September 5, 2025 • 51 mins
As China asserts itself as a global power, Sen. Chris Coons (D-Delaware) sits down with Margaret Hoover in D.C. to discuss the threat posed by Beijing and its authoritarian allies and the Trump administration’s response.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee member recounts his recent visit to the Indo-Pacific with a bipartisan congressional delegation and reacts to China’s massive military parade this week. He explains why he fears Trump is undermining alliances and placing the world order at risk.
Coons also addresses Trump’s handling of the war in Ukraine, the plight of Ukrainian children kidnapped by Russia, and where he feels the Biden administration’s response to Putin’s aggression went wrong.
Coons comments on Democratic Party’s divisions over Israel and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. He also addresses Trump’s National Guard deployment in Washington, D.C. and the limits of the judiciary’s ability to rein in the president’s use of executive power—and explains why he wants HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to resign.
Support for Firing Line with Margaret Hoover is provided by Robert Granieri, The Tepper Foundation, Vanessa and Henry Cornell, The Fairweather Foundation, and Pritzker Military Foundation.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:01):
Our prosperity, our security, our stability, our freedom.
All of it is profoundly at risk because China sees that we are
on the cusp of a huge revolutionin technology.
We're in a global competition. What's at risk?
They're going to invent and discover the thing that allows
them to leapfrog us in technology.
(00:21):
Thus security. Thus prosperity.
Thus, freedom. That's Democratic Senator Chris
Coons of Delaware responding to Chinas efforts to reshape the
world order. I'm Margaret Hoover.
This is THE Firing Line podcast.Chinese leader Xi Jinping sent a
(00:45):
message to the United States andthe world this week with a
military parade attended by Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong Un and
more than 20 other heads of state.
Watching that event in Beijing, I got a 1939 chill and we only
came out on the other side of the Second World War in good
shape because of our allies. Senate Foreign Relations
(01:06):
Committee member Chris Coons hasbeen outspoken about the dangers
posed by Beijing. The Chinese are practicing
rehearsing force projection farther and farther into the
North Pacific, east of Taiwan, the South Pacific.
These aren't subtle signs. And what he sees as foreign
policy failures by the Trump administration.
Peace through strength, something he says all the time,
(01:27):
requires actual strength. This isn't a reality TV show.
It's reality. And only by making Putin stop do
we any hope of making GI not start.
And he is just as disturbed by Trump's actions at home.
We are in real danger if the Supreme Court does not draw some
clearer lines on presidential authority and use of power.
(01:49):
We are at real risk of fundamental reordering of our
constitutional system. Senator Coons, welcome back to
FIRING LINE. Thanks, Margaret.
Great to be with you. Over the past month, there have
been numerous developments in the United States and abroad
that continue to call into question America's role in the
(02:11):
world when it comes to alliances, foreign and
humanitarian aid, international trade, and human rights.
Do you believe we are seeing a fundamental realignment between
the United States and the previously established post
(02:32):
World War 2? World order if we do not change
direction. Yes, the last nine months, the
second Trump administration has put more pressure on our
partners and allies, on the folks we have counted on to be
with us in every major values fight, economic issue, security
(02:55):
fight for 80 years. And as we saw this week with
Modi walking hand in hand with Putin, with Xi Jinping, with
lots of other leaders, it was not just them.
Our adversaries, Kim Jong Un from North Korea, North Korea,
Iran, China and Russia are together fighting in Ukraine.
(03:19):
Russia keeps launching just brutal attacks on civilian
targets in Ukraine using technology and missiles and
drones from these partners of theirs.
Watching that event in Beijing, I got a 1939 chill.
(03:39):
And we only came out on the other side of the Second World
War in good shape actually, as the world's leading country,
having defeated fascism and Japanese imperialism because of
our allies. America first, I think, tells a
mistaken story about the historyof the last 8 decades.
It says we fought, we won, we are the world leading power, and
(04:03):
it misses the absolutely centralrole of our allies in every
major development of the last 8 decades.
And so I respect that there are lots of Americans who got hurt
and who lost because of globalization and who are angry
and feel like their future is not what their parents future
was, and that the middle class of this decade is nothing like
(04:25):
the middle class of the 50s. But Trump, wielding a tariff bat
and hitting everyone within reach, from our closest allies
and partners to our adversaries,is causing chaos and making
folks think they can't count on us.
You said if we don't change course.
Yes. We will see a new set of
(04:47):
alliances and of realignment of the global world order.
At what point does that become irreversible?
Look, I'm an optimist. I believe in the power of
America's example and values. I have seen us innovate and
scrap and fight and push our wayout of some really hard spots.
(05:07):
I grew up at a time when everyone thought Japan was
inevitably ascendant. the UnitedStates in the 70s was sort of
circling the drain, everything from the energy crisis to a lack
of trust to domestic division. We came through a really hard
decade, and by the end of the 80s into the 90s, you wouldn't
recognize that we were soaring. Technology made us inventive and
(05:32):
creative. We won the Cold War.
There were some key moments and some important decisions made in
the 80s and 90s by presidents from Reagan to Bush to Clinton
that put us on top of the world.By the end of the Millennium.
We could still do that. But the message we sent to the
world by electing Donald Trump president, the first time of
(05:54):
chaos and unreliability and internal division, I felt like
President Biden largely redressed the tension with our
allies. And Trump had two big
accomplishments, renegotiating NAFTA with Canada and Mexico and
Operation Warp Speed, deliveringA vaccine that helped pull the
(06:15):
world back out of this dread pandemic, both of which he's now
rewriting, disowning, making bigger mistakes than he ever
made before. So we have free trade agreements
with countries from Korea to Australia to Canada and Mexico.
And his terrify, he's just tearing them up left and right,
(06:38):
which makes countries that are our partners and allies say what
good is a treaty or an agreementwith the United States if the
president wakes up on Tuesday and says 50% tariff on you, 30%
tariff on you and they can't figure out why or what's going
on. This business of threatening to
take Greenland from Denmark by force, threatening to make
(07:03):
Canada the 51st state, threatening to retake the Panama
Canal. It's gone from a funny, weird
what's he mean throwaway line togenuinely unsettling our closest
allies. As a member of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee, yourecently returned from a
bipartisan congressional delegation to the Indo Pacific
region. You've co-authored an op-ed for
(07:26):
Time magazine calling for the United States to quote clearly
and unambiguously reinforce our commitments to our partners in
the region. But as you referenced just this
week, Chinese President Xi Jinping has hosted the summit
with leaders, 20 leaders from around the world, including some
(07:48):
of our partners like as you mentioned, India and Turkey,
calling for a quote, more just and equitable global governance
system. Are we too late?
Look, China, India, Russia, DPRK, Iran, you put all of them
together and add up their military might and their
(08:09):
economies. That's a big block.
If they actually act in unison, that's a big deal compared to
the United States. But if you take the United
States and add our free market, free society, democratic
partners and allies, Korea, Japan, Singapore, Australia,
Canada, Mexico, the UK, the EU, we dwarf them.
(08:34):
We're 3/4 of the world's economy.
We have the most innovative, capable societies.
We have the world's leading universities.
We dwarf their military power, but divided they can pick us
off. Absolutely.
And so is it already too late? That depends.
Depends on how much more chaos President Trump insists on
(08:55):
creating in our closest alliances.
The case. Of India, I mean, just take the
case of India. I mean, this is a geopolitical
force that previous administrations had attempted to
strengthen in order to act as a counterweight in Asia against
China. And the Trump administration has
levied 50% tariffs on them, forcing them into the arms of
our adversaries. And just to unpack that a little
(09:18):
bit, what seems to have principally been driving this
with was Trump's insistence thatModi advocate for him to get the
Nobel Peace Prize for his role or the administration's role in
helping de escalate tensions between Pakistan and India and a
White House meeting with the head of the Pakistani military.
(09:40):
Those two in combination seem tohave really set Modi off.
When you add a 50% tariff to it now I agree.
There were also Russian oil. I agree with Trump taking a
really tough stance against Russian aggression in Ukraine
and saying those who are buying cheap Russian oil funding their
more machine like India need to stop or pay the price.
(10:01):
So to be clear, along with eighty other senators I've Co
sponsored a bill that would empower the president to
threaten really tough secondary sanctions because nothing else
will bring Putin to the table. Then clamping down on the
funding and the technology and that would mean picking an even
bigger fight with China. That is a real problem for us.
(10:22):
If we don't pull together with our European allies and partners
and our Indo Pacific allies and partners and confront Russian
aggression in Ukraine and confront Chinese expansionism
and aggression in the Pacific, we won't come out of this well.
And I'm encouraged by the recentmoves at the NATO summit which I
(10:42):
attended in the Netherlands, in The Hague, all of our NATO
allies stepped up and said we'regoing to pledge 5% of our GDP.
That's a huge positive move. We're going to buy 100 billion
in US weapons and send them to Ukraine.
You don't have to fund this whole thing.
We'll do it. That's a positive move.
But you've got to keep moving inthat direction.
(11:02):
You can't then randomly drop 50%tariffs on Brazil because you
don't like what their justice system is doing to a friend of
yours and drop 50% tariffs on India really because they're not
willing to support your Nobel Prize claim.
I mean, that's the chaos. What is at risk for Americans in
(11:23):
a reordering of global powers where the Chinese Communist
Party dominates an axis of authoritarians?
So our prosperity, our security,our stability, our freedom.
That's it. All of it is profoundly at risk
because China sees that we are on the cusp of a huge revolution
(11:48):
in technology. So we've spent, we've invested
hundreds of billions of dollars over decades, for example, in
building very expensive securityresources like aircraft
carriers. Both Russia and China got ahead
of us in hypersonics, in missiles that go so fast they're
(12:09):
very difficult to detect, very difficult to intercept.
