Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview With Former Assistant Defense Secretary For Indo-Pacific Affairs And The Marathon Initiative Principal Ely Ratner; Interview With "Malcolm Lives!" Author Ibram X. Kendi; Interview With "How Countries Go Broke" Author And Bridgewater Associates Founder Ray Dalio; Interview With Actor And Filmmaker Tom Hanks. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired June 06, 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]
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ELY RATNER, FORMER ASSISTANT DEFENSE SECRETARY FOR INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS AND PRINCIPAL, THE MARATHON INITIATIVE: The reality is the United States is
facing a generational challenge from China.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: U.S.-China tensions ramp up again as their tariff troops waivers, and Beijing looks to dominate Asia. How can America counter China?
I ask Ely Ratner, former assistant secretary of defense for Indo-Pacific Affairs under Biden.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
IBRAM X. KENDI, AUTHOR, "MALCOLM LIVES!": I think one of the ways in which Malcolm X in particular still inspires people is through his fearlessness.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- the legacy of Malcolm X. Author Ibram X. Kendi tells me about his new biography, introducing the civil rights activists to younger
readers.
Also, ahead --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RAY DALIO, AUTHOR, "HOW COUNTRIES GO BROKE" AND FOUNDER, BRIDGEWATER ASSOCIATES: One way or another, the imbalances will go away, the debt
imbalances, the trade imbalances, the capital imbalances, because they cannot be sustained in the world that now exists.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- "How Countries Go Broke." Walter Isaacson speaks to legendary financier Ray Dalio about his latest book outlining what he calls the big
debt cycle.
And --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TOM HANKS, ACTOR AND FILMMAKER: They left absolute all of the comforts of a very comfortable America, safe America on the other side of the ocean. And
they put themselves here for what? Because it was the right thing to do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- on the 81st anniversary of D-Day. we look back at Christiane's conversation with actor Tom Hanks about preserving the stories
of that heroic generation.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
Yet again, U.S.-China relations are tense. Despite a 90-day tariff truce agreed last month in Geneva, the White House has accused China of violating
an undermining their agreement. Earlier this week, President Trump posted on Truth Social that China's President Xi was, quote, "extremely hard to
make a deal with." But on Thursday after a long-awaited call between the leaders, Trump said he was encouraged that trade tensions could soon be
resolved.
Meantime, Beijing's geopolitical aspirations remain ambitious with reports that President Xi is seeking to seize Taiwan by 2027 and ultimately
dominate the Indo-Pacific region. So, what does all of this mean for America and global security? Ely Ratner served as assistant secretary of
defense for Indo-Pacific Security Affairs during the Biden administration. He joins me from Washington to discuss his latest Foreign Affairs piece,
the case for a Pacific defense pact. Eli, welcome to the program.
So, talk about the contours of this pact that you are proposing and how it differs from America's current political landscape in the Indo-Pacific.
ELY RATNER, FORMER ASSISTANT DEFENSE SECRETARY FOR INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS AND PRINCIPAL, THE MARATHON INITIATIVE: Well, Bianna, it's a great to be with
you. And look, the reality is the United States is facing a generational challenge from China. We have a government there that's making enormous
investments in its military and has very clear objectives to dominate Asia and the Indo-Pacific in a way that would be quite harmful to U.S.
interests.
So, the central question in U.S. defense policy is, how do we prevent that from happening? How do we deter PLA Chinese aggression? And unfortunately,
the models we have for doing in that in the past, which are based upon individual U.S. bilateral relationships with Asian countries are not going
to be sufficient to deal with the mounting challenge.
And so, what I've proposed is bringing together our closest allies in a way that makes the whole greater than the sum of the parts.
GOLODRYGA: And you specifically referenced bringing together the United States, the Philippines, Japan, and Australia. Right now, and as you note
in the piece, America has really focused on maintaining bilateral relationships with countries in the region. Can you talk about where things
stand right now and currently what U.S. treaties and protection is in place, and perhaps how your plan would expand upon that?
RATNER: That's right. So, unlike in Europe where there's a single regionwide organization alliance like NATO, in Asia what we have are a set
of individual alliances. The U.S. has an alliance with Australia, with Japan, with the Philippines, South Korea, and Thailand. None of those
countries have relationships with each other. The only treaties in the region are with Washington.
[13:05:00]
But what we have seen over the last several years is that our closest partners, including Japan, Australia, and the Philippines, have become much
more focused on the China challenge. They're modernizing their military. They're increasing defense spending to deal with that. So, the strategic
alignment with our partners is quite close right now.
And they're also working much more with each other. We're seeing a lot of intra-Asia military cooperation that is enabling a more collective approach
to defense. And frankly, we're also seeing demands here in Washington for our allies and partners to do more. And I think that's the -- that's a good
thing.
