Return to Transcripts main page

Fareed Zakaria GPS

Trump to Visit Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and UAE This Week; Strain on Trump-Netanyahu Relationship; India-Pakistan Truce Holds Despite Continued Clashes. Interview With Foreign Policy Editor-In-Chief Ravi Agrawal; Interview With Gates Foundation Chair Bill Gates. Aired 10- 11a ET

Aired May 11, 2025 - 10:00   ET

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

[10:00:35]

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

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ZAKARIA: Today on the program, Donald Trump leaves tomorrow for his first major overseas trip with stops in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE. I'll unpack what's at stake with the Middle East envoy to the former president, Amos Hochstein, and veteran foreign correspondent Kim Ghattas.

Plus, tensions came to a head between India and Pakistan this week, with both sides escalating military moves. Yesterday, Trump announced the countries had reached a ceasefire. Will it last? We'll explore.

And Bill Gates will give away $200 million in just the next 20 years. He says in that time his net worth will drop by 99 percent. Why is he doing this? I will ask him.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

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

As the White House continues to take up all our attention with its ongoing tariff war with the world, a little ways down Pennsylvania Avenue, Congress is preparing a budget bill that could prove to be almost as consequential.

If it renews Trump's 2017 tax cuts and enacts all his newly proposed ones and does not cut spending, they will add up to $9 trillion to the national debt over 10 years, according to the nonpartisan Peter G. Peterson Foundation. At that point, America would likely be running among its largest deficits as a percent of GDP in history. And that's in peacetime, with no pandemic.

At the same time, Washington is raising tariffs on almost all its imports. We may have the makings of a perfect storm in the global economy. That's what Kenneth Rogoff, a famous Harvard economist, worries about. One of his best books, presciently warned about the dangers of a financial crisis. It was published in 2009 while the global financial crisis was unfolding, but of course was researched and written well before it.

His new book, "Our Dollar, Your Problem," worries that we are jeopardizing the dollar's pivotal role in the global economy. That should matter to all Americans because we benefit enormously from what has been described as the exorbitant privilege of having the worlds reserve currency. Rogoff explained to me that it allows us to borrow more cheaply, whether its mortgages, car loans or credit card debt. And he estimated that the discount Americans get on their loans because of the dollar is probably between half a percent to 1 percent.

It's sometimes hard to detect the signal amidst the buzz of noise that surrounds us these days. But Rogoff says focus on interest rates. The key fact is that after decades of falling and low interest rates, they are now up to historically normal levels and will stay up. That is what makes America's debt burden dangerous. Interest on the debt now approaches $1 trillion per year, more than total defense spending.

The economic historian Niall Ferguson has suggested that when this happens, a great power risks that it will no longer be great. Rogoff predicts an economic storm and that it will be a good bit sooner because of Trump's economic policies. He believes that unless these policies are drastically reversed, there is a 50 percent or more chance of a financial crisis or spiraling inflation, or both by the end of this presidential term.

Some of the pressures we face are because of events outside America's control. Other countries have always resented the dollars exalted status, especially once America began to weaponize it. Washington has promiscuously imposed sanctions on dozens of countries, often unilaterally, and these sanctions work only because of the dollar's special status. The Europeans, the Chinese, the Russians and mostly every large country is quietly making efforts to wean themselves off their dependence on the dollar. It's a slow process, but it is moving in only one direction, away from the dollar.

[10:05:01]

And while there's no single substitute for America's currency, Rogoff believes that the dollar will lose share to a basket of other currencies, as well as alternatives like bitcoin.

This is not all about Trump. Rogoff argues that there has been a bipartisan recklessness in America's fiscal policy for decades, with Republicans cutting taxes and Democrats spending, both without restraint. It is worth noting, however, that the math is clear. Tax cuts are responsible for the vast majority of the increase in the debt to GDP ratio over the last 25 years. He is also profoundly worried that the Federal Reserve's independence is being compromised, both from the right and from the left, though it's worth noting that Trump is the first president to routinely attack the Fed, threaten to fire its chair, and challenge the legality of independent institutions like it in court. Rogoff told me much of the dollar's role comes from our reputation for

good, stable, predictable policy, from the Fed's independence from political pressures, from our trustworthiness as the worlds superpower. You can't trash all that and expect the dollar to be unaffected.

There are solutions, of course, but none are painless. DOGE has been an abject failure. Of the $165 billion it claims to have saved, estimates of its actual verifiable savings are around $65 billion and even that might be an exaggeration. Anyway, that is 3 percent or less of the $2 trillion Elon Musk confidently predicted he would cut from the federal budget. That leaves us where we always were. The path to reducing the deficit is to cut the big programs like Medicare, Social Security and Defense, and also to raise taxes.

We are on track to do the opposite. Enact huge tax cuts and jack up Defense spending by, if Trump's proposal is accepted, a whopping 13 percent. Rogoff says we have been smart and lucky for the past few decades, which has allowed us to run up deficits with no visible costs. But our economic policy is now, quote, "dumb. The worst in my lifetime," unquote. And our luck might have run out.

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

Tomorrow President Trump will begin his first major foreign trip, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. It's a return to the same region he toured on his first international visit in his first term. He's arriving in the Middle East, where an emboldened Israel now threatens to occupy all of Gaza while continuing to strike Yemen and Lebanon.

I'm joined by Amos Hochstein, who was a senior adviser and Middle East envoy in the Biden administration and is now a managing partner at TWG Global, and Kim Ghattas, a longtime foreign correspondent who is a contributing editor for "The Financial Times."

Kim, what does -- what is the significance of Trump deciding, again, to go to Saudi Arabia and to go to Qatar and the UAE?

KIM GHATTAS, CONTRIBUTING WRITER, THE ATLANTIC: Fareed, great to be with you. I think Trump feels -- President Trump feels comfortable in a region like the Gulf, in a country like Saudi Arabia. They speak the same language, the language of business, and it's friendly terrain for him. And he'll find, however, that the region has changed a lot since he was last there in 2017, that Saudi Arabia itself has matured in its foreign policy, that the crown prince has matured, and that they really want to position themselves as equal partners or partners of the U.S. with a lot to offer.

And I think, as I said, they speak the same language. There will be lots of discussions about big business deals, trillions of dollars, Saudi Arabia's mineral, untapped mineral wealth, and of course, also, you know, ostentatious celebrations, et cetera. Similarly, in the UAE and in Qatar, which of course was not on Trump's itinerary last time because the relationship between Gulf countries, other Gulf countries and Qatar was not that good. And we saw how that unfolded with the embargo.

So Saudi Arabia positioning itself and the UAE as well as partners for the United States in a region that is influx, where Iran has never been weaker, and Israel has never been stronger. And I think the contrast that the Saudis will want to draw is with Israel that is being seen increasingly in the White House as a net taker.

[10:10:04]

The relationship between the U.S. and Israel isn't going to change.

ZAKARIA: Let me just -- let me --

GHATTAS: Historical, it's there. It's solid.

ZAKARIA: Kim, let me just interrupt you and make sure I get Amos in on this, because, Amos, what Kim is pointing to is really a dramatic change from Trump I, which was -- which is the maturation of Saudi Arabia into a major force, and a major force for stability. I mean, gone is the Yemen war, the blockade of Qatar, the, you know, the business in Lebanon.

Now, Mohammed bin Salman, the ruler of Saudi Arabia, the de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia, is a force for stability. He's even been counseling some, you know, restraint on the Yemen war -- on America strikes. He's suggested he's open to some kind of deal with Iran.

You were working on precisely these issues. Is this the key shift that's taking place? A Saudi Arabia that is now a kind of provider of security?

