Return to Transcripts main page

Fareed Zakaria GPS

Interview with Former Canadian Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland. Interview With Columbia SIPA Center On Global Energy Policy Founding Director Jason Bordoff; Interview With Princeton University Near Eastern Studies Professor Bernard Haykel. Aired 10-11a ET

Aired October 18, 2026 - 10:00   ET

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

[10:00:48]

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 from New York.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ZAKARIA (voice-over): Today on the program, how to lose friends and diss people. Chrystia Freeland, former deputy prime minister of Canada, explains how Canada has reacted to Donald Trump's crusade against America's neighbor.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: They're nasty people.

ZAKARIA (voice-over): Then diesel. Why is Trump rewarding Russia with a 36 million barrel deal? And Saudi Arabia, the powerful Middle Eastern nation, is getting hit by the Houthi rebels next door. How is this happening? I'll ask Princeton's Bernard Hochul.

Finally, we will tell you about one Western country that has been able to do what everyone else says is impossible. Build amazing infrastructure.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

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

In a very well-written speech last week, delivered against the magnificent backdrop of the acropolis in Athens, Secretary of State Marco Rubio urged the West to rediscover what made it exceptional. He described the qualities that defined Western civilization as the fire of passion, strength, courage, pride, and celebrated its ambition, nationalism and relentless pursuit of excellence. He warned that the West had become ashamed of the very things that made it great.

Rubio is right that the West has sometimes lost confidence in its own traditions and ideals, and it shouldn't. But Rubio himself seems deeply confused about what made the West exceptional.

Consider the qualities he celebrates. Courage, strength, ambition and pride. Genghis Khan had all of these in abundance. So did the Persian emperors, the Russian czars, and the rulers of Imperial China. Every great civilization has celebrated its warriors, glorified its conquests, and believed in its own superiority.

What truly distinguishes Western civilization is not its military power or national pride, but its intellectual and political traditions. From Greek philosophy and Roman law, through Christianity, the scientific revolution and the enlightenment, the West developed a set of ideas that challenged the arbitrary exercise of power.

Reason, scientific inquiry, individual liberty, democracy, the rule of law and universal human rights became central to Western civilization and set it apart.

Other cultures have traditions of morality, justice, and human dignity. But in the West, these ideas evolved into revolutionary political propositions that every human being possesses certain rights simply by virtue of being human, that governments exist to secure those rights, and that no ruler or tradition stands above scrutiny.

The most radical feature of these ideas, in part inspired by Christianity, was that they were universal. They applied not just to Westerners, but in principle to everyone.

Consider slavery. The West practiced slavery on a vast and brutal scale, as had virtually every major civilization in history. But the West also produced a powerful abolitionist movement, drawing on Christian beliefs, enlightenment ideals, and the struggles of enslaved people themselves. Western societies developed principles that could be used to condemn their own conduct.

Similarly, for centuries, Western societies treated women and religious and racial minorities as second class citizens, as did most other civilizations. But Western ideas about equality and individual rights helped generate movements for women's suffrage, religious tolerance, and civil rights.

[10:05:02]

These movements did not reject the West's highest ideals. They demanded that the West live up to them.

Martin Luther King Jr. appealed to the Declaration of Independence's idea that all men are created equal precisely because its promise was universal even if American society had repeatedly betrayed it.

This is also true of imperialism. Almost all great powers have sought to extend their dominion. The West was extraordinarily successful at it, and one can marvel at its enormous reach. But Western societies also ended up recognizing the rights of colonized people and questioning the morality of the conquest and the brutality of colonial rule.

This capacity for self-criticism is not a weakness. It is one of the West's greatest strengths that it can force itself to live up to its own ideals. It is also part of the relentless use of reason that has made the West lead the world in science and discovery. And this brings us to perhaps the most important point Rubio misses.

The West's extraordinary influence over the modern world has not come simply from military conquest or economic domination. It has come from the intellectual attraction of its ideas.

Western power was often resented, resisted and ultimately expelled. Yet the ideals associated with the West endured because people everywhere could claim them as their own. The British ruled India for nearly two centuries, often through exploitation, repression and violence. Yet when Indians won their independence, they did not discard parliamentary democracy, constitutional government, an independent judiciary or the rule of law.

They embraced these institutions, adapted them and combined them with their own traditions. India adopted universal adult suffrage from the birth of its republic, an extraordinary commitment to political equality in a poor, largely illiterate country. That is the remarkable power of the West's formulation of universal ideas. Anyone can embrace them and gain power through them.

Marco rubio is right that the West should take pride in its history and achievements. But while the things that Rubio emphasizes, strength, courage, and national glory, did make the West mighty, they are not what made it transformational.

Its most enduring achievement was not that it conquered territory, built mighty armies and monuments, or produced wealth. The Ottoman Empire did all of these things. What made the West exceptional was its ability to transcend the narrow claims of tribe, nation and empire to develop ideas about freedom, equality and human dignity that could speak to all people everywhere.

The West conquered much of the world through force, but it changed the world through ideas. I wish that the secretary of state of the United States would celebrate these ideas, and that this administration would live up to them.

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

Canada and the U.S. have long enjoyed the ultimate friendly neighbor arrangement defined by close economic ties, shared security interests, and mutual trust. Then came Donald Trump, whose administration in his second term has pursued an aggressive trade policy against Canada that has led to an all-out trade war.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: They'll ask me, who's the worst to deal with on trade? And I said, that's easy. Canada.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAKARIA: And lest we forget, he renamed Lake Ontario Lake America.

Chrystia Freeland has negotiated with team Trump on behalf of Canada. She was Canada's deputy prime minister during Trump's first term. Her new book, "Unreliable Boyfriend," is a memoir that discusses how Canada and the world have tried to manage in the Trump era. She joins me now.

Chrystia, always a pleasure to have you on. So normally with books we would -- we would read out the great praise that you have received. On your book I'm reading now from what you have put at the back, "Totally toxic. She will not be missed," President Donald Trump. "The worst," Howard Lutnick. Trump even said worse things about you. He said you were nasty, a whack job. And that's all because you were negotiating for Canada with Trump.

So for everyone trying to figure out how do you negotiate with this man, how did you negotiate with him? Because at the end of that whole process, you did produce a deal that he said was the best trade deal in the history of the world.

CHRYSTIA FREELAND, FORMER CANADIAN DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER: Exactly right, Fareed. And, you know, Nancy Pelosi supported it and Donald Trump supported it. I think it could be the only thing they have ever agreed on.

[10:10:05]

We had a three-part playbook for negotiating with Donald Trump. Number one, do you agree where you can agree? Canada and the United States do have a lot of mutual interests. And I think it's important to find those areas where you genuinely think it's good for your country. And do deals there, work together.

Second thing, and this is so important, was something we called the donut strategy. And the donut strategy was about the fact that the president of the United States is a very important guy, but he's just one man. And there's the whole America around him. And we just fanned out in a very systematic way and tried to talk to every single American, to mayors, to businesses, to labor leaders.

And we tried to get the whole country to do that because we knew that ultimately the relationship between Canada and the United States is mutually beneficial. And we thought if we could make that case with Canadians, that would help.

The final thing, which I wish more countries and actually more Americans recognized, is you cannot capitulate. If you do that with Donald Trump, he will just push you further and further and further. You have to be prepared ultimately to stand up for yourself and your country.

ZAKARIA: And when you were doing all these things, did you get the sense that, you know, all the authority was ultimately vested with Trump? Or you were negotiating with Jared Kushner a lot, who was his son in law. How did it work? Did he -- did he have to keep going up? You know, did everything have to be approved by Trump?

FREELAND: So the key person was Bob Lighthizer. And that was very important. ZAKARIA: The trade rep.

FREELAND: The trade rep. Because Bob is very, very tough. He is unapologetic in, you know, being an America First guy. But he's also really smart. You can do a deal with him. And he ultimately recognized that having a good trade deal with Canada was good for the U.S. and I think Bob had enough self-confidence and enough authority that he could persuade the president to do as he advised.

ZAKARIA: And that feels very different from Trump 2.0. So I know you're not in the government now, but when you watch, doesn't it feel like there aren't the Bob Lighthizers of the world and the John Mattis, the generals that he appointed, you know, these very serious, seasoned policy professionals. What you now have is a group of sycophants who basically just do whatever they think the king wants.

FREELAND: I think that's right. But they could behave differently. You know, there are people there who could be serious people. A Marco Rubio, a Scott Bessent. They could play the kind of role that Bob Lighthizer or a Mike Pompeo or Rex Tillerson played. They're choosing not to.

The other big difference, Fareed, is Republicans. And we did have Republicans on our side who were ultimately prepared to stand up to Donald Trump. And I really want to emphasize, they did it because they believed it was in the U.S. national interest.

ZAKARIA: Is it people like Paul Ryan, the House speaker who's a free trader, a free market guy?

FREELAND: Chuck Grassley, John McCain, Mitch McConnell. We really felt that there was serious support among the Republicans for a good deal with Canada. I write about that. And, you know, we'll see what happens. But the midterm -- you know, polls are predicting a real shellacking for Republicans in the midterms. Maybe that will mean that Republicans rediscover their spine and speak up for the interests of their constituents, which would mean saying, stop this trade war with Canada.

ZAKARIA: In the book, you talk about how other countries, obviously Canada, but others as well, are trying to navigate this world where the United States has become the unreliable boyfriend because it's all America's allies that are feeling the pressure the most.

The Canadian approach has been to really search for new friends or deepen relations with new friends. You call it friend-shoring in the book. The European Union, India, even better deals with China. Do you think ultimately that is the path everyone will take to kind of diversify away from too much reliance on America?

FREELAND: It certainly what's happening now. And, you know, I think one of the things which is so perverse about the current approach is America is being more punitive towards its friends than towards its adversaries. Canada is being treated much more harshly than Vladimir Putin's Russia. I mean, think about that for a minute.

[10:15:01]

You know, in what universe is Russia a better friend of the United States than Canada? In no universe. And you know, for me, what is tragic about this is America is destroying the alliance that it's so effectively built up in the post-war era.

You mentioned China, Fareed. And what I really worry about is China is the big winner from what is happening right now.

ZAKARIA: All right. Stay with us.

Next on GPS, I asked Chrystia Freeland about the state of play in the Ukraine war as Donald Trump seems to have fully turned his back on that country, up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:20:08]

ZAKARIA: The Trump administration has recently struck a deal to allow Russia to sell diesel fuel. It also threatened to stop providing intelligence to stop providing intelligence to Ukraine. Further, Ukrainian authorities reported restrictions on their access to the military version of Starlink, which is critical to Ukraine's military operations. Elon Musk says the ultimate authority on doing that is Donald Trump.

Has the president now fully turned his back on Ukraine?

More now with Chrystia Freeland, Canada's former deputy prime minister. In January she became President. Zelenskyy's economic development adviser.

Were you surprised by what Donald Trump has done? I mean, in a way, he's been inching towards this really forever. But it does seem like he has essentially sided with Russia and against Ukraine now.

FREELAND: I was horrified, but I wasn't surprised because it's been clear to me from the very outset that President Trump has been on Russia's side and has been actually doing what he can to harm Ukraine. And I think it's really important to say that clearly because there are people, the late Senator Lindsey Graham was one of them, who tried to act as if, no, no, no, the president really wants to help Ukraine. You're just misunderstanding him. His heart is in the right place.

We have the spectacle of Melania Trump, you know, hosting these events where she's wanting to support Ukraine's abducted children. But I think it's important for Americans, in the first instance, to really live with the horrible reality that their president is helping Vladimir Putin in his criminal war against Ukraine. Think about that for a minute.

ZAKARIA: And do you think that it derives from a kind of idea of -- the fascination with the strongman? Do you think it's because Trump tried to blackmail Zelenskyy in the first -- in his first term and get him to investigate Joe Biden and Zelenskyy refused. What do you think is behind it?

FREELAND: You know, Fareed, I am not the president's psychoanalyst. I think we have to judge him by his actions. And what we've seen is a clear pattern of siding with dictators rather than siding with democracies. Putin is the best example. But there's also North Korea. There's also China. And meanwhile, the democracies get constantly beaten up by this president.

What, you know, to me also, and this is horrible to recognize, you can't overlook corruption. And Putin is prepared to pay to play. Democracies are not.

ZAKARIA: How significant do you think this, you know, this reversal now is going to be for Ukraine on the battlefield?

FREELAND: It's significant. But I have confidence that Ukrainians will rally because they have no choice. And I think what we're seeing also is the Europeans having a sort of stiffened spine and recognizing that Ukraine has to win. Otherwise, they're going to face a squeeze from Putin and from the United States.

The other thing that gives me some hope. And here, Fareed, you may think I am being naive and overly optimistic, but I am hopeful this will be a wake-up call to Americans, particularly to Republicans. I was really comforted by the bipartisan letter that six Republican senators signed, and I brought the letter because it speaks to me to what is being destroyed right now.

"For decades, America has stood as the bastion of freedom against tyranny. And American presidents have embodied our nation's resistance to tyrants. Putin is a tyrant."

That is the America that we grew up with. I think that's the America that you chose to become a citizen of. And I think that this is really -- it's a Rubicon moment. And I hope that Americans will recognize it and will recognize more is at stake than Ukraine. I think America's soul is at stake here.

ZAKARIA: All right. I'm going to let you go at that. I have to say, the book is fantastic. It is a part memoir about raising kids, and you know, part growing up in Canada. You grew up in what you call the Texas of Canada. About being a great journalist that you were, being an extraordinary politician.

[10:25:05]

Incredibly readable, ad of course, with this wonderful title, "Unreliable Boyfriend: An Insider's View of Dealing with a Chaotic Superpower, Plutocrats and Other Complicated People." I'll leave the other complicated people to readers to read about.

Chrystia Freeland, always a pleasure to have you.

FREELAND: Great to be with you, Fareed.

ZAKARIA: Next on GPS, President Trump is facing backlash even from within his own party after striking a deal that allows Russia to export billions of dollars of diesel to the U.S. and the world. But what difference will the deal actually make?

I will ask the energy expert, Jason Bordoff, when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:30:09]

ZAKARIA: President Trump's diesel deal has handed Russian president Vladimir Putin a financial lifeline. It could allow Moscow to sell billions of dollars' worth of diesel to the world and help fund its costly war in Ukraine. But will the deal even achieve what Trump wants it to, which is to lower prices for Americans, especially ahead of the midterms?

To discuss, I'm joined by Jason Bordoff, who is a former senior energy policy official in the Obama White House. He is now the founding director of Columbia University's Center on Global Energy Policy. Jason, welcome. So first, explain to us how crucial is diesel in the kind of picture of energy and why are we having such shortages?

JASON BORDOFF, FOUNDING DIRECTOR, CENTER ON GLOBAL ENERGY POLICY AT COLUMBIA SIPA: Yes. Thanks for having me on, Fareed. Diesel is incredibly important. It obviously doesn't get the attention gasoline does that we fill up our tanks with every day, but it's the workhorse of the industrial, agricultural, transportation economy. Truckers, farmers, and those costs are passed through to what the price of goods is in the stores that many of us buy every day.

You see how important energy prices are to the latest inflation numbers, which do not look very good. And so there's been an enormous disruption to the global diesel market, a combination of Ukrainian attacks on Russian refineries. And obviously, what's happening in the Middle East, in the Strait of Hormuz and all the disruption there. And between the two of those things, you have something like 1.5 million barrels a day, maybe more off the market. So, it's a huge disruption.

ZAKARIA: And will the president's Russia deal make a difference? The numbers don't seem that big when you compare them to American consumption, for example.

BORDOFF: Exactly. And so, you have to do a little conversion. I don't know if that was intentional or not, but the numbers that were announced sound big, 300,000 tons immediately, 500,000 tons next month. The question is what that means?

And as you say, the amount to be released immediately is equivalent to roughly half a day of U.S. consumption. The amount next month is less than a day of U.S. consumption. So, this is not going to make a huge difference in the problem. And we see that already in the markets.

I mean, the price barely moved when the president made this announcement. The price of diesel today is slightly above where it was when President Trump made this announcement. ZAKARIA: So, when you look at where the disruption is coming from primarily, and I mean now global oil markets in general, but as you said, diesel is crucial to fueling inflation. I mean, let's say this deal goes through, but the Iran war continues, by which I mean, the low grade tension, the result oil being at about 100 for the next three, four, five months, is this going to have any effect on American inflation numbers?

BORDOFF: I think it will. The longer this conflict goes on, both Russia, Ukraine as it relates to diesel. But more broadly, the Middle East conflict, because remember the Gulf conflict, the Strait of Hormuz, is affecting not just diesel but crude oil and pushing up the prices that refiners pay. And so, we got to look at the -- at the whole -- at the whole picture.

Even despite this deal, it's not even clear Russia can export more diesel if it wanted to. I mean, Russia had put a ban on diesel exports because the damage done by Ukrainian economies made it difficult for Russia to supply its own economy. But when you combine Russia with what's happening in the Middle East, there really are not many good near-term options other than trying to resolve these conflicts and getting energy flowing through the Strait of Hormuz again.

ZAKARIA: So, Trump has been doing a bunch of stuff. He's done this deal with Putin. He's trying to pressure the Europeans to release more. Do you think -- you know, what do you think the effect of all of this is?

BORDOFF: The immediate -- it's easy. We're a few weeks before an election, so it's easy to sort of chalk up the announcement that Trump made to pre-election posturing look like you're trying to do something to help consumers that are worried about diesel prices before the election.

But I don't think the actions this last couple of weeks have been harmless. This is the third time that the Trump administration this year has waived sanctions on the purchase of Russian energy to cope with the global energy crisis. Remember when the Strait of Hormuz conflict and the war with Iran first started, the Trump administration's Treasury Department eased sanctions on Iranian oil exports because they had oil sitting in tankers on the water and we needed that supply.

When Trump met with Xi not long ago, he asked China, can you increase your refined product exports? Because there's very little spare refining capacity in the world. The place that has the most is China right now.

So despite being the largest energy producer in the world, a stunning turnaround from a decade ago, we are still turning to Russia, turning to Iran and turning to China to help cope with this crisis.

[10:35:08]

ZAKARIA: Jason Bordoff, pleasure to have you on.

BORDOFF: Thank you.

ZAKARIA: Next on GPS, escalating strikes by the Iran backed Houthis on Saudi Arabia beg the question, why is one of the Middle East's wealthiest countries so vulnerable to rebels from one of its poorest countries? I'll ask a Princeton expert next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:40:07]

ZAKARIA: The Middle East's largest economy, Saudi Arabia, also possesses one of the world's most expensive military arsenals. But the country has proven vulnerable to strikes from the Iran backed Houthis in Yemen, who have managed to inflict serious damage.

Last weekend, the Houthis attacked two terminals of the Saudi airport in Riyadh, killing 13 people and injuring 300. Earlier this week, they hit a building that is part of Saudi Arabia's state oil company headquarters.

Joining me now to discuss the conflict is Bernard Haykel. He is a professor of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University. Bernard, welcome.

So first, explain to us, when we look at Saudi Arabia, you think of this enormously rich country. It buys enormous amount of military equipment from the U.S. How powerful is that military and why is it not able to respond to these strikes?

BERNARD HAYKEL, NEAR EASTERN STUDIES PROFESSOR, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY: Well, thank you for having me. I think there are a number of reasons for why. First, the military in Saudi Arabia was designed for a different kind of war, a more traditional sort of invasion like we saw in Iraq and Kuwait in 1990. The second is that in the 1950s and 60s, the military was deliberately kept weak because they were coup proofing the regime from the possibility. There were coups happening all over the Middle East.

And the third reason is that the military in Saudi Arabia, because different princes before Mohammed bin Salman, before MBS controlled different sort of entities, the way they were organized, the way -- their procurement systems were different and so on. So, it wasn't a -- kind of a force that was coordinated and didn't have a culture of meritocracy.

And so, Mohammed bin Salman is aware of all this. And MBS has been trying to change this in the last decade. But it's a culture that is very deeply ingrained and very difficult to change.

ZAKARIA: Right. And the Houthis. So, the Saudis backed the government of Yemen. The Houthis are the insurgents. Why are the -- you know, why are the Houthis taking on the Saudis now?

HAYKEL: Yes. So, the Houthis are a radical Islamist movement, and they present themselves as opponents of imperialism. And they argue that Saudi Arabia is an instrument and a kind of -- of imperialism in the region. And so, they're very anti-Saudi, will always be anti-Saudi for ideological reasons. And there's a deep well of anti-Saudi feeling in Yemeni society.

I mean, there's an old jealousy between the two countries and the rivalry. Also, remember that, you know, Saudi Arabia has half the population of Yemen. The Yemen is over 40 million now. And the Yemenis have the lowest per capita GDP of any country in the Arab world at around $435 per person. Saudi Arabia is, you know, 39,000, I think, per person.

So, there's a huge differential between these two countries. And the Houthis are taking full advantage of all of these differences. And they want power. I mean, they ultimately want to rule Yemen.

ZAKARIA: So, what happens? The Saudis had tried to broker a deal?

HAYKEL: Yes.

ZAKARIA: They essentially, you know, kind of paid them off -- is there a -- is there a possibility of another deal? What's going to happen?

HAYKEL: I mean, the Saudis do have an option of paying off the Houthis. But that only buys you a limited amount of time. And you're then dealing with a group that's constantly going to be blackmailing you and that has claims over Saudi territory.

I mean, the Houthis don't recognize Saudi sovereignty. They claim that the southern provinces of Saudi Arabia belong to them, that Mecca and Medina belong to them, and so on. So, it's only a temporary measure.

And I think what the Saudis have decided in this conflict, which they see as one big conflict, so the Iran war and the Houthis and the Shiite militias in Iraq are all part of one theater of operation, they've decided to split that theater. With Iran they want to negotiate. They want mediation because the Iranians, you know, can do a lot of damage to this much more than the Houthis to the Saudis.

And when it comes to the Houthis, they've decided -- the Saudis have decided they're going to, you know, lean forward and they're going to push very hard militarily using their air force and ground forces, Yemeni ground forces, to defeat the Houthis. I don't think they can. I think they can maybe make the Houthis withdraw from certain areas that they've just conquered. But I don't think you can defeat the Houthis.

There are too many of them. They're too disciplined. They're extremely battle hardened. And the Houthis themselves are extremely brutal with other Yemenis. If they sense any sense of opposition or organized dissent, they just crush it.

ZAKARIA: The Saudis have invested so much in the relationship with the U.S.

HAYKEL: Yes.

ZAKARIA: And with the Trump administration they signed a deal, you know, a kind of -- a defense pact. They must be very disappointed with the lack of American support. I mean, direct military support in this situation.

[10:45:00]

HAYKEL: Yes, I think -- I think they are. But they also realize that President Trump is fully engaged in the Persian Gulf. It's a limited resources. They're running out of interceptors, as are the Saudis, by the way, for -- against ballistic missiles. And they also know that there are elections coming up here and that Trump is under certain constraints.

But, you know, the relationship between Saudi and the U.S. has -- you know, had its ups and downs, but they're structurally tied to the Americans. I mean, their military is American trained, and it's impossible to move. Their elite is oriented towards the United States. Their whole A.I. push now is all American. They're not going to, you know, give up on America no matter how much they end up flirting with the Turks and the -- and the -- and the Pakistanis.

And one thing is very clear is that the Chinese are definitely a force that the Saudis -- a power that the Saudis will never strike a strategic alliance with. Because the Chinese have decided that in this war, they privilege weakening the United States over the interests of the Arab states, the Arab Gulf states. And they're providing the Houthis with weapons and so on. So, China is certainly not at any point in time soon to replace the United States.

ZAKARIA: Bernard Haykel, always a pleasure.

HAYKEL: Thank you.

ZAKARIA: Next on GPS, to all those who say only China can build high speed rail, I want to tell you a surprising story of a western democracy that managed to build one of the largest and cheapest high speed rail networks in the world when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:51:11]

ZAKARIA: And now for the last look. Across two decades, the state of California has spent tens of billions of dollars trying to build some 500 miles of high speed rail, and it has very little to show for it. This failure is perhaps the clearest example of America's inability to deliver big infrastructure.

Many in the western world look to Beijing as the king of high speed rail. After all, China has built more high speed rail in the last 20 years than the rest of the world put together.

But one European nation shows that it doesn't take an autocracy to make the trains run on time. Spain, often seen as a poster child for European decline, the Iberian nation has surprisingly built the second largest high speed network in the world at nearly 2,500 miles behind only China.

Like many democracies today, Spain is suffering from bitter partisan divisions. Its voters are in open revolt over a sense of government inaction on housing, immigration and jobs. The anger has spilled onto the streets and has partly led the country's embattled prime minister, Pedro Sanchez, to recently call a snap election for next month. But Spain need only look back to its recent history to find a remarkable story of consensus when years of steady political compromise pulled off one of the greatest engineering feats of modern Europe.

Hop on a train from central Madrid and you can quickly reach dozens of other cities within hours, often through mountainous terrain at speeds of over 190 miles an hour. Such progress is hard to believe, given Spain's turbulent 20th century history. Its railways had been heavily damaged in its Civil War of the 1930s and suffered further neglect during the 36 years of General Franco's dictatorship. Some old steam engines were in use right up until Franco's death in 1975.

Today, many associate high speed rail with fighting climate change as a green alternative to traveling by car or plane. But Spain sold it differently. As historian Christian Wolmar explains in his new book, "Fast Track."

In the late 1980s, Spain framed its mega project as a form of economic and political renewal, a way to connect urban and rural areas and heal regional divides. The result, Wolmar says, was the complete reinvention of Spain.

The project was ambitious but crucially it did not overpromise. In 1992, the government opened one single line from Madrid to Seville. Once people saw results, the network steadily grew, relying almost entirely on tax revenue, E.U. funds, and public borrowing rather than private finance.

The government kept costs down by building at scale and routing lines through less populated land. According to official data, Spain's overall construction costs per kilometer were the lowest in the E.U. and less than half the average of other high speed rail nations.

In a highly polarized country, these trains became a rare topic of bipartisan agreement. As journalist Maria Ramirez has pointed out, Spain's conservative right opposes many environmental policies, but no politician would dare to question high speed trains, such is their popularity.

And since 2021, the government has opened the network to private competition, which has significantly lowered fares. In the first quarter of this year the price of a 370-mile trip between Barcelona and Madrid averaged roughly $60.00.

[10:55:01]

These mega projects, though, are never flawless. Some say Spain overbuilt with rural demand, never fully keeping up, and the country is learning that building is far more glamorous than the costly maintenance work required to keep those lines safe. Earlier this year, officials say a faulty section of track may have caused a deadly collision of two high speed trains in the south, killing more than 40 people. But for all these caveats, Spain has built what much of the west cannot. As "The Economist" notes, western officials regularly return from Beijing or Shanghai with bouts of train envy and with an uneasy question whether the west's liberal values mean it cannot build big. It's tempting to envy those that can build big, even if they flatten civil liberties that stand in their way. Spain and its high speed rail story is one answer to that democratic self-doubt.

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)