Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Kpler Director of Commodity Research Matt Smith; Interview with Ukrainian Journalist Olga Rudenko; Interview with Former U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired April 21, 2026 - 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 ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
Trump says he expects to be bombing if a deal is not reached with Iran. As the ceasefire deadline looms, Correspondent Nic Robertson joins us from
Islamabad, where it's hoped talks will take place.
Then, oil chaos. With supplies choked and prices fluctuating, I ask an energy expert, what's at stake?
Plus, a perilous moment for Ukraine as Russia's brutal attacks continue and the U.S. again eases sanctions on Putin's oil. Journalist Olga Rudenko
gives us the view from Kyiv.
Also, ahead, the Trump administration begins refunding tariffs after the Supreme Court struck them down. Former U.S. trade representative Robert
Lighthizer defends Trump's tariff regime and makes his case for a new trade order.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
The clock is ticking on U.S. President Trump's Iran ceasefire deadline, and despite expectations that Vice President J.D. Vance would travel to
Pakistan for round two of negotiations, he remains in Washington, shrouding talks and even more confusion. This as both sides continue to trade verbal
blows.
Trump says he's highly unlikely to extend the pause in hostilities beyond Wednesday evening if a deal is not reached. Here he is speaking this
morning to CNBC.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: Well, I expect to be bombing because I think that's a better attitude to go in with, but, you know, we're ready to go. I
mean, the military is raring to go.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: So, the next 24 hours remain critical, and it's uncertain if Iran will turn up at the talks either. Tehran's top negotiator and speaker
of the parliament declaring on social media that they do not negotiate under, quote, "the shadow of threats." And now, there's even a new
complication. Iran threatening to retaliate after the U.S. military seized an Iranian ship trying to reach a blockaded Iranian port, a key sticking
point of this war.
Ahead, we'll have more on the chaos in and around the Strait of Hormuz. But first, with so much mistrust amid confusion surrounding these talks, let's
bring in our correspondent Nic Robertson, who is following all of the developments on the ground in Islamabad.
And Nic, there is a lot of confusion here, so much unknown as the clock is ticking down to this ceasefire deadline expiring. Vice President Vance is
still in Washington, D.C. There are reports that Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff also are still in the United States. And we don't know if Iran will
show up for these negotiations either and who will be doing that negotiating on their part.
So, is this a situation where behind the scenes you are hearing that there is an effort being made to move this forward, or are we really at a
stalemate?
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: There's a huge diplomatic effort behind the scenes involving the mediators here in
Pakistan, meeting with U.S. officials, communicating with Iranian officials as well.
And it's not just happening behind the scenes. We've seen really in the past hour it breakout into the public domain. More statements coming from
the foreign ministry spokesman in Iran, saying they have not yet made a definitive decision on whether or not to come to the talks in Islamabad. He
is saying that the Americans continue to be inconsistent and have contradictory messages, as well as taking military action against Iran,
meaning not just the tanker you mentioned, but another one earlier today that was in the Indian Ocean, Botswana, flagged, boarded by U.S. Marines
that have been carrying sanctioned Iranian oil.
What the spokesman at the foreign ministry in Tehran is saying is they will engage in talks when they are, as he said, results-oriented. Pakistan has
really been going on the diplomatic front foot in a way that negotiators don't normally do that. The foreign minister he met with the U.S. charged
affair spoke about the need to extend the ceasefire.
[13:05:00]
The information minister here has written a tweet, and he says a number of things, restating what Iran has already said now, that there's no
definitive response from Iran, but calling on Iran to make a clear commitment before the ceasefire expires, Pakistan's understanding of that
ceasefire is it expires in the next seven hours.
The information minister also saying that Pakistan's doing everything that it diplomatically can in a sincere way to try to bring the sides together.
Everyone here was expecting Iran to arrive. That's why J.D. Vance was going to get on his plane earlier in the day, because it was a real belief, the
Iranians, even though they didn't say it publicly, were absolutely going to come. But as you say, all of that's up in the air now.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, and the president saying that he is not likely to extend the ceasefire, that bombs would start falling shortly, and that he has all
the time in the world. And, Nic, this is all happening in a city, once again, that is posed to host another high-level, high-stakes negotiation
and peace talks with the vice president of the United States, even potentially just getting all of that infrastructure for security coming at
a time when the country is also dealing with the impact of high gas and oil prices. How is that playing out locally?
