Return to Transcripts main page
One World with Zain Asher
CNN International: Stock Markets Fall Around The World After Trump Unveils New Tariffs; Trump Hikes Tariffs On China To 54 Percent; Beijing Vows To Hit Back; The World Reacts To Donald Trump's Tariffs. Aired 11a-12p ET
Aired April 03, 2025 - 11:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[11:00:00]
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, HOST, "ONE WORLD": Hello, everyone. Live from New York, I'm Bianna Golodryga.
ZAIN ASHER, HOST, "ONE WORLD": And I'm Zain Asher. You are watching One World.
A global stock sell-off. Markets around the world are plunging less than 24 hours after Donald Trump announced the largest tariff increase in American
history.
GOLODRYGA: Yeah. On Wall Street, severely rattled investors sent all three indices into the red with the S&P on pace for its worst day since 2022.
Now, the dollar is also taking a dive, now at its weakest level since October, following the U.S. President's dramatic escalation of his trade
war, in a move leading economists to say that it could trigger a global recession. And in about 30 minutes' time, the European markets will close.
Right now, they too have all red arrows pointing down.
ASHER: Yeah. But, the White House isn't worried, calling the tariffs common sense policy.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: To anyone on Wall Street this morning, I would say, trust in President Trump. This is a President
who is doubling down on his proven economic formula from his first term. We saw wages increase. We saw inflation come down. We had a Trump energy boom.
We had the largest tax cuts in history, and that's exactly what the President intends to do, following his historic announcement yesterday for
reciprocal tariffs.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ASHER: On Wednesday, the President announced a 10 percent baseline tariff on all imports to the U.S. and much higher duties on some of the nation's
largest trading partners.
CNN's Richard Quest joins us live now from New York. So, if you look at the Dow right now, Richard, I'm just trying to see over to the screen on the --
on to this side of me, there we have it, 1,500 points down. Obviously, it's been in the red all morning. Companies across the board suffering, but
especially the big sellers of imported goods. Walk us through that.
RICHARD QUEST, CNN BUSINESS EDITOR-AT-LARGE: Yeah. And while we're talking, if you can -- if the control room can also call it the triple stock, you'll
see exactly how awful the situation is, because the Dow showing you the big ones, and there you've got the triple stock, and that's getting worse. The
NASDAQ is now off five and a half points. I should have to think what's happening to the Magnificent Seven. This all makes perfect common sense, by
the way, because you're talking about inflation going up in the United States. Therefore the Fed will not be able to cut interest rates. You're
talking about a slowdown in economic growth as a result of both inflation, exports will slow down with retaliatories (ph), and don't forget
uncertainties over the changes that are taking place with the federal government.
People are just going to stop spending. We've already seen consumer sentiment and consumer surveys down 10 percent, 12 percent, 14 percent. Can
you bring also back that graphic that showed the tariff numbers of the China, the EU, and the base for the rest of the world, because it doesn't
really tell the full story, but that's good enough for me, because on top of that China number, you also have the 20 percent specific China tariffs
that were already baked in. Therefore, you've got 54 percent on the number -- is the real number for China. For the European Union, you've not only
got that 20 percent, but when it comes to automobiles, you've got 25 percent, admittedly, it's not additive. And in addition, additive, you've
got steel and aluminum.
So, put all this together, and you have what the administration is calling a reworking of the global financial -- global trade network, the like of
which has just been -- I mean, it's as if the thing has been blown up without really having a route map for what to put it back together again.
GOLODRYGA: Yeah. The tariff rate at this level is its highest in over a century --
QUEST: Yeah.
GOLODRYGA: -- here in the United States, a major reordering here of our economic policy.
And Richard, a lot of questions have been raised as to how these reciprocal tariffs were calculated. Can you walk us through that? Because some have
suggested this is as rudimentary as this administration taking the nation's trade deficit --
QUEST: Yeah.
GOLODRYGA: -- with the United States and dividing it with their exports to the U.S. That can't be.
QUEST: So, this is what somebody worked out on Twitter. I forgo the chap's name. He basically said, what they've done is, they've taken the bilateral
trade deficit, divide by the exports, and then divide by two, and everybody said that can't be right. But then the equation was done across the whole
range. And guess what? It came out as exactly that number, exactly that number across the board.
Now, the USTR, U.S. Trade Representative, came out and said, no, no, no, no. We are great thinkers. We have not -- no, no, no, no, no, no. This is
how we did it. And they came out with this extraordinarily complicated formula with beta, theta, delta, alpha, all of it in this massive formula.
[11:05:00]
And guess what? When everybody looked at that formula, they came up with the same number. Yeah. Trade deficit divided by exports, divided by two.
And so, it does seem as if it is as basic as that, and does not take account of the non-monetary trade tariff barriers, which is what the
President said yesterday. We don't know, is the short answer, because those I've spoken to this morning say that the formula put out by the USTR, a,
gets you back to the same position, and b, is not a true measure of reciprocal tariff.
ASHER: All right. Richard Quest live for us there. Thank you so much. That's an important point about the effective rate for China being 54
percent, when you consider the tariffs that were already levied on the country, plus the reciprocal tariffs as well, not the 34 percent that was
just levied yesterday.
GOLODRYGA: Yeah. China already calling this a bullying tactic by the United States. So, where do we go from here? Several countries are ready to
retaliate. As you mentioned, China, for example, is expected to target politically sensitive targets like the agricultural and industrial
machinery sectors.
ASHER: Yeah. The EU is also finalizing its first package of countermeasures in response to the U.S. steel tariffs. The European Commission President,
Ursula von der Leyen, says unity will get Europe through these tumultuous times.
GOLODRYGA: Marc Stewart is looking at the Asian reaction. But first, let's go to Europe with our Melissa Bell in Paris, Europe, our biggest trading
partners, collectively as a bloc, the recipients of a 20 percent tariff here from the United States. Ursula von der Leyen already responding,
saying that preparations are being made for retaliatory measures. Just talk to us about the reaction.
MELISSA BELL, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, just picking up on what Richard Quest just had to say, there is a great deal of head
scratching here in Europe going on as well about how that figure could have been arrived at. We've just been hearing from a senior European Commission
official saying it just doesn't make any sense. When you try and do the maths, they consider that there are inconsistencies and mistakes, some
goods that have been doubly tariffed from the first round of steel and aluminum tariffs, in this latest round, in the 30-page document they were
handed yesterday that outlines the American position.
Now, even as they try to work out the base -- what the basis of which they're going to be negotiating on the figures, how they were arrived at.
And by the way, they suggest they're trying to use the American methodology, if there is such a methodology, they said, and I quote that
senior official, they would come out not a 20 percent but a 1.5 percent would be the right figure. So, great deal of confusion about how this
figure has been arrived at, but a great deal of anger as well.
And certainly, the Europeans have been preparing very actively to reply in kind, not just for the kind of responses that you'd expect, looking to
source their soybeans, said this official in Brazil rather than the United States, looking at Japanese motorcycles rather than American ones, but also
with a whole host of instruments that they have up their sleeves, that they believe can do great harm to the United States where it hurts.
So, tightening the Digital Services Act to take on Big Tech can make it much harder for them to make their -- such false (ph) profits in the
European Union, little known until now instrument that they had, anti- coercion instrument that they say will allow them to take on the revenue of big banks made in the EU. They are looking at all of these instruments very
actively, they say, but they say that their biggest asset is their single market, the biggest in the world, 450 million consumers that they say
they're going to at once protect, as they seek to reply to these tariffs, but also to use in terms of making it painful for the United States and
giving them a sort of punishment for what has just been rolled out.
So, there is anger, but a great deal of determination here that the European Union, the United States' largest trading partner, if you look at
it as a bloc, really can act back, protecting itself and hurting the United States where they can. Zain.
ASHER: Melissa, thank you.
Let me bring in Marc Stewart. Marc, what I think is really important to note here is that you had a lot of companies that were slowly beginning to
shift their supply chains out of China over the past few months, thinking that that would really align with the White House's goals, especially if,
obviously, Donald Trump came into office and -- but now you see that these tariffs were not just levied on China, but also Cambodia, Vietnam, where a
lot of these companies had moved their supply chains too. So, it puts these companies in a huge burden (ph). It completely changes the whole
calculation for them. Walk us through that, Marc.
MARC STEWART, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Right, Zain. We're hearing a lot of conversation about how these looming tariffs could change the entire global
supply chain.
[11:10:00]
The goal, if you listen to the White House messaging, is that it would perhaps prompt more American manufacturing and not dependent so much on
other nations such as Cambodia and Vietnam. That is a very lofty ask to expect for something like that to just happen overnight, because whether
you are in China, whether you are in Vietnam, the factory systems here in Asia are like none other in the rest of the world, especially here in
China, where these factories are so nimble. If one fashion designer, for example, says we're going to change the color palette from red to blue in
three days, the factories here are so nimble that they can accommodate that. But, now with these increased prices, it's really going to change the
dynamics.
With all of that said, a lot of these nations, including China, have looked for other trading partners besides the United States in the event of a
situation like this. We've also seen some American companies like Steve Madden shoes, for example, shift from China to Vietnam, hoping to escape
these tariffs. So, there is a lot of adjustment that's going to be made. But, what that is doing is creating so much uncertainty. We've looked at
the market reaction with Melissa in Europe. You and Bianna have been watching the markets fall in the United States, and in Asia today, we saw
very much of the same. A lot of the markets today closed in the red because of this uncertainty.
In particular, I think it is worth to focus on Japan. The DK there -- excuse me, the Nikkei saw the strongest losses of all of the indices here
in Asia. Why is that? Japan is home to these big auto giants like Toyota, like Honda, like Mazda, which depend so much on the American market. So,
everything is in flux. Nations are scrambling to figure out how they are going to respond. China does have a plan, but right now, Zain and Bianna,
it's keeping it very close. As far as the how and when this retaliation will look like, China is not talking about that for the moment. Right now,
they are calling for diplomacy, even going so far as urging the United States to reverse this decision, very unlikely, because there is a lot of
ego involved. Both Xi Jinping and of course, President Trump, want to look strong to the global audience.
GOLODRYGA: No doubt. Marc Stewart, Melissa Bell, thank you so much.
ASHER: All right. Let's go straight now to the White House where we find our Kevin Liptak. So, Kevin, the President actually posted on Truth Social,
saying the operation is over. The patient lived and is healing. The prognosis is that the patient will be far stronger, bigger, better and more
resilient than ever before. Make America Great Again. Obviously, what he is intimating is that there is going to be a little bit of short-term pain,
but eventually there will be long-term gain. When you think about what is going to be the ramifications of these tariffs on American consumers and
American exporters, especially when you think about the reciprocal, or rather retaliatory tariffs that are going to be in effect as well, what is
the White House saying about that?
KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Well, essentially they're trying to urge patience, and I do think it's notable in that President's
statement when he says that the operation is over. These tariffs haven't even taken effect yet. They take place at the end of the week. He signed
them. But, certainly the ramifications and the consequences are very much unknown at this point. And so, the President very much trying to proclaim
victory before I think the full effect of this new tariff policy is known.
But, when you listen to administration officials who have been out this morning, they're really trying to make the case that this long-term goal
that the President has essentially to reorient the American economy and to bring manufacturing back into the United States, that that will all be
worth whatever the short-term pain that we're seeing today is. And I don't think it was necessarily a surprise to the White House that the markets are
reacting the way they are this morning. I think the best indication of that was the fact that they moved this announcement after the markets closed
yesterday.
But, when you listen to them, they essentially are saying that, yes. This will all be worth it in the end. So, for example, you heard J.D. Vance, the
Vice President, say that we're not going to fix things overnight. We heard Howard Lutnick, the Commerce Secretary, saying that the markets would do
extremely well in the medium and long term. And you heard the Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt point back to the tariffs that the President put
into place the first time around, to say, this wasn't the economic disaster that many people predicted it would be. Of course, the tariffs that the
President applied yesterday are far broader in scope, go much deeper in application than what the President did back four years ago. And so, it
remains to be seen whether that's an apt comparison.
[11:15:00]
We also heard last night from Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who tried to encourage restraint among America's trading partners. Listen to what he
said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SCOTT BESSENT, U.S. TREASURY SECRETARY: Everybody sit back. Take a deep breath. Don't immediately retaliate. Let's see where this goes, because if
you retaliate, that's how we get escalation.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LIPTAK: So, this encouragement not to retaliate, one, is not being heeded by other countries, but two, it seems to sort of remove the idea that these
other leaders are not politicians. They are responding to their own people and populations and political pressures, and it seems sort of an outward
stance to take that you wouldn't necessarily retaliate when your country is being targeted by these tariffs. And so, the question, I think, this
morning, and the question that administration officials will have to answer going forward, is just how long this pain will last for the American
consumer, just how long these losses will be sustained before these gains, these benefits that they are pointing to will be felt, and that's a
question I think they'll continue have being asked, and they'll continue have to answer for going forward.
ASHER: All right. Kevin Liptak live for us at the White House. Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: Scott Bessent, we should note, a professor of economic history. He knows how these tariff wars.
ASHER: Absolutely.
GOLODRYGA: And let's bring in Marc Short, the former Chief of Staff for Vice President Mike Pence. He is standing by in Washington for us on this.
Marc, it's good to see you. Thank you so much. Speaking of your former boss, he posted on X not long after the President yesterday announced these
tariffs, and here is what he said, "The Trump Tariff Tax is the largest peacetime tax hike in U.S. history. These Tariffs are nearly 10 times the
size of those imposed during the Trump-Pence Administration and will cost American families over $3,500."
Marc, as we look at the markets right now, the Dow down over 1,400 points, and it brings us back to where we were about five years ago when we saw the
first impact of the COVID shutdown on the markets, leading to the worst three days for the U.S. stock market in U.S. history. That was not
President Trump's fault. This is his own doing.
And I know you're not part of the administration anymore. But, as a Republican, as someone who is still closely connected with some of these
top advisors, how do you justify that? How does he justify that to the American public who, for one of the many reasons, voted for him, for
economic stability and security? They were concerned about inflation, which looks quite quaint, at two percent, given that there are projections now
that with these tariffs in place, they could go up to five percent.
MARC SHORT, FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF, VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE: Well, thanks for having me first. I think that this is an incredibly self-inflicted
wound from the President's team. I think as you cite the Vice President's response to it, I think there is a dramatic departure from the first
administration economic policy that focused on deregulation and tax relief. And I think that the President candidly was frustrated that he felt he was
thwarted in the trade agenda he wanted.
In the first administration, it was pretty targeted toward China, and I think that you're now seeing this global trade war is the reset that he
wanted. I think it's terrifically flawed economically. I think it perhaps - - tariffs typically lead to inflation, but I think if there is enough demand destruction, it can actually trigger recession, and I would
certainly think that this is significant enough to do that.
And I also think there is enormous national security consequences. When we focused on China, we rallied much of the world to our side against China.
What these policies are doing is driving many of our biggest trading partners into the hands of Communist China. And so, I think there is not
just an economic consequence that's disastrous. There is also a national security component that is equally bad.
ASHER: Yeah. It's interesting because Republican Senator Susan Collins echoed the same sentiment. It is one thing to sort of target China with
tariffs. It's a whole other thing to target Canada. I mean, obviously Canada was spared this time around. But, the idea of targeting Canada when
your economy is so closely intertwined with your neighbor, is bizarre. When you think about Donald Trump's perspective, though, obviously one of the
things he said is that his goal is to turn the U.S. back into a manufacturing hub again.
And just in terms of how that happens, I mean, this idea that somehow these companies that have their supply chains in Asia specifically are going to
move those supply chains back to the United States in response to on-again, off-again tariffs that they really can't rely on. I mean, isn't that just
wishful thinking? Give us your take on that.
SHORT: I think it's actually an admiral (ph) goal to bring some of the manufacturing back. I think there is some important national security, and
candidly, even during COVID, you saw there were some pharmaceutical needs. I'd would have been beneficial to have that manufacturing in the United
States.
[11:20:00]
I think the best way to do that and can is the deregulation that I think has forced many companies to go overseas, as well as we reduced the tax
burden back in 2017. America's corporate tax rate was higher than Communist China. Well, we reduced it. We saw those -- lot of those jobs come back.
And I think that what's so misunderstood is this, is that one of the reasons that we have a trade deficit is because America is the wealthiest
country in the world and we can afford to purchase other things. One ways to eliminate a trade deficit is to just drive America into a recession or
depression. If you do that enough, you'll lose the trade deficit. And so, the fact that we have the ability to purchase goods from around the globe
is not a bad thing, but it seems like we're intent on destroying that too.
GOLODRYGA: As you noted, it has been known for Donald Trump throughout his business career to be a big proponent of tariffs and trade wars. And you
intimated that this was a conversation and a topic raised during his previous administration. Obviously, the result was targeted tariffs against
China, the majority of which are still in place, we should note. But, I did hear Secretary Mnuchin, his former Treasury Secretary, this morning, also
suggest that they did look at reciprocal tariffs at the time in his first administration, and convinced him to avoid going that route.
What are your concerns, given that it's clear there were certain guardrails in place, and advisors who advised the President at the time to focus on
targeted tariffs, as opposed to the blanket tariffs that we're seeing right now, what are your concerns about the lack of those voices, apparently, or
surrounding himself with like-minded people in that respect?
SHORT: Well, I think it's not always the best idea to take somebody fresh out of jail and put them in charge of your trade policy, as Peter Navarro
is right now. But, I think that, as well, the reality, as Steve said, reciprocity tariffs is a term that people understand and they appreciate.
And so, it sells well. It's branded well. But, that's not really what this is. I think that there has been a lot of mockery in the fact that what a
sophomoric formula has actually been put in place here and it's not really reciprocal. The reciprocal tariffs is something that polls well and brands
well, but that's not really what the policy is here.
And I do think that the President is sensitive to things that look like they're really done in a sloppy way. And I think that much of the scrutiny
from the last 12 hours of not just the notion of showing that this formula is really sophomoric, but that you're putting tariffs on islands that are
not populated with people -- populated with penguins, and you're basically tariffing countries that are at a different rate for, say, French islands
in the Caribbean have a different rate than France. I think that some of that sloppiness will probably get under his skin, and I think perhaps will
cause some recalibration internally.
GOLODRYGA: Quickly, do you think this market sell-off in this response would do the same?
SHORT: I think he is very sensitive to market reaction. I do think this is what he has always thought was necessary. And so, I think he has been very
flexible on a lot of his positions, but trade is one he has had long term. So, I think he is going to let this ride for a while. But, I do think,
eventually, if the market reaction continues down this path, he will course correct based upon it.
GOLODRYGA: Marc Short, please come back. Great to have you.
SHORT: Thanks. Nice for having you.
ASHER: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: Appreciate it.
ASHER: Thank you.
All right. Breaking news just into CNN. Three staffers with the National Security Council have been fired. This after meeting with a far-right
activist who once claimed that 9/11 was an inside job. The activist, Laura Loomer, also met with President Trump himself. That's according to three
sources familiar with the move. CNN has reached out to the National Security Council for comment.
Let's go back to Kevin Liptak at the White House with more. So, for our international audience who might not know who Laura Loomer is, this is
somebody who has described herself as a pro-white nationalist, a proud Islamophobe. She is known for misinformation. She has been banned from
several social media outlets because of controversial and sometimes quite racist views. Just take us through that, Kevin.
LIPTAK: Right, and she was someone who had a presence on Trump's campaign last year, but then when some of these views became apparent, and as it
became clear that she was traveling very frequently with President Trump as he was campaigning, some of his senior advisors did work to try and remove
her from the inner circle. But, clearly, she is now back, whispering in President Trump's ear about some of the staffing decisions that he has made
at the White House, in particular in the National Security Council, identifying people that she has sort of determined are overly hawkish and
what she calls neocons and who she believes are providing undue influence on some of the President's foreign policy.
And it does appear as if she is having some success in the President's staffing.
[11:25:00]
The President now firing, we've learned, three members of the National Security Council after Laura Loomer met with him in the Oval Office
yesterday, and you saw that video of the White House driveway. She was the woman in red. We spotted her here yesterday, and now we have a better sense
of what exactly she was doing. These officials who have been fired worked in the Intelligence Directorate at the NSC. One also worked as a
legislative liaison between the NSC and Capitol Hill, and another one of them worked in the technology space within the NSC. All of them are now
without jobs.
Today, we are learning the one name that we're still sort of determining whether or not was affected by this is Alex Wong, who is the Deputy
National Security Advisor, who has been coming under fire from people like Loomer, but also others who have suggested that he played a role in that
scandal that occurred here at the White House over Signal. The National Security Advisor, Mike Waltz, adding The Atlantic Editor-in-Chief to a
Signal chain discussing airstrikes on the Houthi rebels in Yemen.
There is some suggestion, totally unfounded at this point, that Alex Wong could have had some role in that. And we do know that she is someone who
has posted publicly criticizing and questioning Wong's views. So, it was evident that his name would have come up in this meeting in the Oval
Office. We do not know whether he was affected by these firings.
I think all of this indicates that some of the restraints that had been put on President Trump during the campaign, perhaps in the early days of this
administration, by people like Susie Wiles, the Chief of Staff, who have made an attempt at least to try and limit the number of people with these
kinds of views, these kinds of sort of outwardly conspiratorial outlooks on the world and on politics, had a limited role in the President's
administration so far. This is an indication that that may have changed, and that those people now do have a role in this White House, do have a
role in advising the President how he is staffing his administration here, still in the very early days of the second term.
ASHER: All right. Kevin Liptak live for us there. Thank you.
All right. Still to come, higher tariffs for countries Trump deems as the worst offenders when it comes to U.S. trade policy. How South Africa plans
to move forward from what they call punitive tariffs, we are live here in Johannesburg, just ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[11:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ASHER: All right. The U.S. Secretary of State is in Brussels for a NATO meeting where he has been listening to world leaders blast the White House
over new tariffs.
GOLODRYGA: Yeah. CNN's Alex Marquardt is covering that NATO meeting in Brussels, and joins us now, or to be a fly on the wall in some of those
conversations, Alex. But, just walk us through what you can report on and some of the takeaway thus far into these meetings.
ALEX MARQUARDT, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, Zain and Bianna, this was already going to be a very intense NATO foreign ministers
meeting. That's actually the first that Rubio is attending as Secretary of State. They were due to talk about NATO unity and the U.S. role in NATO,
which has come under a lot of scrutiny about defense spending and about Ukraine.
But, this meeting has now been somewhat, if not largely, overshadowed by the extraordinary tariffs that President Trump has now put on so much of
the world, including every single NATO member, and it is definitely coloring the conversations and the meetings that are taking place
throughout the day today and then again tomorrow. These tariffs hanging over these conversations, I'm told. One Western official telling me that it
is difficult to do normal business as a result. And then there are some people who are putting a bit more of a positive spin on it, knowing that in
Secretary Rubio, they have someone who they can talk to, who they're not going to fight with over the policies of President Trump, but who they're
going to try to work with.
I spoke with the Finnish foreign minister just moments ago, who said they are -- that the mood is very positive, she said, and they're trying to have
a constructive conversation with him about these tariffs to get to a place where they can remove the trade barriers. Here is a little bit more of what
she had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ELINA VALTONEN, FINNISH FOREIGN MINISTER: Tariffs aren't the best news, but I hope that this is an opening to a fruitful negotiation, especially
between friends and allies, where -- whereby we could reach a situation in which we effectively let go of the existing trade barriers between us,
because that's what we need. We need a reinforcement, also in economic terms of the alliance for the free world. And yes, we have been talking
about that a little bit also today, but the mood has been very, very constructive, and I think also very positive.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MARQUARDT: Zain and Bianna, what we're hearing here today is similar to what I heard at the G7 in Canada several weeks ago, and that essentially
the ministers, including Secretary Rubio, want to focus on things that they can move forward, things that they do agree on. So, while the tariffs are
certainly being discussed, they are trying to focus on those main issues that I mentioned, that they did come here to discuss.
And Secretary Rubio has said specifically that he wants to leave this NATO summit with some kind of commitment, some kind of clear pathway from all 30
plus members of NATO to get to higher defense spending that the U.S. has been encouraging NATO allies to raise their defense spending to five
percent of GDP. That's significantly higher than they've been doing. So, that is where most of these allies and officials are trying to shift the
conversation on how to be more proactive on that, on Ukrainian defense, and again, on emphasizing NATO unity. You heard Secretary Rubio earlier today
dismissing as hysteria questions over the U.S. role in the alliance, saying the U.S. is remaining in NATO, is very much a supporter of NATO. Zain and
Bianna.
GOLODRYGA: Yeah. That much harder for him to reaffirm that as news comes with him having to support his administration leveling unprecedented
sanctions against these allies as well, or tariffs, we should note.
Alex Marquardt in Brussels for us. Thank you so much.
ASHER: All right. Still to come, European nations are in shock after President Trump's aggressive tariff move. How they're reacting, just ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[11:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ASHER: All right. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney is speaking now. Let's listen in.
MARK CARNEY, CANADIAN PRESIDENT: -- not be imposed on Canada. At the same time, President Trump confirmed that the tariffs announced last week
against our auto industry will come in and indeed have come in into effect today. So, while it is progress that further tariffs were not imposed on
Canada yesterday, the President's actions will reverberate here in Canada and across the world. Three sets, three different sets of U.S. tariffs
remain in place and will continue to pose significant threats to Canadian workers and Canadian businesses.
And while they have been imposed under different premises, some things are consistent. They are all unjustified, unwarranted, and in our judgment,
misguided, and we are already seeing the consequences. Just last evening, workers from Unifor Local 444, with whom I met last week, learned that
their auto assembly plant in Windsor will be shutting down for at least the next two weeks. That's 3,600 workers who are now out of work, not by their
choice, workers who now worry how they're going to put food on the table and pay their bills.
I and my government stand in solidarity with those workers in Windsor and all those workers hurt by President Trump's tariffs. And that's why we
committed from the very start that all, and I repeat, all of our tariff proceeds will go to protect workers affected by the tariffs.
CARNEY: (FOREIGN LANGUAGE)
GOLODRYGA: OK. So, we were just listening there to Prime Minister Mark Carney responding to what we saw yesterday from the President, avoiding
additional sanctions against or he was calling them sanctions, tariffs against Canada and Mexico. But, of course, there had already been tariffs
put in place those that did not meet necessarily inside the perimeters of the USMCA. And Prime Minister Carney said that Canada would impose 25
percent tariffs on all vehicles imported from the U.S. that are not compliant with that USMCA deal. And interestingly enough, he did note that
all tariff proceeds will go to protect workers that are impacted, clearly knowing that this is going to come at a cost to Canada's economy.
ASHER: Right. He talks about the job losses. Also noted that these tariffs, in his mind, because they've been three different tiers of tariffs, he
talked about the fact that they were unjustified, unwarranted and in his opinion, misguided. It's really interesting because he is speaking to Paula
Newton, our correspondent there in Ottawa, who has talked about just a sort of extreme, sort of Canadian reaction in terms of pulling American goods
from the shelves. Worth noting that Mark Carney has only been in office for less than a month, and he has got an election to contend with.
GOLODRYGA: He is campaigning.
ASHER: Right. He is campaigning. He has got an election to contend with on April 28th.
Joining us live now is Nik Nanos in Ottawa. He is the Founder and Chief Data Scientist at Nanos Research. So, Nik, I think it's really interesting,
because when you think about the tariffs that are already in place, obviously Canada did not get imposed new tariffs this time around, when you
think about the tariffs that are already in place, just explain to us just the potential ramifications on the Canadian economy, especially when you
think about the fact that these two countries, the U.S. and Canada, are so intertwined and so linked economically.
[11:40:00]
What is going to be the end result of this, do you think?
NIK NANOS, FOUNDER & CHIEF DATA SCIENTIST, NANOS RESEARCH: Well, unless there is some sort of stability, the end result will not be good for Canada
or the United States. The reality is that both countries together are a bit of an economic miracle at creating jobs, automotive jobs, high tech jobs,
all types of jobs, across sectors. And the thing is, is that the friendships and the partnerships go very deep.
I think what I would be worried about is an escalation, because when we look at the public opinion research in Canada and we ask Canadians about
potentially responding to U.S. tariffs, a very strong majority of Canadians would be good with imposing new Canadian tariffs on oil going into the
United States, gas going into the United States, critical minerals. They'd even be -- they're even supportive of canceling the F-35, the U.S. fighter
jet, that contract that is currently on the books in Canada.
So, what I think everyone is worried about is taking a situation that has been a win-win for both countries, and in terms of Canada and the United
States facing the world and competing globally, and unraveling that.
GOLODRYGA: Nik, what does it tell you that Canada and Mexico were spared these additional, the 10 percent baseline tariffs and the reciprocal
tariffs this time around from the United States? Does it suggest to you that public pressure and pushback here in the United States, not to mention
Canada, but particularly in the United States, does have an impact ultimately on this President?
NANOS: Yeah. I think what it shows is that it's much more complicated to unravel kind of the different economies, Canada, the United States and
Mexico, compared to the United States slapping tariffs on other countries, because we are so integrated. And the thing is, is that there are Canadian
minerals that go into American products. There are American products that are assembled, made in Canada. So, the thing is, is that the reality is,
it's much more complicated.
I think this also -- perhaps it's a little bit of good news in terms of a stepped approach and perhaps laying the groundwork. And I think we're
probably seeing a bit of an upswell of appetite in Canada to start discussions on whether there will be a free trade agreement with the United
States, and to get that on the table and to try to move that as quickly as possible, and perhaps that could be a model for the Trump administration to
be at the table and to talk about, what is trade and what is the economy going to look like, when it comes to the partnerships between the United
States, Mexico and Canada.
GOLODRYGA: When it becomes the norm to have Canadians booing the national anthem here in the United States, it tells you how far deep this has
permeated, and this is just within the last few weeks too.
Nik Nanos, thank you so much for being with us.
ASHER: Thank you.
We'll be right back with more.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[11:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: All right. We want to get back to our top story this hour. President Trump's tariffs are sending shockwaves through the global market
after he slapped tariffs on at least 10 percent on most all trading partners on Wednesday. The President declaring even higher levies for
countries he deems to be among the, quote, "worst offenders".
ASHER: Yeah. South Africa is actually one of those countries. It is now facing a 30 percent levy.
Joining us with more on this from Johannesburg is Associate Professor of Public and Development Management at the University of Witwatersrand,
William Gumede. William, thank you so much. It's been a while. Thank you so much for being with us.
When you think about the trade relationship between the United States and many African economies, it's really been underpinned for the past 25 years
by AGOA. That was the initiative that was started by Bill Clinton to really help African countries grow their economies and also boost their exports to
the United States, also help them create jobs as well. Here we are 25 years later. Now, South Africa has a 30 percent levy being imposed on it by the
United States. A lot of people are saying that, well, look, AGOA is doomed. It's likely not going to be renewed. Just give us your take on how this is
going to affect South Africa.
WILLIAM GUMEDE, ASSOCIATE PROF., PUBLIC & DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT, UNIV. OF WITWATERSRAND: South Africa is perhaps in its biggest conflict in the post-
apartheid era with the U.S. So, from our economy point of view, this could have not come at a worse time. If you can remember, South Africa actually
has to fight very hard to get into AGOA because the U.S. didn't want South Africa in there. They said Africa was too big a developed economy to be
part of AGOA. So, having South Africa in the pool of AGOA in itself was a big fight to get South Africa in there.
The big question is now, what would it mean? What were the details, which is a little bit unclear? Does it mean that, because the products that South
Africa -- that have a preferential access to the U.S. markets to AGOA, will that affect those products, or will it affect only the products outside
that South Africa produces outside of AGOA? Because there is a lot of products that South Africa can produce, that's not part of the AGOA
agreement. I think that -- it will depend on the details. I mean, the U.S. has not been clear what it means. But still, it is absolutely devastating
to the South African economy. I mean, South Africa sells fruit, manufactured products like auto and metals to the U.S. and the South Africa
export is around 10 percent or more to the U.S. So, it's really, really going to impact on the South African economy.
GOLODRYGA: Yeah, and we should note that South Africa makes up less than one percent of U.S. imports. When trying to figure out the mathematics
behind these calculations and coming up with a 30 percent tariff, I'm curious your take on how the U.S. came up with this figure, because there
has been a lot of noise made around this model, perhaps, of just using the nation's trade deficit, dividing it by the nation's exports to the U.S. As
an economist, is that something that you respond to how? I mean, do you take this seriously even?
GUMEDE: The calculations don't make sense, really. So, it feels a bit random, although, if -- reading between the lines, clearly, the countries,
that's the U.S. that the Trump administration has seen as problematic, have been given a sort of 30 percent plus tariffs. But, it could still be worse
from a South African point of view, because there is still an ongoing conflict between the U.S. and South Africa over South Africa's
expropriation law. That's not going away.
So, the worst-case scenario for South Africa could be that U.S. may actually unleash sanctions. I mean, that's the worst-case scenario against
South Africa and so on.
[11:50:00]
So, it's very, very important now, from a South African point of view, is to negotiate with the Trump administration and to find another way to find
a compromise that can work for South Africa.
ASHER: Yeah. South Africa has said that it is desperate to negotiate with the United States. I mean, you talked about just the fact that this is
coming at a really bad time for South Africa, but it's coming at a really bad time for Africa as a whole, especially when you think about the foreign
aid cuts. I mean, we've covered on this program so much the effect of the - - effective shuttering of USAID, which, of course, provided humanitarian assistance across the continent. Just explain to us how the timing of this
really affects a lot of African nations.
GUMEDE: No, no. Absolutely. I mean, the U.S. is the biggest contributor worldwide to development aid, and Africa receives the most aid in our size,
Ukraine and the Palestine -- Gaza and so on. So, many African countries not only gets a development aid from the U.S. or from United Nations
organizations who actually get funding from the U.S., but for humanitarian purposes. But, some African countries actually get money also for their
budget purposes. So, there is two way of development aids and they're all impacted.
So, from an African point of view, this is potentially -- this is -- not potentially, but quite devastating from an African point of view, from
firstly humanitarian side, but also from the economy side. So, this may actually hit many African economies, as well as from a humanitarian side. I
mean, most of the conversations so far has looked at, well, what does it mean from humanitarian crisis and so on, but this is also, I think, will
start an economic crisis, which may be as big as the COVID economic crisis for many African countries.
GOLODRYGA: Yeah. And we should just note before we go, just today, the head of U.S. forces in Africa said that China is now trying to exploit winding
down of USAID on the continent there in general, and many would say that China may indeed benefit from these tariffs unleashed, ultimately, by the
United States as well.
ASHER: William Gumede live for us. Good to see you again. Thank you.
GUMEDE: It's not --
ASHER: We have to --
GUMEDE: Thank you.
ASHER: I would love to talk to you more on this, William, but unfortunately, we have to run.
GOLODRYGA: We'll have you back.
ASHER: Yes, we will.
We'll be right back with more after this short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[11:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ASHER: President Trump's harshest tariffs are targeting some of the world's poorest nations. While they're being touted as reciprocal, it appears they
target countries that export more to the U.S. than they import.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. Some of those countries, like Madagascar, Mozambique and Syria, rank among the world's 26 poorest economies. One of the countries
with the highest tariff rates is Myanmar in Southeast Asia, and it is being hit with 44 percent tariff, even as it recovers from last week's deadly
earthquake.
And finally this hour, there are questions being asked today about the planning and research behind Donald Trump's tariffs, after he slapped
tariffs on places that don't make anything that could actually be taxed.
ASHER: You've actually been talking a lot about this, how the calculation was made. Among the territories chosen for tariffs are the tiny islands of
Heard and McDonald, which lie in the southern Indian Ocean between Madagascar and Antarctica. Those islands are covered with snow and rocks.
They've been uninhabited for more than a century. The main residents today are penguins and --
GOLODRYGA: They better get ready to pay up, these penguins and seals.
ASHER: Among the other desolate places hit with Trump's tariffs is a Norwegian island that used to be filled with whaling ships. Today, it has
no permanent residence and zero economic activity. So, there you go.
(CROSSTALK)
GOLODRYGA: Like, how do you respond to that? He was the person that included those places on this list.
All right. Stay with us. We'll have more One World after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
END