AMOS HOCHSTEIN, FORMER MIDDLE EAST ENVOY, BIDEN ADMINISTRATION: Well, Fareed, thank you for having me. It's good to be here. Look, I think that -- I agree with Kim. A major shift has happened in the Middle East since, in the Gulf, particularly, since Donald Trump as president went there in '20, in the beginning of his first term. And what we saw is a shift from not just as Saudi Arabia maturing both economically and politically, but the whole region shifting away on very important policies.

They did not like the JCPOA, the agreement that was reached between the United States and Iran during the Obama administration on its nuclear program. And we're more on the Israeli position on that. Today and for the last several years, they are more in line with supporting a new deal that can be reached because they look at stability. Gone are the days of conflict. And now the days are, how do we create political stability that supports economic activity?

The projection of power is not military, but rather sophistication in advancing their investments in A.I. and data centers, in technology and compute, and advancing their countries. Most importantly, how do we move our economies from dependent on oil to such a large degree to having a diversified economy that is investing in a future that is not dependent on fossil fuels. And to that, you have to make major investments. To do that, you must have a relationship, a strong relationship with

the United States, because despite all our troubles, we are the greatest economy in the world. And we have the most advantaged technology innovation ecosystem that they can invest into. So they see the United States relationship now is how do we make sure that we do business together, that we invest together. And to do that, we make sure that the region is stable.

War in Iran is not part of that equation. War in Gaza is a distraction from that agenda. So I think that the president will find a very different Middle East. I think the trip is very important one because it's not only that there are interests for Saudi Arabia, UAE and Qatar. This is -- they're also very big issues of interest of the United States in the region and globally. Our economic war that we are in with China, and it's a war, we need to have allies.

And the Middle East plays a big part in the U.S.-China relationship. And we discovered that in the Biden administration and worked on that. And I think President Trump is seeing that now. And for sure, we'll hear a lot about that this week.

ZAKARIA: All right. Stay with us. I want to talk about the role of Israel in all of this, and whether there are tensions now between Israel and the United States, when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:18:33]

ZAKARIA: And we are back with Amos Hochstein and Kim Ghattas.

Amos, what is the state of the relationship between Trump and Bibi Netanyahu? What -- there seem to be tensions and I noticed something that the U.S. deal that the ceasefire or whatever it -- pause it negotiated with the Houthis in Yemen, whether or not it holds, does not include Israel. So the Houthis and the Israelis continue to fight, which is unusual, as I recall, the one you guys negotiated in the Biden years covered Israel.

What is going on, do you think, between Jerusalem and Washington?

HOCHSTEIN: I want to be careful because I lived through four years of learning from the media all kinds of tensions between President Biden and Prime Minister Netanyahu. Look, it's always a bit difficult because our interests are -- of the United States is to support Israel's right to defend itself and to support it overall. But sometimes there are differences of opinion and difference of interest.

On the Yemen thing, look, it's very -- it was strange to me. I would have thought the United States would want to make sure that any ceasefire with the Houthis includes a cessation of hostilities between them and Israel directly. So have a situation where we can't respond and attack the Houthis if they hit major strategic assets in Israel. That's something that I think needs more explanation.

[10:20:02] I think overall, Israel wants to continue the war in Gaza at the moment. I think the Trump administration would like to see a conclusion. I think the Trump administration would like to see if there is a space for a deal with Iran. I think Israel clearly does not want to see that. So there are fundamental differences between the two countries, and they have to figure out how to get to the other side of that and how to make sure that they can work together. I think this trip, though, is about the U.S. bilateral relationship with Qatar, Saudi and the UAE. It is not about Israel.

ZAKARIA: Kim, you're in Lebanon. The Israelis are using this moment where they are much more powerful. Iran is weakened. The proxies, like Hezbollah weakened. They're hitting hard in Lebanon, against the Houthis. And, of course, they are now talking about occupying Gaza. What do you think that is doing?

GHATTAS: Well, Amos negotiated the ceasefire between Lebanon and Israel, and Lebanon is trying its best to assert its sovereignty across the country and deploy the Lebanese army. Israel continues to breach the Israeli continues to breach the ceasefire targeting southern Lebanon. Lebanon complains about it. Not much is done about it. I'm sure there are breaches on the Lebanese side as well.

But it is very concerning to see that Israel is implementing a policy or deploying a policy that only aggravates the problem that it's trying to resolve, which is dealing with groups like Hezbollah or Hamas. The more you continue using military force, you more you feed fodder to these kinds of groups. And I think that that's where Trump would like Benjamin Netanyahu to, in essence, get with the program.

I think the relationship, the alliance between the two countries remains strong, but they're not speaking the same language at the moment. As Amos pointed out, Trump wants stability, business deals, perhaps normalization between Saudi Arabia and Israel is not on the table. But Benjamin Netanyahu's insistence on continuing with military strikes in Syria, in Lebanon and continuing the military assault on Gaza does not fit with Trump's vision for the region.

Neither does it ensure Israel's long-term safety and security. It certainly doesn't bring back the Israeli hostages. And let's not speak about the devastation that it has visited on the Palestinians.

ZAKARIA: Amos, we don't have a lot of time. But I do want to ask you briefly, what is going on in Gaza, I take it that that means, and it seems to me, both sides, Israel and Saudi Arabia seem to realize normalization is not going to happen because the Saudis have said there has to be progress, real progress on a Palestinian state. Israel is right now essentially occupying Gaza and is also taking over large parts of the West Bank. So is that completely off the table for now?

HOCHSTEIN: It seems like it has to be. Look, Israel has had remarkable success militarily. It is failing at translating military gains into diplomatic gains. And I think Israel has a historic moment here to get a better relationship with Lebanon long term, a better relationship with Syria long term, and normalization with Saudi Arabia that I cannot think of something that is more strategically important to Israel's national security and for regional security.

And all they have to do is end the war in Gaza and start a pathway towards some kind of Palestinian state negotiations. And to get there is relatively simple. And it seems, for political or other reasons, that Israel is not willing to take that step. I think the President Trump is actually right that that is the vision of the region. And I think it's also right for Israel.

ZAKARIA: Thank you so much, both of you. And we will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:28:32]

ZAKARIA: After days of conflict, India and Pakistan appear to have come to a shaky truce. It was announced Saturday by President Trump on Truth Social. He said after a long night of talks mediated by the United States, India and Pakistan have agreed to a full and immediate ceasefire. But all is not well, especially over the flashpoint of Kashmir, where a militant attack last month gave rise to recent hostilities.

Joining me now is Ravi Agarwal, the editor-in-chief of "Foreign Policy" and a former CNN New Delhi bureau chief.

Good to see you, Ravi. Really interesting to see how the U.S. had to get involved. JD Vance, if you remember, made this statement when the whole thing first began, saying, look, we have nothing to do with this. You guys should calm down, have direct talks, but we have no interest in getting involved.

What does it mean that finally the United States realized that it had to get involved?

RAVI AGRAWAL, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, FOREIGN POLICY: That something happened and all of this moved so quickly. So this entire conflict has basically lasted about four days. And when India escalated around about Thursday and Friday and began to attack Pakistani military sites, remember it went further into Pakistani territory than at any point since 1971. And the reporting indicates that some of its strikes went close to one of Pakistan's nuclear command centers, and that may have been a signal for the United States to feel like Islamabad is cornered. And if they don't get involved, this could escalate further to the unthinkable option which is either side using nukes.

ZAKARIA: To me, this is the window into the kind of world we may be entering. You know, a much more messy world where the previous -- the normal restraints no longer apply. It used to be that all these Indo- Pak conflicts were along the line of control. Now, they're sending drones into each other's cities. And also, a place where the United States does not have the unrivaled influence it once had because the key story here that we have to bring in is Pakistan is now essentially a reliable ally of China's.

AGRAWAL: That's right. ZAKARIA: And part of what the story appears to be is that the Chinese provided the Pakistanis with military equipment that did better than many thought it would.

AGRAWAL: Yes, exactly. And so, that would have been on the initial day of attacks on Tuesday night in India when reports indicate that some Indian fighter jets may have been shot down. India, of course, denies this.

So, there's a proxy war element here in that there are Chinese fighter jets. There are French fighter jets. There are drones, the likes of which we've never seen before in this conflict. But, you know, Fareed --

ZAKARIA: And the media ecosystems, its -- everyone has their own version of truth, right?

AGRAWAL: Yes.

ZAKARIA: We have no idea what actually happened.

AGRAWAL: I mean, I've been covering this for a while. I don't know who to trust. The Indian side says one thing. The Pakistani side says another. Their respective media are also parroting government lines, and it's very hard to break through and understand what exactly happened. Historians will have a better sense of this.

But I will say we are in a more dangerous place today than we were a month ago. And the reason is that these skirmishes have happened for quite a while. But every time India has upped the ante and this time it has gone further into Pakistani territory than at any point since they became nuclear powers --

ZAKARIA: Why do you think India is emboldened?

AGRAWAL: It felt -- well, its economy today is 11 times bigger than Pakistan's. In 1999, it was only five times bigger. So, India feels more confident. It feels that these cross-border attacks have increased and it needs to do something decisive.

But then most of all, at the root of this problem is what Pakistan -- the fact that its military is unable to control militants on its side of the border which India wants to change.

ZAKARIA: This is the fundamental thing that Husain Haqqani, the former ambassador, wrote eloquently about, which is the Pakistani military derives -- it has made this alliance with jihadi groups.

And I think in this particular moment, the Pakistani military felt it was not popular. It had jailed the most popular man in Pakistan, Imran Khan, who was prime minister, for taking on the Pakistani military. And maybe they did this as a way to rally the flag, rally the country around a military that had gotten very unpopular.

AGRAWAL: It could be. And the thing is, again, like if you look at what both sides gain from this, I think, for Pakistan its military wants to up the defense budget. It wants to prove that it can sort of ward off a much bigger, stronger neighbor. But then most of all, for the military, they have to perpetuate themselves. And that ultimately is what they're looking to do.

This Pakistani general, however, is a wild card. He is more fundamentalist, more religiously motivated than previous Pakistani generals. He's also a former spy chief. So, if anyone does have knowledge --

ZAKARIA: Whom Imran khan fired.

AGRAWAL: Exactly.

ZAKARIA: Which is, again, as I come back to the root of this is they don't want a very popular democratic leader to continue to be prime minister of Pakistan.

AGRAWAL: Exactly. This will happen again.

ZAKARIA: Ravi Agrawal, always a pleasure. Next on GPS, why has Bill Gates decided to give away almost all of his money much more quickly than he planned? He answers that question when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:38:43]

ZAKARIA: One of the world's wealthiest people, Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, had originally planned for the Gates Foundation to continue its work several decades after he and his ex-wife, Melinda, died. On Thursday, he announced that he's speeding up this plan. He wants to give away $200 billion, including 99 percent of his own wealth, in the next 20 years.

The Gates Foundation has already sent more than $100 billion out the door in the past 25 years to try to solve some of the world's most difficult and pressing problems. Bill Gates joins me now.

Bill, you've always been, I think, basically an optimist. And I would describe myself similarly that -- you know, at the end of the day, the trend lines for things like life expectancy and mortality and -- they're all going in the right direction. But I think it's fair to say that over the last few years, they have -- some of them have plateaued, extreme poverty, maternal mortality.

Is some of your urgency in accelerating the spending because you're worried that some of these trends are not moving in the right direction?

BILL GATES, CHAIR, GATES FOUNDATION: Well, if you look at the 25-year time period, the Gates Foundation got started in 2000 and becomes the world's biggest then.

[10:40:03]

And we go from spending a billion a year to now we're almost at 9 billion. That's the fastest rate of improvement ever in history of reducing child to death, HIV deaths.

You're right that the pandemic and the fiscal situation in Africa, the deaths there, meant that the last four or five years have not been as good. If the world remains generous, which is at risk, I think the next 20 years we can make even more progress.

Asia has distinguished itself and so as -- as those poverty numbers have gone down, you know, you're left with the challenge mostly in Africa. And so, there are some things that are going to be tougher. But the innovations make -- will overcome those difficulties if we stay true to this cause.

ZAKARIA: And despite the enormous amount you're giving, you cannot make up for the declines in government funding, right? You can be confident about this, right? That if government fundings in the western world for foreign aid keep declining or even stay where they are, you're going to have millions and millions, tens of millions of people dying.

GATES: Absolutely. We'll see a reversal instead of going from the 10 million children dying here to the 5 million, it's going to go back up. And so, we're going to lose millions of lives.

And a poignant milestone for that will be the Gavi, the group that buys vaccines for these poor countries, that 80 percent of that has been rich world governments, 20 percent is Gates Foundation. If that 80 percent is substantially cut, that alone will lead to lots more deaths.

So, we are definitely in a global health emergency because the European budgets are being cut and the proposal in the U.S. is very dramatic. It's not only is money been cut, in fact, by the executive branch, they're proposing that the Congress, in the next budget cut at 80 percent.

Now, I'm going to try and avoid that. I'm going to work, you know, with the executive and Congress. But that would be a dramatic reversal in the improvements we've driven.

ZAKARIA: You said that Elon Musk choosing a through DOGE to cut USAID, to essentially dismantle USAID, is a case of the world's richest man being involved in the deaths of the world's poorest people.

Musk is a smart guy. Do you think it was pandering to the prejudices of the Republican base which thinks all foreign aid is wasted? What do you think was going on there?

GATES: Well, I think if you show up and say in a few months you can cut $2 trillion out of a $7 trillion budget, you aren't -- you're not going to succeed. And so, you go for the softest things and, you know, things that are overseas that you can mischaracterize, like, you know, characterizing it as condoms for Hamas then have one iota of truth, and talking about people that he hasn't spent time with.

I mean, I spent a lot of time in Africa. I go to Nigeria, Ethiopia, Kenya, you know, meet the USAID people. You know, he's a genius in some domains but in global health it hasn't -- it hasn't been a focus.

And so, I'd say that, you know, firing all those people and cutting off all that money that was a mistake. You know, I don't think the U.S. values are to lose those relationships and destroy those health systems. That increases the risk of a pandemic. You know, we want to be a force for good.

If there was a modest cut, you know, a challenge to be more efficient or to get others to step up, I'm fine with that. But 80 percent that's going to be millions of deaths and it's a mistake.

ZAKARIA: You -- as you say, you have worked with USAID and with those -- you know, I've visited and seen these programs. You know, they've been characterized. Part of the, you know, the issue is they were cut. But then there was a kind of brutal assault on these people saying that they're -- you know, they're criminals and things like that. Do you -- what is your assessment of the people who are working on PEPFAR and things like that?

GATES: Well, these are heroes. I mean, to take a job in Africa, and these aren't, you know, high paying jobs, other than the military these are about as honorable and they're the face of America to people who we want to be allied with us. And we want their health systems to be, you know, tracking potential pandemics. So, you know, it's a shame that they were characterized in that negative way.

[10:45:07]

As we build it back, fine, we'll do it with a bit fewer people but demonizing them is deeply unfair.

ZAKARIA: When you thought about doing this, you know, spending down the entire foundation fortune, is it part of your concern that the world is changing so much, especially with A.I., that you just don't know what a foundation 40 years from now should do? And you'd rather -- you know, you are living in the world now with the problems it faces now. Why not spend the money on it now?

GATES: Yes, I created the Gates Foundation and its partnerships, and I'm very proud of that. And I feel like, I'll get to be hands on for part of that 20 years. Hopefully, all of it. But the culture of the institution is very strong. So, I know that it will take these dollars and have very high impact.

I also know the world will be very different 21 years from now partly because A.I., as you say. And so, I count on the people who are rich then will take whatever the infectious disease malnutrition agenda that we haven't achieved in the 20 years because we'll -- you know, we will end polio. We'll get rid of a lot of other diseases that they'll take it up knowing the geopolitics and the A.I. of that time.

So, I don't want a legacy. I'm not trying to be remembered. That's not important to me. And so, the fact the foundation will be gone, you know, the dream would be that malaria and polio, the legacy would be that nobody remembers what those awful diseases are.

ZAKARIA: Next on GPS, I asked Bill Gates what he makes of Trump's tariff war. That's coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:51:35]

ZAKARIA: And we are back with more of my interview with Bill Gates. Let me ask you what you think about the state of the global economy and particularly the U.S. economy. Ken Rogoff, the great Harvard economist who I spent some time talking to, says that to him the worst thing about our -- U.S. current economic policy is it's all self- inflicted and voluntary. That in the past we've made mistakes but they were during a big crisis, a Great Recession, or Nixon facing the problem of, you know, the dollar not being able to be converted to gold, or even Smoot-Hawley was after the financial crash of '29, after the Great Recession, trying to figure out what to do.

These tariffs we've just imposed on ourselves, how damaging do you think it is?

GATES: Well, the big concern I have is we've created a lot of uncertainty. You know, if you're going to build a new factory, you need to understand the policies for the next 20 years not just the next two days or even four years. And so, the notion of, OK, what is the structure, particularly in a time of A.I. where the labor substitution, both white collar and blue collar, is going to start to change the economy, I think, it's a bad time to interject so much uncertainty.

And, you know, this is not a -- agreed set of things or a carefully discussed set of things. You know, what's going to happen with pharmaceuticals or electronics? You know, I open the paper every day wondering. So, I do worry that uncertainty means that investments don't take place.

ZAKARIA: How worried are you about the future of the U.S. economy?

GATES: You know, I think there's a lot of resilience in the U.S. economy. You know, we've seen, even with this uncertainty, the jobs numbers have not been that bad. I'm not an expert on that. I mean, another one or two percent of growth. You know, for me, it's about the cutting edge. And saying, OK, can the U.S. stay in the lead?

And, you know, I do think being friendly to other countries so they want to -- you know, they don't think we're going to withdraw our technology in some sudden way, that's important. And then, you know, being an exemplar of -- you know, briefly, there were gigantic tariffs on very poor African countries. And, you know, I don't see what the benefit of that would have been. You know, I'm particularly focused on our role in lifting up those in greatest need and the potential tariffs would have been particularly bad for these poor countries.

ZAKARIA: Do you think the tech bans on China are work -- or do they make the Chinese more determined to come up with their own local versions, as with DeepSeek, as with, you know, Huawei, with the Ascend chip? I mean, is -- are the bans having, in a weird way, the opposite effect? GATES: Oh, absolutely. I mean, they have forced the Chinese in terms of chip manufacturing and everything to go full speed ahead.

[10:55:00]

Basically, it's very hard in the world we live in with, you know, open-source software and everything. The Chinese are not going to get substantially ahead of us, and we're not going to get substantially ahead of the Chinese.

The A.I. technologies will be available to the world, and people can build on those in their own way. The notion that it was going to be super unique to us we -- you know, we made clear to them that they needed to make their own chips, and they -- they're making great progress on doing that.

ZAKARIA: All right. Bill Gates, always a pleasure.

GATES: Thank you.

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)