ROBERTSON: Yes, this is a city, in a way, caught in hold, if you will. You know, the population here, incredibly excited and happy to see their
country in the global spotlight for positive reasons, not for explosions or a decade or so back hosting Osama bin Laden or, you know, playing off one
side against each other in the war in Afghanistan. This is what they were accused of, the lack of trust. This is Pakistan in a positive spotlight.
So, people here are really gripped by that. But at the same time, they're locked in. They're locked in because roads are cut. They can't use the main
avenues here. The secure red zone is very secure. We've been out around the city. You have to kind of go down back streets to get around. Buses can't
come into the city from other cities in the country. You know, cafes, restaurants here, their clientele can't get to them. They're shuttering
their kitchens.
So, there is a ripple out effect. So, there's the excitement, but there's also the reality. How long can you keep a city on lockdown? How long can
you keep its major hotels empty in the anticipation that you're going to try to do something hugely historic that everyone wants to see happen here?
And that's the situation Islamabad finds itself in. That hope is still there. And the desire to make this work is still there. But this is a city
that's just sort of put-on hold.
GOLODRYGA: No doubt. And it is a country who's standing in the United States, especially after Trump's second inauguration and victory, has only
been elevated. He has praised the leadership there in Pakistan quite frequently. And the fact that this is a trusted intermediary for both
countries is really notable here. Nic Robertson, thank you so much for the update.
Well, now from uncertainty at the negotiating table to chaos in the Strait of Hormuz, Tehran says that it has now returned to a, quote, "wartime
footing in the critical waterway, completely closing it off to all vessels without Iranian authorization.
Meantime, the U.S. is blockading Iranian ports both inside and outside of the Strait. 20 percent of global oil supply comes through the key passage.
So, all the disruption and the knock-on effects are rising. Fuel costs is having a very real impact on ordinary people around the world.
Energy expert Matt Smith joins me now to explain this complex crisis and its global implications. Matt, welcome to the program. So, let's just talk
about the fact that the Strait of Hormuz, for all purposes, has been closed for business for a number of weeks now, well over a month. Are you
surprised then, given that and given all of the uncertainty and some of the heated rhetoric coming from both sides here, that prices aren't even higher
than they are now?
MATT SMITH, DIRECTOR OF COMMODITY RESEARCH, KPLER: Frankly, yes. And it's concerning, right, because what that suggests is there's a certain amount
of complacency. The challenge that is happening is that, as you mentioned, the volumes that we see moving out of the Strait of Hormuz typically, you
know, is 15 million barrels a day of oil. Predominantly that is going into Asia. But then once it gets there, it is refined into products, whether
that is jet fuel, gasoline, diesel. And so, we're not seeing those barrels arrive. And so, those products are not being produced.
And so, the next kind of domino to fall is essentially the drying up of these products being exported from these countries and also restrictions
and rationalization of these fuels. You were just talking in Islamabad there about restrictions in Pakistan, but you have them elsewhere,
everywhere in Asia in terms of Thailand, Taiwan, Vietnam. The list is -- it goes on and on.
[13:10:00]
And so, this is hugely problematic. And it's going to spread to the rest of the world here. The longer that the Strait of Hormuz remains closed.
GOLODRYGA: And I look back to the shocking spike in oil prices following Russia's larger scale invasion of Ukraine in February of 2022. And they
exceeded the height of prices following the start of this war with Iran. And yet, when you look to what lessons have been learned, what measures
have been taken in the interim, perhaps backstopping more, more supplying of oil and stockpiling that that hasn't happened. Alternative shipping
lanes have not been created.
So, do you think it was that initial shock value from the Russian invasion that in some sense kept prices thus far at least more measured?
SMITH: Well, I think it's just simply is somewhat unfathomable, right? We do see in physical prices then being that much higher than what we're
seeing on those financial prices, you know, those index prices, the brands and the WTI, those global benchmarks. But the reality here is that is going
to have this impact over the coming months here. And we're not quite feeling that just yet.
At the same time, too, there is an element of demand destruction from things as well. And so, it's a very complex situation here. But ultimately,
it feels very much that the market is mispricing this.
