Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with U.S. Government Foreign Assistance Recipient Thandiwe Mhlambi; Interview with Former USAID Deputy Administrator James Kunder; Interview with Ambassador Former U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer; Interview with "Mussolini: Son of the Century" Director Joe Wright. Aired 12-1p ET
Aired February 13, 2025 - 12:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[12:00:00]
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
Donald Trump's war on USAID threatens lives and American influence abroad. We'll hear from a recipient in South Africa and from the former deputy
administrator of USAID, James Kunder.
Plus, as alarm bells sound over the threat to democracy, a new series about Mussolini follows his rise to power and Italian fascism. I'll speak with
director Joe Wright.
Also, ahead, making sense of Trump's tariff plans. Walter Isaacson speaks with Ambassador Robert Lighthizer, considered the architect of the first
Trump administration's tariff policy.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London.
European allies are reacting to a series of gut punches by President Trump, following his phone call Wednesday with Vladimir Putin and saying they'll
meet soon in Saudi Arabia. The E.U. now warns against, quote, "a dirty deal" to end Russia's war in Ukraine.
Perhaps no move, though, has had a bigger impact on more people around the world than the attempt by the Trump administration to shut down the U.S.
Agency for International Development, USAID. The head of the World Health Organization has warned this freeze has impacted 50 countries, and it risks
serious regression to global health care, including vital work tackling bird flu, polio, and HIV.
Today, the Republican controlled House Foreign Affairs Committee held a hearing on all of this, calling it, quote, "USAID betrayal."
Still, it's the ones on the ground who are impacted the most. More than 6 million people could die from HIV and AIDS in the next four years if the
U.S. pulls its global funding for these programs, according to the U.N. Aids Agency.
Thandiwe Mhlambi is part of a program that reduces the risk of HIV among girls, and it empowers them economically. It's funded by both USAID and the
CDC. And Thandiwe now joins me live from Johannesburg, South Africa.
Firstly, welcome to the program and thank you for agreeing to talk about, you know, a sensitive medical issue, frankly. I just want to ask you how
you're feeling, what is going to happen if this, you know, drug that you're taking, PrEP it's called, a drug to prevent HIV, if you're no longer
allowed to have it?
THANDIWE MHLAMBI, U.S. GOVERNMENT FOREIGN ASSISTANCE RECIPIENT: Hi, Christiane. I'm good. I'm good, but I'm worried about the impact of the
drug being stopped. Because it was easily accessible, firstly, and now, it's more of everything has been put into a halt and it's stressing
everyone out.
AMANPOUR: And, Thandiwe, has it stopped? Have you not been able to get access to it?
MHLAMBI: From the clinics, I could go get it, but it's a process. From where I was getting the PrEP, it was from the BAS, which is one of the BAS
-- the Child BAS, which is one of the organizations that work with (INAUDIBLE).
AMANPOUR: Yes, which is a USAID and CDC party, certainly. So, what is your health situation? How do you think your personal health is going to be
affected?
MHLAMBI: It is already affected because now -- once you take the drug, it takes about seven days for it to work effectively. And then, after seven
days -- if you stop drinking it, you need to restart the treatment.
AMANPOUR: OK. And --
MHLAMBI: So, in all sense, I'm vulnerable to like getting infected with HIV.
AMANPOUR: Is this an -- what made you go to, you know, this USAID program?
[12:05:00]
MHLAMBI: One, I wanted to do something with my life and I already have a baby. So, I didn't want to get pregnant, an unplanned pregnancy, actually.
So, I wanted to prevent that and also prevent the risk of getting HIV.
AMANPOUR: And this program that you are a part of and that you are a recipient of, apparently, you yourself, you said you wanted to do
something, you've recruited about 40 other women to this program. And you're saying it's not just about the medicine, but it's also about female
empowerment.
MHLAMBI: Yes, most definitely. It's not also -- it's not just about the medicine, it's not just about prevention, it's also about empowering young
females not to be vulnerable to dating older men in order for them to make a living with themselves.
Because I can attest to that with the information that I got from the DREAMS programs, which was under an NGO called CNT. I got empowered. I got
the confidence to start my own business. And I'm not outspoken as a person but with me being in the program, it taught me skills to speak for myself,
to be independent and also financial freedom.
AMANPOUR: You see that's something I think many people don't fully understand, they think it's just a handout but it actually, as you say,
allows many recipients to create a life for them for themselves as well.
MHLAMBI: Yes.
AMANPOUR: So, what is your immediate future looking like? And by the way, where is this medicine, this PreP medicine that you should be getting, you
know, from this program? What's happening to it now? Is it just sitting on a shelf somewhere?
MHLAMBI: I'm guessing it's just sitting on a shelf somewhere, because we already had appointments, but we were told that the services have been
stopped. Everything has just been stopped without any explanation.
AMANPOUR: And what are the other ladies and girls telling you about this abrupt cutoff? Because South Africa, as we know, has one of the highest
rates of HIV in the world.
MHLAMBI: Yes.
AMANPOUR: What are the girls saying to you?
MHLAMBI: They're also worried. They're also panicking. They also don't know what to do. Should we resort back to going back to the clinic? Should
we resort back to the old way? Because, yes, we can go back to using the clinic, but the past was more convenient because it was within an hour --
few minutes' walk. It moves around areas.
AMANPOUR: Thandiwe --
MHLAMBI: And also, in universities. Yes.
AMANPOUR: -- did they give you any warning or was it just -- you know, what did the people who you normally get this from, how did they break the
news to you that it wouldn't be happening anymore?
MHLAMBI: It was just via WhatsApp text. And then, they just said the program has been suspended. So, they'll get back to us when they have a
response.
AMANPOUR: Gosh. Well, listen, Thandiwe Mhlambi, thank you very much for joining us and giving us your, you know, personal and eyewitness story
about this huge, huge and dangerous development. Thank you very much indeed.
Now, USAID is one of those organizations where selflessness in helping people aligns with self-interest for the United States. President John
Kennedy established the agency in 1961 to save lives and win goodwill around the world at the height of the Cold War. He called the agency,
quote, "a source of strength for us." While any bureaucracy, of course, might benefit from reforms, what happens if this one is simply destroyed?
James Kunder was deputy administrator of USAID under President George W. Bush. Yesterday, he signed a joint letter to Congress which said, in part,
history will not look kindly on this avoidable tragedy. And he's joining me now from Washington.
James Kunder, welcome to the program. I want to ask you to react to Thandiwe from South Africa, but first, tell me why you think this is a
tragedy.
JAMES KUNDER, FORMER USAID DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR: At two levels, Christiane, I think there are two issues being battled in Washington right
now. The first question is, does the United States of America want to have a robust foreign aid program around the world? And the second issue is, if
we want to change it, what's the right way to change it?
I'm actually most -- as an American citizen, I'm most concerned about the second part of that, because unlike the kind of orderly transitions we've
had in previous presidential administrations, Democratic or Republican, what we have now is this insane Elon Musk-led mafia takeover where
patriotic American citizens who work for USAID in some of the most dangerous places in the world are being stripped of their job and insulted
by the president of the United States while we're shooting ourselves in the foot from a geostrategic point of view.
[12:10:00]
AMANPOUR: And that for you is the tragedy?
KUNDER: To me it's a real tragedy. Because, look, I've watched these hearings where various Republican congressmen -- and by the way, I'm a
Republican political appointee myself. I'm a Republican voter and I understand national security is the primary reason why we have the U.S.
Agency for International Development. I served in the United States Marine Corps. So, I'm all in favor of supporting America's strategic objectives
around the world.
And -- but that's what USAID does. It works with our soldiers and diplomats around the world to make sure that people understand that America cares
about them. And if they have a chance to feed their children, get a decent job, they're less likely to join the extremist organizations that want to
attack the United States.
When John Kennedy started USAID, the battle was against global communism. Today, the battle is against extremist ideas around the world and a rising
China. And I guarantee you that they are celebrating President Trump and Elon Musk's moves in Beijing right now.
AMANPOUR: It is extraordinary. I mean, as you can imagine, I've spent my whole career in some of the worst disaster zones, seeing nothing but USAID
sacks of rice and flour and people helping, and seeing the goodwill that comes from people in the most severe circumstances to the U.S. because of
this.
So, I just want to ask you, you know, you said it's -- you likened it to a mafia takeover of essentially the federal government, Musk actually called
USAID A criminal organization, Trump called the leaders of USAID, radical lunatics.
Again, you worked under a pretty conservative president, George W. Bush, and he actually, you know, put forth one of the most revolutionary programs
called PEPFAR to save people dying of AIDS and really put American muscle and goodwill behind that. How do you explain calling it, you know, radical
lunatics?
KUNDER: It's insanity. It really is, Christiane. I want to tell you, when you walk into the USAID headquarters building in Washington, the first
thing one sees on the wall is the memorial plaque to the dozens of USAID officers who have been killed around the world looking out for America's
interests, killed in a plane crash delivering food aid in Ethiopia, killed at a checkpoint in Sudan or assassinated in Jordan. These are brave,
patriotic Americans.
Really, when I hear this kind of crazy talk from Elon Musk and from the president of the United States, I -- seriously, as an American citizen, I
doubt their mental stability because any reasonable observer understands that the world has been changed for the better and America is more powerful
and safe because of the work that USAID does.
Right now, there is an outbreak of Ebola, a disease in Africa, a hideous disease where people die of internal bleeding. We've had that breakout in
the United States, and what we want to do is contain it in Africa through the medical surveillance systems that USAID has built over the years. But
by destroying those and stripping away the contributions of Americans, technical experts overseas, we're decreasing, not increasing the safety of
our own citizens in this country, we're not making America great. We're making America weak.
AMANPOUR: And actually, talking about the health, as we all know, since COVID, it's a -- you know, it knows no boundaries and borders, these
viruses. And the head of the WHO has also expressed alarm because Trump has pulled out of the WHO as well. So, that's, you know, on the health thing,
And as I said, U.N. aids believes that if this funding is not immediately restored, more than six million people could die of AIDS.
Now, I say that because Marco Rubio, secretary of state, said, we don't want people to die, and this and that, this is not punitive this is -- you
know, this is -- whatever it is, I don't know what he's trying to say.
[12:15:00]
In 2017, he tweeted, foreign aid is not charity. We must make sure it's well spent, but it is less than 1 percent of budget and critical to our
national security. He also said in the speech, this is the current secretary of state, I promise you it's going to be a lot harder to recruit
someone to anti-Americanism and anti-American terrorism if the United States of America is the reason one is even alive today.
So, again, that's backing up what you say and what almost all experts say about the strategic and the humanitarian necessity of USAID. But -- yes,
yes.
KUNDER: The most -- I'm sorry, the most dangerous thing I see as an American citizen is this desire by the president and Elon Musk to increase
dramatically presidential power absent the constraints of the legislature.
It really is up to the Republican leaders in the Senate and the House of Representatives to stand up for congressional prerogatives. When I took
over as a Republican political appointee at USAID, the career officers there, the career foreign service officers and civil servants, they
understood there was a presidential transition. They were waiting for instructions on what the priorities of the Bush administration would be.
That's how this should happen now. There should be an orderly transition. There should be hearings on Capitol Hill.
And this notion -- that's why I mentioned a mafia takeover, this notion that somehow the Congress doesn't have any role in this, the
representatives of the taxpayers don't have any role in this. And that somehow Elon Musk is going to make these kinds of decisions in America's
strategic interest is so bizarre, is so unlike any other kind of presidential transition that's ever taken place before. It's really
something that the congressional leaders have got to stand up for.
And the -- you know, in the long run, USAID is an important strategic tool for America. It protects our nation. It makes our nation great. And that's
really the critical issue, is whether the Congress is going to stand up for the rights of the taxpayers.
AMANPOUR: And of course, the taxpayers should know, again, that it forms less than 1 percent of the federal budget. I don't know what they're being
told, but I know in polls, they think that America is paying, I don't know, a third of the budget to these kinds of programs, but it's less than 1
percent.
So, I want to ask you a devil's advocate question, obviously, and that is, what would you say, if you were coming in now, needs to be reformed at
USAID? Where would you say the bloat or the agenda is? Because this seems to be massively ideological from what they're saying.
KUNDER: What -- that's a very -- that's a great question, and that gets to the nub of the debate. There are two hearings on Capitol Hill today and I
watched part of it before your show. And, you know, what they're showing up there is, oh, USAID or the State Department spent $25,000 for this gay
rights program somewhere or spent some other obscure program. And that's the way this is being sold.
The critics of USAID are trying to fight the culture war issues of the United States. The domestic issues through the U.S. foreign aid program.
Well, if there were some crazy programs like that, and frankly, that sounds crazy to me. If there are such programs like that, they were directed by
the previous administration. So, it's incumbent upon the incoming administration to change those programs and set some new direction.
I personally believe that the meta issue of aligning U.S. foreign aid programs more closely with U.S. foreign policy objectives is a worthy
objective, and that can be done. The president can name a blue-ribbon commission. He can talk to previous USAID administrators. He can talk to
academics. There's a way to do this right to make the program work.
But what I fear will happen is that these anecdotal stories will carry the day. You know, when John Kennedy started USAID, Christiane, the global
literacy rate, the number of people who could read worldwide was 42 percent, less than half the adults in the world could read. Today, that
number is 87 percent. A literate world population in Asia, Africa, the Middle East, South America, that's in America's interest, because those
people are likely to understand then how democracy works.
[12:20:00]
We eradicated smallpox for millennia. Parents watched their children die of smallpox and with USAID's leadership, we eliminated smallpox from the face
of the Earth. The long-term strategic changes that our foreign aid agency has contributed to have been dramatic. And instead of talking about those
kinds of things and what we need to do in 2025 to make the agency effective, we're having these silly discussions about, you know, a $15,000
grant in Brazil or somewhere that makes head -- grabs headlines.
AMANPOUR: OK.
KUNDER: So, that's how I see the issue. And I think there are some changes that could be made, but the administration and Elon Musk are going about it
in a bizarre way.
AMANPOUR: Well, I want to dig down a little bit on that because, you know, again, you served a very, very conservative president who nonetheless did
this amazing thing with PEPFAR that everybody, his critics and allies alike, say has been phenomenal, saved something like 26 million lives since
it was first created in the 2000s.
And even I was struck today, some pro-life people are speaking out against the cutting of these programs. They wrote -- these pro-life doctors wrote
in The New York Times, we think PEPFAR should be a special priority of the pro-life movement. Its treatments empower mothers to protect their unborn
children, provide hope that the births of these children will be moments of joy, not despair.
So, these are the conservatives that this administration claims to be representing, speaking out against this. I guess my question is then, why
do you think, having served for so long, that this massive, whatever you want to call it, overhaul, or ripping through to destroy the current
federal government and all its agencies, in such a rapid way, honestly, overnight, people are saying, people are just shocked by what's happening.
Nobody can make a comparison in any other country that this kind of upheaval is happening so rapidly. Why do you think that is the case in the
United States of America?
KUNDER: You know, it's a little bit difficult for me to put myself in Elon Musk's brain right now. But my honest assessment, as somebody who has
worked in government for a long time and as an American citizen who tries to pay attention to these things, is that the basic issue here is that some
very powerful economic interests in our country want to return the United States government to the Robber Baron era of the late 1900s, when there
were very few regulations, when 11-year-olds were put to work in the coal mines of the country, and when the billionaires of the day, the Elon Musks
of the day, ran the economy pretty much unfettered by any kind of government regulation.
So, frankly, I view the assault on USAID as the camel's nose under the tent. I think it's the first step in an effort to tremendously reduce the
power and influence of the federal government. And I would cite as evidence that the administration has already pointed out that they're going after
the Consumer Finance Protection Board and the Department of Education next.
So, what I think I see here is a broader ideological assault on the U.S. government. And I happen to think that USAID just happens to be the first
in line because I think the ideologues working at the White House right now thought, oh, this will be an easy target because people really don't like
foreign aid. And I think what they're learning is that a good number of American citizens are quite alert to the damage this is doing to our
country.
I may be wrong, Christiane, but that's my understanding of what's afoot here, unfettered executive authority, and a desire to reduce the influence
and authority of the United States government, which in my view protects the taxpayers of the country.
AMANPOUR: It's really interesting to hear your views having served president George W. Bush. Thank you so much, James Kunder. Thank you very
much for being with us.
KUNDER: Thank you for your interest in this topic. Thank you.
AMANPOUR: Next to President Trump's tariffs, more and more are coming by the day, but what are the proven ideas behind this policy? One man has more
insight than most. He is Ambassador Robert Lighthizer, served -- who served as U.S. Trade Representative in the first Trump administration, and is
considered the architect of the president's tariff policy. And he's joining Walter Isaacson on tariffs and trade wars.
[12:25:00]
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Thank you, Christiane. And Ambassador Robert Lighthizer, welcome to the show.
ROBERT LIGHTHIZER, FORMER U.S. TRADE REPRESENTATIVE: Thank you for having me, Walter. Pleasure to be here.
ISAACSON: Right after he took office, President Trump announced that he was going to do pretty hefty tariffs on Mexico and Canada, maybe 25
percent, and then at the last moment paused for 30 days. Do you think that he's looking at those tariffs as something that are good in and of
themselves or mainly as a bargaining tool?
LIGHTHIZER: So, I mean, that's a big question. In this case, I think these tariffs were a bargaining tool. But that's not to say that tariffs in all
cases are. So, the way I think about this, Walter, is I think of certain tariffs are to change the economic relationship between the United States
and our trading parties -- partners, so as to help our working people and to help the United States. That's one group of tariffs. That is not the
ones he's talking about there.
The other group of tariffs are ones that are doing for national security reasons. And you conclude that there's national security a threat that is
so significant that you're willing to use all tools. And I would propose that, you know, killing 80,000, 90,000, 100,000, whatever the number is,
Americans from fentanyl every year rises to that level.
So, in this case, these tools were for a national security purpose. He wants to stop fentanyl from coming into the United States and killing us.
And in that case, he's going to use every tool he can, including economic tools and including tariffs. And I think that's what he did.
ISAACSON: So, tell me about the aluminum and steel tariffs. What category do they fall in?
LIGHTHIZER: Those, I believe, will still be in the national security sphere. The president used a national security statute when he implemented
these tariffs in 2018. So, I think those are still national security. His position is that if you don't have steel mills, you're not going to be able
to defend yourself and we need steel mills, and the same thing for aluminum. So --
ISAACSON: So, in other words, those won't necessarily be a bargaining chip in which there'll be some agreements and exceptions, he really feels that
we need to create steel and aluminum mills here and thus need a tariff for economic reasons?
LIGHTHIZER: And thus need a tariff to overcome, I would -- in my parlance, to overcome this national security problem, this threat of not having real
steel. Now, that isn't to say that I think you can't -- in the first term, we ended up, in some cases, agreeing to quotas in return for getting rid of
the tariff. So, there could be something like that, but he -- I believe that our steel industry needs to be saved. The president believes that, and
this is a step in that direction.
ISAACSON: But would it hurt national security if steel prices go up and we can no longer make airplanes at Boeing and other would be hurt?
LIGHTHIZER: You know, you have people who will say that there's bad results from tariffs. We can talk about those if you're interested, Walter.
I don't -- I think most of them are not true, have not been true historically.
But your point is, is there downstream effect? Yes, of course there's going to be downstream effect. But I think what you're ultimately going to see is
more U.S. production, better prices, and more downstream products.
And if you look at what happened the first time right before COVID, the president had added 500,000 manufacturing jobs downstream, if you would,
manufacturing jobs between December of 2016, right before he was sworn in, to December of 2019, right before COVID. So, there's some economists will
say it's going to have that effect. The facts are that it really hasn't had that effect.
ISAACSON: Well, it's a general consensus among most economists that tariffs are kind of hurt growth to some extent, and that free trade helps
makes consumer products cheaper. Are you disagreeing with that consensus or are you saying, well, there's something larger we should look at, not just
more consumer goods, we should be looking at other effects that we have with manufacturing in this country?
LIGHTHIZER: So, that's a really good question. I would say yes to both. I think they are wrong. As a matter of fact, free trade hasn't failed because
it doesn't work. It's failed because it doesn't exist. What we really have is a number of countries that have very aggressive industrial policies, and
those are not just tariffs, there are banking system, labor laws, environmental laws, taxation, currency manipulation, they have a whole
series of things. And as a result of those policies, they're taking advantage of the U.S. market, hurting our economy and hurting our workers.
[12:30:00]
So, I think that the notion of free trade might be nice in a test tube, it has not worked in real life. But in addition to that, I'm making the
additional point, which you just said, and that is that what is fundamentally an economic policy is that we have strong workers and strong
families and strong communities. These things at the margin are more important than more consumption.
It's more important that we have strong communities than that we have a cheap third television set, right? The reality is there are more important
things than that. But even within the economic sphere, I do not believe that free trade exists when you have a trillion-dollar plus trade deficit
in the United States and a trillion-dollar surplus in China, and this goes on for decades. Well, that's not free trade. That's not how trade is
supposed to work.
The way trade is supposed to work is you export in order to import, and thus, you help your workers and your consumers as well as the consumers in
the country you're trading with. That's not what China's done, it's not what Germany's done, and there's a bunch of other countries.
Those countries have policies that in the 19th century would have been called beggar thy neighbor policies and they're designed really to increase
exports, to decrease imports, and to shift, really, resources within their own community away from consumers and towards producers. And they can
accumulate wealth that way at the expense of other countries and other workers, and that's what's happened. And that's the kind of thing that
needs to be corrected.
And as I say it's the reason, really, that -- it's one of the reasons that President Trump was elected originally and why he was elected again, to
straighten this out.
ISAACSON: You just said that countries like China, countries like Germany, even Vietnam, have great trade surpluses, and that they move -- they have
an industrial policy that moves away from helping their own consumers and tries to do cheaper, better exports. Tell me what's wrong with us getting
good, cheap exports if they're going to penalize their own consumers in order to help ours.
LIGHTHIZER: So, it kind of depends on what your objective is, and it goes to the second part of what you were talking about a few minutes ago. So,
what is the objective? If the objective of economic policy is to maximize consumption, if that's your objective, then there's nothing wrong with it.
But this is a little bit like the farmer who sells 100 acres every time he wants to overspend and eventually finds himself with having consumed most
of his farm, and the final analysis, he doesn't have a farm. His lifestyle is different. He's poorer.
Everybody knows that producing more and consuming less is a way to get wealthy. And the reverse is a way to get poor. And what we're finding
ourselves is getting poorer and poorer. And it's not because Americans are spendthrift or the like, it's because of these aggressive industrial
policies of other people. And the objective of economic policy, as I said, is not to do that. It's to have a strong U.S. economy, a strong workforce,
and stronger, better communities and families.
ISAACSON: Yes, you just said in a way that it'll be a little bit more expensive for consumers. President Trump has said there'll be some pain for
this, but there'll be a long-range gain. Obviously, J. D. Vance, Oren Cass, others have said there's a tradeoff. To what extent do you see that there's
a tradeoff, and what types of pain should we be willing to take in order to have, as you say, a better jobs and industrial base in the longer run?
LIGHTHIZER: So, I think that very soon, in a short -- certainly in the medium-term, you'll have excess production in the United States that will
actually get prices down, not up. I don't believe that tariffs in all cases are inflationary. They might be in some cases, they're not in others. We've
seen the United States put in place tariffs and had no inflation at all in certain cases. It kind of depends on what your circumstances are.
But there -- you can have short-term disruptions in some products, but that's not the same as systemic inflation, right? Systemic inflation is
when all prices go up a certain amount or on average. If this or that product costs a little more and some other product costs less, then that's
not really inflation, right?
So, I think you will see some period, some small period of disruption. I don't think it'll last very long. I think economists were wrong when they
predicted inflation in the past, when we've had tariffs and we haven't had inflation.
I think that countries like China and others who have a lot of barriers to trade don't have inflation necessarily. Some do, some don't. So, I don't
think you're going to see a lot of costs.
[12:35:00]
Some of the people who are importers now will make less money and people who are producers in America will presumably make more money. But as a
whole, I don't think you're going to see very many negative effects of this.
ISAACSON: In The New York Times, you wrote a piece and you said -- you call for countries with democratic governments and mostly free economies to
come together and create a new trade regime. You didn't explain much of it there, though. Tell me what that new thing would be, what is a new world
organization, and what would it do?
LIGHTHIZER: So, so let's talk about that. First of all, I laid out the issue generally, and the reason I did that is if you start getting into
every detail, the people just start looking and poking at the details and ignore the basic point.
Right now, we have a WTO, before that we had something called the GATT. And it basically is a bunch of countries coming together and making a series of
commitments. Unfortunately, those commitments don't cover the vast, vast majority of what is industrial policy. They just don't cover it. So, what
we need is to get to the end of balanced trade.
So, I suggest that if these countries got together and said, we're going to have one level of tariffs within the group, a higher level for countries
that are either geopolitical adversaries or chronic trade surplus people, in other words, people who don't want to -- who don't believe in the basic
model.
ISAACSON: Well, wait. Let me stop you right there. Does Germany count as within the group or a chronic trade surplus country?
LIGHTHIZER: So, to me, you would have a country like China, it would be outside of the group. A country like Germany would for sure. Remember,
there is no country like Germany in the trade sense, right? We have really the European Union. But for sure, countries that have surpluses, like
Germany, would be in the group and you could raise tariffs on Germany, not to the high level, but raise them somewhat to get back towards balance.
Then everyone has the incentive to have global balanced trade. If everyone does that, we're all better off. And from the United States' point of view,
much of the world growth is because of our transferring wealth overseas in a tune of a trillion or a trillion and a half dollars perhaps every year.
And we have to stop that. We can't afford that anymore.
ISAACSON: It seems it's aimed at China, and a lot of what you say is aimed at China. And I think you said we're in a cold war with China. It's more of
a threat than both Germany and Japan before World War II combined, which was a real head snapper for me, since I know what a threat Germany was
then. What is the problem with China other than it has a trade surplus?
LIGHTHIZER: So, let me say, first of all, the purpose of this new organization is not to be anti-China, it's to get a bunch of democracies to
have something to replace the WTO. And that something would be a system based on balance.
Now, separately from that, you say, what about China? I believe that China is a geopolitical competitor. China is aggressive. I think China has seized
themselves as the alternative to the West, the alternative to the United States. They believe that totalitarian Marxism is the future and that it
should be the future.
And if you see what they're doing across the board, you can see every action they take. They have the biggest Navy and the biggest army and
they're growing them. They're militarizing the South. China Sea, you can see them being really economic sponsors, at least of both the war in
Ukraine and the war in the Middle East by buying the oil. You can see the espionage and the like.
So, the fact is we have -- we are in, I believe, and there's much of people smart -- far smarter than me that believe this, we are, in fact, in a
second Cold War with China. We want to avoid utmost it being a hot war, right?
So, right now, I think we're on track to avoid that. But you don't -- once you realize that they are this geopolitical competitor, you don't want to
be in a position where you're transferring hundreds of billions of dollars a year to them to build up their military, to build up their technology, to
sponsor wars and to engage in activities that are basically contrary to the interests of the United States.
So, I view these as related, but separate. One is this geopolitical threat, which I believe is existential, and then the other is this, you know,
trying to develop a new trading system that actually works for all the democracies in the world.
[12:40:00]
ISAACSON: Last month, Republican Senator John Thune said, I'm not a big fan of across the board, universal uniform tariffs because in some cases of
the impact it has on the agriculture community. What do you say to that concern?
LIGHTHIZER: Well, first of all, American -- America's farmers and the agriculture community is very, very important. It's an important part of
the American industry, and I'll tell you something, no sector in the American economy is more affected by protectionism and closed markets
around the world than is the agriculture community.
Agriculture is protected everywhere because of politics. It's the craziest thing. So, I'm very sympathetic to the notion that we have to take care of
our farmers. The president talks about that all the time. And I think that opening markets abroad is a very important part of this policy. But I think
you can do that in the context of balanced trade, you can do that at the same time that you're getting our trade deficit down.
And remember this, for the first time in our history, in recent years, we actually import more food than we export. So, the farmers have a lot of
upside in the kind of balanced trade policy we're talking about.
ISAACSON: There have been reports that the European Union has some very specific plans that they haven't announced to retaliate if they're tariffs,
especially on goods from Republican leaning states. Do you worry that a tariff war like that could hurt Republicans at the polls?
LIGHTHIZER: Well, I'm not worried about the -- you know, the politics of it, but I'm worried about the economics. What's going to help Republicans
most at the polls, in my opinion, is working class people to start getting -- and farmers, just who are working class people, to start getting their
fair share of the pie. I think that ultimately growing this economy, growing it for middle class people is the ultimate political payoff.
I would say you know, retaliation is always an issue, but when you have a trillion-dollar -- at least trillion-dollar trade deficit, most other
people have a lot more at risk than we do. You mentioned Europe. Europe's got about a $200 billion surplus with us. Now, they're not going to want to
give that up very easily. I can understand that. If someone is taking advantage of you, you say stop, they're not going to want to stop. But I
think it's in the interest of our people that we really force them to do it. And there's a limit to what people can do in retaliation when you're
basically the -- when you run a big, big, big trade deficit.
ISAACSON: Ambassador Robert Lighthizer, thank you so much for joining us.
LIGHTHIZER: Thank you, Walter.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And next we go back in time to a portrait of the early 20th century and the warning signs of fascism. A new series, "Mussolini's Son of
the Century," follows the rise to power of the Italian dictator. It examines the thuggery and manipulation that made him Il Duce. Here's a clip
from the trailer.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): You see us as clowns, liars, clowns, outrageous. Maybe so. Maybe so. Still, that's irrelevant. We are
the new.
Every era has one. One who, on his own, thinks his dreams can come true.
We are making history.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: The eight-part series is directed by Joe Wright, who's best known for acclaimed films like "Atonement" and "Darkest Hour." And he joins
us now live from Los Angeles. Joe Wright, welcome to the program. It's an amazingly --
JOE WRIGHT, DIRECTOR, "MUSSOLINI: SON OF THE CENTURY": Thank you.
AMANPOUR: Well, first, an amazing series, and secondly, incredibly timely. I want to ask you just to talk to me from the beginning, because as a
journalist, I was obviously, you know, taken by how you open it with the young, well, 35-year-old Mussolini, who's now starting his own paper and,
you know, he used to be a socialist. Tell me why you started with that and what was the significance of that move?
WRIGHT: The show goes from 1919 to 1925. So, it's about the birth of fascism. And for me, personally hearing the word fascism bandied about over
the past eight years, I wanted to understand its etymology and really get to grips with what the word meant.
AMANPOUR: And what did you figure out? I mean, it's obviously that you see in many autocratic or dictatorial regimes, even now, that one of the first
targets is a free press. And I thought that was interesting. But I also thought what was interesting, you had him basically saying, you know, the
people need a strong man with a simple idea. You know, I will feed on their anger and their hate is what -- you know, what I was struck by. Tell me
about that.
[12:45:00]
WRIGHT: Well, I think what we discovered was that Mussolini used the legitimate concerns of a discontented people and twisted them to become an
authoritarian or autocratic rule. So, that was something that we became very interested in.
AMANPOUR: And we're going to play one of the clips that we have. You have him -- the style of the filming is very much Mussolini talks directly to
the camera a lot, and we're going to play this clip and talk about it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): For the future, the vanguard, the revolution. Today, fascism is born. Fascism, a beautiful creature, made up
of passion, ideals, courage and change that will conquer millions and millions of hearts. Yours too, I'm certain. Follow me, you'll love me too.
You'll become fascists too.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, Joe, who is he talking to when he turns to the camera? What was that device about?
WRIGHT: He's talking to us and he's talking to the viewers at home directly. The idea was to try and get as close to him as possible, to try
and understand him as a human being. And at the beginning of the show, he has control of the narrative, which I think is something very important to
this kind of leader, and all leaders maybe. And then as the show progresses, he loses control of that narrative.
AMANPOUR: And I've also, you know, read and seen the way you portrayed him. You know, he is a horrible person with horrible politics, but he has a
certain charisma, a certain humor. And you note -- and of course you did "Darkest Hour" about Churchill during the darkest hour. And you note that
Churchill found -- you know, he did have some humor about him. I found that part of his, you know, character development interesting.
WRIGHT: Well, Mussolini managed to seduce an entire nation and much of the world, even Churchill was writing to him, congratulating him and so on. So,
I felt it was important to understand how he managed to do that and to at times seduce the audience of the show. But then, you know, whip the carpet
from underneath them and have them apply some critical distance.
AMANPOUR: Do you see that it has any --
WRIGHT: Question --
AMANPOUR: Yes, yes.
WRIGHT: Yes.
AMANPOUR: Yes. No. And do you feel that the fact that it's coming out now and, you know, there's such a huge political upheaval going on around the
world that it has relevance today?
WRIGHT: I personally do very much so. But my job was to try and understand fascism and its roots and causes and to understand Mussolini and then allow
the audience to discover those parallels for themselves.
AMANPOUR: There's almost no English in there. It's -- I mean, I don't know. Did you start by deciding to do it in all Italian? Was it something
you decided to do? How did that happen?
WRIGHT: No. Originally, we had the dialogue in Italian and then the direct address to camera in English. But as we were in rehearsals and pre-
production, Giorgia Meloni came to power. And the next day, I went in and said I felt that I wanted every single Italian to be able to understand
every single word of what he was saying.
AMANPOUR: And what reaction has this had in Italy? I know it -- I think it was premiered at the Italian or the Venice Film Festival. What reaction has
it had there?
WRIGHT: It's had an extraordinary action, and I feel like Italy has never really come to terms with its fascist past and perhaps present. So, it's
really been quite a shock to the Italian people and establishment, and there's been a lot of conversation. It's been on the front page of every
newspaper for some time now.
AMANPOUR: So, Giorgia Meloni and her Brothers of Italy Party were elected in 2022. I mean, she's become pretty much a very successful prime minister
at home. She works nicely with her, you know, international partners, but also, she has had a very distinct effect, according to Italian journalists,
on the freedom of the free press there, the free and independent press there.
[12:50:00]
And as you know, there's going to be very important elections in Germany and the AfD, which is the very far-right party there, is making very strong
gains. What -- I mean, does it surprise you that this is happening now?
WRIGHT: It shocks me that it's happening now, but perhaps doesn't surprise me. I mean, I remember when I was scouting locations in 2016 for "Darkest
Hour," just prior to the Brexit vote and looking around at the state of the north of England and the state that people are in and the expression of
austerity that was happening there, and I felt that we were headed into some very difficult times.
AMANPOUR: And actually, you say also that you described seeing and hearing in Italy that some people look back on the Mussolini era with kind of rose-
tinted glasses. But I want to ask you then, why --
WRIGHT: I hope so.
AMANPOUR: Yes, why do you think that it's had so much trouble getting a distributor in the United States? I mean, you wrote one streamer told you
the project was too controversial for them to pick up. What does that mean?
WRIGHT: It means that fascism or anti-fascism is now a controversial topic and that the entertainment industry is becoming more and more apolitical,
more and more centrist, and that is of great concern to me and many others.
AMANPOUR: And what -- where do you hope it will be picked up? What is the -- I know it's on Sky here in the U.K., it's shown in Italy as well. How --
do you have plans for a broader -- you know, broader distribution?
WRIGHT: Yes, we're in negotiations now, and I think it might be picked up by a European-based company that has a lot of reach in the States. I think
it's a really important show for people in America to be able to watch. If we don't learn from history, then we're pretty lost, then we're working in
the dark.
AMANPOUR: It's interesting that you've done these, you know, historical dramas as well as some of the wonderful period dramas, "Pride and
Prejudice," "Atonement," et cetera. It's very dark. I mean, it's shot very darkly. It's very dark heavy in a way despite the flashes of, you know,
sort of character acting so to speak. How do you get through that? I mean, it's eight parts of this terrible part of our history.
WRIGHT: It was a fairly brutal piece to make, but I had the amazing Luca Marinelli playing Mussolini and we became very close and we became kind of
brothers in arms, really. I think one of the things I discovered about fascism is that it's sort of the politicization of a toxic masculinity.
And so, we really sort of investigated that and tried to come to terms with what that really meant. But I'm surrounded by great people. My editor
Valerio Bonelli and many others, who -- we supported each other, you know, there was a camaraderie in this journey into the heart of darkness.
AMANPOUR: And just very quickly, I think a lot of people are happy that the -- you know, the fabulous Luca, who I think you had put on a lot of
weight for this film, is now back to his more normal and attractive weight.
WRIGHT: He's back to his beautiful self again. Yes.
AMANPOUR: Well, it's really, really interesting and I'm so good to have you on. Thank you, Joe Wright.
WRIGHT: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much.
AMANPOUR: Now, the series is available, as I said, in the U.K. and Italy on Sky and the streaming service Now.
Finally, tonight, 2024 was a huge year for cinema and a groundbreaker for gender equality on screen. A new study has surveyed the top 100 films of
the year and found that the percentage of films with female leads was equal to those with male protagonists.
The first time this has happened in recent years, but women continue to face unequal pay and sexism in the workplace, putting that into simple
perspective was actress Olivia Colman.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OLIVIA COLMAN, ACTRESS: Don't get me started on the pay disparity. But male actors get paid more because they used to say they draw in the
audiences. And actually, that hasn't been true for decades. But they still like to use that as a reason to not pay women as much as their male
counterparts.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
COLMAN: Particularly in our industry.
AMANPOUR: So, let's ask Tia because I want to know what -- yes, tell me, do you have a pay disparity? I mean, you're an Oscar-winning actress,
Olivia.
[12:55:00]
COLMAN: I'm very aware that if I was Oliver Colman, I'd be earning a -- load a lot more than I am.
AMANPOUR: Really?
COLMAN: And I'm not saying I'm -- absolutely yes. I'm aware of -- I know of one pay disparity, which is a 12,000 percent difference.
AMANPOUR: 12,000 percent?
COLMAN: I know. I'll tell you about that later.
AMANPOUR: Oh, gosh.
COLMAN: Yes, do the maths.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Well, Christine Lagarde, former chief of the IMF and current head of the European Central Bank, has done the math. Bottom line, closing
the gender employment gap significantly increases a country's GDP. There you have it.
That's it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. And remember, you can always
catch us online, on our website, and all-over social media.
Thank you for watching, and goodbye from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:00:00]
END
