Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Former Governor Chris Sununu (R-NH); Interview with Pulitzer Prize-Winning Journalist and "An Immense World" Author Ed Yong; Interview with American Compass Founder and Chief Economist Oren Cass; Interview with "Flow" Director Gints Zilbalodis. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired April 10, 2025 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
Whiplash around the world. Will economic chaos chip away at Trump's support? I ask the Republican former governor of New Hampshire, Chris
Sununu.
Then a checkup on America. Pulitzer Prize winning writer, Ed Yong joins me on death disease and what we can learn from the animal kingdom.
Also, the case for Trump's tariffs, with conservative economist Oren Cass.
Plus, "Flow," the Oscar winning animal film touching hearts everywhere. I speak to the director of this wordless masterpiece.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London.
Donald Trump has taken the global economy on a dangerous rollercoaster, and it is not over yet. Markets keep swinging after the U.S. president appeared
spooked by the fearsome bond market and stepped back from his sweeping tariffs plan, while at the same time doubling down against China.
Economists are urging Americans to realize that a serious tariff regime remains in place and could have devastating impacts, including to
everyone's wallet. Democrats are angry about the damage being done to ordinary citizens and the American brand, and even some Republicans are
taking issue with the seemingly incoherent messaging from the White House.
Chris Sununu was the Republican governor of New Hampshire. He was a backer of Nikki Haley during the campaign, but ultimately endorsed Donald Trump.
He's just ruled out a Senate run for himself in the competitive State of New Hampshire, much to the President's disappointment, but he is joining us
from New York.
So, welcome to the program. And because you're a Trump supporter, I need to ask you, where do you stand on the chaos, at least in the implementation
and in the messaging that has set the world literally on I described a rolling earthquake for the last week?
FMR. GOV. CHRIS SUNUNU (R-NH): Sure. Well, look, it's a great question. A lot of folks contact me and we were discussing earlier, especially
overseas, and they asked me, can you help us decode a little bit of what's happening here?
So, again, we know Trump -- President Trump's negotiating strategy is about strength and uncertainty. And he has this colossal mixture of those two
things that he tries to use to his advantage. There's a -- there is a lot of uncertainty. I think what has happened here is he said, look, we want to
renegotiate our international deals, not just on what the tariff is, but those other taxes and regulations that come into play.
So, you know, they -- he had his grand plan of tariffs that came in. A couple things happened. Number one, the stock market dipped and they knew
it would dip, but it fell much harder than they thought. You know, 10, 12 percent, depending on what indexes you were looking at. But at the same
time, you had countries coming in, in droves, not just a couple, but according to them, up to 70, 75 countries, that have contacted the State
Department and say, look, we're willing to renegotiate this thing. Let's find a way out.
And so, those two, kind of the positive and the negative of that kind of came together where, obviously, he made yet a bit of a -- I won't call it a
reversal, but a new strategy and decision and said, well, we're going to pound on China. They clearly don't want to come to the table. They clearly
are being stubborn, but we're -- you guys are partners, you guys are friends around the world, we're happy to do this and let's give ourselves
90 days -- a 90-day reprieve and see how we can all strike a better deal.
And they're deals that haven't been renegotiated and really looked into for decades for some of these countries.
AMANPOUR: OK.
SUNUNU: So, it's a great opportunity for America, but they got to close these deals.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, Governor Sununu, you're putting a good spin on it and we're talking, you know, about the reaction to the reaction, and the
markets didn't dip, they tanked. To your point, I want to read from Stephen Miller, who's the president's close associate, who posted, I mean, he said,
you have been watching the greatest economic master strategy from an American president in history.
I mean, seriously, are they making fun of us? A lot of European -- a lot of American commentators are saying, including David Sanger in The New York
Times, this has been an experiment in recklessness. No matter which way you cut it, no matter what you want to achieve, the math and the methodology
was all over the place and did not add up.
[13:05:00]
SUNUNU: So, I agree with the math because I think a lot of folks agree that that formula was a bit odd. They were putting tariffs on places that
were only inhabited by penguins. That looked a little weird. So, I just don't think there was a lot of double checking, if you will, what the,
quote/unquote, "math" was. But at the end of the day, these are countries that we all agree, at least here in the United States, could use
renegotiation of what that strategy is.
Now, what is the net result? Is this a masterclass like some say it is or is it a complete debacle? We're going to find out. We're literally less
than a week in. They -- as I said, I appreciate they're giving themselves 90 days, not a year or two years, but they got 90 days. And if they can't
renegotiate some of these deals within that 90 days, and I wouldn't even say something, they have to renegotiate a lot of them to justify that it,
quote/unquote, "worked."
Because if not, we're right back where we started 90 days from now, the market's probably going to tank even harder than it did before. I think
they know that. So, they have a lot -- they've given themselves a boundary with a heck of a lot of work to achieve those results. And then, what I
think you'll see is ultimately China really hanging out there on their own.
That's the real interesting one here, right? And I always -- I appreciate what Trump said, in terms, he said he respects Xi, he knows he can be very
stubborn and very -- there's a lot of pride there, that's treated more of a cultural issue, that the president is acknowledging needs to be kind of
worked around, but he's not going to bend. He's not going -- he's -- if he -- if it takes a hardline trade war with China, good luck outlasting Trump
on that one.