We are catching up. We're working very hard on this.
We're investing in this, but it puts at risk our aircraft
carriers anywhere in the world. China doesn't have anything like
our aircraft carriers. They can't operate, they don't
have scale, they don't have reach.
So they took on a leapfrog defense technology.
(12:30):
They're doing this across 10 different fields and at the core
of all of it is artificial intelligence, quantum computing,
precision biology. And their 10 years ago, 20 years
ago, you could point at China and say what they're doing is
stealing our inventions and innovations, copying them,
making cheap copies. Today, the number of patents
they're filing, the number of scientific papers they're
(12:52):
publishing, the amount of money as a country they're pouring
into cutting edge research. What are we doing?
Trump just slashed funding, slashed funding for Cancer
Research for the organizations that are doing research into
energy, into computing, into healthcare, into cures.
So we're in a global competition.
What's at risk? They're going to invent and
(13:14):
discover the thing that allows them to leapfrog us in
technology. Thus security, thus prosperity.
Thus freedom. On Truth Social on Tuesday,
Trump accused Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un
of conspiring against the UnitedStates.
Yes. Seems obvious, yes?
(13:35):
What should the administration be doing about?
It oddly, I have a bill, a bipartisan bill that's part of
the Defence Act of. 2025. What do you know, look, a
bipartisan group of us are saying we need a strategy.
You're in charge, Mr. President,of the Department of Defence,
the intelligence services and all the other organs of our
(13:56):
national government. We need a clear strategy that
says these aren't separate actors anymore.
We used to really work at separating and playing off
against each other. DPRK and Iran, Russia, China, my
God, if you add India to that mix, how did we win the Second
World War? What was the most important
thing? Obviously the fighting spirit of
(14:16):
the American soldier, the commitment of the American
people to democracy, manufacturing.
We had a majority of the world'smanufacturing base.
We were churning out, you know, aircraft carriers and bombers
and cruisers and like, like nothing else.
We don't have that today. We can't build ships for our
(14:37):
Navy at anything like the speed and scale.
China and India together have the majority of the world's
manufacturing capacity now. So do places like Korea and
Japan and Australia, who would love to be working with us.
The powerhouse of manufacturing of Europe is Germany.
Like we've got partners and allies, but if we're if we're
(14:57):
pulling in opposite directions, there's not going to be a good
outcome. The reason for my trip that I
led to Australia was to talk about AUCUS, which was a huge
move. It was a real.
Line it stands for. Australia, United Kingdom.
United States. AUUKUS, we have nuclear powered
(15:18):
submarines. the United Kingdom is nuclear powered submarines.
It is one of the crown jewels ofAmerican National security.
The Australians don't. They were on the verge of a
major deal to buy less compelling technology submarines
from another partner, an ally. We signed a commitment with
them. They have invested $3 billion in
it. We went to visit the Osborne
(15:39):
Naval Shipyard in Adelaide. We went to the US Australia
Leadership Dialogue where they had hoped for a senior
administration representative but welcomed us with open arms.
The Department of Defense has itunder review.
Bridge Colby has been reviewing August four months now, which is
making them very anxious becausethey want to commit to us a
(16:03):
shared security. Think about the Australians.
Every war we've fought in the modern era, since the First
World War, Australians have served side by side with
Americans. We have a Marine Expeditionary
Force rotational facility in Darwin.
They are standing up in Sterlingnear Perth on their Indian Ocean
(16:24):
coast, a new facility where US nuclear powered submarines can
be serviced and supported and refueled and resupplied.
They really want to be our partners, and I came back from
that visit going, how do they punch above their weight as an
intelligence partner, as a security partner, as a
development partner in the Pacific island nations and as a
(16:46):
diplomatic partner? They're doing more than we are
in a region where China sees huge strategic opportunity and
we're late to the game. You mentioned Bridge Colby, a
Defense Department official in the Trump administration.
And I wonder, you know, Trump administration officials have
dismissed the idea that China issupplanting the US on the world
(17:06):
stage or that the US is losing influence in their Indo Pacific
region. Secretary of State Marco Rubio
came and testified before the Foreign Relations Committee and
said that it is not Trump's goalto withdraw from the world.
If that's not their stated goal,is that what they're doing
anyway? So that is, you know, Secretary
(17:28):
Rubio and President Trump's position as we're not
withdrawing from the world, but in country after country that
I've visited so far this year. And on our way to and from
Australia, we stopped and visited the Marshall Islands,
Papua New Guinea and Fiji. These are countries that have
been aligned much more with the United States than with China,
but where there's lots of Chinese influence investments
(17:51):
and attempts abruptly shutting down USAID, closing off our
disaster assistance, our work incombating HIV, AIDS in Papua New
Guinea, our investments in electrification, in combating
gender based violence. These are relatively small
economies in small countries, and they just want to know that
we're with them. And the signal of abruptly
(18:14):
canceling things that were midway without consultation,
without some notice was kind of jarring.
And then seeing their names on alist of countries that were
going to have to pay big tariffswhen they'd long been partners
and allies confused the heck outof them.
The trip I did before that with Senator Ricketts, we went to the
(18:36):
Philippines and Taiwan. The Philippines has been a
treaty ally for decades. They had just given us access to
five more partner defense sites in the very north of Luzon,
critical to any potential defense of Taiwan.
And they have the most natural disasters of any country on
earth, between typhoons and volcanoes and earthquakes And
(19:02):
every disaster. Americans through USAID had been
the first to respond while we were there.
There had just been a disaster in Myanmar where only three
Americans showed up and they were fired while they were there
by USAID. They took that as a bad signal.
Then we were in Taiwan meeting with the new president,
President LY. They had just announced TSMC,
(19:25):
the chip maker from Taiwan, the largest investment in American
manufacturing in history, $100 billion.
And then they got hit with a 32%tariff.
What are we to make of this? So leaders in all these
countries have been saying, great, that you say you're not
withdrawing from the world, Mr. Secretary, Mr. President, but
(19:46):
the combination of tearing up trade and tariff deals and
imposing new punishing tariffs and then saying let's make a
deal, come to the White House, we'll work it out.
And abruptly canceling things like disaster relief in the
rescission, the attempt to claw back already appropriated funds
that was sent up to the Senate in the last few weeks.
It includes taking back all the money from the countering PRC
(20:09):
influence fund. That's not a great idea.
I helped create that fund. I think that's not winning.
To what you attribute to. That a foolish insistence on
trying to cut or claw back funding, no matter its value or
relevance. How do you expect?
Countering PRC. The People.
(20:29):
PRC. Influence Fund, that, that is a
fund that was being administeredby USAID and it's being taken
back through a pocket rescission, something I would
argue is unconstitutional, illegal, but but we'll see what
the courts say it. It it doesn't suggest a strong
posture of VCV China from the Trump administration.
You've introduced at least two bipartisan bills this year aimed
(20:53):
at strengthening the defense of Taiwan against China.
Yes. How do you assess China's
growing threat to Taiwan in thismoment, given she's stated plan
to move on Taiwan by 2027? She's been perfectly clear with
the world, with us, that it is his goal to reunify Taiwan and
(21:14):
PRC mainland, and that he intends to be ready to do so by
military force if necessary, in two years.
That should incite a certain urgency and focus.
I visited Taiwan before the conference in Singapore, I think
a year and a half ago, and was fairly gravely concerned about
(21:37):
the weapons they were buying, their doctrine, their training,
their capabilities to defend against a potential invasion.
On my most recent visit, I was very encouraged about things
that have been done in the last year, changes in doctrine and
training and practice. Really, the war in Ukraine has
profoundly refocused Taiwan's military and populace.
(22:00):
They are still very skeptical broadly the civilian population
that that China, that the PRC will ever invade or occupy them.
But the frequency with which Chinese ships and planes are
crossing into Taiwanese airspaceor the EEZ constantly.
A striking thing that had just happened when I got to Australia
(22:22):
was a Chinese naval convoy had gone all the way around
Australia and done targeting drills as if they were about to
launch missile attacks on major Australian cities.
That had never happened before. The Chinese are practicing,
rehearsing force projection farther and farther into the
(22:43):
North Pacific, east of Taiwan, the South Pacific.
These aren't subtle signs. You mentioned Ukraine.
Vladimir Putin's attendance in Beijing has also yielded reports
that Russia and China are nearing a deal on a pipeline to
deliver more Russian fuel to China, which will inevitably
(23:04):
help fund Russia's war effort. Ukrainian officials, as as
you've mentioned, have found hundreds of examples of Chinese
parts in Russian military equipment as Trump's attempt to
disrupt the bond between China and Russia completely failed.
Yes. I mean, when President Trump
(23:27):
hosted, Vladimir Putin welcomed him with, I think literally a
red carpet and U.S. military officers and a lot of pomp and
circumstance in Anchorage. I think by having American B2
bombers fly over, he intended tosend a message.
I can't see what that meeting produced other than some
(23:47):
progress for Putin in terms of being welcomed back into the
world of nations. But the military parade that Xi
Jinping then staged and the display of cutting edge world
class weapons and a massive goose stepping military was
meant to send the same message back.
My buddy Putin's with me. And by the way, so is Modi and
(24:09):
so is Kim Jong Un. So you looking at me?
Yeah, So Putin has refused to make any concessions to Trump on
his, you know, desired peace talks.
He initiated one of the heaviestbombardments on Ukraine
following that to date, including an attack with more
than 500 drones in one night this last week, and has all the
while continued to blow past Trump's ultimatums and deadlines
(24:33):
for making peace or else. Putin is literally giving a big
middle finger to Trump and the United States every day.
And to keep saying maybe two weeks from now, maybe two weeks
from now is showing real weakness in the face of
violence, aggression and war crimes.
Putin is only going to stop whenwe stop him.
