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We need it. We have to have it.

ZAKARIA: That was the president of the United States speaking on Wednesday about Greenland. We'll explore the president's push to take over part of a sovereign nation, and the vice president's visit there on Friday.

Also, Alexander Dugin. He has variously been called Putin's philosopher, Putin's brain and the prophet of the new Russian empire. Whatever you call him, you will want to hear what this extremely influential Russian thinker has to say about Trump, the war in Ukraine and much more.

Then, as Trump's tariff deadline of April 2nd swiftly approaches, I will try to understand the consequences of these levies with President Obamas former trade representative, Michael Froman.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAKARIA: But first, here's "My Take."

Steve Witkoff, President Trump's special envoy to the Middle East, now also the de facto broker of the Russia-Ukraine peace process, recently gave an interview that recited many of the Russian government's talking points, plus a gushing account of Vladimir Putin's sterling qualities.

Instead of doing a point by point rebuttal, I thought it would be worthwhile to provide a brief recap of the history of U.S.-Russia relations. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the United States, far from humiliating Moscow and isolating it, did the opposite.

It tried to integrate the newly democratic state into the highest councils of global power. It eventually expanded the G7 into the G8 to let Russia in, even though Russia was by no stretch an advanced industrial country.

International lending assistance to Moscow between 1989 and 1998 totaled about $66 billion by one U.S. government estimate. By comparison, total U.S. aid to Israel in those days was around $3 billion a year.

The collapse of the USSR created a security vacuum in Eastern Europe. The countries of the region long dominated, some even occupied by Russia, were insecure and deeply suspicious of Moscow. America put some of them on a path to NATO membership, but worked hard to address Russia's concerns and created a new organization, the Partnership for Peace, which was designed as an association between NATO, Russia and other eastern bloc countries.

It planned joint military exercises and other such activities to build confidence between Russia and the West. Perhaps most significantly, the U.S. did not put pressure or sanctions on Russia as it waged a brutal war in Chechnya, a Muslim republic conquered in the 19th century and desperate to break away.

Vladimir Putin came to power in late 1999, a brutal terrorist attack in Moscow, which was blamed on Chechen separatists, gave the faceless bureaucrat national support and allowed him to wage the savage second Chechen war, which killed up to tens of thousands of civilians and leveled its capital, Grozny, to the ground. Many believe that Russian intelligence was actually behind the terror attacks.

Since then, Putin is believed by many experts to have been behind the assassinations of most of his prominent opponents, from the journalist Anna Politkovskaya to political leaders like Boris Nemtsov and Alexei Navalny.

The key to understanding Putin's imperial ambitions is his famous statement that the collapse of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the 20th century. His next line was that it left millions of Russians, citizens and fellow countrymen outside of the motherland, he said.

Putin has sought to gather back together, not the Soviet Union, but the czars empire. That is why he seeks to dominate not just Ukraine, but also Belarus and the various states of Central Asia.

[10:05:02]

That is why he has waged war on Georgia and threatens Moldova. That is why he has complained about the status of Russian speakers in the Baltic Republics. And central to his new Russian empire is Ukraine, which he has often argued as a fake country created by the Bolsheviks. In fact, more than 90 percent of Ukrainians voted to become independent in 1991, with large majorities voting for independence even in the areas now occupied by Russia. In his decades in power, Putin has sought to expand Russia's sphere of

influence in Belarus, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and of course in Ukraine, where Russia interfered massively, once poisoning a presidential frontrunner and eventually getting a pro-Russian president elected.

By 2008 Putin realized Georgia was moving closer to the West, with George Bush even urging NATO to welcome its aspirations to join, though NATO gave no concrete timetable or support. So Putin invaded Georgia, falsely claiming that the Georgians had instigated the attack. Russia encouraged two of its provinces to declare themselves independent countries.

In 2014, in Ukraine, Putin was alarmed to see that even under his hand-picked pro-Russian president, the country was close to concluding an association agreement with the European Union. There had been no further movement toward NATO. The issue was that Ukrainians wanted to strengthen their economic ties with Europe.

That led Putin to invade Ukraine, ignoring his own country's guarantee of Ukrainian sovereignty and borders provided in 1994 when Ukraine agreed to let its nuclear arsenal be destroyed, then the world's third largest.

By the start of Joe Biden's presidency, Ukraine was no closer to NATO membership. In fact, in Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's first meeting with President Biden, Biden largely rebuffed him on the issue. A few months later, Russia launched a full scale invasion of Ukraine designed to conquer the country and take its capital, Kyiv.

The Soviet Union was the world's last great multinational empire, and under Putin, Russia has been trying for a decade to rebuild that empire against the desires of the people of Ukraine and Georgia and Belarus and others. Putin is on the wrong side of history, freedom and human aspirations. The tragedy is that now the United States seems to have joined his side.

Go to CNN.com/Fareed for a link to my "Washington Post" column this week, and let's get started.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JD VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Our message to Denmark is very simple. You have not done a good job by the people of Greenland.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAKARIA: That was Vice President Vance speaking in Greenland on Friday. Yesterday, President Trump told NBC, we'll get Greenland. Yes, 100 percent.

Greenland is, of course, a territory of the kingdom of Denmark. So how do the Danes take Vance and Trump's rhetoric?

Joining me now is the former Danish prime minister, Helle Thorning- Schmidt.

Hello. Thank you so much for joining. I want to first ask you, just as a Dane, you know, as the former prime minister, how do you react to this kind of rhetoric coming out of the United States of America?

HELLE THORNING-SCHMIDT, FORMER DANISH PRIME MINISTER: Yes. First of all, great to be with you here today, Fareed.

I must say that we are taken aback by the language used by the vice president on Friday. First of all, this whole talk about Denmark not being a good ally, that is simply not true. And it is a little bit insulting, to be honest, that we have stood side by side with America for decades. We have deployed with America. We have veterans that have been under U.S. command. And I was also thinking of them when the vice president said that we had not contributed because we have been with America in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Libya.

We were even ready to go into Syria to react to the red lines. So we have been very close to the United States and feel that we have been very -- a very good friend to the United States. We're not a big country, but we have been a very close ally and will continue to be so. So we were quite shocked by that -- those terms and how they spoke about Denmark. But of course, the most important in this whole issue is what the vice president and what the president has said about Greenland.

ZAKARIA: And about Greenland, you know, do you understand what the goal here is? Because the United States at one point, I think, had 16 or 17 bases in Greenland during World War II.

[10:10:08]

It then chose to reduce it to one base. Have they communicated what it is they want?

THORNING-SCHMIDT: No. And I think that's the problem. There is a treaty from 1951 where it is very clear that the Americans have huge access to Greenland. After the war, they had, as you said, 16 bases up there. Now they have one, the Pituffik base. I've been there. It's a base very north in Greenland. And that was where the vice president was on Friday.

I think there is around 200 military personnel up there. So this is a place where the Americans have basically scaled back and scaled back over the years. So the Americans have also taken a peace dividend in Greenland. But I do think it's fair to now start discussing, should that end now? Are we in such a new situation so we all have to scale up in Greenland? Denmark has just decided to invest massively in Greenland security.

And the irony of all this is that the Americans could do exactly the same. Greenland is NATO territory. There's nothing stopping the Americans from getting more engaged militarily in Greenland, having more bases, if that's what they want. And I do think that both the Greenlandic people and of course the people in Denmark would support such a move. So the irony is that it's very little that the Americans can't have in Greenland right now without talking about taking over Greenland and all these other things.

ZAKARIA: You were prime minister in the Obama years, and I wondered, you know, what is your reaction to watching the Trump administration's policy on Ukraine turn from what I think one would generally have called very vigorously pro-Ukraine and anti-Russian, anti the Russian aggression, to what, you know, does seem much more pro-Russian and anti-Ukrainian?

THORNING-SCHMIDT: There has been a very huge change in how the Americans are talking about Ukraine. And that's why it's so important for all of us Europeans, the former prime minister, but all of us to really state the facts. There was an all-out Russian invasion in Ukraine. The territorial integrity of Ukraine was not respected by Russia. It is very difficult to make agreements with Russia that they actually stick to.

So we hope that the Americans come back to believing in that. Of course, we are all for peace in Ukraine, but we can't have peace on any basis. It had to be a solid basis where we also respect the territorial integrity of a sovereign country.

This is what the Americans have always believed in. I still believe in America. I'm very close to the U.S. I go there all the time. So I really hope we can come back to just communicating with each other.

In terms of Greenland, for example, I'm not saying that Denmark has done everything right in terms of Greenland, but let's sit down and talk about this. And again, I want to say to the American people as well, there's very little the Americans can't achieve in Greenland if they want to in terms of security, but also economically. I'm sure the Greenlandic people would cherish working with Americans in Greenland, also on economic issues.

So please sit down at the negotiation table. Let's find out what the Americans really want in the states. And let's not use this rhetoric of wanting to own Greenland. Greenland belongs to the Inuit people, to the Greenlandic people, and it also is part of the kingdom of Denmark.

ZAKARIA: Thank you so much, Helle. Always a pleasure to hear from you.

THORNING-SCHMIDT: Thanks, friend.

ZAKARIA: Next on GPS, we will hear from the man known as Putin's brain, when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:18:21]

ZAKARIA: When Russia's president Vladimir Putin ordered the invasion of Ukraine in 2022, he framed it as a necessity, to reclaim what he saw as lost Russian lands, but also to wage a broader cultural war against the West.

My next guest is one of the key Russian thinkers behind that vision. Some call him Putin's brain. For decades, the philosopher Alexander Dugin has argued that Russia is not just a nation, but a civilization that is destined to lead a new Eurasian empire. and now he sees the election of U.S. President Donald Trump as a historic turning point. He has a new book called "The Trump Revolution: A New Order of Great Powers."

Dugin joins me now from Moscow.

Mr. Dugan, welcome to the program.

ALEXANDER DUGIN, SCHOLAR, RUSSIAN STATE UNIVERSITY FOR THE HUMANITIES: Thank you very much.

ZAKARIA: You write in your most recent book that Putinism has won in the United States. What do you mean by that?

DUGIN: I think now with assist a huge transformation of the global system. Trump, in my opinion, is something very special. It is not just charismatic leader, but he represents a kind of ideology that changes the balance of the power in the world. So we have the different United States, not the strong cold and the head water of globalism. But the kind of sovereign national state global power with traditional values as well, with totally different agenda on the level, on the international affairs.

[10:20:09]

And this new conditions, I think the Putin's Russia and Putin personally stops to be the main enemy, the main evil guy, bad guy. So I think that Trumpists, the followers of Trump will understand much better what Russia is, who Putin is, and the motivation of our politics. So we have now immediately, we have discovered many points that are common for United States of America, Trump's America and Putin's Russia.

ZAKARIA: Would it be fair to say is -- what youre saying is that there is now a kind of deep ideological alignment between Trump and Trumpism and Putin and Putinism, and it is against Europe. The United States and Russia, in that sense, are now together and Europe, European liberalism is in some sense the new enemy.

DUGIN: We have many points in common with Trump's America, much more than it seems on the surface. But maybe it is too early to speak about the real alliance between U.S. and Russia against Europe, because it is not against Europe. It is against globalism. But nevertheless, I think that if, for example, Trump would withdraw United States from a war against us in Ukraine, there could be situation that we will fight against European globalists, European liberal, liberals in Ukraine without America.

So I think that Trump sooner or later, maybe sooner than we presume, then we presume he will discover that Putin has absolutely nothing against United States, no reason to continue the fight. No reason to oppose or to nowhere. No field of competition. And that is different from China.

ZAKARIA: What do you see as the core elements of ideological similarity or affinity between Trump's America and Putin's Russia? Steve Bannon says it is that, you know, these are two white Christian nations preserving their sovereignty, battling a certain kind of multicultural liberalism. Would you agree with that? How would you define it?

DUGIN: I would say that, first of all, first of all, there is agreement of the realism in international relations. Realism believes in sovereignty, in the absolute freedom of the countries to behave as they wish they could be stopped by force. But there is no supranational, legitimate, legitimate, legitimate instance that could say, stop, don't do it. Because sovereignty is incompatible with that. This approach is common to Trump and Putin.

And second point, I agree with Bannon. That is traditional value. So we defend Christian faith, our Orthodox Christian faith. We defend our great power, patriotism. We refuse LGBT, woke agenda. We try to make cultural cohesion in our society, assimilating different people.

ZAKARIA: You speak a lot about the importance of sovereignty. So let me ask you, is Ukraine a nation that deserves to have its sovereignty respected?

DUGIN: United States of America is obviously sovereign. China is sovereign. Russia is sovereign. Ukraine could be sovereign if it managed to save, to defend its sovereignty. Being a frontier state, being the relatively small state between two sovereign civilizational state between West and Russia.

If you are not great power, but pretend to be great power, that you should pay -- you will pay a big price. That is the case of Ukraine. Ukraine could theoretically save its sovereignty if it could manage its neutrality, if it could become the bridge between Western civilization and Russian, Eurasian civilization.

[10:25:17]

Ukraine had a big chance, historical chance, because thanks to the end of the Soviet Union, for the first time in the history, Ukraine has received this possibility to create its nation. But after some critical decisions taken by Zelenskyy, I fear there is no more such thing as Ukrainian sovereignty.

ZAKARIA: That was Putin's philosopher, Alexander Dugin.

Next on GPS, the other side of that infamous Signal chat. Can the U.S. succeed in Yemen? Is it?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:30:27]

ZAKARIA: That Signal discussion among top administration officials centered on a U.S. strike on the Houthis in Yemen. The U.S. isn't the first to take on this Iran backed rebel group. Saudi Arabia led seven years of strikes against the group, which ended with a de facto ceasefire. Can the U.S. military succeed where the Saudi military failed?

Joining me now is Elisabeth Kendall, a Middle East expert and the head of Girton College at Cambridge. Elisabeth, welcome.

So first tell us, the Houthis say they are doing these strikes in sympathy and solidarity with the Palestinians in Gaza. Is that the full story or is there something else going on?

ELISABETH KENDALL, PRESIDENT OF GIRTON COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY: So, it's not the full story. The Houthis are not entirely devoid of ideology. These strikes do live up to their slogan, which includes death to Israel and death to America. But in fact, the strikes work for them on several levels.

First, on the domestic level, for the Houthis, their base has been war weary. They've been now in conflict for 10 years in their civil war. And so, their strikes are helping to revive that flagging base because they're popular. Indeed, they're able to actually extend that base.

And then on a regional level, they work for the Houthis because the Houthis can frame themselves as the heroes of Palestine at a time when other Arab nations don't really appear to be standing up for the Palestinians. And then internationally, well, the Houthis are able to gain massive publicity and headlines all around the world. And of course, they can also raise their leadership level within Iran's so- called Axis of Resistance. So, the Houthis have many reasons for continuing these attacks.

ZAKARIA: And tell us whether you think the American strike will succeed because, you know, the United States is very far away. And yes, it has enormous power projection. But the Saudis, who are right next door with the with an amazing array of American military equipment, missiles, planes, and they hit the Houthis very hard for seven years. And it never seemed to quite work. Why? Why are the Houthis so resilient?

KENDALL: The Houthis have indeed proven themselves to be very resilient. They are hardened fighters. Not only have they been engaged in this civil war for 10 years, but in fact, they've been at war on and off for over 20 years since 2004. So, they're well used to hiding their weapons away, to melting their leadership away into these strongholds that they have in the northern highlands.

And of course, they're battle hardened. They have weathered over 25,000 strikes by Saudi Arabia. And seven of the last 10 years they've weathered strikes by the United States and the United Kingdom for the last year. And also, many strikes by Israel, too. And yet they seem to have survived.

And part of the reason for that is that they are highly confident. They do truly believe that they have God on their side. And they've seen what happened to the United States in Afghanistan, in Iraq. They feel that they can win, too.

And we also have to just remember that their mindset is slightly different from how we might consider logic to operate. For example, they're quite tolerant of casualties on their own side, and they really don't mind just drawing this out because they have no experience of peace time governing.

So, if they don't know what peacetime governance looks like, then they don't hanker after it. So, in short, we should expect this not to be an easy fight at all. And for the Houthis to be able to just continue.

After all, in the end, it's an asymmetric battle. So, as long as they can just keep going, they don't have to be that accurate. They just need to be a thorn in the side of the United States. And they can do that.

ZAKARIA: Yes. And it's worth remembering. I mean, I think they occupy a territory, which is what, 500 times the size of Gaza. I mean, they have they have got a lot of places to hide.

KENDALL: Yes, they occupy territory that's massive compared to, for example, the challenge that was posed by Hamas in Gaza or Hezbollah in Lebanon. They occupied territory that holds 20 million people at least. So, you know, that, again, is a very different ball game from dealing with Hamas or Hezbollah.

[10:35:03]

And they're a very long way away from Israel, and they're very difficult to reach for the United States. So, yes, I don't think this will be an easy adversary. Certainly, we are talking about something a lot more -- a lot more difficult than just a group of ragtag rebels, as sometimes they're characterized.

ZAKARIA: That was wonderful, had really helped us understand this complicated situation. Thank you so much.

KENDALL: You're welcome.

ZAKARIA: Next on GPS, what will Trump's tariffs hold for America and the world? We'll explore with Michael Froman when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:40:19]

ZAKARIA: Liberation day is almost here. That is what President Trump has dubbed April 2nd, when he says America will get money and respect back by imposing a suite of tariffs, potentially around the world. What might these tariffs hold for the U.S. economy? Joining me now is Michael Froman. He was U.S. trade representative for President Obama and is currently the president of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Mike, welcome. I want to begin by showing a chart. Just a simple chart that gives you the average tariff rate on imports to the U.S. starting in 1947, when there were about eight percent. And then they go basically it's a straight line down all the way to 2015 or so. It's under two percent.

And now if you look at the proposed Trump tariffs, they take you right back up to around eight percent. In other words, reversing 50, 70 years of downward movement on tariffs. It feels like Trump is taking the United States and the world into a new era.

MICHAEL FROMAN, PRESIDENT, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: I think that's right, Fareed. And it depends a lot on what he actually announces on Wednesday. There's a lot of uncertainty still about whether it will be applied to the whole world or to the 15 markets where we have the biggest trade deficits or some other lesser impact.

But potentially we are moving away from the rules-based system that was embodied, as you said, in about 80 years of work on the international scene to create the GATT, to create the WTO, to create a series of rules that that now more than 160 countries live by, and the U.S. is now going to potentially move into a world where we're doing everything on a bilateral basis.

And one question is, how do the rest of the world respond? One, they'll respond by retaliating against us. But will they continue to follow the multilateral rules-based system, or will they too begin to do a series of bilateral deals? And will the work of the last 80 years basically be undone?

ZAKARIA: And it's worth pointing out that 80 years has coincided with enormous rises in global standards of living, prosperity, and in American standards of living. But tell me this, Mike, how much of this is a, you know, leverage that he is using to get at something? Because that's what a lot of his supporters, even Howard Lutnick, used to say. But increasingly, it feels like Trump really wants these tariffs. It's not just leverage.

FROMAN: I think it's more than that. He wants them for leverage. He wants them potentially for revenue. But first and foremost, I think he is quite sincere in wanting to transform the U.S. economy over the next four years into a much more manufacturing-based economy. And he sees tariffs as his primary tool to do so.

Now, of course, increasing manufacturing in the United States is a is a goal that many presidents have had, including president Biden. But President Biden used issues like tools like industrial policy as well. And here, I think, Trump believes that by putting up a wall of tariffs, he will force companies to move their production and move their supply chains to the United States. I think that's his first and foremost goal.

ZAKARIA: What do you think the likely result of all this is going to be? Assume again that some -- there is some widespread application of tariffs. I think that's a reasonable assumption.

FROMAN: Look, you can't overrule the laws of economics with an executive order, any more than you can overrule the laws of gravity. If you raise the prices on something, if you impose a tax, which is what a tariff is, on a product it's going to be more expensive and people will buy less of it. And when you combine that lesser demand with what we're seeing in the decline of consumer and investor confidence, you could well see a slowing of the economy more generally and more expensive products for consumers. This administration has said that consumer welfare is not necessarily their top priority. I think the secretary of treasury said cheap consumer products is not the American dream. That's a legitimate point to have. But the question is how much are the American people willing to pay in terms of higher prices for everything that they buy? Autos could be $2.00 to $15,000 more per car. In order to try and encourage this kind of production in the United States, and will it work?

And just on that, Fareed, I think the president's style of being -- putting tariffs on and taking tariffs off, the uncertainty around that has actually led companies to say, we're just going to wait and see and see how this all pans out, because these are very expensive decisions that take years and years. One thing that will be very interesting to see is that -- is that under globalization, the benefits of globalization were widely spread.

[10:45:05]

Cheaper consumer products for Americans and sort of invisible. But the cost of globalization were acutely felt by those industries that felt that competition, like steel.

Here the president is flipping this on his head. So, the cost of his approach will be felt by everybody. And the benefits may be felt by only a small number of workers in a small number of sectors.

And it will be interesting to see politically how that pans out over the next few years. While it takes years for companies to reestablish supply chains and produce more in the United States, if they're going to do so.

ZAKARIA: Mike, I only have 30 seconds left, but I do have to ask you, what about Canada? Do you even understand what the ask is for Canada? Because the Canadians, there isn't a lot of drugs coming through from the north. There aren't a lot of illegal immigrants coming from.

I think Canadians are puzzled as to what exactly are they being asked. They signed a big trade deal with the last Trump administration, which he said the best -- was the best trade deal ever.

FROMAN: The Canadians are bewildered and are trying to figure out what they need to do to get out of the doghouse. There are long standing trade issues here that even Canadians recognize should be dealt with. Things like their closed dairy market, their closed -- their lumber market, which is very much -- it goes back 200 years. We have a conflict with Canada over lumber. And these could be useful things to get fixed during this -- during these negotiations.

ZAKARIA: All right. Mike Froman, pleasure to have you on to sort this out for us. Thank you.

FROMAN: Thanks for having me.

ZAKARIA: Next on GPS, President Trump is not a fan of wind and solar power, but I'll tell you about a clean energy source he does like and why he's right about it when we come back. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:51:27]

ZAKARIA: And now for the last look. I've been highly critical of the Trump administration so far. But I have always said, when they get something right, I'll give them credit. I did that in the first term and I intend to do that now as well.

So, on energy, while I think the administration's retreat from solar and wind power is shortsighted, they have embraced another powerful renewable energy source that hasn't gotten enough attention over the years, geothermal. In Trump's day one executive order to accelerate U.S. energy production, he left out wind and solar, but included geothermal.

Earlier this month, Secretary of Energy Chris Wright gave the keynote address at a pro geothermal event called MAGMA. Yes, it is a play on MAGA. He called geothermal --

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRIS WRIGHT, U.S. ENERGY SECRETARY: Just an awesome resource that's under our feet.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAKARIA: -- and said he wants to support innovation and ease regulatory burdens. We'll have to see exactly what the administration does, but these are positive signs. There is hope that the clean energy tax credits, grants and loan programs instituted under Biden will be maintained for geothermal projects even if wind and solar end up on the chopping block.

Geothermal, as the name suggests, means the heat of the earth. The earth's core is extremely hot. In some places, as hot as the surface of the sun. Some of that heat is left over from the planet's violent formation 4.5 billion years ago. Other heat comes from ongoing radioactive decay of unstable elements deep in the earth.

Countries from the U.S. to Iceland have long tapped into this energy, which is easiest to access in cracks in the earth's surface and places where the crust is thinner. Right now, it's a small share of power generation. Only 0.3 percent of global electricity in 2023.

But a recent report from the International Energy Agency argued that with the right investments, geothermal could produce eight percent of the world's electricity by 2050. The Department of Energy thinks in the U.S., it could supply as much as 12 percent of electricity. That's more than wind or solar provides today.

There may be a reason the administration is so bullish on geothermal. It involves drilling wells and, well, Trump loves drilling.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Drill, baby, drill. Drill, drill, drill, drill, baby, drill.

Drill, baby, drill.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAKARIA: Traditional geothermal projects tap into the earth's heat by drilling in special locations with natural underground reservoirs of hot water. Next generation geothermal aims to expand beyond these rare sites drilling deep into rock and pumping water in. The water heats up and then carries that heat back to the surface, where it can be converted to electricity.

This opens up vastly more potential, and it looks increasingly feasible because of advances made by the oil and gas industry. As Secretary Wright has said, the techniques that unlock the shale revolution fracking and horizontal drilling are tailor-made for geothermal. Wright's own background is as a fracking CEO, whose company also took a $10 million stake in a geothermal startup.

So, Trump's support for geothermal may have something to do with helping his buddies in the fossil fuel sector. It's a major business opportunity, but it is also a real opportunity for society. If oil and gas companies marshaled their prodigious resources and technological know-how, they could truly unleash a new clean energy source for the entire world.

[10:55:06]

And geothermal is in some ways superior to wind and solar because it doesn't fluctuate based on the weather and time of day. It is an always on baseload power source. We'll need more of that as electricity demand rises due to A.I. and electric cars, among other things.

To be clear, it is a mistake to give up on wind and solar. Trump officials sometimes talk about an all of the above energy strategy, but they don't really mean it. Still, if they aren't keen on all that is above the earth's surface, it's good that they want to tap the massive clean energy lying below the earth's surface.

Thanks to all of you for being part of my program this week. I will see you next week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)