GOLODRYGA: I want to ask you about what we heard from the energy secretary over the weekend in defending another administration official and cabinet
secretary, and that is the treasury secretary, Bessent, reversing his words from just a few days prior that the waiver extended for Russian oil
sanctions would not happen. And yet, they were extended just a couple of days later. When asked about why that reversal took place, here's what
Secretary Wright said to Jake Tapper.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHRIS WRIGHT, U.S. ENERGY SECRETARY: G20 conference was here. We had bankers from around the world basically making pleas. Hey, we want to keep
energy prices down for us. Just help with us -- just help us be constructive. All that Russian oil, it goes to China anyway. All we're
doing is temporary, allowing it to flow instead of all the China to flow into other Asian refineries. It's to lower the price of energy in Asia and
in Europe.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: And he went on to say that this waiver extension was only temporary, that sanctions would be put back in place. But from what you
heard from him, that explanation, is it a valid one? And is it keeping oil prices lower?
SMITH: I think the main reason for doing this is simply because you have India that sits in very close proximity to the Middle East there. It
imports about 5 million barrels a day. About half of that comes from the Middle East. Those flows have essentially been stopped right because of the
closure of the Strait of Hormuz here. India is a large exporter of clean products as well. And so, by granting this waiver for the Russian crew to
be able to still go into India, it means that they're able to keep things working, at least to a decent extent there.
So, by what they're still not able to get the 5 million barrels a day that they need, they are able to substitute some of the loss of those Middle
East barrels with that Russian crude. And so, from that perspective, it makes some sense that we're not seeing too many of those other barrels
flowing elsewhere from Russia, simply because India is trying to get its hands on as much as it can do there. So, maybe it's helping prices a little
bit and kind of keeping them in check. But ultimately here, this is bailing out India, who'd be in massive trouble if it didn't have this olive branch.
GOLODRYGA: So, there's some credence there to him saying that we were asked by some G20 countries and we're basically doing them a solid?
SMITH: Yes, yes.
GOLODRYGA: I spoke with noted economist Robin Brooks on Friday on my program, and he argued that the U.S. blockade, which he'd been advocating
for, has successfully choked Iran financially and that it is just weeks away now from completely running out of room to store its unsold oil. From
a production standpoint, how close are they to being forced to shut down their wells? And do you think that's leverage enough from the United States
to get Iran into a position of opening up the strait and returning back to the talks?
SMITH: Well, in terms of what we're seeing with Iran, we've already seen production drop about three quarters of a million barrels per day there, we
believe. So, in part, that is to do with lower demand in the country during this conflict. It also relates to the South Pars field. That's that natural
gas and condensate field there that was struck a good few weeks ago by Israel and the U.S. And so, that has brought that production down.
[13:15:00]
But ultimately, your point here with the U.S. blockade is meaning that, well, we could be seeing a few of those tankers passing through. In theory,
that is blocking off those Iranian barrels hitting the open market. And so, from that perspective, we should be seeing a slowing in these export
loadings and things starting to grind to a halt. With your point with the onshore storage there, we think there's probably about three weeks,
something like that, until they kind of get hitting the tank tops there.
And so, yes, it will put some pressure on Iran here. But the challenge is, is that still got a number of weeks to go. If the U.S. gets in a situation
where it looks to drop bombs instead and looks to escalate, you're going to see the same thing from the Iranians. And so, that's the big concern here
that we just see this tit for tat for tit for tat and things just get even worse.
GOLODRYGA: You mentioned the fact that India really is in a bind here. China also potentially increasingly so as this war prolongs. Most of the
oil that leaves Iran does head to China. They have massive stockpiles. But I would imagine that even Xi Jinping at this point is getting a bit nervous
about how long this war is dragging on for, especially now that the strait has been closed.
And he is also, according to an expert who has been following his now recent calls for Hormuz to be reopened, is explaining it this way. He says
Beijing is definitely signaling subtly, yet importantly to the hawks within Tehran that further unbridled escalation will not be tolerated. How much
leverage does China have over Iran at this point to settle this?
SMITH: It has a certain amount of influence there to your point in terms of those flows. It's not just the Iranian flows, but it's the Middle East
flows in general of that crude. You know, it's about 4 million barrels a day. Ex-Iran. You put Iran on top of that. It takes it well above five. And
so, China is hugely reliant upon the Middle East here.
Yes, they have stockpiles well over one point two billion barrels right now. But we are seeing that their refineries are really starting to dial
back because of this lack of crude that's arriving. We're seeing them putting export bans in place on their products as well. These protectionist
measures.
And so, by all means, they are feeling the pain of the halting of these flows. And so, from that perspective, you would expect them to be putting
pressure on Iran to try and get things moving here.