(24:55):
And thankfully, the Ukrainians are doing all the fighting.
There's not a single American soldier fighting and dying on
the front lines in Ukraine. Why would we not say we're
doubling down? We're giving them more of our
most capable, most effective weapons.
We are behind them. What emboldened Putin was when
Trump and Zelensky had that horrifying blow up in the Oval
(25:16):
Office. And then Trump cut off resupply
and intelligence briefly. But that really sent a shock
through Ukraine. And he's now turned back around
to saying, oh, I'm beginning to see that Putin maybe isn't such
a nice guy, but he's got to keepmoving Peace through strength,
something he says all the time requires actual strength.
(25:39):
This isn't a reality TV show. It's reality.
It's a war, the biggest war in Europe since the Second World
War. And only by making Putin stop do
we have any hope of making GI not start.
Well, the only and the place to make him stop is on the
battlefield. Absolutely.
The Do Putin's actions from the last week make a mockery of
(26:03):
Trump's efforts? Yes.
If you are advising Trump, I mean, what's so then?
So then what's, what's the answer for Trump?
Where does that leave us now? There was a very strong NATO
summit. Why don't you guys pass
sanctions? Build on that, be cut.
We have a bill that's got it right.
It would pass immediately. Leader Thune, who determines
what gets on the floor of the Senate, has to say, OK, we're
(26:27):
putting it on the floor. Senator Graham and Senator
Blumenthal, who are the leads onit, have been pushing and
pushing and pushing. Lindsay keeps playing golf with
President Trump, and he says, yeah, I know I'm interested in
that, but we should show that we're the Senate.
Two things. First, we should pass the
sanctions bill and empower the president further and send a
really clear signal about what we want him to do.
(26:50):
Second, this is September. At the end of this month, we're
going to have a government shutdown.
China doesn't have government shutdowns.
We may well have another year where we fund our Defense
Department on what's called a continuing resolution.
I know that's DC Talk, but it means.
A. Huge problem for new
(27:11):
construction starts on submarines and on ships and on
planes. For us to have these last minute
shutdown fights is enormously damaging.
And on the Appropriations Committee, where I serve, right
before we left a month ago, we passed our two biggest bills,
the labor health education appropriations bill and the
(27:32):
defense appropriations bill by 26 to 3.
That's a huge bipartisan margin.Leader Thune needs to put those
bills on the floor. Let us pass them, and let us
keep our government open and pass the sanctions bill.
We need to be the Senate. Do you think you will?
I'm I remain hopeful, but I'm not optimistic.
(27:55):
You signed a letter with severalother senators to the State
Department urging the administration to hold Russia
accountable for the children that it has kidnapped since the
beginning of the war. How can they be held accountable
for the children? How?
How can the Russians be held accountable for the kidnapping
of some 20,000 children? Right.
So first, any settlement of the war has got to include a
(28:20):
commitment to return the children.
We were funding, we were fundingso.
Overtaken by events. Now, of course, we were funding
an effort to track and identify and help return Ukrainian
children who had been seized andtaken into Russia.
That was just defunded. So fund that and commit to and
(28:43):
engage with the global human rights accountability mechanisms
that are there. Part of our challenge with a lot
of our allies is that there is starvation and suffering in Gaza
and in Sudan and in Ukraine. And both rhetorically and
legally, we've really stood behind Ukraine against Russia's
(29:04):
aggression. We've stood with Israel against
the horrors of Hamas, but where we are now in terms of the
conditions on the ground in Gazais unacceptable.
When? President Trump came into
office, I'll remind you, we had a ceasefire, regular hostage
exchanges for prisoners. So Palestinian prisoners were
being released. Hostages were being returned.
(29:25):
There was a ceasefire, and therewas humanitarian aid going into
Gaza. That's where we were in January.
Yeah. That is not where we are today.
It isn't I, I want to get to Gaza, but let me put a button in
Ukraine. The Biden administration was
criticized for handling Ukraine and with a Goldilocks scenario.
And, you know, finally in the final months of his presidency,
(29:47):
Joe Biden at your encouragement,moved to facilitate the use of
long range missiles and other munitions that would have
accelerated the end of the war. Knowing what you know now, is
there anything the Biden administration should have done
differently? Should the Biden administration
have been more aggressive in arming Ukrainians earlier?
I think so. I always thought so, but I also
(30:10):
respected the fact that I didn'thave access to then or now, all
the intelligence that the president sits with and his
national security advisor and his secretary of defence.
An assessment about how serious Putin was or wasn't in his
nuclear threats is an assessmentthe president has to make.
And look, if you roll back to a year ago, where the Biden
(30:36):
administration and Congress wereproviding regular, robust
military funding and humanitarian assistance and
development assistance, and the Ukrainians were making steady
progress and all of our partnersand allies were with us, 50
countries, not just in Europe, Imean, Japan and Korea, right?
We could have and should have been much more aggressive, I
(30:59):
think, in taking the advantage and in demanding a just peace.
We're in a very different place today.
Let's turn to Gaza. You called it urgent that Israel
allowing more humanitarian aid. Yes, in July you voted against a
measure to halt the sale of $675million of weaponry to Israel.
Is that vote intention with yourcall for humanitarian aid?
(31:21):
My public statements then and now are demanding that Israel
allow humanitarian aid in their explanation is that Hamas is
stealing or diverting most or all of the aid that's been let
in. And I'll tell you, I believe
Jose Andres in World Central Kitchen, Cindy McCain and the
World Food Program, and a dozen other leaders of organizations
(31:45):
from UNICEF to UNHCR who told methat tragically, this is too
often the IDF either targeting humanitarian relief efforts or
preventing them from getting in.This is a real crisis and it is
hurting Israel's legitimacy and support in the United States and
around the world. Cindy McCain and Jose Andres
(32:06):
have both told you that the IDF is targeting humanitarian
organizations. No, Cindy, forgive me for if
that seems sloppy. Both of them has said we can
deliver much more humanitarian aid promptly.
But the IDF is stopping. We are not getting clearance, we
are not getting the ability to distribute.
There have been separate incidents in which IDF action
(32:29):
has made the delivery of humanitarian aid through this
Gaza Humanitarian Foundation notwork, and thousands of
Palestinians have been killed trying to get food and trying to
get relief. The reason I ask if it's
intention is that several of your colleagues who who align
themselves more along the this is sort of the moderate flank of
(32:49):
the Democratic Party, they actually voted to stop sending
those weapons to Israel because of the humanitarian crisis.
There is a new Gallup poll whichhas only 32% of Americans
approving of Israel's military action in Gaza, but among
Democrats, that number stands at8%.
Do Democrats need a fundamental mindset change when it comes to
(33:12):
how they think about the relationship with Israel after
this war? Bluntly, I think we need a
fundamental mindset change in our relationship with Netanyahu
and his leadership. I am not going to walk away from
Israel and the ideal of a Jewishdemocracy in the state of Israel
(33:34):
or the ideal of A2 state solution where the outcome of
this is a self governing Palestinian territory and
regional peace. The facts on the ground, though,
are making that harder and harder to see.
And bluntly, if Netanyahu and his government move ahead with
annexing the West Bank, with reoccupying Gaza, with forcible
(33:56):
displacement, displacement of Palestinians, I'll take very
aggressive action to push back on that because that violates
some of the most foundational understandings we have about
human rights and law. And Israel is a democracy and is
an ally of the United States andis a country that suffered A
shattering, traumatic assault byHamas.
(34:20):
There are still hostages being held in tunnels beneath Gaza
today. But the intensity of that trauma
and suffering for the Israeli people cannot justify
intentionally constraining humanitarian aid to starving
civilians. It can.
You recognize that within your party there is a a real divide
(34:42):
about whether the fundamental renegotiation of the
relationship should be between Netanyahu or between Israel
itself. In other words, given how
unpopular support for the state of Israel is within the
Democratic Party, yes, how will you make the case that you just
made that this is about Israelisleadership, not is not the State
(35:05):
of Israel? Again, I've just spent time
around the world saying to partners and allies, don't judge
all of America by our current president, right?
Don't give up on America. Yes, I know we just cancelled
food for starving children. I know we just cancelled
assistance in the case of a disaster.
I know we just tore up the treaty we signed with you.
(35:28):
I know we're doing things. Our allies look at our president
deploying the military to our nation's capital and they go,
what the heck is going on over there?
And I'm saying don't give up on us.
I see a parallel. And by the way, 3/4 of Israelis
want the war to end, want humanitarian relief, and want
(35:51):
the hostages back, and are opposed to what Netanyahu's
doing. Since you mentioned it, most
Americans are concerned about crime.
In the middle of August, President Trump deployed the
National Guard to Washington, DC, and Washington DC has
reported less crime since the National Guard arrived in the
streets of the capital in mid August.
(36:12):
Trump reportedly plans to extendthe presence of troops until
December. If the presence of troops deters
crime, are there any risks to using troops for these purposes?
Yes. What are the risks?
It's a foundational risk to the understanding of the role of our
military in law enforcement and what it means to be a society
(36:38):
where there is civilian control of the military.
And there is a federal system where governors and the National
Guards, which are the state militias that they control, are
federalized for a federal political purpose rather than
for a response to a request fromthe mayor and the governor in
(36:59):
the case of an emergency. The mayors and governors of Los
Angeles and California. I want.
To get to that are not saying President Trump, please save us.
We have riots in the streets. We have crime.
We need you to send in the National Guard.
In the case of DC, if President Trump wants to help with crime,
is there a better way to do it? Yes, with law enforcement
(37:21):
officers. It's like, how can you argue
with the results? You can see how the critics will
say, but how do you argue with the results?
Sure, it is an incredibly inefficient and expensive way to
deal with crime to take NationalGuardsmen from Ohio and bring
them here and have them mostly doing gathering trash or doing
(37:42):
patrols. Or there are relative.