And so, when you put those pieces together, you start creating opportunities for collective defense for these countries to come together,
to be working together from a perspective of planning, operations, command and control, really the workings of military cooperation, again, which is
what we will need to deter Chinese aggression into the future.
GOLODRYGA: Let's talk about China's claims over vast areas of the South China Sea with territorial waters of several South East Asian countries,
including the Philippines and Vietnam really at stake right now. China bases these claims partly on quote, "historical rights," and that's a
concept not recognized by UNCLOS, and that is the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
And in 2016 -- by the way, China is a signatory to UNCLOS. In 2016, UNCLOS voted and sided in favor with the Philippines in bringing a suit up against
China. China has disavowed this ruling right now and not recognized it. Talk about China's increased aggression as it maintains -- as it pertains
to the South China Sea specifically and what we make of it, why they are being so aggressive now?
RATNER: Well, it's a really important question, and frankly, it's a case in point where we have a China very focused on controlling and dominating the
South China Sea in a way that is, as you note, directly in contravention of international law. The U.N. had an arbitration panel that ruled that
China's vast claims, essentially claiming all of the features in the South China Sea, that those claims are illegal.
And nonetheless, Beijing has continued to use its navy, it's Coast Guard, what's known as its maritime militia, which are supposedly civilian fishing
vessels, actually engaging in supporting the Chinese Navy. And they're engaging in a lot of coercion and in some cases violence to push back other
claimants, Vietnam, Philippines, others in the region who are claiming those territories. And it's just a good example of the mounting aggression
from China.
GOLODRYGA: What should the -- what more can the United States be doing in response to this increased aggression that we're seeing from China in the
South China Sea there specifically? Because there are concerns that this will only increase over issues like mining for rare earth minerals, and
even phishing in the phishing industry, which is a top priority for China to maintain?
RATNER: That's right. Well, there's a lot we can be doing and there's a lot we are doing. One is obviously it relates to the investments we're making
in our own military, also in modernizing the deployment of U.S. forces forward deployed in the Indo-Pacific, but we're also enabling our partners
and the really ground zero for the contest in the South China Sea has been in territories right off the coast of the Philippines and we've been
working hard to help modernize the Philippines military, but also bringing together our allies and partners so that it isn't just China picking on
individual countries, but having to deal with the region as a whole. And again, I think that's what we'll need going forward.
The South China Sea is a vital waterway for the global economy. It's an area where countries around the world, as far as Europe, have very
important national interests. And the world ought to be coming together to say, we don't accept this behavior and we're not going to allow China to
dominate this critical passageway.
GOLODRYGA: Do we see any intelligence that would suggest that the previous notion that China was at least wanting to prepare to possibly retake Taiwan
forcefully if need be by 2027 in just a matter of a few years, has there been any intelligence or reporting that deviates from that assertion? And
if not, what do we know that the Trump administration has thus far done to address those concerns?
RATNER: Well, obviously I'm not going to talk about intelligence matters that I'm privy to, but what you are citing is previous CIA Secretary Burns
did note publicly that China has directed the government, Xi Jinping has directed his military to be prepared to invade Taiwan by 2027. That doesn't
mean that they are absolutely going to do it. No matter what, but they want to be prepared to do it by 2027. And the task for the United States is to
ensure that he cannot do that at acceptable cost.
[13:10:00]
And therefore, that Xi Jinping wakes up every morning, looks out the window, considers the cost of conflict, and says to himself, you know what,
today's not the day. That's the central task in U.S. foreign policy. As it relates to the Trump administration, it will be important for them to
continue working with allies and partners to counter the China challenge.
I think the good news on that front is thus far we have seen a lot of continuity, quite different from what we've seen in Europe, vis-a-vis NATO.
Secretary Hegseth made his first trip out to the Philippines and Japan. Just this last weekend he was on -- he was out in Singapore at a major
Asian defense conference. And his message was one of U.S. commitment to the region and U.S. commitment to allies and partners. And that's really
important that that continue.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. Secretary Hegseth on Saturday said that no one should doubt America's commitment to our Indo-Pacific allies and partners. He repeatedly
called the Indo-Pacific our priority theater and warned that threat from China could be imminent. What, if anything though -- those are words and
I'm sure encouraging words for allies in the region. What, if anything, strategically have you seen the Trump administration do thus far to really
back up those statements from what your administration had done under President Biden?
RATNER: Well, they have reportedly put together an interim national defense strategy, which has articulated China and the U.S. homeland. But the China
challenge as the principle focus of the department, and we'll just have to see when their budget comes together, are they in fact putting resources
after capabilities that are specifically oriented toward the Indo-Pacific?
We should also keep an eye on how they're deploying U.S. forces, for instance, when they were pulling aircraft carriers and air defenses to deal
with challenges in the Middle East, away from the Indo-Pacific, that did not reflect a prioritization on the Indo-Pacific. However, those operations
have wound down, and what we should be looking for is, does the administration in practice, as you say, prioritize the Indo-Pacific with
the way that it's managing the U.S. military?
Again, I think what we saw in Singapore was actually quite encouraging that the Trump administration is continuing a message of continuity about
working with allies and partners. I know Secretary Hegseth met with a number of our other defense leaders in the country in -- out in Singapore,
including in that constellation of Japan, Philippines, and Australia and called that grouping none closer and absolute central to deterrent.
So, I think the work with allies and partners will continue in the areas such as helping them build their capabilities, working with them on a
collective defense industrial base, and working with them on the ability of the United States to project power into the region. So, those efforts
continue, they should, and that continuity is good to see.
GOLODRYGA: We know that both the Philippines and Japan specifically have taken a much more aggressive defensive posture and investments in the
future in terms of defense. You have left out notably South Korea in this potential alliance, and I'm wondering why.
RATNER: Well, look, South Korea is one of our closest allies. They have a very advanced military. The challenge is that their military, historically
and currently has been oriented almost entirely toward North Korea. They have not gone through the modernization and transformation that we've seen
in the Philippines, Japan, and Australia, where those militaries are much more focused on the China challenge.
However, if South Korea was willing to do that, if they were willing to take a more regional approach to their defense strategy, by all means, they
should be part of these cooperative efforts.
GOLODRYGA: We have spent the past few years focusing as it relates to any potential conflict with China in the future, on the current war between
Russia and Ukraine right now, and the role the United States has played in that, suggesting that the Beijing is watching this very carefully and
closely as it's playing out.
To add to that now are the U.S. tariffs that have been unveiled by the president. Some of them are mired in courts. He seems to be determined to
see them forward. I'm wondering how this at all impacts a potential pact like your -- like the one you are proposing?
RATNER: Well, look, the economic and political tensions created from the tariffs or obviously create headwinds for defense cooperation. But the
reality is, again, what we have seen in the Indo-Pacific and Asia over the last several months is leaders both in Washington and out in the region
trying to separate out the defense cooperation from the economic and political tensions, and have successfully managed to do that so far. The
defense cooperation is continuing.
I think the challenge is that it doesn't last forever, and if the Trump administration levies truly crippling economic policies against our allies,
number one, that will decrease -- that will hurt their economies, it'll hurt their ability to invest in their militaries, but politically, it'll
make them possible for the leaders there to deepen their ties with the United States.
[13:15:00]
So, my hope is that the national security-oriented folks inside the Trump administration get involved in these tariff debates, make clear that we
need to get to yes with Japan, with Taiwan, with Australia and others, so we can get back to the business of strengthening our alliances.
GOLODRYGA: Ely Ratner, thank you so much for joining us. We appreciate it.
RATNER: Great to be here. Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: And later in the program, "Malcolm Lives!" A new biography, delving into the life and legacy of political activist Malcolm X. I speak
to the acclaimed author, Ibram X. Kendi. That's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: Now, it has been 100 years since the birth of black activist leader Malcolm X, an influential yet controversial figure. He was prominent
during the Civil Rights movement and was ultimately assassinated in 1965 at the age of 39.
This year, to commemorate his legacy, the award-winning author Ibram X. Kendi has written a new biography for young readers. "Malcolm Lives!"
traces his life and early childhood, suffering extreme racism to his evolving fight for social justice and adulthood. Ibram X. Kendi join me to
discuss his inspiration for the book and the high and lows of Malcolm X's life.
Ibram X. Kendi, welcome to the program. Thank you so much for joining us, and congratulations on yet another book. "Malcolm Lives!: The Official
Biography of Malcolm X For Young Readers." This is coinciding with the 100- year mark of Malcolm X's birth. I know you've spent a number of years researching and writing this book, but did you do it to coincide with this
mark?
IBRAM X. KENDI, AUTHOR, "MALCOLM LIVES!": We did. And certainly, Malcolm X is one of the more important historical figures in American history and
really in global history. And I knew that Malcolm loved a lot of things. He loved fighting for justice. He loved lamb chops. He loved a good laugh. But
he really loved a good book. And I thought, what better way to help commemorate is his 100th birthday than to create a book about his life for
young readers.
GOLODRYGA: And you mentioned that he loved to read. Malcolm X on the cover of the book is standing on actually a large pile of books. How were books
and reading from early on in his life so important and pivotal for him?
IBRAM X. KENDI: So, Malcolm became known worldwide as a freedom fighter, as someone fighting for the freedom of black people, someone fighting for the
freedom of all people. But when you read his story, when you read his words, what first allowed him to liberate, really free himself was books.
Particularly when he was incarcerated, when he became a binge reader, he writes about how liberating it was to begin to know himself and to know his
world, and to know the history of the world.
GOLODRYGA: On the first page of the book you write, history is boring when it is dead and interesting when it is alive. In your perspective, how can
history ever be dead?
[13:20:00]
IBRAM X. KENDI: Well, first I think I wrote that passage because this book is particularly for young readers. And young readers often think that
history isn't relevant to them. And so, it was a really a way to engage young readers with how history lives and certainly how Malcolm's legacy is
living.
And so, the book is constantly sort of showing the ways in which particular experiences and challenges that Malcolm was facing in his time are still
with us, or particular messages that Malcolm was explaining or sharing in his moment are still relevant in the here and now. It allows young -- I'm
sort of trying to meet young readers where they are and really allowing them to see how history is still relevant to them today.
GOLODRYGA: And I heard you also say that it was important for you not to come across as patronizing or only catering to young readers, that this
book is something that adults could also read as well. Why was it important for you to straddle both generations?
IBRAM X. KENDI: Well, I think first and foremost there are a lot of adults who are reading books that have been written for young people. And that may
be because typically these books that are written for young people are incredibly engaging, interesting, quite well put together because, of
course, we're competing with YouTube videos and Instagram and other pretty engaging entities. But I also think, particularly in the United States, and
this is certainly the case in other countries, that there are many adults who are reading at a middle grade level.
Indeed, the one study found that the majority of American adults are reading at a middle grade level. So, when we're writing middle grade books,
we're not just writing for young people, we're writing for everyone, and I think it's important for us to, again, create literature that meets people
where they are, not looking down on them or patronizing them, but really translating it in language that they can understand and grasp. And I want
people to grasp the life and thought of Malcolm X.
GOLODRYGA: You've said life stories are the greatest teachers, and I'm wondering if you can share a life story from Malcolm X that can offer a
meaningful lesson to the readers of this book.
IBRAM X. KENDI: Well, Malcolm -- as an example, there's a story in which Malcolm, about a week before he is assassinated, his home is firebombed
with his wife and daughters in it. And it's firebombed by one of his enemies, particularly the nation of Islam. And reporters, after this
firebombing, sort of come to the house and ask him, is this going to stop him? And he says, no, this is not going to stop me. You know, I don't fear
any, anyone, or anything.
And I wanted to mention that because I think one of the ways in which Malcolm X in particular still inspires people is through his fearlessness,
is through, no matter what's happening to him, still recognizing that he needs to fight for justice, for human rights, you know, for everyone.
So, in this moment where more and more people are being paralyzed and stopped by fear, people like Malcolm X who was fearless I think is really
quite engaging and important.
GOLODRYGA: You recount a number of incidents from the 20th century and then try to draw parallels in terms of the civil rights fight that young adults
and young readers can relate to as well. Why was it important for you to not only give a historical account of some of what Malcolm X endured in his
generation and fought against, and what younger readers may be more familiar with?
IBRAM X. KENDI: Well, first, whenever I speak to young people, and frankly, it's similar when I speak to adults about history, one of the major
questions is, how does this relate to me, or how is this connected to me, or why does this should -- why should this be important, to me or people
that I love? And so, I wanted to continuously show how, for instance, when Malcolm was a young person and he was hungry and that hunger was leading to
him to sort of misbehave or even have to, you know, take apples from downtown stores that in the here and the now, they're still kids that are
hungry, they are still young people that are hungry. There's still schools and other authorities that instead of looking at the hunger as -- at the --
as the problem they're looking at that child as the problem. And I suspect some kids reading the book will be able to relate to that.
[13:25:00]
GOLODRYGA: Malcolm X obviously was known for some of his very powerful speeches. One of the most impactful speeches was called "The Bullet or The
Ballot," and it was delivered in Detroit in 1964. In the speech he lays out his philosophy of what black nationalism means, and you published the notes
of the speech in the book, and it is quite stunning that it is just one page. There's barely any prepared text here.
As a historian, what does that tell you about how he put his thoughts together and the work that he put in to some of these most memorable and
powerful speeches?
IBRAM X. KENDI: Well, it shows me his process and his process as an orator was largely to write particular ideas on note cards. And almost as he came
to give this speech, have this speech pretty much outlined on those note cards. And those notes, being able to sort of prompt him to transition to
different, you know, ideas. And he also spent quite a bit of time listening to his speeches, studying the way he gave speeches. He had an attic office
that he spent a lot of time in.
And so, he worked quite hard, you know, as an orator. But I think he also felt that his speeches would be more engaging if he did not necessarily
come with the entire speech prepared. And he allowed the crowd and the atmosphere and how people were responding to different ideas to help guide
the speech as his own ideas were certainly -- as he was seeking to, of course, express his own ideas.
GOLODRYGA: And we know Malcolm X had a complicated relationship and reputation actually in the Civil Rights movement. He was at times
dismissive of Martin Luther King Jr. and of the non-violence movement itself. Malcolm X called Dr. King a modern-day, quote, "Uncle Tom." And
then King supporters in response called Malcolm X's followers thugs. How do you address some of these more controversial aspects of Malcolm X's life in
the book?
IBRAM X. KENDI: Well, I think one of the most interesting aspects of the life of Malcolm X, and I would even add the life of Martin Luther King Jr.,
is that these were two figures, and in this case, Malcolm X, who was constantly growing and changing and transforming. And so, while at one
point he could in deeply indict Martin Luther King Jr., at another point he can meet Martin Luther King Jr. in the halls of the U.S. Capitol and be
smiling with him and even learning and sort of coming closer to him ideologically as Martin Luther King was coming closer to Malcolm X.
And so, I tried to really show his ideological development and growth so that young people and all readers can see how we can think very forcefully
about a particular person or even express a particular idea while also changing, you know, that idea or even changing our impressions of
particular people.
GOLODRYGA: We also know the nation of Islam had espoused anti-Semitic views. Malcolm X had repeated some anti-Semitic tropes about Jews
controlling the economy. What do you make of this particular aspect of his legacy? We know later on in his life, he distanced himself from the nation
of Islam.
IBRAM X. KENDI: Well, I think that antisemitic ideas were widespread then, you know, as they are now. And Malcolm X, of course, like many others had
been -- you know, had internalized some of those ideas, but at the same time, he started moving away from the nation of Islam ideologically. Of
course, he left the Nation of Islam in 1964.
And he of course, through his trip to Mecca, and it was in this trip to Mecca where he realized that he was going to judge every human being not
based on their identity or their race or their religion, you know, but based on their deeds.
And so, I think he -- that allowed him to have a different perspective of a number of different groups of people, you know, including white Judeo
Christians. And I think that allowed him, particularly during the last year of his life, to sort of serve as a basis for what became known as his human
rights activism.
GOLODRYGA: It's safe to say a lot has changed in this country over the past five years following the murder of George Floyd in the summer of 2020. Back
then, 67 percent of adult Americans supported the Black Lives Matter movement. "How to Become an Antiracist" was number one on The New York
Times bestseller list.
[13:30:00]
Since then, you have become the poster child for the far-right, for critical race theory and woke ideology. Your books, I believe eight of
them, have now been banned. The timing of this book now and your views on everything that has transpired over the past five years, what message are
you sending?
IBRAM X. KENDI: Well, I think one thing that I think readers who have witnessed the last five years will be able to see in even studying and
learning about Malcolm X's life is that some of the same ways -- some of the same talking points that have been used against Malcolm X, against
other individuals and intellectuals and activists in the 1960s who were fighting against racism have actually been used in the last five years to
misrepresent and undermine those of us who are engaging in the fight against racism.
So, whether that is the presenting of a Martin Luther King Jr or Malcolm X as somehow anti-American or anti-white, that's precisely how those of us
who have been engaged in activism or who, in my case, have produced scholarship about racism in the last five years, that's precisely how we've
been misrepresented.
And you had Americans in the '60s, particularly white Americans, who feared civil rights activists because they were misled into believing that those
civil rights activists were not striving to eliminate segregation or not striving to create equal opportunity, they were misrepresented as striving
to harm white people. And similarly, it's the same sort of talking point that's been happening over the last five years, that those of us who are
trying to create equal opportunity, trying to create anti-racist policy that leads to racial equity, that we're not actually trying to do that,
it's imagine, we're misrepresented as trying to, again, you know, harm America or harm white people.
And so, that's what's interesting in terms of "Malcolm Lives!" coming out at this time because I think people see that these same talking points
continue to be reproduced to conserve racism.
GOLODRYGA: When you look at the Black Lives Matter protest, I was struck by an answer you gave to a question in an interview about the impact that they
have had looking back and you said, it did not lead to the types of changes that we wanted. Racism is on the march. Are you optimistic, however, that
that can be combated once again by this generation who this book is targeted for? And I'm asking this as someone who has had, as we said, eight
books banned.
IBRAM X. KENDI: So, I am optimistic and I am hopeful. And frankly, my hope or optimism, my radical hope doesn't necessarily stem from what's happening
or not happening in society. I remain hopeful and optimistic, largely because I don't believe that I could get up every day and seek to document
racism, seek to explain a pathway to abolishing racism if I didn't believe that was even possible.
And so, the -- I believe you have to believe that something can be changed in order to put in the work that's going to lead to that change. Even if
you recognize that changing said thing or eliminating racism seemingly is impossible, we as a human communities can still believe the impossible is
possible. And frankly, human beings have done the impossible time and again. It was considered impossible to abolish Chattel slavery or to end
earlier forms of colonialism or feudalism. But we did it. And so, why can't we end racism?
GOLODRYGA: And so, many of these tools to get there came through reading books and not just going to YouTube or looking up quick videos or following
social media. Another reason why books are so important, especially for young readers. Ibram X. Kendi, thank you so much. It's good to see you.
IBRAM X. KENDI: You're welcome. Thank you for having me.
GOLODRYGA: After the break, how can countries avoid a debt crisis? Hedge fund manager Ray Dalio gives us an urgent warning about the U.S. economy.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:35:00]
GOLODRYGA: We turn now to what our next guest calls the big debt cycle. Financier Ray Dalio says understanding this cycle is critical for helping
policymakers, investors, and the general public grasp where we are and where we are headed with the debt.
In his new book, Dalio provides solutions and details how America could avoid fiscal crisis. He shares his insights with Walter Isaacson.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Thank you, Bianna. And, Ray Dalio, welcome back to the show.
RAY DALIO, AUTHOR, "HOW COUNTRIES GO BROKE" AND FOUNDER, BRIDGEWATER ASSOCIATES: Oh, it's so good to be back.
ISAACSON: The big beautiful bill, as Trump calls it, has passed the House. The Senate's now wrestling with it. It seems like it would add maybe 2.4
trillion to the deficit and by the last estimates. Is that a really bad thing? Should we worry about that bill adding too much to the deficit?
DALIO: I think that if there's one thing I can give people and I'm compelled to give people now, it's an understanding of the mechanics and
the supply demand so that people will understand how to answer that question, which is why as a global investor for 50 years who's been through
many of these, I wanted to pass along, you know, my book, my description of the mechanics.
So, in answering your question, I want to say why it's a compelling moment, and that if they do not bring it down to 3 percent of GDP from where it'll
be, about 7 percent of GDP, have to bring it down by 4 percent of GDP, that there is very high likelihood of real problems.
ISAACSON: Now, you say you got to bring it down by the -- by more than half the amount of the deficit. Can that be done with spending cuts alone or do
you think they should let some of the tax cuts expire?
DALIO: It has to be done by three things. There is -- and it has to be spread out among these three things. Because any one of those three things
would be too painful. And those three things are tax revenue, spending cuts, and interest rates.
Although Congress and the -- you know, the president and the process does not deal directly with the third of those. Right now, a trillion dollars,
half of our deficit is interest payments. And not only do we have a trillion-dollar interest payments, in the next year, we have $9 trillion of
debt maturing that has to be either rolled over or sold.
ISAACSON: Well, wait, doesn't that mean interest rates are going to not go down if we're adding more to the deficit and they have all this expiring?
DALIO: That's right. So, there's -- so I -- there is what I call my 3 percent, three-part solution, which was very similar to 1990 to 90 --
excuse me, 1991 to '98. It was cut by 5 percent of GDP, the Deutsche deficit, in those years was cut by 5 percent of GDP by spreading it around.
So, the three things are needed.
[13:40:00]
So, if there's a mantra that about 4 percent -- here's the magnitudes of it. About 4 percent -- and if it came from tax revenue, it doesn't mean tax
rates, but it could be tax revenue, 4 percent was cut from the budget deficit, that would naturally change the supply demand picture to bring
down interest rates by 1 to 1.5 percent, which would itself reduce the deficit by another 2 percent or so.
ISAACSON: But, well, let me push on that question of how are you going to raise more revenues? You say it's not just by allowing tax cuts to expire,
but don't some of those tax cuts have to expire if you are 3, 3, 3 solutions going to work.
DALIO: Where it comes is a political question. In other words, yes, you can let the text expire or you -- so many different ways. You can do so many
different ways.
ISAACSON: Well, let me ask, what would you do? You are one of the wealthiest people, the tax cuts help you. Would you -- what would you do in
terms of those tax cuts that are for the wealthy?
DALIO: I would allow important tax increases in a way that also, my own view, would be improve education, improve productivity in a way that raises
productivity for most people and so on. But this is not my political, OK. I want to say whether you turn left or you turn right, it -- what's -- what
I'm seeing when I go down there and I speak to both sides of Congress who are the people who are responsible for this, nobody disagrees with the need
to go to 3 percent of GDP in that number.
And what I'm seeing in politics is that there is -- whether they -- it's like being on a ship that's headed to rocks and there are those who want to
turn right and those who want to turn left. And they're so hell bent on arguing of whether they turn right or left that they will not get past,
they're going to hit the rocks.
ISAACSON: President Trump seems to be trying to jawbone the Fed chairman, Jay Powell, into cutting interest rates. Does that make any sense to try to
jawbone that and would the bond market permit that?
DALIO: If interest rates are unnaturally cut by the Central Bank printing money or pushing down interest rates unnaturally, the bond market will not
want to own that. Think about when you are owning a bond, what you're getting is interest rates. So, the dollar will go down, the value of money
will go down, and it's discouraging.
ISAACSON: On Sunday Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said that tariffs would help bring in enough money that we wouldn't end up having as big of a
deficit. Does that ring true to you?
DALIO: We're now in a world geopolitical situation that relates to many things such as self-sufficiency and so on. It can bring in a lot of money.
It also creates a less efficient world economy. So, how the deficits are -- how the tariffs are put into place, what amounts how has to be done
scientifically to get away with that tax revenue.
So, tax revenue can come from that, but that is a matter of surgery and it has to be done carefully, and it has to be done moderately. So, as to not
disrupt that. I'm concerned about that. But that is not going to be enough.
ISAACSON: You, in your book, by the way, you are in favor of some tariffs moderately applied in a scientific way that's not just helter skelter.
Explain why you're in favor of that and why you think the way Trump is doing it may not be effective.
DALIO: We have a giant imbalance. The world -- the United States is the largest consumer in the world. And it's largely because the U.S. government
gets in debt and distributes the money and it's a consumer. As we have -- correctly we've lost our ability to manufacture. China is the largest
manufacturer in the world and is in the other side of that. They lend us the money to borrow -- to buy their goods. And now, we have a big
imbalance. We have a capital imbalance, and we have a trade imbalance between that in a world that there's a risk of going to war.
[13:45:00]
And so, as we deal with self-sufficiency, increasingly, we have to become more self-sufficient, it's a reality in this, and we have to become more
balanced in that one way or another. So, if that's done economically, we have a population that is not productive and manufacturing. We now have a
great polarity of wealth. 60 percent of Americans have below a sixth-grade reading level. And there's a productivity problem and there's an economic
problem.
So, if that is dealt with in a scientific and a balanced way, that could have some benefits. It's not a black and white situation, but it has to be
done with that kind of thoroughness and so on. One way or another, the imbalances will go away. The debt imbalances, the trade imbalances, the
capital imbalances, because they cannot be sustained in the world that now exists. It's coming to an end.
ISAACSON: Let me read you a sentence from the book, your book, that kind of made me snap my head. It says, quote, "The policies President Trump is
using to, quote, 'make America Great again' are remarkably like the policies that those of the hard-right countries in the 1930s used." Tell me
what you mean by that.
DALIO: What I mean by that is the 1930s was a period that had a debt crisis, local -- the governments were dysfunctional and for democracies
chose to go to more autocratic policies for somebody to get control of the situation in order to fix the situation so that you have -- you had a debt
problem, what Germany did ad number of countries, is that they essentially defaulted on the debt they didn't pay the debt. And then you have that
central -- that more autocratic type of policy because the people want somebody to get control of this situation.
And then, you have the classic conflict between the left and the right. OK. This has happened repeatedly. The left and the right. and then you have a
fight between the left and the right. This has happened repeatedly. I'm referring to the '30s, but this has happened repeatedly throughout history.
ISAACSON: And do you think that it's happening now in the United States that we're slipping towards an autocracy?
DALIO: Yes. I mean, I do because somebody -- the people want people -- somebody to get control of this thing. And so, what -- you see it yourself,
we're now questioning -- there's a challenge. How does the legal system work? Who has what rights? The possibility of if there was a -- not
accepting an election result. These things are very real today.
ISAACSON: When you talk about perhaps we're moving into an autocracy, there's another sentence in your book that struck me, which is, as shown in
history, the transfer of power from democracy to autocracy was more often than not orderly within the democracy because people were sick and tired of
the system failing to work and wanted to give power to a leader who would take control of the mass and make it work well.
Do you think it's partly the -- a desire of people in the United States to move to a more autocratic system?
DALIO: There is a very clear, strong desire for somebody to get control of this and a willingness to have that more autocratic type of vote to deliver
those results. Yes, I think so.
ISAACSON: When you talk about the potential of getting more revenues, I think in your book you even talk about maybe having a 2 percent increase in
the income tax. Would you make that part of your 3, 3, 3 solution package?
DALIO: Sure.
ISAACSON: And what about spend --
DALIO: I think what's required is a little bit from everybody and everything.
ISAACSON: Well, if you're going to have something that's a 3, 3, 3 solution, that would seem to require a grand bargain, one of those things
where Democrats and Republicans meet and do the tradeoffs, those used to be done days of Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan, for example. Our politics seems
unsuited to that now. Do you think a grand bargain is possible?
DALIO: I don't think it's likely that we're going to have any grand bargain until after the 2026 midterm elections. I think that this is what -- what's
going to happen, the budget will pass. It'll be this situation that I'm describing. And then, what -- my hope would be is that there's a mandatory
bipartisan solution that they create the equivalent of, you know, a Manhattan Projects and so on.
[13:50:00]
And create a mandatory bipartisan way of dealing with that. Do I think that's likely? I don't think it's likely. I think that -- but if we don't
achieve a bipartisan situation, we're going to have a financial crisis and be fighting with each other. So, hopefully, the compelling nature of this,
before we have a recession, which will make that situation worse.
ISAACSON: Ray Dalio, thank you so much for joining us.
DALIO: Thank you, Walter.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: And finally, today marks the 81st anniversary of D-Day, the largest seaborne invasion in history and the beginning of the liberation of
Western Europe from the Nazis in World War II. It's a moment to reflect on the millions of people Who gave their lives standing up to tyranny. An
important reminder, as Russia's brutal war on Ukraine rages on.
This year, almost two dozen of those World War II veterans made the journey back to Normandy to honor the memory of their brothers in arms. In 2024,
Christiane sat down with the acclaimed actor Tom Hanks for the 80th anniversary.
From playing Captain Miller in Spielberg's "Saving Private Ryan" to producing series like "Band of Brothers" and "Masters of the Air," Hank's
work to preserve the stories of that heroic generation. Here's some of their conversation.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Tom Hanks, welcome.
TOM HANKS, ACTOR AND FILMMAKER: Christiane, how nice to see you.
AMANPOUR: And here you -- this is almost --
HANKS: What a day.
AMANPOUR: -- your home as well.
HANKS: What a day.
AMANPOUR: I mean, you've done so much on World War II. I just want to know what it feels like to be here on the 80th. It may be the last of these
reunions.
HANKS: I don't -- I mean, I -- we -- if you do the math, if you were -- say you were 17 years old, and you were making your first trip into combat. On
June 6th of 1944, you would do the math, you're now 97 years old. That they're here -- I mean, the first thing I say to any of the veterans that I
happen to meet is, don't get up, you know, because, you know, they're more or less wheelchair bound.
But there they are resplendent in their patches and their hats and their caps and the memories, and I ponder what these last 80 years have been for
them. I want to ask them, what's the most extraordinary thing you've witnessed since that day? And there's an awful lot to take note of. But
would any of it have happened if this day had not been?
AMANPOUR: Well, I wonder, you know, since you lead me straight into that question. It's probably, OK, bar the Cold War, when there wasn't a raging
war in Europe, it's probably the most difficult, most existential crisis for everybody since their sacrifice, with Russia having invaded Ukraine,
with a literal raging war in Europe.
HANKS: I never thought there'd be a land war in Europe in my lifetime once again, because it had proven to be so disastrous for all of humanity the
last time somebody tried that. And it's funny how often it comes out of the ego of one human being. One guy back in the 1930 says, no, I'm going to
solve all these problems because I know what works and what does not work.
I think -- you know, look, I'm a lay historian and I'm as opinionated as any knothead that you're ever going to come across. But there was this
thought that America -- particularly America, was lazy, was divided, was undisciplined, that couldn't get its act together, wouldn't -- that would
never band together in order just to do the right thing by choice.
And when I'm here, I think of a bunch of kids. It was a young force that came here. They were somewhere between -- if you were 25 years old, they
called you pops or they called you the old man. And they -- and they were - - they left absolute all of the comforts of a very comfortable America, safe America on the other side of the ocean. And they put themselves here
for what? Because it was the right thing to do.
And they were not defending the status quo. They were not gaining territory. They were not here for riches. They were not here to conquer
anything. They were really here in order to mend the future, if I can coin a word that has just come out in a book that I read not too long ago.
Had D-Day not happened -- and that's not hard to imagine here, you can look around and we can see the evasion in our minds, we can see that day, but we
can also imagine with a little bit of turn of frame, what if it had not happened, if this had stayed as it had been, a conquered territory by one
of the most murderous regimes -- there we go, as a FedEx is delivering my Uber lunch right now.
What would have been like if all those -- that young forces, and the Canadians, and the English, and all of the free (ph) countries had not come
along and said those people are wrong.
AMANPOUR: Do you think it'll get more difficult now that the vets -- I mean, you know, they've reached and are reaching the end of their lives to
pass the stories along?
[13:55:00]
HANKS: I would like to think that there's anything me and my knothead friends have done down at the office has brought great currency to the
stories that those men tell. And everything that comes out of them I think is a precious bit of scripture that should be read and studied.
AMANPOUR: Tom Hanks, thank you so much.
HANKS: Pleasure to talk.
AMANPOUR: Thank you.
HANKS: What a day. What a day.
AMANPOUR: What a day.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: And that is it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. And remember, you
can always catch us online, on our website, and all-over social media. Thank you for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