So, my sense is everyone's going to see where some of these countries come in, if these deals get negotiated and then that in itself puts more
pressure on China. You'll see Vietnam, that's an interesting one, right? India, maybe Japan. These will probably be the first folks at the table to
want to renegotiate their deals, which puts even more pressure on China as it all develops over the next three months.
AMANPOUR: You know, Vietnam is a bit of a weird one because it doesn't have tariffs and it was hit with a massive 96, which he then generously
halved to 47 or whatever it was. And it -- I thought, you know, having Vietnam sell to America was part of the overall strategy of pivoting away
from China, and now they get hammered. So, again, it's really difficult to understand.
Now, you say good luck out outlasting Trump. But clearly, can he outlast the bond markets? I mean, everybody -- I think that's what's spook -- and
I'm not even an expert on anything economic or market wise, but the bonds are meant to be safe and secure. And when they started to show something
opposite, that's when the White House started to, you know, gather the wagon, so to speak.
SUNUNU: Yes, without a doubt. I think the bond market even more than the stock market is what really shook them. You know, just going back to
Vietnam, because I think that's going to be a story as we go forward. To your point, they didn't necessarily have tariffs, but they had all the
Chinese companies coming in and using then Vietnam as kind of a gateway.
I think the approach to Vietnam will be, believe it or not, similar to Panama. Remember early on --
AMANPOUR: Are they going to annex it?
SUNUNU: -- Trump said, we -- no, because they cut a new deal. Panama and Trump got together. The administrations got together. They said, we're not
going to let China do the Belt and Road type stuff. We're not going to -- we're going to not adhere to those 2017 deals and let them buy our ports
and all that sort of thing and have the control over the Canal. Panama knew that being a friend and an ally to America over the Chinese was more
important.
And I think that's going to be the approach with Vietnam, understanding that, look, you can't just let the Chinese put their companies in your
country to then use the good tariff deals that, you know, the good tariff and international negotiations that we have, that's giving -- that's a back
door. It's a loophole, right? So, we're going to -- we just need to close that loophole.
And again, it won't just be about the tariff number, it'll be about the other rules, regulations, and barriers and opportunities that they create
or don't create for the Chinese in terms of importing those goods.
AMANPOUR: You are a retail politician. I mean, I said that you're not going to run for senator as Trump wanted you to. But you know what it takes
to win votes. And you've seen anger in various, you know, Republican town halls and other town halls. You've seen protests now. And we've seen from
the Yale Lab who said that these -- the current damage that's being done, including the 10 percent that remains, tariffs around the world, is going
to cost the average American somewhere in the region of $3,500 more a month in their pocket to be spending.
That the idea of inflation and joblessness a year is what I meant, sorry, not a month, a year. Nonetheless. This is not why people elected Donald
Trump. He didn't tell them that his -- the prices, he started saying afterwards, after the inauguration, that they might have to bear some pain,
but he never told them that, at the beginning -- you know, during the campaign. Is this -- again, how is this going to play out?
SUNUNU: Yes. So, again, I think what you're going to see, the tariff deal is tough and that it could -- there's no doubt it's going to create some,
hopefully, short-term pain, but that gets offset. All the rules and regulations they're taking off the books, all the money they're bringing
in, the outside investment into this country right now is in the hundreds of billions of dollars where it wasn't before, specifically around natural
gas and energy, which is a driver on inflationary costs with a lot of those regulations.
[13:10:00]
The tariffs, if they had stayed on, you know what that really crushes? That crushes corporate profits more than anything else. So, by having a tax cut
deal that comes in, removing this tariff deal, at least for 90 days, he's telling corporate America, invest that money into your infrastructure.
Build out the infrastructure for steel and aluminum. We're playing the long game for good American manufacturing jobs. So, we're not just a service
country that deals in information, we have to be bigger than that. We have to make our -- sometimes make our own widgets. We don't have to make every
widget for the world, but we have to make our own widgets, and when we buy them for the rest of the world, we just want to be treated fairly.
So, this is a massive transition. So, the best part about Trump in terms of the media is, boy, that guy's full of content. I mean, every day he is
doing something, which is such a juxtaposition to the previous administration who wouldn't even answer a question for weeks on end. Trump
is out there every single day doing something different, whether you like it or not, and we can debate that all day long, some things are good, some
things are bad.
So, he's driving forward on this stuff quickly. He's driving forward on hard to kind of get the tough stuff, that transitional stuff over with
quickly. And hopefully, build that long-term benefit so it has a minimal impact in the elections and a minimal impact, hopefully, for the long-term.
AMANPOUR: Yes. Let me just --
SUNUNU: Now, you're very right about the rates.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
SUNUNU: He's got to work with the Fed Reserve if he wants to help stabilize that bond market.
MARTIN: OK. So, you brought up the Federal Reserve. Janet Yellen, former fed chairwoman, told CNN today that Trump actually has taken a wrecking
ball to an economy that he inherited, which was in a good shape. Here, it was called the envy of the world by The Economist, by the F.T., all the
rest of it. This is what Senator Bernie Sanders, who obviously cares a lot about, you know, individual people, not the wealthy, and this is what he
told CNN in the town hall.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT): But what I do know is the immediate harm is going to be very significant. And it is going to -- I was just in Target
the other day buying something. And I looked around there, virtually all of those products sold in stores like Target are going to see significant
increases in prices if Trump gets his way with tariffs, that's going to hurt working people a whole lot.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: And again, I mean, I've sort of asked you this already, but how is he going to answer to those people who voted for him for the price of
eggs, essentially?
SUNUNU: So, a couple things. First, Janet Yellen is the same sec. treasury of the -- secretary of the treasury that said inflationary was temporary
and wasn't going to be a big deal. So, with all due respect to Janet Yellen, she was an absolute fool when it came to the economy.
Bernie Sanders is the most left-wing progressive, you know, anti-Trump person you're going to find in the country that is off doing not just town
halls, but tours across the country driving a woke progressive message that lost them the election in '24. So, if those are the two individuals that
are being held up as, boy, we really have to answer to these guys, absolutely not.
Why did more working-class Americans support Donald Trump than really ever before in the Republican Party in 2024? Because they had been kind of
hoodwinked, if you will, by the left. Something has to change. He was hired as a disruptor. You cannot disrupt without breaking a few eggs. You cannot
disrupt without having some uncertainty in the system.
He's draining the swamp. He's decentralizing government. He's getting rid of old bureaucracies and fraud and waste that of, not just a few million or
even a few billion, we're talking hundreds of billions of dollars. He's breaking in and breaking down a system that has not worked. Nobody thinks
Washington has worked. Nobody, right? And he was finally hired to come and change it.
So, I'm not being an overly defender of every policy he has. But understand, those folks that voted for him, voted for him to come in and
break a few eggs.
AMANPOUR: He basically wrote -- disrupt, yes, but we also talked about you can disrupt, you've got to have something to put in its place. And as yet,
there's nothing to put in its place and that's an issue. I mean, it's not happened. They haven't got a plan B. We're just waiting and seeing, as you
said, what's going to happen in the next 90 days.
But, you know, when he explained what was, you know, the pause, the 90-day pause, he essentially wrote this thing and put it on, you know, Social
Truth, media, whatever it's called -- Truth Social, that, you know, we wrote this, we wrote it from the heart. You know, we thought we were going
to do this pause, but then we saw this and that, and we'd really written from the heart.
I mean, is does that satisfy you? Is this a way -- is this the kind of government response that you want to see?
SUNUNU: He's very -- look, he very much believes in what he's doing. He's not taking a page out of some other Republican national playbook or
something like that. He's very passionate. He believes in -- and again, I don't agree with everything he is doing, but I'll tell you he does, right?
[13:15:00]
So, let's give him some credit there. And he not just does it, he doesn't try to walk past it. He answers questions and does press conferences on all
of it. So, I get the downside of some of this, but let's just have some appreciation for a president that's actually out there.
There's no question about who's in charge. Nobody knew who was in charge for four years under Biden, right, and it kind of -- everyone just kind of
ignored it and the media just said, oh, it's all fine. No, to this day, nobody can tell us who was really in charge. You know who's in charge with
this White House, and he stands behind what he does.
And he has a team that needs to -- that's trying to support that agenda. It's hard when he's over here, he is over there, there's a bit of that
uncertainty. That's not completely undesigned. That's -- everyone knows that that's kind of how he works and he -- what he tries to do is play that
to his advantage as much as he can, specifically on the international stage.
You have what's happening in Russian and Ukraine, closer to peace than ever before. Ways to go, but still closer than we've been ever before. What's
happening over in the Middle East, standing up to Iran, hitting the Houthis, which were, you know, attacking Americans, finally doing something
about it. You know, we talk about the border, securing the border. We heard for four years, from Democrats, we can't secure the border. It's not
possible. No, actually it was. It was possible to do like on day one and he did it, and let's give the president some credit on it.
So, I'm not trying to sugarcoat everything, but I am trying to say, let's understand there's some good here with the bad. He's -- I do like that he
gives himself timelines. Even on DOGE, right? DOGE is very controversial. He said, where -- DOGE is going to last for 18 months, tops, that's it.
They only have 18 months to do their job. I love that idea.
You put them in a box, you don't let a bureaucracy go completely unchecked. They get as much done as they possibly can, and then you ask Congress to
follow it up. So, there's a process here to all this. It's all being challenged in court, I get it. But at the end of the day, he's doing
something, and that's what he was hired.
We've had four years on this side of the pond of nothing, of not much of anything except, hey, watch your pronouns and let's, you know, focus on
woke-ism and DEI nonsense. This guy's trying to create manufacturing jobs, right? He's trying to actually do it.
AMANPOUR: OK.
SUNUNU: And we need better deals to get there. That's all.
AMANPOUR: OK. And again, we'll wait and see because most economists say it's not going to be possible in the way he's doing it. And the DOGE thing
has caused mass panic amongst all these people who are being laid off and so much American research and this and that is walking out the door and
being excised and erased.
Look, Anne Applebaum, my final question, says, this is what arbitrary absolute power looks like. She's, as you know, an expert, she writes in The
Atlantic. And you know, because it was TikToked in The Washington Post today that it took a number of GOP senators and congresspeople maybe who
went on Sean Hannity on Tuesday night, I believe it was, and essentially appealed to Trump via Fox News. Because I guess they couldn't or didn't or
wouldn't dare go and appeal to him as everything was tanking face to face, and he was watching that and they knew it. This is what it's written down
anyway, and Fox hasn't disputed it and the others haven't disputed it.