GOLODRYGA: We're seeing producers like Saudi Arabia, UAE really leaning now on pipeline alternatives to bypass the Strait of Hormuz. Is this crisis
finally the catalyst to getting these types of operations and alternative routes in place, perhaps where we didn't see following Russia's larger
scale invasion of Ukraine?
SMITH: You would think so, given that while these two pipelines that you have, one for UAE and one for Saudi, there is able to reroute crude. It's
not able to reroute all of those barrels, right? So, Saudi is only able to push maybe under 4 million barrels a day across to the Red Sea and export
them from there. Whereas previously it was exporting 6 million barrels a day out of the Mideast Gulf through the Strait of Hormuz there.
So, it is going to have to take many more of these pipelines to be put in place to really circumvent the Strait of Hormuz. That takes time. It takes
investment. There is also not the guarantee that these pipelines won't be attacked or future pipelines that are built won't be -- could be secure,
you know. So, that is the challenge going forward here. When you have such a choke point or such a source for the world's oil leaving from this one
place, it's very difficult to secure it, whether it's leaving via the Strait or whether it's on pipelines.
GOLODRYGA: And the IMF. And so, this is something you noted earlier in even my conversation with Nic in our previous segment about the impact, the
asymmetric impact that this is having on particularly lower income countries that are so dependent on oil and fertilizer and other energy
sources from this region.
The IMF issued a stark warning, say that they would bear the brunt and the burden of this war as it continues. And even rich nations, European
countries, as you noted, everyone will be affected and they're not immune. Even America, which has a lot of supply, still has to withstand higher
prices at the pump.
I'm just wondering, given the deluge of everyday tweets, posts, statements, and we're seeing huge spikes up and down on what they mean. How are you at
Kpler assessing it all and giving advice to your clients?
[13:20:00]4
SMITH: Well, we're fortunate in that we have the data, right? So, we're looking at that. And that's problematic and scary at the same time, too,
because we can see that these certain countries are not getting the crude that they need. They're dialing back on their refinery runs. They are not
exporting the jet that is needed regionally. And so, it's just a matter of time.
We're following those dominoes falling. And so, it's -- we can see, like, the timeframes, it's going to be weeks rather than months when you're going
to see certain fuel restrictions being applied both from the pumps, but also in terms of flights. That's happening in Asia. That's going to have a
knock-on effect to the U.S. West Coast. You know, Europe here is being starved of jet fuel. It's having to find it from elsewhere.
And so, we're starting to see not the system breaking, but really these anomalous flows that are popping up simply because, you know, Australia
can't find gasoline or diesel in Asia. And so, it's coming to the U.S. to buy it. And you're seeing all manner of those new routes opening up. And
that's just exemplifying the strain in the system here.
And so, unfortunately, we're kind of seeing that play out in real-time and know that these supply crunches are coming in weeks, not months.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, it reminds me so much of the early months of the COVID pandemic. And yet, as it relates to this war, the markets thus far seem to
be acting and reacting rather complacently as people like you are observing the data in real-time, showing that the alarm bells are ringing all over
the world. Matt Smith, thank you so much for joining us and breaking this down for us. Appreciate it.
SMITH: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: And do stay with CNN. We'll be right back after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: Now, with global attention on the Middle East, some say Russia is capitalizing on this moment. As we've discussed, the world's oil is
caught in a chokehold in the Strait of Hormuz, and now Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is condemning the Trump administration's decision to
extend waivers to Russia, allowing it to sell oil despite Western sanctions. While the U.S. argues this is to ease the energy supply crunch
sparked by the Iran conflict, Zelenskyy says the money goes directly towards the Kremlin's war in Ukraine.
And on the ground, Kyiv's fight for survival is urgent and real. Zelenskyy says that in the last week alone, Russia has launched more than 2,300
attack drones. That includes a devastating wave of strikes that killed 18 people, the deadliest barrage the country has seen in months.
To discuss all of this, let's bring in Olga Rudenko, the editor-in-chief of the Kyiv Independent. Olga, welcome back to the program.
I want to pick up there on what you and others have noted. You recently, in an interview with a New Yorker, David Remnick, said that America's focus on
the war with Iran is a lifeline for Vladimir Putin, not only because attention is being diverted, but resources like weapons are as well. Can
you talk about how it's impacting not only morale, but what's happening on the front lines in the battlefield?