Crime has dropped. Because there's a visible
presence of guys with guns in uniforms.
Yes, and crime had dropped before they showed up.
It had but but it but it didn't drop precipitously after they
showed up. So did tourism.
So look, it's important that we be clear, I oppose violent
(38:06):
crime. I have supported law enforcement
and investment in the police. By the way, the only person
who's actually defunded police programs this year is President
Trump, who cancelled millions and millions in community
policing programs. But most National Guard troops
are not trained, equipped and appropriate for law enforcement
(38:27):
domestically. That's not what they do.
And you've got folks wearing camo and carrying great big guns
walking around our nation's capital who are trained, as, you
know, aircraft refuelers or truck mechanics or infantry.
There are units of the National Guard trained as police units.
(38:48):
We have one in Delaware, the 153rd, and they responded to the
Capitol after the January 6 riots.
So in a critical moment of national tension about a riot
that assaulted and invaded our capital, I thought it was
appropriate to deploy the National Guard to restore a
(39:08):
sense of stability and security.What I'm troubled by is
President Trump keeps ginning upa sense that he and he alone can
fight crime in Democratic citieswhere he is very specific about,
you know, Chicago is a hell holefilled with crime.
And now he's saying, I fixed DC and it's crime free.
There's a performative aspect ofthis.
(39:30):
There's a an extent to which he's using American troops as
political pawns. So to your point about Chicago
and Los Angeles, a federal judgeruled this week that President
Trump's deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles
had violated the use of the military for domestic law
enforcement. Trump has still promised to send
troops to Chicago, and he has threatened to send troops to New
(39:52):
Orleans. Look, federal judges have also
ruled recently on that Trump's tariffs are were illegal, that
he misused the Alien Enemies Actto deport Venezuelans.
These decisions will be appealed, but in the meantime,
the tariffs are still being collected, troops are still in
Los Angeles, people who are deported are not coming back.
(40:15):
Are we seeing the limits of the judiciary as an equal branch of
government that can check the executive?
We are seeing the limits of the judiciary and of Congress.
Our framers assumed that the folks who served in Congress and
in the judiciary, all of you know, we all have policy and
(40:38):
partisan and political views that we would be more loyal to
and more jealously guard the prerogatives of our branch.
Whether it's Article 1 and our power of the purse or it's
Article 3 and the federal judiciary that has uniquely the
ability to call the president toaccount and say, no, you can't
do that and issue injunctions. So far, the Trump administration
(41:01):
has lost dozens and dozens of federal court cases saying, no,
you're breaking the law, this isn't in your power.
And he's pushing and pushing andpushing.
Our framers assumed that when that happened, the Article 1
power Congress would step in because we have the power of the
purse and of appointments and confirmations and should be
(41:23):
using that to say to the president, wait a minute, you
have to respect federal court orders, and you have to stop
doing things that your administration's been told
repeatedly are illegal. He's also not honoring the
Congress, and Congress has packed a TikTok ban where he has
to sell TikTok. It has now been delayed three
times. He doesn't have that power.
(41:45):
Except he does. If we don't stop him.
The president is only constrained by the Congress and
the courts if we work in concertto actually constrain him.
It's just a piece of paper if wedon't act as patriots with more
loyalty to the constitutional structure than to the partisan
concerns of the moment. Does this risk being a
(42:07):
fundamental change? Yes.
How do you counter that risk? We're looking at it right in
front of us this month. So I have been saying the
Republicans have the majority inthe Senate, in the House, in the
White House, and at the most senior levels of the federal
judiciary. You now have courts that are
filled with the majority of judges who were nominated under
a Republican president. That doesn't predict how they
(42:29):
will judge, but it gives one pause.
The folks who've been confirmed as nominees, the bills that have
been passed, the policies that have been adopted by Congress,
have shown a deference to the president, even at his most
aggressive and even at his most expansive.
(42:52):
And while district courts have issued orders that have so far
been observed when they're getting to the circuit level and
the Supreme Court level, the recent Supreme Court
jurisprudence seems to suggest the principle is whatever the
administration wants. We are in real danger if the
(43:13):
Supreme Court does not draw someclearer lines on presidential
authority and use of power. And we are in real danger if we
don't appropriate, if we don't use our power as Congress to say
we spend the money. We say what you can spend
because the the bills that we'vepassed in the Senate
(43:33):
Appropriations Committee restorefunding to lots of things, from
housing to education to scientific research to
investments in Ukraine's defensethat the president either didn't
ask for or as opposed to. We need to show some courage.
And that's going to take 4 Republicans in the Senate voting
(43:54):
against nominees or for legislation that the president
may not like or want. That's what happened in the
first Trump administration. There were critical moments
where the Senate stood up to what the president wanted.
Without that, we are at real risk of a fundamental reordering
(44:15):
of our constitutional system. There's no indication that four
Republican colleagues will be there for you based on the track
record of the last nine months, nine months of the nine months
of the Trump administration. I've been very disappointed in
my colleagues. And look, Democrats can give
brave speeches, can stand up andstorm out of hearings.
(44:36):
But at the end of the day, as long as they've got 51 votes in
the Senate and they're willing to change the rules and they're
willing to break the norms and they're willing to go along, we
can't really do anything except urge them to read their
constitutions and remember theiroaths and challenge things that
are well outside historic norms and our constitutional order.
(44:58):
Look, we have policy disagreements all the time.
That's part of politics. This is different.
This is dangerous. Health and Human Services
Secretary Robert F Kennedy Junior testified this week
before the Senate Finance Committee.
More than 1000 current and former HHS employees have called
for his resignation since the firing of the director of the
(45:19):
CDC last week. You called that firing alarming,
and you've said that Kennedy's, quote, his legacy at HHS will
lead to deaths at home and abroad.
What should the Senate be doing to hold him accountable?
Demanding his resignation. Cutting off funding for some of
(45:40):
the programs he's launching. Could you join your colleague
Senator Ossoff and calling for his resignation?
Yes, absolutely. I voted against him because I
thought he was wildly unqualified to be the secretary
of HHS and because he has advanced unscientific and I
think unconstructive, even dangerous ideas and policies as
(46:02):
the secretary. Look, there are aspects of the
Make America Healthy Again movement and, and that I
embrace, support, think this is a good idea.
We've got lots of things we could do to be a healthier
country. Vaccines are a critical part of
public health. We are coming through the
biggest and deadliest outbreak in measles in our lifetimes.
(46:25):
I believe in science. Science doesn't care if you
believe in it. It's.
Science. And.
Take it or leave it. We literally helped save the
world from a pandemic that killed more than a million
Americans by developing a cutting edge, highly effective
vaccine in record time. Why would you not want to keep
(46:47):
doing that? Vaccine safety is a critical
issue that should be studied. Some vaccines have some
unintended consequences, but overall, my wife and I chose to
vaccinate our children not because the government told us
to, but because our pediatriciantold us to, and we trusted him.
And they survived what otherwisewould be deadly childhood
(47:09):
diseases. As you know, I've been to dozens
of countries where children still die of completely
preventable childhood diseases. We've been the world leader in
promoting infinite maternal health in the developing world,
and now we've largely abandoned that.
On one of the final episodes of firing Line that was hosted by
(47:30):
William F Buckley junior in 1999, fareed Zakaria was his
guest and reflected on how Americans view their place in
the world as it was changing at the end of the 20th century.
Americans in the now in their 50s, sixties, and 70s grew up in
a world in which their personal lives became interconnected with
(47:53):
the great events of of history. Through World War 2, through the
Marshall Plan, through NATO, through the Korean War, they had
a a a they felt a connection between what they were doing
personally and these events. Americans of subsequent
generations, particularly Americans of my generation, feel
no such connection. The younger generation, having
(48:16):
grown up in times of peace and prosperity, feel themselves
utterly unconnected with these broader events.
We've talked a lot about the reordering of global alliances
and a new global order. How does one go about convincing
a new generation of Americans inthis new Millennium who are
skeptical of AUS LED world orderthat it is worth preserving?
(48:42):
1st Education I have a son who'sbeen a history teacher the last
three years and I was struck on my visit to Papua New Guinea the
number of folks who talked to usabout the role the United States
played in the Second World War. I was struck in my visit to
Australia. I was there on the 80th
anniversary of Victory in the Pacific. 3,000,000 Americans, 2
(49:04):
million Australians fought, struggled, suffered.
Lindsey Graham's father served in the Second World War in Papua
New Guinea. Joe Biden's uncle was killed in
the Second World War flying overPapua New Guinea, a striking
generation that sacrificed. I grew up in a family of
veterans, army veterans, who talked about my father and uncle
(49:25):
and grandfather and my brother who talked about the United
States being the heroes of history and Americans having
brought peace, democracy, stability, prosperity to the
world. Much of my work the last 15
years in supporting USAID and the State Department was about
the power of our diplomacy and development.
(49:45):
I also support the power of our security capabilities through
our Defense Department. But some of the recent
developments and some of the developments of the last 20
years have made a majority of Americans question the American
dream at home, whether they're going to be better off and
question whether that premise that we are or could be the
(50:07):
heroes of history had any truth to it at all.
So first, folks got to put theirphones down because social media
feeds them really negative things about us, about our
world, about who we are, about our role.
Second, understanding scope, cause, correlation, consequence.
(50:28):
We actually are living in an incredible time globally.
Fewer people are hungry and poorand destitute today than they
were 40 years ago when I first went to Africa as a college
student. And a lot of that's because of
American innovation, inventions,humanitarian relief and
development investments. Last, we got to believe in
(50:49):
democracy. And these last few years have
been really hard for us. If we believe in ourselves, if
we take the risks involved in democracy, which means
compromise, not a popular word in Washington, listening to each
other and respecting each other,we have a chance at restoring
(51:09):
our faith. This is why I'm grateful for
Firing Line. This isn't a 3 minute cable TV
press hit. We've actually had a 30 minute
conversation. We need more Americans to have
more conversations with their own families about their past,
with their own community about where they want to go, and with
(51:30):
their own children about the urgent issues of the future,
from climate to artificial intelligence to social media to
restoring upward mobility in oursociety.
And then act on it. Senator Coons, thank you for
returning to Firing Lines. Thanks, Marty.
Our prosperity, our security, our stability, our freedom.
All of it is profoundly at risk because China sees that we are
on the cusp of a huge revolutionin technology.
We're in a global competition. What's at risk?
They're going to invent and discover the thing that allows
them to leapfrog us in technology.
(00:21):
Thus security. Thus prosperity.
Thus, freedom. That's Democratic Senator Chris
Coons of Delaware responding to Chinas efforts to reshape the
world order. I'm Margaret Hoover.
This is THE Firing Line podcast.Chinese leader Xi Jinping sent a
(00:45):
message to the United States andthe world this week with a
military parade attended by Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong Un and
more than 20 other heads of state.
Watching that event in Beijing, I got a 1939 chill and we only
came out on the other side of the Second World War in good
shape because of our allies. Senate Foreign Relations
(01:06):
Committee member Chris Coons hasbeen outspoken about the dangers
posed by Beijing. The Chinese are practicing
rehearsing force projection farther and farther into the
North Pacific, east of Taiwan, the South Pacific.
These aren't subtle signs. And what he sees as foreign
policy failures by the Trump administration.
Peace through strength, something he says all the time,
(01:27):
requires actual strength. This isn't a reality TV show.
It's reality. And only by making Putin stop do
we any hope of making GI not start.
And he is just as disturbed by Trump's actions at home.
We are in real danger if the Supreme Court does not draw some
clearer lines on presidential authority and use of power.
(01:49):
We are at real risk of fundamental reordering of our
constitutional system. Senator Coons, welcome back to
FIRING LINE. Thanks, Margaret.
Great to be with you. Over the past month, there have
been numerous developments in the United States and abroad
that continue to call into question America's role in the
(02:11):
world when it comes to alliances, foreign and
humanitarian aid, international trade, and human rights.
Do you believe we are seeing a fundamental realignment between
the United States and the previously established post
(02:32):
World War 2? World order if we do not change
direction. Yes, the last nine months, the
second Trump administration has put more pressure on our
partners and allies, on the folks we have counted on to be
with us in every major values fight, economic issue, security
(02:55):
fight for 80 years. And as we saw this week with
Modi walking hand in hand with Putin, with Xi Jinping, with
lots of other leaders, it was not just them.
Our adversaries, Kim Jong Un from North Korea, North Korea,
Iran, China and Russia are together fighting in Ukraine.
(03:19):
Russia keeps launching just brutal attacks on civilian
targets in Ukraine using technology and missiles and
drones from these partners of theirs.
Watching that event in Beijing, I got a 1939 chill.
(03:39):
And we only came out on the other side of the Second World
War in good shape actually, as the world's leading country,
having defeated fascism and Japanese imperialism because of
our allies. America first, I think, tells a
mistaken story about the historyof the last 8 decades.
It says we fought, we won, we are the world leading power, and
(04:03):
it misses the absolutely centralrole of our allies in every
major development of the last 8 decades.
And so I respect that there are lots of Americans who got hurt
and who lost because of globalization and who are angry
and feel like their future is not what their parents future
was, and that the middle class of this decade is nothing like
(04:25):
the middle class of the 50s. But Trump, wielding a tariff bat
and hitting everyone within reach, from our closest allies
and partners to our adversaries,is causing chaos and making
folks think they can't count on us.
You said if we don't change course.
Yes. We will see a new set of
(04:47):
alliances and of realignment of the global world order.
At what point does that become irreversible?
Look, I'm an optimist. I believe in the power of
America's example and values. I have seen us innovate and
scrap and fight and push our wayout of some really hard spots.
(05:07):
I grew up at a time when everyone thought Japan was
inevitably ascendant. the UnitedStates in the 70s was sort of
circling the drain, everything from the energy crisis to a lack
of trust to domestic division. We came through a really hard
decade, and by the end of the 80s into the 90s, you wouldn't
recognize that we were soaring. Technology made us inventive and
(05:32):
creative. We won the Cold War.
There were some key moments and some important decisions made in
the 80s and 90s by presidents from Reagan to Bush to Clinton
that put us on top of the world.By the end of the Millennium.
We could still do that. But the message we sent to the
world by electing Donald Trump president, the first time of
(05:54):
chaos and unreliability and internal division, I felt like
President Biden largely redressed the tension with our
allies. And Trump had two big
accomplishments, renegotiating NAFTA with Canada and Mexico and
Operation Warp Speed, deliveringA vaccine that helped pull the
(06:15):
world back out of this dread pandemic, both of which he's now
rewriting, disowning, making bigger mistakes than he ever
made before. So we have free trade agreements
with countries from Korea to Australia to Canada and Mexico.
And his terrify, he's just tearing them up left and right,
(06:38):
which makes countries that are our partners and allies say what
good is a treaty or an agreementwith the United States if the
president wakes up on Tuesday and says 50% tariff on you, 30%
tariff on you and they can't figure out why or what's going
on. This business of threatening to
take Greenland from Denmark by force, threatening to make
(07:03):
Canada the 51st state, threatening to retake the Panama
Canal. It's gone from a funny, weird
what's he mean throwaway line togenuinely unsettling our closest
allies. As a member of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee, yourecently returned from a
bipartisan congressional delegation to the Indo Pacific
region. You've co-authored an op-ed for
(07:26):
Time magazine calling for the United States to quote clearly
and unambiguously reinforce our commitments to our partners in
the region. But as you referenced just this
week, Chinese President Xi Jinping has hosted the summit
with leaders, 20 leaders from around the world, including some
(07:48):
of our partners like as you mentioned, India and Turkey,
calling for a quote, more just and equitable global governance
system. Are we too late?
Look, China, India, Russia, DPRK, Iran, you put all of them
together and add up their military might and their
(08:09):
economies. That's a big block.
If they actually act in unison, that's a big deal compared to
the United States. But if you take the United
States and add our free market, free society, democratic
partners and allies, Korea, Japan, Singapore, Australia,
Canada, Mexico, the UK, the EU, we dwarf them.
(08:34):
We're 3/4 of the world's economy.
We have the most innovative, capable societies.
We have the world's leading universities.
We dwarf their military power, but divided they can pick us
off. Absolutely.
And so is it already too late? That depends.
Depends on how much more chaos President Trump insists on
(08:55):
creating in our closest alliances.
The case. Of India, I mean, just take the
case of India. I mean, this is a geopolitical
force that previous administrations had attempted to
strengthen in order to act as a counterweight in Asia against
China. And the Trump administration has
levied 50% tariffs on them, forcing them into the arms of
our adversaries. And just to unpack that a little
(09:18):
bit, what seems to have principally been driving this
with was Trump's insistence thatModi advocate for him to get the
Nobel Peace Prize for his role or the administration's role in
helping de escalate tensions between Pakistan and India and a
White House meeting with the head of the Pakistani military.
(09:40):
Those two in combination seem tohave really set Modi off.
When you add a 50% tariff to it now I agree.
There were also Russian oil. I agree with Trump taking a
really tough stance against Russian aggression in Ukraine
and saying those who are buying cheap Russian oil funding their
more machine like India need to stop or pay the price.
(10:01):
So to be clear, along with eighty other senators I've Co
sponsored a bill that would empower the president to
threaten really tough secondary sanctions because nothing else
will bring Putin to the table. Then clamping down on the
funding and the technology and that would mean picking an even
bigger fight with China. That is a real problem for us.
(10:22):
If we don't pull together with our European allies and partners
and our Indo Pacific allies and partners and confront Russian
aggression in Ukraine and confront Chinese expansionism
and aggression in the Pacific, we won't come out of this well.
And I'm encouraged by the recentmoves at the NATO summit which I
(10:42):
attended in the Netherlands, in The Hague, all of our NATO
allies stepped up and said we'regoing to pledge 5% of our GDP.
That's a huge positive move. We're going to buy 100 billion
in US weapons and send them to Ukraine.
You don't have to fund this whole thing.
We'll do it. That's a positive move.
But you've got to keep moving inthat direction.
(11:02):
You can't then randomly drop 50%tariffs on Brazil because you
don't like what their justice system is doing to a friend of
yours and drop 50% tariffs on India really because they're not
willing to support your Nobel Prize claim.
I mean, that's the chaos. What is at risk for Americans in
(11:23):
a reordering of global powers where the Chinese Communist
Party dominates an axis of authoritarians?
So our prosperity, our security,our stability, our freedom.
That's it. All of it is profoundly at risk
because China sees that we are on the cusp of a huge revolution
(11:48):
in technology. So we've spent, we've invested
hundreds of billions of dollars over decades, for example, in
building very expensive securityresources like aircraft
carriers. Both Russia and China got ahead
of us in hypersonics, in missiles that go so fast they're
(12:09):
very difficult to detect, very difficult to intercept.
We are catching up. We're working very hard on this.
We're investing in this, but it puts at risk our aircraft
carriers anywhere in the world. China doesn't have anything like
our aircraft carriers. They can't operate, they don't
have scale, they don't have reach.
So they took on a leapfrog defense technology.
(12:30):
They're doing this across 10 different fields and at the core
of all of it is artificial intelligence, quantum computing,
precision biology. And their 10 years ago, 20 years
ago, you could point at China and say what they're doing is
stealing our inventions and innovations, copying them,
making cheap copies. Today, the number of patents
they're filing, the number of scientific papers they're
(12:52):
publishing, the amount of money as a country they're pouring
into cutting edge research. What are we doing?
Trump just slashed funding, slashed funding for Cancer
Research for the organizations that are doing research into
energy, into computing, into healthcare, into cures.
So we're in a global competition.
What's at risk? They're going to invent and
(13:14):
discover the thing that allows them to leapfrog us in
technology. Thus security, thus prosperity.
Thus freedom. On Truth Social on Tuesday,
Trump accused Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un
of conspiring against the UnitedStates.
Yes. Seems obvious, yes?
(13:35):
What should the administration be doing about?
It oddly, I have a bill, a bipartisan bill that's part of
the Defence Act of. 2025. What do you know, look, a
bipartisan group of us are saying we need a strategy.
You're in charge, Mr. President,of the Department of Defence,
the intelligence services and all the other organs of our
(13:56):
national government. We need a clear strategy that
says these aren't separate actors anymore.
We used to really work at separating and playing off
against each other. DPRK and Iran, Russia, China, my
God, if you add India to that mix, how did we win the Second
World War? What was the most important
thing? Obviously the fighting spirit of
(14:16):
the American soldier, the commitment of the American
people to democracy, manufacturing.
We had a majority of the world'smanufacturing base.
We were churning out, you know, aircraft carriers and bombers
and cruisers and like, like nothing else.
We don't have that today. We can't build ships for our
(14:37):
Navy at anything like the speed and scale.
China and India together have the majority of the world's
manufacturing capacity now. So do places like Korea and
Japan and Australia, who would love to be working with us.
The powerhouse of manufacturing of Europe is Germany.
Like we've got partners and allies, but if we're if we're
(14:57):
pulling in opposite directions, there's not going to be a good
outcome. The reason for my trip that I
led to Australia was to talk about AUCUS, which was a huge
move. It was a real.
Line it stands for. Australia, United Kingdom.
United States. AUUKUS, we have nuclear powered
(15:18):
submarines. the United Kingdom is nuclear powered submarines.
It is one of the crown jewels ofAmerican National security.
The Australians don't. They were on the verge of a
major deal to buy less compelling technology submarines
from another partner, an ally. We signed a commitment with
them. They have invested $3 billion in
it. We went to visit the Osborne
(15:39):
Naval Shipyard in Adelaide. We went to the US Australia
Leadership Dialogue where they had hoped for a senior
administration representative but welcomed us with open arms.
The Department of Defense has itunder review.
Bridge Colby has been reviewing August four months now, which is
making them very anxious becausethey want to commit to us a
(16:03):
shared security. Think about the Australians.
Every war we've fought in the modern era, since the First
World War, Australians have served side by side with
Americans. We have a Marine Expeditionary
Force rotational facility in Darwin.
They are standing up in Sterlingnear Perth on their Indian Ocean
(16:24):
coast, a new facility where US nuclear powered submarines can
be serviced and supported and refueled and resupplied.
They really want to be our partners, and I came back from
that visit going, how do they punch above their weight as an
intelligence partner, as a security partner, as a
development partner in the Pacific island nations and as a
(16:46):
diplomatic partner? They're doing more than we are
in a region where China sees huge strategic opportunity and
we're late to the game. You mentioned Bridge Colby, a
Defense Department official in the Trump administration.
And I wonder, you know, Trump administration officials have
dismissed the idea that China issupplanting the US on the world
(17:06):
stage or that the US is losing influence in their Indo Pacific
region. Secretary of State Marco Rubio
came and testified before the Foreign Relations Committee and
said that it is not Trump's goalto withdraw from the world.
If that's not their stated goal,is that what they're doing
anyway? So that is, you know, Secretary
(17:28):
Rubio and President Trump's position as we're not
withdrawing from the world, but in country after country that
I've visited so far this year. And on our way to and from
Australia, we stopped and visited the Marshall Islands,
Papua New Guinea and Fiji. These are countries that have
been aligned much more with the United States than with China,
but where there's lots of Chinese influence investments
(17:51):
and attempts abruptly shutting down USAID, closing off our
disaster assistance, our work incombating HIV, AIDS in Papua New
Guinea, our investments in electrification, in combating
gender based violence. These are relatively small
economies in small countries, and they just want to know that
we're with them. And the signal of abruptly
(18:14):
canceling things that were midway without consultation,
without some notice was kind of jarring.
And then seeing their names on alist of countries that were
going to have to pay big tariffswhen they'd long been partners
and allies confused the heck outof them.
The trip I did before that with Senator Ricketts, we went to the
(18:36):
Philippines and Taiwan. The Philippines has been a
treaty ally for decades. They had just given us access to
five more partner defense sites in the very north of Luzon,
critical to any potential defense of Taiwan.
And they have the most natural disasters of any country on
earth, between typhoons and volcanoes and earthquakes And
(19:02):
every disaster. Americans through USAID had been
the first to respond while we were there.
There had just been a disaster in Myanmar where only three
Americans showed up and they were fired while they were there
by USAID. They took that as a bad signal.
Then we were in Taiwan meeting with the new president,
President LY. They had just announced TSMC,
(19:25):
the chip maker from Taiwan, the largest investment in American
manufacturing in history, $100 billion.
And then they got hit with a 32%tariff.
What are we to make of this? So leaders in all these
countries have been saying, great, that you say you're not
withdrawing from the world, Mr. Secretary, Mr. President, but
(19:46):
the combination of tearing up trade and tariff deals and
imposing new punishing tariffs and then saying let's make a
deal, come to the White House, we'll work it out.
And abruptly canceling things like disaster relief in the
rescission, the attempt to claw back already appropriated funds
that was sent up to the Senate in the last few weeks.
It includes taking back all the money from the countering PRC
(20:09):
influence fund. That's not a great idea.
I helped create that fund. I think that's not winning.
To what you attribute to. That a foolish insistence on
trying to cut or claw back funding, no matter its value or
relevance. How do you expect?
Countering PRC. The People.
(20:29):
PRC. Influence Fund, that, that is a
fund that was being administeredby USAID and it's being taken
back through a pocket rescission, something I would
argue is unconstitutional, illegal, but but we'll see what
the courts say it. It it doesn't suggest a strong
posture of VCV China from the Trump administration.
You've introduced at least two bipartisan bills this year aimed
(20:53):
at strengthening the defense of Taiwan against China.
Yes. How do you assess China's
growing threat to Taiwan in thismoment, given she's stated plan
to move on Taiwan by 2027? She's been perfectly clear with
the world, with us, that it is his goal to reunify Taiwan and
(21:14):
PRC mainland, and that he intends to be ready to do so by
military force if necessary, in two years.
That should incite a certain urgency and focus.
I visited Taiwan before the conference in Singapore, I think
a year and a half ago, and was fairly gravely concerned about
(21:37):
the weapons they were buying, their doctrine, their training,
their capabilities to defend against a potential invasion.
On my most recent visit, I was very encouraged about things
that have been done in the last year, changes in doctrine and
training and practice. Really, the war in Ukraine has
profoundly refocused Taiwan's military and populace.
(22:00):
They are still very skeptical broadly the civilian population
that that China, that the PRC will ever invade or occupy them.
But the frequency with which Chinese ships and planes are
crossing into Taiwanese airspaceor the EEZ constantly.
A striking thing that had just happened when I got to Australia
(22:22):
was a Chinese naval convoy had gone all the way around
Australia and done targeting drills as if they were about to
launch missile attacks on major Australian cities.
That had never happened before. The Chinese are practicing,
rehearsing force projection farther and farther into the
(22:43):
North Pacific, east of Taiwan, the South Pacific.
These aren't subtle signs. You mentioned Ukraine.
Vladimir Putin's attendance in Beijing has also yielded reports
that Russia and China are nearing a deal on a pipeline to
deliver more Russian fuel to China, which will inevitably
(23:04):
help fund Russia's war effort. Ukrainian officials, as as
you've mentioned, have found hundreds of examples of Chinese
parts in Russian military equipment as Trump's attempt to
disrupt the bond between China and Russia completely failed.
Yes. I mean, when President Trump
(23:27):
hosted, Vladimir Putin welcomed him with, I think literally a
red carpet and U.S. military officers and a lot of pomp and
circumstance in Anchorage. I think by having American B2
bombers fly over, he intended tosend a message.
I can't see what that meeting produced other than some
(23:47):
progress for Putin in terms of being welcomed back into the
world of nations. But the military parade that Xi
Jinping then staged and the display of cutting edge world
class weapons and a massive goose stepping military was
meant to send the same message back.
My buddy Putin's with me. And by the way, so is Modi and
(24:09):
so is Kim Jong Un. So you looking at me?
Yeah, So Putin has refused to make any concessions to Trump on
his, you know, desired peace talks.
He initiated one of the heaviestbombardments on Ukraine
following that to date, including an attack with more
than 500 drones in one night this last week, and has all the
while continued to blow past Trump's ultimatums and deadlines
(24:33):
for making peace or else. Putin is literally giving a big
middle finger to Trump and the United States every day.
And to keep saying maybe two weeks from now, maybe two weeks
from now is showing real weakness in the face of
violence, aggression and war crimes.
Putin is only going to stop whenwe stop him.
(24:55):
And thankfully, the Ukrainians are doing all the fighting.
There's not a single American soldier fighting and dying on
the front lines in Ukraine. Why would we not say we're
doubling down? We're giving them more of our
most capable, most effective weapons.
We are behind them. What emboldened Putin was when
Trump and Zelensky had that horrifying blow up in the Oval
(25:16):
Office. And then Trump cut off resupply
and intelligence briefly. But that really sent a shock
through Ukraine. And he's now turned back around
to saying, oh, I'm beginning to see that Putin maybe isn't such
a nice guy, but he's got to keepmoving Peace through strength,
something he says all the time requires actual strength.
(25:39):
This isn't a reality TV show. It's reality.
It's a war, the biggest war in Europe since the Second World
War. And only by making Putin stop do
we have any hope of making GI not start.
Well, the only and the place to make him stop is on the
battlefield. Absolutely.
The Do Putin's actions from the last week make a mockery of
(26:03):
Trump's efforts? Yes.
If you are advising Trump, I mean, what's so then?
So then what's, what's the answer for Trump?
Where does that leave us now? There was a very strong NATO
summit. Why don't you guys pass
sanctions? Build on that, be cut.
We have a bill that's got it right.
It would pass immediately. Leader Thune, who determines
what gets on the floor of the Senate, has to say, OK, we're
(26:27):
putting it on the floor. Senator Graham and Senator
Blumenthal, who are the leads onit, have been pushing and
pushing and pushing. Lindsay keeps playing golf with
President Trump, and he says, yeah, I know I'm interested in
that, but we should show that we're the Senate.
Two things. First, we should pass the
sanctions bill and empower the president further and send a
really clear signal about what we want him to do.
(26:50):
Second, this is September. At the end of this month, we're
going to have a government shutdown.
China doesn't have government shutdowns.
We may well have another year where we fund our Defense
Department on what's called a continuing resolution.
I know that's DC Talk, but it means.
A. Huge problem for new
(27:11):
construction starts on submarines and on ships and on
planes. For us to have these last minute
shutdown fights is enormously damaging.
And on the Appropriations Committee, where I serve, right
before we left a month ago, we passed our two biggest bills,
the labor health education appropriations bill and the
(27:32):
defense appropriations bill by 26 to 3.
That's a huge bipartisan margin.Leader Thune needs to put those
bills on the floor. Let us pass them, and let us
keep our government open and pass the sanctions bill.
We need to be the Senate. Do you think you will?
I'm I remain hopeful, but I'm not optimistic.
(27:55):
You signed a letter with severalother senators to the State
Department urging the administration to hold Russia
accountable for the children that it has kidnapped since the
beginning of the war. How can they be held accountable
for the children? How?
How can the Russians be held accountable for the kidnapping
of some 20,000 children? Right.
So first, any settlement of the war has got to include a
(28:20):
commitment to return the children.
We were funding, we were fundingso.
Overtaken by events. Now, of course, we were funding
an effort to track and identify and help return Ukrainian
children who had been seized andtaken into Russia.
That was just defunded. So fund that and commit to and
(28:43):
engage with the global human rights accountability mechanisms
that are there. Part of our challenge with a lot
of our allies is that there is starvation and suffering in Gaza
and in Sudan and in Ukraine. And both rhetorically and
legally, we've really stood behind Ukraine against Russia's
(29:04):
aggression. We've stood with Israel against
the horrors of Hamas, but where we are now in terms of the
conditions on the ground in Gazais unacceptable.
When? President Trump came into
office, I'll remind you, we had a ceasefire, regular hostage
exchanges for prisoners. So Palestinian prisoners were
being released. Hostages were being returned.
(29:25):
There was a ceasefire, and therewas humanitarian aid going into
Gaza. That's where we were in January.
Yeah. That is not where we are today.
It isn't I, I want to get to Gaza, but let me put a button in
Ukraine. The Biden administration was
criticized for handling Ukraine and with a Goldilocks scenario.
And, you know, finally in the final months of his presidency,
(29:47):
Joe Biden at your encouragement,moved to facilitate the use of
long range missiles and other munitions that would have
accelerated the end of the war. Knowing what you know now, is
there anything the Biden administration should have done
differently? Should the Biden administration
have been more aggressive in arming Ukrainians earlier?
I think so. I always thought so, but I also
(30:10):
respected the fact that I didn'thave access to then or now, all
the intelligence that the president sits with and his
national security advisor and his secretary of defence.
An assessment about how serious Putin was or wasn't in his
nuclear threats is an assessmentthe president has to make.
And look, if you roll back to a year ago, where the Biden
(30:36):
administration and Congress wereproviding regular, robust
military funding and humanitarian assistance and
development assistance, and the Ukrainians were making steady
progress and all of our partnersand allies were with us, 50
countries, not just in Europe, Imean, Japan and Korea, right?
We could have and should have been much more aggressive, I
(30:59):
think, in taking the advantage and in demanding a just peace.
We're in a very different place today.
Let's turn to Gaza. You called it urgent that Israel
allowing more humanitarian aid. Yes, in July you voted against a
measure to halt the sale of $675million of weaponry to Israel.
Is that vote intention with yourcall for humanitarian aid?
(31:21):
My public statements then and now are demanding that Israel
allow humanitarian aid in their explanation is that Hamas is
stealing or diverting most or all of the aid that's been let
in. And I'll tell you, I believe
Jose Andres in World Central Kitchen, Cindy McCain and the
World Food Program, and a dozen other leaders of organizations
(31:45):
from UNICEF to UNHCR who told methat tragically, this is too
often the IDF either targeting humanitarian relief efforts or
preventing them from getting in.This is a real crisis and it is
hurting Israel's legitimacy and support in the United States and
around the world. Cindy McCain and Jose Andres
(32:06):
have both told you that the IDF is targeting humanitarian
organizations. No, Cindy, forgive me for if
that seems sloppy. Both of them has said we can
deliver much more humanitarian aid promptly.
But the IDF is stopping. We are not getting clearance, we
are not getting the ability to distribute.
There have been separate incidents in which IDF action
(32:29):
has made the delivery of humanitarian aid through this
Gaza Humanitarian Foundation notwork, and thousands of
Palestinians have been killed trying to get food and trying to
get relief. The reason I ask if it's
intention is that several of your colleagues who who align
themselves more along the this is sort of the moderate flank of
(32:49):
the Democratic Party, they actually voted to stop sending
those weapons to Israel because of the humanitarian crisis.
There is a new Gallup poll whichhas only 32% of Americans
approving of Israel's military action in Gaza, but among
Democrats, that number stands at8%.
Do Democrats need a fundamental mindset change when it comes to
(33:12):
how they think about the relationship with Israel after
this war? Bluntly, I think we need a
fundamental mindset change in our relationship with Netanyahu
and his leadership. I am not going to walk away from
Israel and the ideal of a Jewishdemocracy in the state of Israel
(33:34):
or the ideal of A2 state solution where the outcome of
this is a self governing Palestinian territory and
regional peace. The facts on the ground, though,
are making that harder and harder to see.
And bluntly, if Netanyahu and his government move ahead with
annexing the West Bank, with reoccupying Gaza, with forcible
(33:56):
displacement, displacement of Palestinians, I'll take very
aggressive action to push back on that because that violates
some of the most foundational understandings we have about
human rights and law. And Israel is a democracy and is
an ally of the United States andis a country that suffered A
shattering, traumatic assault byHamas.
(34:20):
There are still hostages being held in tunnels beneath Gaza
today. But the intensity of that trauma
and suffering for the Israeli people cannot justify
intentionally constraining humanitarian aid to starving
civilians. It can.
You recognize that within your party there is a a real divide
(34:42):
about whether the fundamental renegotiation of the
relationship should be between Netanyahu or between Israel
itself. In other words, given how
unpopular support for the state of Israel is within the
Democratic Party, yes, how will you make the case that you just
made that this is about Israelisleadership, not is not the State
(35:05):
of Israel? Again, I've just spent time
around the world saying to partners and allies, don't judge
all of America by our current president, right?
Don't give up on America. Yes, I know we just cancelled
food for starving children. I know we just cancelled
assistance in the case of a disaster.
I know we just tore up the treaty we signed with you.
(35:28):
I know we're doing things. Our allies look at our president
deploying the military to our nation's capital and they go,
what the heck is going on over there?
And I'm saying don't give up on us.
I see a parallel. And by the way, 3/4 of Israelis
want the war to end, want humanitarian relief, and want
(35:51):
the hostages back, and are opposed to what Netanyahu's
doing. Since you mentioned it, most
Americans are concerned about crime.
In the middle of August, President Trump deployed the
National Guard to Washington, DC, and Washington DC has
reported less crime since the National Guard arrived in the
streets of the capital in mid August.
(36:12):
Trump reportedly plans to extendthe presence of troops until
December. If the presence of troops deters
crime, are there any risks to using troops for these purposes?
Yes. What are the risks?
It's a foundational risk to the understanding of the role of our
military in law enforcement and what it means to be a society
(36:38):
where there is civilian control of the military.
And there is a federal system where governors and the National
Guards, which are the state militias that they control, are
federalized for a federal political purpose rather than
for a response to a request fromthe mayor and the governor in
(36:59):
the case of an emergency. The mayors and governors of Los
Angeles and California. I want.
To get to that are not saying President Trump, please save us.
We have riots in the streets. We have crime.
We need you to send in the National Guard.
In the case of DC, if President Trump wants to help with crime,
is there a better way to do it? Yes, with law enforcement
(37:21):
officers. It's like, how can you argue
with the results? You can see how the critics will
say, but how do you argue with the results?
Sure, it is an incredibly inefficient and expensive way to
deal with crime to take NationalGuardsmen from Ohio and bring
them here and have them mostly doing gathering trash or doing
(37:42):
patrols. Or there are relative.
Crime has dropped. Because there's a visible
presence of guys with guns in uniforms.
Yes, and crime had dropped before they showed up.
It had but but it but it didn't drop precipitously after they
showed up. So did tourism.
So look, it's important that we be clear, I oppose violent
(38:06):
crime. I have supported law enforcement
and investment in the police. By the way, the only person
who's actually defunded police programs this year is President
Trump, who cancelled millions and millions in community
policing programs. But most National Guard troops
are not trained, equipped and appropriate for law enforcement
(38:27):
domestically. That's not what they do.
And you've got folks wearing camo and carrying great big guns
walking around our nation's capital who are trained, as, you
know, aircraft refuelers or truck mechanics or infantry.
There are units of the National Guard trained as police units.
(38:48):
We have one in Delaware, the 153rd, and they responded to the
Capitol after the January 6 riots.
So in a critical moment of national tension about a riot
that assaulted and invaded our capital, I thought it was
appropriate to deploy the National Guard to restore a
(39:08):
sense of stability and security.What I'm troubled by is
President Trump keeps ginning upa sense that he and he alone can
fight crime in Democratic citieswhere he is very specific about,
you know, Chicago is a hell holefilled with crime.
And now he's saying, I fixed DC and it's crime free.
There's a performative aspect ofthis.
(39:30):
There's a an extent to which he's using American troops as
political pawns. So to your point about Chicago
and Los Angeles, a federal judgeruled this week that President
Trump's deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles
had violated the use of the military for domestic law
enforcement. Trump has still promised to send
troops to Chicago, and he has threatened to send troops to New
(39:52):
Orleans. Look, federal judges have also
ruled recently on that Trump's tariffs are were illegal, that
he misused the Alien Enemies Actto deport Venezuelans.
These decisions will be appealed, but in the meantime,
the tariffs are still being collected, troops are still in
Los Angeles, people who are deported are not coming back.
(40:15):
Are we seeing the limits of the judiciary as an equal branch of
government that can check the executive?
We are seeing the limits of the judiciary and of Congress.
Our framers assumed that the folks who served in Congress and
in the judiciary, all of you know, we all have policy and
(40:38):
partisan and political views that we would be more loyal to
and more jealously guard the prerogatives of our branch.
Whether it's Article 1 and our power of the purse or it's
Article 3 and the federal judiciary that has uniquely the
ability to call the president toaccount and say, no, you can't
do that and issue injunctions. So far, the Trump administration
(41:01):
has lost dozens and dozens of federal court cases saying, no,
you're breaking the law, this isn't in your power.
And he's pushing and pushing andpushing.
Our framers assumed that when that happened, the Article 1
power Congress would step in because we have the power of the
purse and of appointments and confirmations and should be
(41:23):
using that to say to the president, wait a minute, you
have to respect federal court orders, and you have to stop
doing things that your administration's been told
repeatedly are illegal. He's also not honoring the
Congress, and Congress has packed a TikTok ban where he has
to sell TikTok. It has now been delayed three
times. He doesn't have that power.
(41:45):
Except he does. If we don't stop him.
The president is only constrained by the Congress and
the courts if we work in concertto actually constrain him.
It's just a piece of paper if wedon't act as patriots with more
loyalty to the constitutional structure than to the partisan
concerns of the moment. Does this risk being a
(42:07):
fundamental change? Yes.
How do you counter that risk? We're looking at it right in
front of us this month. So I have been saying the
Republicans have the majority inthe Senate, in the House, in the
White House, and at the most senior levels of the federal
judiciary. You now have courts that are
filled with the majority of judges who were nominated under
a Republican president. That doesn't predict how they
(42:29):
will judge, but it gives one pause.
The folks who've been confirmed as nominees, the bills that have
been passed, the policies that have been adopted by Congress,
have shown a deference to the president, even at his most
aggressive and even at his most expansive.
(42:52):
And while district courts have issued orders that have so far
been observed when they're getting to the circuit level and
the Supreme Court level, the recent Supreme Court
jurisprudence seems to suggest the principle is whatever the
administration wants. We are in real danger if the
(43:13):
Supreme Court does not draw someclearer lines on presidential
authority and use of power. And we are in real danger if we
don't appropriate, if we don't use our power as Congress to say
we spend the money. We say what you can spend
because the the bills that we'vepassed in the Senate
(43:33):
Appropriations Committee restorefunding to lots of things, from
housing to education to scientific research to
investments in Ukraine's defensethat the president either didn't
ask for or as opposed to. We need to show some courage.
And that's going to take 4 Republicans in the Senate voting
(43:54):
against nominees or for legislation that the president
may not like or want. That's what happened in the
first Trump administration. There were critical moments
where the Senate stood up to what the president wanted.
Without that, we are at real risk of a fundamental reordering
(44:15):
of our constitutional system. There's no indication that four
Republican colleagues will be there for you based on the track
record of the last nine months, nine months of the nine months
of the Trump administration. I've been very disappointed in
my colleagues. And look, Democrats can give
brave speeches, can stand up andstorm out of hearings.
(44:36):
But at the end of the day, as long as they've got 51 votes in
the Senate and they're willing to change the rules and they're
willing to break the norms and they're willing to go along, we
can't really do anything except urge them to read their
constitutions and remember theiroaths and challenge things that
are well outside historic norms and our constitutional order.
(44:58):
Look, we have policy disagreements all the time.
That's part of politics. This is different.
This is dangerous. Health and Human Services
Secretary Robert F Kennedy Junior testified this week
before the Senate Finance Committee.
More than 1000 current and former HHS employees have called
for his resignation since the firing of the director of the
(45:19):
CDC last week. You called that firing alarming,
and you've said that Kennedy's, quote, his legacy at HHS will
lead to deaths at home and abroad.
What should the Senate be doing to hold him accountable?
Demanding his resignation. Cutting off funding for some of
(45:40):
the programs he's launching. Could you join your colleague
Senator Ossoff and calling for his resignation?
Yes, absolutely. I voted against him because I
thought he was wildly unqualified to be the secretary
of HHS and because he has advanced unscientific and I
think unconstructive, even dangerous ideas and policies as
(46:02):
the secretary. Look, there are aspects of the
Make America Healthy Again movement and, and that I
embrace, support, think this is a good idea.
We've got lots of things we could do to be a healthier
country. Vaccines are a critical part of
public health. We are coming through the
biggest and deadliest outbreak in measles in our lifetimes.
(46:25):
I believe in science. Science doesn't care if you
believe in it. It's.
Science. And.
Take it or leave it. We literally helped save the
world from a pandemic that killed more than a million
Americans by developing a cutting edge, highly effective
vaccine in record time. Why would you not want to keep
(46:47):
doing that? Vaccine safety is a critical
issue that should be studied. Some vaccines have some
unintended consequences, but overall, my wife and I chose to
vaccinate our children not because the government told us
to, but because our pediatriciantold us to, and we trusted him.
And they survived what otherwisewould be deadly childhood
(47:09):
diseases. As you know, I've been to dozens
of countries where children still die of completely
preventable childhood diseases. We've been the world leader in
promoting infinite maternal health in the developing world,
and now we've largely abandoned that.
On one of the final episodes of firing Line that was hosted by
(47:30):
William F Buckley junior in 1999, fareed Zakaria was his
guest and reflected on how Americans view their place in
the world as it was changing at the end of the 20th century.
Americans in the now in their 50s, sixties, and 70s grew up in
a world in which their personal lives became interconnected with
(47:53):
the great events of of history. Through World War 2, through the
Marshall Plan, through NATO, through the Korean War, they had
a a a they felt a connection between what they were doing
personally and these events. Americans of subsequent
generations, particularly Americans of my generation, feel
no such connection. The younger generation, having
(48:16):
grown up in times of peace and prosperity, feel themselves
utterly unconnected with these broader events.
We've talked a lot about the reordering of global alliances
and a new global order. How does one go about convincing
a new generation of Americans inthis new Millennium who are
skeptical of AUS LED world orderthat it is worth preserving?
(48:42):
1st Education I have a son who'sbeen a history teacher the last
three years and I was struck on my visit to Papua New Guinea the
number of folks who talked to usabout the role the United States
played in the Second World War. I was struck in my visit to
Australia. I was there on the 80th
anniversary of Victory in the Pacific. 3,000,000 Americans, 2
(49:04):
million Australians fought, struggled, suffered.
Lindsey Graham's father served in the Second World War in Papua
New Guinea. Joe Biden's uncle was killed in
the Second World War flying overPapua New Guinea, a striking
generation that sacrificed. I grew up in a family of
veterans, army veterans, who talked about my father and uncle
(49:25):
and grandfather and my brother who talked about the United
States being the heroes of history and Americans having
brought peace, democracy, stability, prosperity to the
world. Much of my work the last 15
years in supporting USAID and the State Department was about
the power of our diplomacy and development.
(49:45):
I also support the power of our security capabilities through
our Defense Department. But some of the recent
developments and some of the developments of the last 20
years have made a majority of Americans question the American
dream at home, whether they're going to be better off and
question whether that premise that we are or could be the
(50:07):
heroes of history had any truth to it at all.
So first, folks got to put theirphones down because social media
feeds them really negative things about us, about our
world, about who we are, about our role.
Second, understanding scope, cause, correlation, consequence.
(50:28):
We actually are living in an incredible time globally.
Fewer people are hungry and poorand destitute today than they
were 40 years ago when I first went to Africa as a college
student. And a lot of that's because of
American innovation, inventions,humanitarian relief and
development investments. Last, we got to believe in
(50:49):
democracy. And these last few years have
been really hard for us. If we believe in ourselves, if
we take the risks involved in democracy, which means
compromise, not a popular word in Washington, listening to each
other and respecting each other,we have a chance at restoring
(51:09):
our faith. This is why I'm grateful for
Firing Line. This isn't a 3 minute cable TV
press hit. We've actually had a 30 minute
conversation. We need more Americans to have
more conversations with their own families about their past,
with their own community about where they want to go, and with
(51:30):
their own children about the urgent issues of the future,
from climate to artificial intelligence to social media to
restoring upward mobility in oursociety.
And then act on it. Senator Coons, thank you for
returning to Firing Lines. Thanks, Marty.
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.