There is a problem, isn't it, when actual Republicans feel too afraid to go and talk to and tell the emperor that, in some cases, he's not wearing any
clothes?
SUNUNU: Well, I don't think folks are afraid if you're going on Sean Hannity on a primetime show, knowing the president's watching, and I -- you
know, I think it's pretty clear who's saying it and what's being said. So, no, I don't think it's fear, but I think their strategy is a good one in
that they want to show it isn't one senator here and one senator there. We're coming as a group. We're coming with a consistent message, that's
very important.
And what they're also asking, the White House is, you need better messaging. Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, is
phenomenal. She's really terrific, but with all the things happening so fast, the chaotic messaging, are we doing this on Thursday, are we doing
that on Monday, the stock market's up, the stock market's down, that is really hard for sitting politicians to then relay out to their
constituents. As a governor or a senator to say, this is what we think is happening.
So, look, I'm doing my best to decode it as well. I'm an eternal optimist. I really am. I love this country and I think America's strength in the
world brings peace to the world. I'm a big believer in that.
AMANPOUR: OK.
SUNUNU: I am the eternal optimist here. But you got to look at it from both sides. And let's see where this plays out over the next couple.
AMANPOUR: As you said --
SUNUNU: Either way, it's going to be fun. It's going to be --
AMANPOUR: Oh no, no. It's not fun. It's scary. It's scary.
SUNUNU: Oh, it's no bad.
AMANPOUR: People are losing their --
SUNUNU: It's OK.
AMANPOUR: -- you know, their whatever. In any event, Governor Sununu, thank you very much indeed. And stay with CNN, because we'll be right back
after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:20:00]
AMANPOUR: And now, measles is back. As we know in the United States, the anti-vax movement is firmly embedded in the highest levels of the
government as we know too. And public health agencies and disease research are being gutted. All this makes experts very concerned that America might
not be ready for another pandemic, while also hemorrhaging its world class medical advantage.
Our next guest, the Pulitzer Prize winning writer, Ed Yong, was at the forefront of coverage of the COVID pandemic as a science reporter for The
Atlantic. He's also author of a highly acclaimed new book, "An Immense World," about the fascinating and mysterious sensory world of animals. He's
releasing a version for kids. And Ed Young is joining me from Oakland, California.
Ed, welcome. I know it's not new, but it's new that you're releasing it for kids and we're going to talk about it. But first, you are not really on the
front line of health coverage anymore, but how much of it concerns you? You know, people said that there was a measles problem. The government didn't
take it seriously. Robert F. Kennedy, the secretary of HHS, had all these quack remedies. And now, he's been forced to say, actually take the
vaccine.
ED YONG, PULITZER PRIZE-WINNING JOURNALIST AND AUTHOR, "AN IMMENSE WORLD": Yes, I think it's hugely concerning. You know, anyone with expertise in
health could have seen this coming. We know that disinformation about the importance of vaccines, especially for things like measles have been
growing for some time. And we -- it's only going to get worse.
You know, I'm talking to you as someone who got measles immunity the hard way. I actually got measles as a kid a couple of days before I was
scheduled to get my MMR vaccine and ended up critically ill in a hospital as a result. This is not a disease to take lightly, and we actually have an
incredibly effective way of controlling it that is being ignored.
I think that this problem has been going on for some time. And to address it, you need quite high touch personal measures. I think it requires people
talking to each other, to their neighbors, to their community about the things that they value and they hold dear. It's going to be ever more
important when the messaging coming from the top officials that the top agencies is completely counter to our medical reality.
AMANPOUR: You know, as you know better than I do, because you're there, and it started here, all this hullabaloo here in England, the fake science
that said MMR caused autism, which has been debunked over and over again, but somehow still has some kind of currency.
You know, people who are naturally suspicious of government and believe that it's their freedom to do whatever they want, they feel, you know, that
they should be able to do whatever they want for their families. Two kids died in Texas over this, and this is, you know, in 2025.
But what do you see coming down the pike with this massive across-the-board gutting of so many of the HHS involved, you know, programs, whether it's
research, whether it's, you know, disease all those things, plus the huge unprecedented layoffs, something like 10,000 people overall? What do you
think that will do for American's health?
YONG: Nothing good. The layoffs have absolutely gutted so much of the infrastructure that we rely on, whether it's the biomedical research
infrastructure that gives us new treatments and new vaccines, hospital programs, clinical trials, and I think really importantly to me, public
health agencies, especially at a local level.
[13:25:00]
Public health, that's the community of people who prevent sickness in our communities, has always been under -- has always been underfunded and
stretched thin. You can find people talking about this problem going back a century. And so, instead of shoring that up and producing more investment
in it, it -- we're now seeing it being under invested even further, and people who have been taking these jobs, being driven out of their jobs.
Now, I've told you public health has been underfunded. So, it does tend to recruit a certain category of people, people who are very, very service
minded and are used to swimming against the tide because they want to help their communities. And for their efforts, the government is now telling
them that you are useless, you are a waste of money and resources, when they had very, very few resources to begin with. It's just complete
nonsense. And it means that we're going to be intensely vulnerable to new epidemics, to reemerging epidemics like measles, to whatever pandemic
threat we absolutely will face next.