OLGA RUDENKO, UKRAINIAN JOURNALIST: Thank you for having me. Yes, you are right, absolutely, that Russia is capitalizing, unfortunately, on this war
and on the destruction that it is providing. It's not just about the waiver on the oil sanctions that is helping Russia enormously, but it's also just
the focus that is shifting away from Ukraine.
[13:25:00]
And the longer it takes place, the worse it is, obviously, for Ukraine. And, you know, the peace negotiations stopped, as you know, when the war
with Iran started. And what is especially unfortunate is that this arrived at a very good moment for Russia, because the Russian economy was starting
to finally feel the strain of the years of war.
And now, the situation with the oil sanctions being temporarily lifted is helping Russia enormously. And it is felt on the ground because the
numbers, and not just the numbers, when we come -- when you talk about how much Russia is benefiting from the oil prices, for example, what -- even in
conservative assessments, what Russia makes daily from this waiver can fund a mass drone and missile attack on a city like Kyiv, on where I'm standing
right now. So, it is very real for us on the ground.
GOLODRYGA: Right. And President Zelenskyy responded to the extended sanctions relief on Russian oil by saying that this is Russia playing the
Americans once again. And then he went on to say that Washington, by doing this, is choosing cheaper gas, essentially, than putting more pressure on
Russia to end this war.
But what do you say to what our previous guest has noted? And the administration is saying that they're doing this because they're getting
pressure from other countries, including India, because they are feeling the real impact of the spike in prices at home.
RUDENKO: I mean, I'm no -- I'm by no means an expert in oil prices, but something that's very clear to me, maybe because I'm sitting here in Kyiv,
is that anything that helps Russia, even if it helps other countries in short-term, in order to remove some pressure from somebody, it is a short-
sighted decision, because in the long run, the U.S. is going to spend more money on helping Ukraine fight Russia and essentially in the -- you know,
in the longer-term perspective, on helping its NATO allies fight Russia and on fighting Russia, eventually, if Russia is not stopped now.
And the way to stop Russia is to both defeat it on the front lines, but also to put economic pressure and to be firm on sanctions, because
sanctions are working and are putting strain on Russia, even if Russia manages to find some loopholes. So, any decision that helps Russia now is
short-sighted, irregardless of any arguments that are made.
GOLODRYGA: And yet, it is quite impressive to see how Ukraine has aggressively been courting Gulf countries, in particular Saudi Arabia, the
UAE, Qatar, by sharing their innovative drone technology that has helped them on the battlefield versus Russia. Is this a signal, perhaps, that
Ukraine can show the world that they can bypass U.S. technology, especially in this sphere, for other countries?
RUDENKO: So, this is a very interesting aspect for Ukraine, because as much as this conflict is not a good thing for Ukraine, because it distracts
the global audience and the eyes are not on Ukraine now, but at the same time, it also puts in the spotlight Ukraine's defensive capabilities and
Ukraine's own defense production, because this conflict has been the world's awakening to the threat that Iranian drones are.
And this is exactly what Ukraine has been dealing with and what Ukraine has learned to fight and to defend itself against in the past four years,
because in the first year of the full-scale war, Iran gave the technology to Russia and Russia has been mass-producing Iranian drones and hitting
Ukraine with it. And Ukraine knows how to defend itself.
So, what Ukraine has been trying to do, obviously, since the -- you know, the past few weeks, is present itself as a country that has solutions for
this. And this is what Volodymyr Zelenskyy's tour in the Middle East was about, to present Ukraine as a country that is not asking for help, it has
the solutions and it is offering them.
GOLODRYGA: And what are the financial ramifications of this for Ukraine? I mean, how fast can Ukraine not only provide the technology, but really
start to scale the drones that are needed yesterday, to be quite honest, in so many countries, but in particular this region, as we've seen how
effective Iran has been in utilizing them to attack their neighbors?
RUDENKO: You know, Ukraine's drone industry and defense industry is something that is so booming right now and so hot. And we're talking not
about state companies, we're talking about --
GOLODRYGA: Private companies.
RUDENKO: -- so many private product producers that are doing this. And yes -- and I lost the sound.
[13:30:00]
GOLODRYGA: Can you hear me, Olga? We may have lost our connection with Olga. Let's try -- we're going to take a quick break, we're going to try to
reconnect with Olga right after the break. Apologies for that.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: All right. Now, I'm so sorry. We were not able to reconnect with Olga. So, we will try to do that in the near future.
Meantime, $166 billion, that is the sum the Trump administration has been ordered to refund the U.S. companies that pay tariffs two months after the
Supreme Court struck down Donald Trump's import taxes. As of Monday, certain businesses can apply for these reimbursements through an online
portal.
Former U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer defends the president's tariff regime, arguing that the free trade system has failed the global
economy. And he joins Walter Isaacson to discuss.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Thank you, Bianna. And, Ambassador Robert Lighthizer, welcome back to the show.
ROBERT LIGHTHIZER, FORMER U.S. TRADE REPRESENTATIVE: Thank you for having me, Walter.
ISAACSON: You have a pretty powerful piece in foreign affairs now that attacks the free trade system. You almost call it a free trade orthodoxy
that for 80 years grew after World War II. But it seems to me that that free trade system increased global wealth, made -- brought people out of
poverty, even helped the United States dollars stay in the lead. Tell me what was wrong with that free trade order.
LIGHTHIZER: So, first of all, Walter, I would suggest that after World War II and for a period of decades, what we would call sort of the current
trade regime had a variety of successes. It did help, as you suggest, end the Cold War. It did raise countries -- you know, some countries' citizens
out of poverty. But over a period of time, it sort of evolved into something quite different.
The notion of the trading system was that a country exports in order to import. And when you do that, you import what you make sort of second best
and export what you make best. And when you do that, you make your citizens better off and you make the other citizens of the country that's exporting
to you better off.
But over a period of time, an awful lot of countries concluded that they were a lot better off running up large trade surpluses. And we developed
these huge imbalances. And they really had very little to do with economics. What they had to do with was very aggressive industrial
policies. And we saw a variety of countries do this.
So, the system did do well after a period of time, certainly by the '80s, countries were realizing, and in the case of Japan, probably even in the
late '60s, that they were far better off with a very aggressive industrial policy rather than this notion of exporting in order to import. So, you
ended up with huge imbalances.
And in the case of the United States, let me just go through the indictment very quickly. First of all, we're running up these huge, huge trade
deficits. Oh, I would say the realistic number is sort of north of $1.2 trillion a year for the United States. And some would say, well, who cares?
You know, my reaction is it doesn't matter if you don't care who owns America.
[13:35:00]
So, what's really going on at the macro level is we're transferring our wealth overseas in return for current consumption because other countries
have kind of rigged industrial policy.
So, what's the accumulation of that? If you look at the net investment position of the United States, which is how much Americans own overseas
versus how much everyone else owns in America, that number, which when I was in the Reagan administration was a substantial positive number, several
hundred billion dollars, is now a negative $27 trillion.
ISAACSON: Well, wait a minute, real quick. Why is it so bad if other countries invest in our equity, debt and real estate?
LIGHTHIZER: It's not a question of investing. You're -- see, your sort of view is that it doesn't matter who owns America. There was a great article
that Warren Buffett has. It's called Squanderville and Thriftville. And he likens this to a farmer who sells acreage every year in order to consume.
He will live quite nicely until he doesn't have any more land, and then he can neither consume nor make any money from his land. You can't transfer
your wealth overseas.
And to remind you, this is not because other countries are more efficient or do things better than us, this is because they have an industrial
policy. Now, let's just think, what's the industrial policy? It's currency manipulation. It's a tax policy designed to take resources from their
consumers and give them to their producers in order to create this huge imbalance. It's a banking system. It's labor laws. It's health and safety
regulations, which are designed not because of science to help health and safety, but to reduce imports into their country. It's massive, massive,
massive subsidies. And if you let them do this, these imbalances will accumulate, accumulate, accumulate. And the United States, as a result of
it, is a poorer country by $27 trillion than it otherwise would have been.
ISAACSON: Well, let me cut right to the chase. It seems that the bad thing that really happened was it hollowed out the American working class. Is
that true?
LIGHTHIZER: Well, I would say the bad things are the following. One, this massive transfer of wealth overseas. So, the United States, and as I say,
our children are poor as a result of it. The second thing is we've seen a substantial slowdown in what you would think of as sort of traditional
economic growth in the United States. So, much slower economic growth. I give you a couple of data points on that.
If you look at from the war, which, you know, you identified as a data point, to 2000, the United States grew on average about 3.1 percent of GDP
a year. When you move to the last 25 years, that is to say after this period of, you would say, hyper-globalization, which includes the worst
single thing was, of course, granting most favored nation permanently to China, but also NAFTA and creating the World Trade Organization, and we can
delve into that if we have time.
So, if you look at from 2000, 2001 forward, instead of 3.1 percent GDP growth, we end up with 2.1 or slightly over 2 percent of GDP growth. And if
you think of periods of time, the United States in most 20-year periods before 2000 grew at over 3 percent, about 14 years out of 20. We've seen
basically a flat line from China entering the WTO for 15 years, we saw a flat line in medium family income.
And then we've seen these hollowing out of these cities that we see across the Midwest, and all the very bad consequences of that, including, I would
say, very bad health consequences, where a lot of our working-class people have really lost many years of their lives. You know, there was a famous
book called "Deaths of Despair," which pointed out that people that don't have a college degree, which is like a proxy for these working-class
people, on average live about eight years shorter lives.
And what do they die from? They die from suicide, alcohol, drugs, basically what Anne Case and Angus Deaton call deaths of despair. So, we've seen very
bad societal impacts, slower economic growth, and a transfer of wealth overseas. I say none of it is because of basic economics. It's all because
someone else, in this case, primarily China, but a lot of other people have very aggressive economic policies.
[13:40:00]
They're designed, really, to take advantage of the fact that the United States has a relatively open capital market and a relatively open economic
system.
ISAACSON: You talked about the inequalities, too, and the enriching of the elites, I think you sometimes call it in your paper. Is that something that
was structurally part of this trade system? And how could we get it so that the rewards for the working class, for labor, could be better off in the
system you propose?
LIGHTHIZER: Well, I'm hoping that's what happened. So, you ask yourself, you know, what really has happened? If you look at the United States, for
the first time in our history, the top 1 percent has more wealth than the middle 60 percent. If you ask yourself, take the top 1 percent person and
compare him to the middle person.
When I was a kid, and when you were a kid, that was about 36 times richer. Now, it's 72 times richer. So, we're moving at a very bad. Now, some
liberals might say the way to approach that is to tax very heavily the rich people and give the money to the middle class. That, I think, is not a good
outcome, because I believe in the dignity of work. I believe that people feel better when they have productive, good jobs.
So, what I'm suggesting is that we have a system that's designed to create these high-paying jobs. And if we get that trade deficit down from 1.2, and
I would say it's probably, if you properly calculate it, even higher than that, trillion dollars, you're going to create an enormous number of these
jobs. We need more workers in the $100,000 -- $90,000 range.
ISAACSON: And you talk about bringing back the good jobs, and mainly, I think, in manufacturing, you mentioned in the piece, because if we have
better trade balances, maybe we'd manufacture more here. But aren't there like 400,000 or so manufacturing jobs going begging in the United States?
What's the imbalance there?
LIGHTHIZER: So, for sure, and I think, to some extent, that is evidence that the Trump program is working. This is going to take time.
Reindustrialization is going to take time. And training, getting workers from -- you know, from not working of from low-paying jobs to high-paying
manufacturing jobs is going to take training. It's going to take time. It's going to take diligence. But it is in the process of working.
We have lots, lots, millions of Americans out there who are either unemployed, partially employed, looking for full-time work, or totally out
of the workforce. We have it. If you add all that up, who knows what the number is, but you could easily get the 20 million Americans who need these
kinds of jobs. And nobody thinks this is going to happen in five minutes or five days or even a year. This is a long-term process.
But as you suggest, we seem to be moving in the right direction. There's a lot of what I call green shoots that suggest that the manufacturing is
taking off.
ISAACSON: You talk about how it seems to be working, the directional way that President Trump has done with the tariffs. Yet the U.S. goods trade
deficit in 2025 was at a record high. Explain that to me.
LIGHTHIZER: Part of what happened was people trying to rush things in ahead of tariffs. It's sort of an implementation problem. Another thing
that happened, Walter, is you saw a lot of computers and things coming in because of these data centers that are being built in this massive way. So,
we saw a certain amount of goods coming in in that.
So, you say to yourself -- you know, the critics of the president will say, my goodness, we haven't reindustrialized. No one would criticize the CHIPS
Act a year after it was implemented in 2022 and say we haven't reindustrialized.
But -- so, what are the green shoots? You see this purchasing manager's index is now positive. We see the Fed's production numbers are now showing
substantial improvements. We have seen a substantial improvement in productivity, which is really, really important in the manufacturing
sector. We've seen factory starts up. We've seen capital investment up substantially. So, there are a lot of things to indicate this is happening.
ISAACSON: You also predicted last time that prices would come down, and you said it would be pretty soon. Well, obviously, that hasn't happened
with inflation really ticking up. Is that something that's going to take a much longer time, too?
LIGHTHIZER: So, let's talk about that. When the tariffs were in place, you and I spoke, and what economists and critics from some, you know,
significant business newspapers said is we were going to have a depression and double-digit inflation, right?
[13:45:00]
So, let's put ourselves in context. You know, their predictions were actually looking back farcical and funny. You know, they're so ridiculous.
So, then you say, what really is happening? Right now, we are seeing a bump in inflation. Inflation is a systemic thing. Clearly, the impact of energy
costs because of the war in Iran, it's going to have an impact. I would suggest if you go before that, core inflation, that is to say inflation
that does not include energy, was actually in a pretty good range. It was about a little over 2 percent. The notion that tariffs somehow create
inflation is, I think, really quite wrong.
You've seen a study by the San Francisco Fed that suggested that it's not true. You've seen the fact that we put tariffs in place, and we did not
have inflation in the first term. You can see that China has more barriers to trade than any country in the world, and it actually has deflation, not
inflation.
So, I don't really think it's fair to make that kind of link. Right now, are we seeing inflation closer to 3 percent overall than we really want,
which is closer to 2 percent? Yes, but there's a lot of things going on. And if you look at where that inflation is, it is almost not at all in
tariffed items. It is in services, primarily health care and financial services. So -- and these are things that don't have any tariffs associated
with them at all.
So, I don't see anything in the current data that suggests that the president's program is not working. I see a lot in the data that suggests
that the predictions of all the geniuses -- by the way, the same geniuses who prescribed an economic program that ended up getting us into this
position where we have all these really bad results for our working-class people -- I don't see anything that supports their position.
And where we are is we have to stick to it. I would say stick to the program. We have to work our way through this Iran situation, get oil
production back up, oil prices back down. Then I think you're going to see a lot of the long-term results of manufacturing and the return of these
kinds of jobs, which build up our communities and our families.
ISAACSON: Ambassador Robert Lighthizer, thank you for joining us again.
LIGHTHIZER: Walter, it's always great to be with you. Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: All right. We have re-established a connection with Olga Rudenko of the Kyiv Independent. Olga, thank you so much for sticking
around. Apologies to you and our viewers for the interruption there. Sometimes these things are out of our hands.
I do want to pick up from where we left off. We were talking about Ukraine and their drone technology and exporting that to other in particular -- I'm
sorry, not Western countries, but to Gulf countries. Your publication is also reporting that Ukraine's push to build homegrown ballistic defense
systems can happen within the next year or so, that it is actually growing at a rather rapid pace. Can you talk about that significance and what that
will be able to provide for Ukraine as this war enters now its fifth year?
RUDENKO: So, far, this is only a statement. This is basically a deadline that I think Zelenskyy is establishing, saying we need to develop it within
a year. We'll see if it actually can happen. It is, of course, taking down ballistic missiles, as we know, is one of the most challenging things for
air defense.
But if indeed Ukraine can develop its own domestic systems that can take down Russian ballistic missiles, that would make a lot of difference
because this kind of air defense systems is the biggest point of dependency for Ukraine, because this is exactly what we depend on the most from our
Western partners, who give us things like veteran missiles that protect cities like Kyiv, where I'm in. And it is Russian ballistic missiles that
have been doing the most damage because of how difficult it is to intercept them.
And to -- we have just had a terrible winter that -- where Russia imposed, you know, blackouts and people didn't have any heat and any electricity in
their homes for days and weeks. And it is an example of a humanitarian catastrophe that Russia can impose with ballistic missiles. And it is
impossible to cover the whole of Ukraine with the defense systems that the West provides. If Ukraine can supplement that with domestic, that would
make a huge difference for us.
[13:50:00]
GOLODRYGA: And the urgency with which to build its defense industrial complex there is not just because of the war with Iran. There's been a
longstanding frustration with this White House and with the Biden administration, too, for not providing weapons that Ukraine said they
needed urgently.
But definitely, with this White House, if for nothing less than the rhetoric that we are hearing from President Trump and those around him, the
Atlantic is reporting that President Zelenskyy is increasingly signaling that he's no longer viewing the United States as a reliable ally. What does
that mean for Ukraine going forward?
RUDENKO: I mean, I think since the beginning of the second Trump administration, