Return to Transcripts main page

Fareed Zakaria GPS

Is America Facing a Constitutional Crisis?; Trump Tests the Limits of Presidential Power; Israel and Hamas Return to War. Interview With Israeli Writer And Author Ari Shavit; Interview With The Council On Foreign Relations President Emeritus Richard Haass. Aired 10-11a ET

Aired March 23, 2025 - 10:00   ET

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

[10:00:30]

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

Today on the program, it is the White House versus the courthouse. President Trump says judges who block his policies should be impeached.

Is this a constitutional crisis or a contest over the use of executive power? We'll have a great debate.

Also, Prime Minister Netanyahu's decision to restart the war in Gaza has been met with major protests in Israel. I'll talk to the journalist Ari Shavit about what was behind the breaking of the ceasefire.

And is Russia really ready to negotiate peace, or is it in Putin's interest to prolong his war in Ukraine? I will ask Richard Haass.

But first, here's "My Take."

At the heart of the Trump administration's policies is one overarching goal. In JD Vance's words from a speech this week, it is to stage the great American manufacturing comeback. Trump believes that the key to transforming America along the lines he wants economically, socially and politically is to revive the factories and foundries across this country. Unfortunately, not only is this highly unlikely to happen, but the efforts to move in this direction will be costly and damaging for Americans.

The idea that America should make more things is a seductive one. We all think of a rich and powerful country as one with huge factories belching smoke, churning out stuff and selling it to the world. It's deeply imprinted in our minds, but it is an image of the past, not the future. The most advanced economies in the world today are almost all dominated by services. Services account for the vast majority of jobs in the world's richest industrialized countries. In America, services account for over 80 percent of all non-farm jobs.

Manufacturing is less than 10 percent. America's distinctive exports to the world are software and software services, entertainment, financial services, and other such intangible things. And in these, the United States runs not a trade deficit, but a surplus with the rest of the world.

Why this transformation? Because as people get richer and better educated, they spend more money on services and not goods. In 1960, American consumers allotted more than 50 percent of their consumption spending to goods. By 2010, it was only 33 percent. And the money for companies is not in goods, but services. A sneaker may cost $25 or $30 to make. The value, then, is in the design, marketing and sales that allows you to sell it for $100.

What part of this product would you rather your workers were involved in? Over the last 40 or 50 years, manufacturing as a share of the total economy and manufacturing jobs as a share of total jobs have both steadily declined in almost all advanced industrial countries. American manufacturing jobs were about 25 percent in 1973. Today, there are around 8 percent. You see very similar declines in the U.K., Canada and even places that were traditionally manufacturing strongholds like Germany, France and Japan.

Japan is particularly important as a case study because it did pretty much everything that Donald Trump wishes that America had done over the last 60 years. It shielded its domestic market from foreign goods through high tariffs and other barriers. The government pursued aggressive industrial policy. Society venerated manufacturing and the educational system prized technical skills and shop work. And yet manufacturing declined steadily in Japan.

It's actually not right to say and yet. One could easily make the case that many Japanese industries declined because of these policies. Government bureaucrats favored certain sectors like VHS tape recorders and Walkman style audio players, and missed the technological shifts that rendered them obsolete. Huge levels of corruption within the ruling elites ensured that firms were favored for political reasons.

[10:05:06]

Most important, the tariffs and other barriers kept Japanese companies shielded from competition. Those decisions and others led Japan far from dominating the world economically, as Donald Trump had warned about in the 1980s, to enter into a decades long stagnation that it has barely now emerged from.

Countries like Japan and Germany that tried hard to boost their manufacturing sectors, and countries like France and Italy that protected their workers through tight labor laws, all saw their manufacturing decline, but they also missed out on the growing service sector that now dominates the world. Germany, the world's third largest economy, has almost no great companies in the digital world unless you count one over 50-year-old second tier software firm, SAP.

America was more open and thus more innovative. As the head of the WTO, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala has said, America has quietly become the dominant player in the service economy, generating $1 trillion of services that it exports. She points out that professional and business service jobs pay an average of $43.60 per hour in the U.S., compared to just $34.83 for the average manufacturing job. So forget the misty nostalgia about manufacturing.

The hard reality is that services is the fastest growing sector in the world economy, generating higher profits and good jobs. The effort to revive manufacturing via protectionism is an effort to defy basic economics. In a free market, people and countries are forced to specialize, moving to those things they can do best. I quoted JD Vance earlier from a speech he gave at the American Dynamism Summit. In it, he explained that the Trump administration would use tariffs to protect domestic industries, but he promised them lots of tax breaks and government support to innovate.

But the long history of capitalism tells us that countries and companies don't innovate because of tax credits and depreciation. They do so because of competition. That is why markets work. They force efficiency. If you shield American companies and workers from competition, you will get not dynamism but stagnation.

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

In the two months Trump has been back in office, he has been fast and furious in testing the limits of presidential power. He has pursued aggressive deportations using national security powers, fired officials who were supposed to be insulated from the president and prevented congressionally appropriated funds from being spent.

To discuss the limits on presidential power, I'm joined by two prominent law professors. Leah Litman teaches at the University of Michigan and has a book coming out in May called "Lawless." It's about the Supreme Court. And Sai Prakash is a professor at the University of Virginia.

Leah, let me start with you. Michael Luttig of dyed in the wool Republican former federal judge, says we are in a constitutional crisis. Do you believe we are? And what is the central element of that crisis right now?

LEAH LITMAN, PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN LAW SCHOOL: I believe we are in a constitutional crisis and in some ways saying we are in a constitutional crisis does not convey the gravity of the situation. I think of a constitutional crisis as a situation where our government has stopped operating according to the rule of law, and the separation of powers has broken down.

The reason why I think we are in that constitutional crisis is because we have an executive branch who is making fundamentally anti- constitutional assertions of authority, the power to disregard law. I think the deportations are the clearest example of that. And also the thing that says to me constitutional crisis does not begin to convey the gravity of the situation our country finds itself in. ZAKARIA: So, Sai, how would you respond to this? Because I understand

that there is a disagreement over the powers of the president, and we'll get to that. But there isn't really a debate about who gets to interpret the law in America. Ever since Marbury versus Madison, the answer is the judges get to interpret the law and you can appeal, but you have to follow what a judge says.

Has that decision, has that understanding not been flouted by the administration?

[10:10:02]

SAIKRISHNA PRAKASH, PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA LAW SCHOOL: I think it's not quite clear, Fareed, because the administration claims that it's followed the orders of the courts, and then there's disputes about whether it actually has. I think it's telling that President Trump has said he's going to follow the orders of the courts, and that the people who said they're not are lower level officials.

So time will tell. I think the administration believes it will ultimately prevail in some of these cases. And so it's not trying to -- not trying to trash the courts, at least not yet.

ZAKARIA: So let me just follow up on that, though, Sai, because, you know, you take the case of the deportations. It seems to me that the excuses the administration have given are pretty lame. But you correct me if I'm wrong. I mean, the idea that the judge's verbal orders don't have to be followed. The argument that the planes were over international waters. I mean, these are American government planes, American government pilots. Presumably they have to follow American law. Or am I mistaken?

PRAKASH: I think you're right. And I think that's why the administration might try to claim state secret privilege to prevent the operational details from becoming public or, you know, giving them to the judge. So I don't think that particular episode crowns the administration with glory. I think that was very unfortunate. And if you notice, they're attacking that particular judge, but they're not attacking the Supreme Court.

Their position seems to be we don't like all these district court judges because they're telling us we can't do certain things. But the position isn't that the executive branch never has to follow what a court says. I think they're trying to hide what's going on precisely because they want to maintain the claim that they are complying with court orders.

ZAKARIA: Leah, what about that argument that a local district judge should not have the ability to rule on something that is a national phenomenon? Is that a fair point that the Trump administration is making?

LITMAN: I don't think so. I mean, the reality is that district courts for a long time have been ruling on matters that will affect the rest of the country. Throughout the Biden administration, for example, you had district courts enjoining on a nationwide basis. The president's student debt relief plan or the COVID moratorium, eviction moratorium. And when this issue has gone to the United States Supreme Court, you have many of the justices saying it has long been the case that district courts have had authority to order relief on a nationwide basis, particularly when that is necessary to give relief to the parties and actually implement the court's decision.

ZAKARIA: Sai, what about the point both of you have raised the issue of national security or secrecy? The Trump administration is using national security as an argument for almost everything it's doing. You know, the argument in the Venezuelan deportation case, basically we're going to use this 18th century law, which is a wartime power. And so it's saying effectively, we're being invaded by these foreign gangs, these gangs in some sense are proxy for a foreign government, Venezuela. I mean, it all seems like a bit of a stretch. Is this an appropriate use of executive authority?

PRAKASH: Well, it's what you said, Fareed. The question is, what does the statute require? What does it provide? And are they complying with it? And I agree that they're using it in a novel way. And I further agree with your point that the courts will tell us whether the president is misusing that authority or not. It's -- I also think that the invocation of national security is supposed to be sort of a magic wand to dissolve all legal questions, but I don't believe that in this case, the courts are going to let mere invocations of national security decide the matter.

ZAKARIA: All right. We're going to take a break, and we're going to come back to the broader question, which is, does the president have the power to do many of the things he's doing -- fire officials, withhold funds that Congress has appropriated? I'll ask my guests in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:18:32]

ZAKARIA: We're back talking about Trump's use of presidential powers with two law professors, Leah Litman and Sai Prakash.

Before we get to the broader issue, Leah Litman, I want to ask you if you wanted to quickly weigh in on this issue of the president and the administration using national security as a way to justify actions, knowing that courts tend to be deferential. Is that always appropriate?

LITMAN: I think the administration is correct to say that courts should be deferential on matters of national security, but that doesn't mean courts can and should just rubber stamp everything the administration does in the name of national security. If they did so, that would mean, for example, courts should have upheld the internment of American citizens of Japanese descent during World War II. There, the federal government justified that by invoking national security.

I think that that is one of the most clear parallels to the situation we are seeing now, as the president is claiming the authority to just declare people to be threats to the United States and deport them without due process of law. Even though courts should consider strongly the administration's assertions of national security they in no way should just abdicate any responsibility to determine what is actually going on and whether there is a true national security need.

ZAKARIA: And that threat, that internment of Japanese Americans, was upheld by the Supreme Court in the Korematsu decision. But in subsequent years, the court acknowledged that that was an incorrect decision it made.

[10:20:03]

Sai Prakash, let me ask you about the firing of all these independent agency officials and things like that. The Trump administration seems to be testing the law. I say that because I look at the way they fired the inspectors general. The law just required that they do six months' notice and provide a reason. But the administration decided to do it summarily, almost as if to say, we don't abide by -- we don't agree with any of these laws that constrain executive power.

Does the president, in your opinion, have the authority to simply fire anyone, anywhere and anyone in any of these so-called independent agencies or independent positions within agencies?

PRAKASH: I think the Constitution gives the president the power to control the executive branch, which includes the power to remove officers of the United States. And I further believe that Congress can't limit that authority. And it's that last part of the puzzle that you put your finger on.

The court in the 1930s and since then has upheld statutes that limit the president's power to remove. But this particular court, the Roberts court, has signaled repeatedly that it's likely to overturn that, those old cases, and I think the Trump administration is counting on that in all these situations. So they're clearly, as you said, trying to provoke a court case where the court overturns those cases.

ZAKARIA: Does that mean, Leah, that, you know, the Federal Reserve, which is an independent agency, can that be directly controlled by the president and it loses its independence, you know, over time, if we go down this path?

LITMAN: I think that is absolutely a possible implication of the administrations and the Supreme Court's position that the president must have the ability to fire officers of the United States. In the lower court proceedings in which the Trump administration is asserting that they have the power to fire independent agencies, they have thus far been unwilling to say and acknowledge that their position would give the president the ability to fire members of the Federal Reserve Board.

I think the consensus is that power would be economically catastrophic since it would allow the president to direct monetary policy, including interest rates, based on political whim, as opposed to the needs of the economy. And for that reason, the administration is trying to basically run away from the implications of their position. But I think you're right that that would actually be a very likely fallout if the court and the administration actually goes the full step to say the president has to have the ability to fire all officers of the United States.

ZAKARIA: Sai, do you agree that the logic of this takes you to the place that the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional?

PRAKASH: So I think the Fed does two different things, Fareed. For one, it regulates banks, and two, it sets this monetary policy. And there are people who have argued that the regulation of banks is an executive activity, that is to say, the enforcement of bank statutes is an executive activity. But the setting of interest rates is not. And that's not an inherently government function. And my recollection is that the administration's executive order on independent agencies draws this precise line.

And so I think they might have the view that they can fire -- they can remove or direct the Fed with respect to regulation of banks, but not with respect to monetary policy. And it's the monetary policy that people care about. People don't believe that the Fed needs to be independent vis-a-vis banking enforcement.

ZAKARIA: All right. There's so much here that we're going to have to get you guys back. But we have to leave it at that. Thank you so much for a fascinating conversation.

Next on GPS, Israel faces a new crisis, this time from within as thousands of Israelis took to the streets this week to protest. The journalist Ari Shavit is there and joins me after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:28:28]

ZAKARIA: Outrage in Israel as tens of thousands have taken to the streets. The rage stems from the resumption of the war in Gaza, and Prime Minister Netanyahu's dismissal of Ronen Bar, the head of the country's internal security service, Shin Bet.

Today, Netanyahu's Cabinet also approved a no confidence motion against the normally independent attorney general, paving the way for her dismissal.

To help us understand it all, Israeli journalist Ari Shavit joins me from Tel Aviv.

Ari, let's start with the resumption of the war. I understand, you know, both sides are claiming that there was a breach. Hamas says it's now being asked to do things that were not agreed to in the original agreement. Israel says Hamas has not abided by the agreement. But there does seem to be a wonder why this resumption, why a kind of massive campaign now against Gaza? And there's some suspicion as to why Bibi Netanyahu is doing it. What is your thought?

ARI SHAVIT, ISRAELI WRITER: Well, there is reason for the suspicion because people are very suspicious of Mr. Netanyahu. Many people in Israel. But I think if you ask Israelis, the vast majority of Israelis want the hostages back, but they want Hamas crushed. And in a sense, with all the achievements Israel had in this dreadful war, that was not achieved. We did not do what America's allies did in Mosul. Hamas is still there.

So I think there is a feeling in the country that a war against Hamas is justified, whether it should have been launched right now, that's a question mark. But if I can connect it to the issues, the fascinating discussions you just had, Israel is right now sinking into a constitutional crisis that is like everything that you discussed about the fears in America is already happening here. So, the two issues, the Gaza issue and the inner constitutional issue and identity struggle within Israel are now merging in a very troubling way.

ZAKARIA: So, I've heard people talk about the nature of this divide in Israel, as you know, an almost a civil war or Israel being on the brink of civil war. Give us a sense of what is the key issue? What is the great divide in Israel right now?

SHAVIT: So again, I think it's a kind of conceptual civil war. I hope it won't get worse. Again, I'll connect it to America and to the conversation you just had. Israel is very similar to America in some ways and very different. The difference we have is that we have no constitution. We have no tradition, and we are at war. And this is what makes the Israeli crisis worse than the one you are experiencing in America.

If I want to be -- to try to be fair to both sides to describe it, I would say that the Israeli liberals are terrified of (INAUDIBLE) scenario. They are terrified that Mr. Netanyahu and others will take over the country, will dismantle the judiciary, will take over the communications, and you will have not only illiberal democracy, but something even worse, because, as we say, we don't have a constitution to defend us.

On the other hand, the populists or the right are afraid that Israel is experiencing a kind of old Turkey model where the judges and the generals are overruling the wish of the people. So, the deeper debate in Israel is between its Jewish identity in the nationalist religious dimension and the democratic identity.

By the way, the secret of Israel is the balance between the two. But that's a crisis. But the real discussion at the moment, which is relevant to America, to Europe, to everywhere, is what is democracy? Because on the one hand, the right is taking it. They are saying we have the majority and the -- we cannot rule because the judiciary, the military, the police, the secret service don't let us rule.

On the other hand, you have the liberals who are saying in a moment we may lose all checks and balances, the defense of human rights, of the rule of law will be in jeopardy. So, it's a profound, profound crisis. If it weren't so tragic, it would have been fascinating. But we are sinking into Israel's worst constitutional crisis.

If in America, it's a question mark. In Israel, it's an emerging reality this week. It's a very dramatic week. ZAKARIA: Haaretz says that Bibi Netanyahu is prolonging the war, has restarted this war because of precisely what you say to shut down the protests on the left, to shut down the dissent and allow him to rule and to survive.

SHAVIT: So, listen, the question -- let's put it bluntly. There is the Benjamin Netanyahu enigma. The old Benjamin Netanyahu was a conservative Republican American. The new Netanyahu that emerged in recent years is more like a French monarch of l'etat c'est moi, the state is me.

The transition is very interesting. It has to do with American politics. I think what changed Netanyahu in many ways in the last few years is, one, a sense of power. He's been to many years or many years in power, but also there is a kind of element of Trump envy. He basically says, why can't I do here what Trump is doing in America?

As I said, there are some good reasons why he can't do here what Trump can do, because it's a different system. But I think that this enigma of why is Netanyahu acting in such an aggressive way is quite a question. And I think that his recent visit to America brought him back as a kind of much more aggressive and taking very radical action.

Although, as I said, the people on the Israeli right have some legitimate grievances. I mean, the issue of how -- we really need in Israel to find harmony again, to rebuild our democracy in a way that balances the rule of law with the rule of the majority. And it's -- while in the rest of the world it's a general question, in Israel, it's very acute right now.

[10:35:05]

And I hope that if we overcome this crisis, we can actually let the silent, positive Israeli majority kind of rebuild the Israeli democracy and a kind of new Israeli republic because we cannot afford in the middle of an existential war to have such a horrible constitutional problem, a crisis that goes with a completely kind of crisis of government in a split society.

ZAKARIA: Ari Shavit, pleasure to have you on, sir.

Next on GPS, is peace possible in Ukraine?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:40:23]

ZAKARIA: An American delegation is in Riyadh to meet with the Ukrainians today and the Russians tomorrow. Could peace be in the offing?

Joining me now is Richard Haass, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations. Richard, it seems to me the central question we're all trying to figure out is, is the United States trying to play an honest broker between these two sides, or is the United States essentially taking Russia's side? And I watched Steve Witkoff, the president's envoy to Russia, in an interview with Tucker Carlson, in which on all the most important issues, the thorniest issues, territory, population and things like that, he seemed to essentially just repeat the Russian version of what's going on.

What was your reaction? And do you think this tells us something about where America is situating itself?

RICHARD HAASS, PRESIDENT EMERITUS, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: Well, Fareed, I also watched that interview. And yes, I thought Steve Witkoff erred in two ways. One was essentially adopting many Russian positions, but also prematurely introducing one in the Middle East are called final status issues, at a time the United States should simply be pressing for what you might call a simple or clean ceasefire.

There'll be time down the road to deal with complicated question of populations and territories and the like. Right now, we simply want to get a cessation of hostilities. So, I don't think questions of territorial transfer and the rest are appropriate, much less adoption of the Russian position that the four referenda that were carried out in the eastern areas were somehow legitimate or representative.

ZAKARIA: You're referring to the referenda that took place in the eastern Ukraine, which the Russians held, you know, under conditions of essentially martial law and claimed that the Ukrainians -- those Ukrainians said they wanted to be part of Russia. Do you think that Putin wants a real ceasefire?

HAASS: I think he sees peace not as an end, but as a means to an end. And his interests go beyond territory based on everything he said and written and shown, Fareed.

Essentially, I think he wants to end Ukraine's existence as a sovereign, independent country, one that is also Slavic but with ties to the West, and that is democratic. That sets an example. I believe that for Vladimir Putin and Russia is unacceptable.

So, it goes beyond territorial issues. And where I think the administration is right, by the way, is saying, yes, we need peace. Yes, we need to talk to Russia. Yes, it's unrealistic for Ukraine to militarily liberate all of its land. But where I think it's really wrong, Fareed, is by essentially taking the Russian position and not putting pressure on Russia.

If you want Russia to compromise, the best way to do it is by making clear that the United States is willing to stand by Ukraine, not to liberate its territory, but to defend itself, to continue to exist, and that the administration has been unwilling to articulate up to now.

ZAKARIA: Do you understand -- you know, you listen to Trump. You hear what Witkoff said about how Putin told Trump that he prayed for him after the assassination because of their close friendship. You hear what Trump has said about Putin, how he and Putin went through hell together. What do you think explains what appears to me clearly a kind of position that Donald Trump has, which is that he feels closer to Putin than to Zelenskyy and closer to the Russian position than the Ukrainian position?

HAASS: Look, Fareed, like you, I've seen all the theories, whether it's an admiration of a -- of a strong man, someone who, shall we say is a textbook illiberal to all sorts of, you know, dislike for Zelenskyy because of the issues with Biden, to other connections.

The answer is, I don't know. I've learned often it doesn't pay to spend a lot of time trying to ascribe motives. So, I'm just focusing on what the president and what his special envoy are saying and advocating. And it seems to me, if their goal is to get peace, they're undermining their own prospects by not putting pressure on Russia.

By simply agreeing to Russian positions, then I think it removes any incentive that Putin has to compromise. Putin thinks that continuing the war works in his favor, that time is on his side. We need to disabuse them of that notion. The only way I know to disabuse them of that notion is either to increase sanctions or increase and extend support for Ukraine, and that is something the administration hasn't been willing to do.

[10:45:04]

ZAKARIA: And finally, Richard, is there a European solution here? Could the Europeans provide security guarantees? How do you -- how should we think about this issue given the withdrawal of American support toward Ukraine?

HAASS: Solution is too big of a word. It's imperfect. I think the Europeans plus Ukraine's own efforts can buy time, but there's no clear substitute for what the United States is doing -- is doing. If we stop, then I think, you know, the Russian incentive to compromise and accept Ukraine goes way down. But it wouldn't be over.

I think Ukraine plus Europe could, could continue the effort. But again, Fareed, we are critical here and I and I hope we are willing to keep the spigot open of support again to defend Ukraine as an independent state, not necessarily to militarily liberate what Russia has taken.

ZAKARIA: Richard Haass, always insightful. Thank you, sir.

Next on GPS, it has been five years since COVID-19 was officially declared a pandemic. What lessons can we learn from how America and the world responded? I have some startling findings.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:50:40]

ZAKARIA: And now for the last look. Five years ago this month, the WHO officially declared COVID-19 a pandemic. The disease and the response to it have had far reaching, often calamitous consequences. A recent Pew study found that 72 percent of Americans believed COVID- 19 did more to drive the country apart than bring it together. There's evidence that the pandemic pushed young people, traditionally a relatively progressive demographic, significantly to the right.

Could any of this have been different? The authors of a new book suggest that it could. The book "In COVID's Wake: How Our Politics Failed Us," by the political scientists Stephen Macedo and Frances Lee, does a systematic review of the response to COVID-19, which the authors find sorely wanting.

They conclude that the scientific community may have overestimated the dangers of the virus and stifled dissenting scientific viewpoints. Authorities failed to loosen policies when data suggested those policies were ineffective, resulting in an unnecessarily draconian lockdown that inflicted lasting damage on the economy and society.

As the authors note, before the pandemic, the science was inconclusive about the usefulness of measures like lockdowns, masking, school closures and quarantines in a respiratory pandemic. A 2019 WHO review found certain interventions, like border closings, quarantining of individuals and contact tracing were not recommended based on the low quality of evidence surrounding their efficacy. The WHO review noted the costs of such measures as school closures and cautioned that they must be weighed against the benefits.

Nonetheless, when the pandemic hit, these measures were adopted across the country and the western world. Why? One reason, according to Macedo and Lee, was an overreliance on mathematical models that may have overestimated the dangers of coronavirus pandemic posed to the general public.

Now, locking down at the start of the pandemic may not have been a mistake. Science is, after all, a system of trial and error. But Macedo and Lee point out that valid scientific perspectives that came out against widespread lockdowns were caricatured in the media as insensitive, immoral and deadly. And the authors offer compelling evidence that in the U.S., authorities did not learn lessons from the trial and error that was taking place in the states, which varied in their lockdowns, school closures and travel bans.

One intervention that was a huge success, with a decisive impact on COVID deaths is vaccination, which began in December of 2020. Before that point, states varied widely on the severity of their lockdowns, largely along partisan lines. Democratic governors locked down earlier and longer than Republican ones. States that went Democratic in the 2020 election closed schools for longer than Republican states.

But as the authors note, there is no significant difference between these red and blue states' COVID death numbers before the introduction of vaccines. The length of stay-at-home orders, the length of school closures, the travel bans, none of it was correlated with fewer COVID deaths. After vaccination deaths were related to the percentage of the population vaccinated.

During the pandemic, I argued that our response to COVID was flawed because the scientists were single minded about one metric, preventing the spread of the virus. But scientific analysis did not factor in the social and economic costs of measures like school closures, quarantines and lockdowns.

Political leaders must balance the costs of lockdowns with their benefits to society, as Macedon and Lee show, because the pandemic response was focused on the narrow outcomes of limiting infection and death, inequality deepened. Low wage workers were more likely to lose their jobs. Small businesses were more likely to shutter. Inflation hit poorer households harder. School closures continued even after the CDC acknowledged that schools were not a significant source of infections.

[10:55:04]

Many students never returned after they reopened, and social isolation grew across the country. So, how can this be avoided for the next pandemic? There are tangible actions countries can take. Invest in emergency response, build up disease surveillance, strengthen public health systems.

But the solution must go beyond a narrow goal of limiting infection. Leaders must make choices informed by science, but also by economics, urban planning, sociology, and by a sense of what is best for society as a whole. As I said at the time, just as war is too important to be left to generals, a pandemic is too important to be left to scientists.

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

If you ever miss a show, you can always listen to my podcast. Go to CNN.com/Fareed for a link so you can listen on whatever app you use.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)