Public health is the frontline of our defense against these growing threats, and we are weakening that frontline after the pandemic should have
shown us what -- how important it is to keep all of our health in good stead.
AMANPOUR: Yes. And that -- those cuts are doing what you're saying in the U.S. and the USAID cuts are making it much more vulnerable around the
world, the idea of a pandemic, which, of course, knows no boundaries and all the other health things that they've cut off.
But you talk about a panic neglect cycle. Tell us what that is and whether the U.S. is prepared potentially for another kind of pandemic.
YONG: So, the panic neglect cycle is this idea that when a crisis hits, attention and resources flow towards it, once it starts to abate, there's a
sort of collective amnesia. People forget why we ever bothered in the first place and resources flow away.
People have been talking about this idea for a long time, and I think what's really important to understand is that it's not a sort of passive
neglect, it's not that the threat goes away and people gradually forget. What we are seeing right now is the truth of it, which is that the neglect
phase is actively constructed, that resources are deliberately withdrawn from the very people and the very institutions that go into fighting these
problems. And we are left in a much, much poorer place.
Now, you asked about whether we are ready for the next pandemic. We were not ready for COVID. We ended up in a much worse place, I think, a much
poorer state of readiness and that state disintegrates with every passing day and with every passing week and with every extra cut. We are intensely
vulnerable to what will happen next.
AMANPOUR: It is extraordinary --
YONG: And the one thing -- and I cannot tell you --
AMANPOUR: Go ahead.
YONG: Sorry. Go ahead.
AMANPOUR: I was just going to say, it's extraordinary to hear you say that in, you know, the most important country in the world, which has the envy
of the world's medical, you know, system in terms of, you know, for those who can afford it, obviously. But can I just ask you something, because I
want to talk about your book, "An Immense World."
You write that you did suffer burnout covering all this. You're now in Oakland, as I said, you're not really on the frontline of health coverage
anymore, but you wrote this book. It's about animal perception and the young reader's version is coming out in May.
In the introduction you write, I know that every animal perceives the world in a completely different way than I do. I understand that even in the most
everyday spaces, my house or my neighborhood, there are hidden treasures that I miss, and that even familiar creatures can detect. Knowing this
makes me feel small and humble, but also part of something grand and extraordinary. I feel like I've been told the most incredible secrets in
the world.
It's really wonderful. And I see you smiling. And I wonder how you came to that and what you want to tell the kids.
YONG: I've always loved the natural world. And I think that the idea behind "An Immense World," that every creature centers the world in a
different way, and that we humans, for all of our advantages, are only privy to a small part of the fullness of reality. I think that's one of the
most beautiful concepts in nature. It tells us that wherever we go in the garden outside my window, there are -- there's wonder to be found. There is
magic to be had in the mundane, and the extraordinary is always around the corner of the ordinary.
I want kids, with this new young reader's edition that's out next month, to be able to tap into that curiosity, and I want them to develop the same
kind of empathy that I hoped to engender in my adult readers too, this desire to think about the lives and experiences of other creatures around
us and to step into their shoes.
[13:30:00]
You know, I'm also a birder. I spend a lot of time looking at birds, and that to me is part of the same concept. It's this desire to give the rest
of the natural world your attention, your time, and your consideration in recognition that it is important, it's real, and it's worthy of all of
those things.
AMANPOUR: Yes. I am really happy to end on that. And also, I just want to say, I loved your comment that, you know, hope is a discipline. The idea of
hope is something very important as well, and it's great for people to not think that hope is just an empty luxury. Ed Yong, thank you so much indeed.
And we will be right back after this short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
AMANPOUR: Now, back to Trump's trade war, which has been shocking, global markets and raising fears of a recession. All this uncertainty has led
economists and frankly, the world to beg the question why. Here to offer his insight on that million-dollar question is Oren Cass, founder of the
conservative think tank, American Compass, which has ties to prominent Republicans like Vice President, J. D. Vance, Secretary State Marco Rubio,
and others. He joined Walter Isaacson just before the president reached for the pause button, and here's what he thinks motivates Trump's economic
views.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Thank you, Christiane. And Oren Cass, welcome back to the show.
OREN CASS, FOUNDER AND CHIEF ECONOMIST, AMERICAN COMPASS: It's great to see you again.
ISAACSON: You have an op-ed that you wrote this week that says, "Stop Freaking Out. Trump's Tariffs Can Still Work." OK. give me the playbook.
How should they work?
CASS: Well, I think the important piece to start with is just that I think the direction here would be a very positive one. I think it's actually very
encouraging to see people focusing on imbalances in the trading system, the need to really change the way some of this works and, you know, frankly,
accepting that there are going to be some costs associated with doing that.
It's -- it is refreshing to have leadership that is willing to speak about the costs and say, here's why it's worth it. That being said, I think you
have a responsibility to minimize those costs. And I think we could get there if, for one thing, if we phase a lot of these tariffs in, I think
there are situations where you might want to do something right away, but a lot of these tariffs would work a lot better if you said, look, here's what
we're going to do in six months if we don't get a deal.
And have some time to, to try and do that negotiation and get the deal and give people time to prepare and adapt. And so, I think a lot more phasing
in on the front end, and then I think just a lot more clarity and certainty on the backend. People need to know what parts of this are going to be
permanent. People need to know is the plan to make a deal with China, or is the plan to exclude China? And the goal with all of this is to get more
investment in the United States. And if you want the investment, you have to give the clear picture of what the situation is going to be.
ISAACSON: There seem to be two types of tariffs he's talking about, a 10 percent across-the-board, which I know you've kind of advocated in the
past, where it's not sort of pick and choose, pick and choose, and then these very specific tariffs on different countries based on their trade
deficit. Explain to me why you would do both.
CASS: Well, they have very different purposes. And, you know, the 10 percent global tariff is the one that certainly my organization, American
Compass, has done a lot of work on, and I think is the really important permanent piece that we just -- we put into our economic system that says,
you know, we are putting a finger on the scale for producing things in this country.
[13:35:00]
We think making things matters. And if all things equal, we would rather have you making things here, especially if you're planning to sell them
here. And so, that I think is a stable permanent element is really good.
The reciprocal tariffs, these ones that are sort of country by country are at much higher levels in a lot of cases, I think are best understood as
negotiating tariffs. I don't think the idea is that actually it benefits the U.S. economy in the long run to have a high tariff with a trading
partner, like a Japan or like the E.U. or certainly Canada and Mexico. But the idea is that we do want them to change their own behavior in various
ways. You know, they do have a lot of policies in some cases that they are using to promote trade imbalances, to export more into our country and to
buy less from us in return.
And if we say, that's fine, we love free trade anyway, then they keep doing it. If we say that's not really an option anymore, I think there's room for
a lot of progress.
ISAACSON: Are we better off being a nation that produces services than being a nation that produces manufactured goods?
CASS: Well, I think we're better off being a country that produces both. I think the sort of the everything in moderation model really applies just to
the fact that we need to have a diversified economy. We have a lot of different kinds of people living in a lot of different kinds of places with
a lot of different aspirations, and economics doesn't take any of that into account.
The economic models that say, just specialize in whatever you can do best and celebrate if the stuff that someone else can do more cheaply goes
overseas, that model would say, you know what we should really do, let's send all of the manufacturing overseas and let's just specialize in finance
and tech and media in our big cities on the coasts.
You could probably get GDP up pretty high that way, but I think most people would recognize that that is not actually a healthy economy. And what we've
been doing is pushing further and further in that direction with this free trade system. And what I think we are essentially saying now and what the
Trump administration is trying to do is saying, that was the wrong trade off. We need to start pushing back the other direction.
You know, as an economist would say at the margin, if you were asking, given where we are right now, would we trade off some of those, you know,
jobs in high tech services for more goods manufacturing jobs in the middle of the country, I think that's the direction that would be much better for
us. But it takes a different set of policies to get there.
ISAACSON: Well, Trump has put on these tariffs that are country specific based on the trade imbalance they have with us, and said they should all
try to negotiate with us to do things to get that down. Is there some messiness or problem or even some crony capitalism that could be involved
if you start having 70 or 80 of these negotiations?
CASS: There's definitely some messiness no question about that. You know, I think one thing that the administration was deliberating on before
Liberation Day and that they seem to be focusing on somewhat now is there are obviously higher priority and lower priority trading relationships
here.
Again, to some extent, that speaks to the phasing. If there are a lot of countries that we're not even going to get around to talking to for a long
time, I'm not sure it makes a lot of sense to stick them with the full tariff in the meantime. But it's very clear that they are, you know,
focusing first and foremost on Japan, on Korea, on India on the E.U., on the U.K., and it's certainly possible to do a few agreements at the same
time.
It is the case that any negotiation, you know, then raises that risk of, OK. who are you benefiting? Who are you harming? I would just note that, of
course, the entire model of free trade agreements that everybody has always been so enthusiastic about and promoting as exactly the right way to
promote trade is a negotiation too, right? Go -- you know, go check out one of those free trade agreements. It's 5,000 pages long and it's
overwhelmingly written by corporate lobbyists.
And so, you know, negotiations are going to be an inevitable element of trade. What's different here is that I think the United States is saying,
we actually have different demands than we used to. For a very long time, the demand was just open your market, open your market, open your market.
We just want open markets. And what I think the U.S. is saying now is, you know, especially as China rises, as we move into what folks would call a
more multipolar world where it's not -- you know, the U.S. doesn't -- isn't just in charge of everything. You know, I think the U.S. absolutely wants
to have a strong economic and security alliance, but it has some demands for that. It wants to have balanced trade within that alliance. It wants
those allies to really do their part on the security side. And it wants everybody to agree to keep China out.
[13:40:00]
And I think those are pretty reasonable demands, you know, that we're not exploiting people with demands like that. By the way, those are things that
the U.S. will hold itself to as well, but it's definitely a very different shape for a negotiation than the one folks have become accustomed to.
ISAACSON: So, you think that as part of these trade negotiations, we should be telling all the countries around the world and most of them,
don't trade with China?
CASS: In fact, we're already doing that. You know, Secretary Bessent has, even in the context of the early conversations with Mexico and Canada,
emphasized that one thing we're really looking for is that they agree to adopt the same policies toward China that we have. And now, you're even
seeing as they look ahead to further sequencing some of these negotiations the idea is they want to reach settlements with as many other countries as
possible that that set of countries then can then face China jointly.
ISAACSON: Well, wait. Even the European Union is now deciding to have trade negotiations with China.
CASS: I think the -- you know, the European Union is an interesting case and I think the E.U., even in dealing with some of the conflicts over
electric vehicles and so forth, has shown much less conviction that it actually needs to confront China and much more potential openness to
working with China. And that is a really interesting question that the E.U. is going to have to decide for itself.
I think that there's a fundamental question of civilizational will whether the E.U. wants to remain in the sphere of western democracies and market
economies or if it wants to be in a partnership with China. I certainly know what I would choose and what I would advise them to choose. But to
some extent, they are going to have to make that decision for themselves.
ISAACSON: Well, one of the things I don't quite understand about your push against China on all this, is that during his first term, President Trump
really tried to make a deal with China and Xi Jinping, and he's still talking about wanting to meet with Xi Jinping and make a deal. So, the very
least, wouldn't that confuse our allies or wouldn't that be bad policy?
CASS: Well, on the confusion point. I agree. Absolutely. I think, you know, one of the ways that the administration really needs to improve what
it's doing here, you know, I've talked a lot about the idea of phasing in some of the tariffs, just the basic communication on what is the actual
plan, what is the goal, I think is incredibly important, both for markets and businesses trying to invest and for countries trying to negotiate with
us. So, I agree there entirely.
I do think though there has been a clear progression in our efforts to engage with China. You know, it was not that long ago, 25 years ago, that
we were fully embracing them and believing that we were going to, you know, help them liberalize and democratize and everyone was incredibly
enthusiastic. And I would say it took probably 10 or 15 years for folks to notice that that was really not working.
And so, it was -- you know, I remember even in 2012, I had the opportunity to work for then-Governor Mitt Romney when he was running for president.
And at that time, he was one of the first to sort of say, actually this arrangement with China is not working. You know, we need to take a
different stance. And then, obviously, Trump did that very aggressively in 2016. That was really the point at which we stood up and started saying,
the model that we thought was going to work is not working. We need to work on this.
And I was entirely reasonable at that point to think, well, let's negotiate. Let's sit down with them, tell them we're not going to tolerate
this. Let's figure out a way to make it work. And the Trump administration tried that and they came to a deal that didn't end up. you know, being
worth all that much. And China has just continued to dig in, to further worsen imbalances.
We're now going through what a lot of folks are calling China shock 2.0 because they, again, have enormous excess capacity that they're dumping
into other markets around the world. It's a huge problem for Europe, it's a huge problem for other developing countries. And so, I think we're at the
point where we have to accept, you know, there is not a negotiation here that is going to end happily. We are headed toward a different kind of
world for the foreseeable future.
ISAACSON: There's a saying in China of eat bitterness, which I think roughly means tolerate pain. Do you fear that China can tolerate more pain
than the American consumer and the American voter will if we get into this contest?
CASS: Well, I think there's a lot of asymmetry here that works through the U.S. advantage. Partly because we do have such a large trade deficit today,
partly because trade actually just isn't such a big part of our economy because we have such a large domestic market.
[13:45:00]
We are relatively more insulated from the effects of these policies than most of our trading partners are. There's no question that the -- you know,
certainly now this week with the Trump administration going up to as much as, you know, more than 100 percent tariff on China. While that is painful
and I think, you know, fatally disruptive potentially for particular businesses in the United States, the threat to China from that is much,
much larger.
And so, you know, to the extent that it becomes a battle of wills or a tit for tat trade war, I think the United States is in a very strong position.
What I really worry about more is that if we take such a strong position that we have adopted positions that don't look sustainable, then we're not
actually being more credible, we're being less credible.
I think the best thing that can be said for the Trump administration's approach of we're just coming in on day one and sticking all this stuff in
is, well, no one's going to doubt that they mean it. They've already done it. But if you do it so aggressively that people are going to look at it
and say, you know, we're really not sure you can keep that up very long, then you've actually weakened your own credibility and given them a reason
to drag things out.
And so, I think there's a balance to be struck there and that -- to really be in the right position for negotiation, to minimize the cost, to maximize
the potential benefit. What we need to be saying is, look, here's what we want. Here are going to be the consequences if we don't move toward it, at
a rapid pace. But let's see what we can get done and let's see how much we can accomplish before we start into the disruption and the cost that that
ideally we wouldn't have if we don't need it.
ISAACSON: Oren Cass, thank you so much for joining us again.
CASS: My pleasure. It was great to see you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And finally, a much-needed antidote, a wordless masterpiece, the Oscar winning animated film that's warming hearts around the world. "Flow,"
a plucky black cat is the film's hero, and he teams up with a dog, a capybara, a bird, and a lemur as they try to survive the aftermath of a big
biblical type flood. It might sound like a Disney film, but it is not. It is very different. The animals don't have human voices. Instead, they
communicate with their real animal sounds. Here's a bit of the trailer.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Director Gints Zilbalodis joins us from Riga in Latvia. Welcome to the program and congratulations. It was and is an amazing film. How
surprised were you that it beat out like multimillion dollar Disney, I don't know what it was, what was the Disney one? Anyway, I'll figure it
out. "Inside Out 2" and won the Oscar.
GINTS ZILBALODIS, DIRECTOR, "FLOW": Oh, yes. Very surprised. Because this is a small independent film and usually these films don't make it to the
Oscars, and it's also the first Latvian film. So, in many regards, it was a big surprise.
AMANPOUR: So, tell us what it's about. We sort of -- I sort of kind of said it and there are words on the trailer that kind of describe it, but
you know, I looked at is it about, I don't know, climate change? Is it about rising sea levels? Is it about the incredible journey or homeward
bound films that, you know, people watched in their childhood of animals getting together and surviving difficult times?
ZILBALODIS: Well, it's actually a very personal story to me because this is my second feature film. But it's the first time I worked with a team. I
used to work all on my own. I made my first feature film all by myself. And this time I had to learn how to work with a team. And this cat in the film
is also used to be being very independent and doing things its own way, but now has to learn how to cooperate with others. So, it's basically a story
about me learning to make this film.
AMANPOUR: Wow. That is really interesting. Of course, I came away with it thinking it's this cat with all these other animals, i.e., allies are good,
allies is a strength. Oh, it's diversity. That means that works. I put all these, you know, modern contexts on it, but it's very personal for you.
[13:50:00]
ZILBALODIS: Yes. But it's great that many people have very interesting interpretations of the film and I think especially for like kids films, I
think it's very important to ask questions rather than spoon-feeding all the information But at the same time, it's also a fun adventure story. So,
I think there's a lot of fun to have a big hat, but also a lot of questions to be asked.
AMANPOUR: Exactly. I'm going to put a little clip out there while we continue talking. Again, the main star is the cat. So, let's just play this
quick clip.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, there's the cat jumping onto the boat as the thing he's standing on is about to get submerged by the water, and he's luckily to --
you know, makes it out. Tell me about the -- you know, there are no voices, as we said. It's all animal voices and there's all sorts of pictures of how
you were all holding mics to various animals. What made you decide to go that route?
ZILBALODIS: Yes. I would not describe this film as being silent because the voices and the music and all the sounds, I think, are even more
important than most films because they are telling the story and it's a very dynamic soundtrack. And I also write the music. So, it's a big part of
the storytelling.
But yes, I wanted to make a very cinematic film that you have to experience rather than being told what is happening. You have to feel all these
emotions and be very immersed in this world and basically become the cat and see the world through the cat's point of view. That was my goal.
AMANPOUR: And you said it's very personal. You know, you yourself have experienced anxiety and it helps you work with other people. And we're
going to put up a picture right now, which shows you with your actual real dog, basically reacting to the Oscar nominations while we chat.
How long did it take to make the film? I mean, you said that it started long -- yes, go ahead.
ZILBALODIS: Yes, it took five years, which is a long time. But actually, for animated films, that's quite an average length.
AMANPOUR: And what was the process? Because you -- did you do it from all sorts of open-source materials? I mean, you know, you did it on your own
computer?
ZILBALODIS: Yes. We used very basic consumer technology and we used the free software. And not to go too much into technical details, but this
means that any kid can now have tools that Oscar winning films are being made. And I think this will open up a lot of opportunities to different
voices, sharing their stories from places where there isn't a big film industry like in Latvia, where I'm from. So, I think we'll see a greater
variety of stories being told than people have -- having opportunities to share them.
AMANPOUR: Yes. And well, it's really great, and let's just repeat it took you $3.5 million, the competitor, as I said, "Inside Out" cost $200
million. You won the Oscar. Tell me about the reaction in Latvia. It's really been a major source of national pride.
ZILBALODIS: Yes, this was the first ever Latvian film to be ever even nominated, and it was a big surprise for everyone and it's very strange for
an animator to be kind of recognized or be noticed. Usually, I'm used to sitting by my desk and being kind of, yes, introvert. But now, I have all
this attention and the Oscar statue was exhibited at the National Museum of Art, and tens of thousands of people came to see it. And we had like
basically a big parade when we got home from the Oscars. And we had like a huge crowd waiting for us. So, it really means a lot to the whole country,
I think.
AMANPOUR: Yes. And just tell me about yourself. You said you, you know, obviously you've learned to be more social. Do you think that you've
managed to deal with some of your anxiety issues and others?
ZILBALODIS: Yes. I think I've learned a lot of stuff, but at my core I think I'm still myself and you can't change yourself. And that's also what
the film is about. It's about the cat kind of running away from its fears, but then realizing that some of these fears will still be there no matter
what, but at least it learns how to let others to support it and to get close and intimate. So, that's also my journey.
[13:55:00]
AMANPOUR: Yes. And will there be another in the -- you know, a cat movie again? What's your next project?
ZILBALODIS: Yes. And that's the same old story where people are asking when there's a success in film history, you're being asked the same thing.
But I want to do something very different. But I'm still going to make it in a very independent way in our studio in Latvia. But it's a different
story and there's dialogue this time. But again, it's a very personal story.
AMANPOUR: OK. Well, Gints, thank you so much indeed for joining us. The director, the creator of "Flow," --
ZILBALODIS: Thank you so much.
AMANPOUR: -- which won the Oscar. And that's it for now. Thank you for watching. Goodbye and good luck from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
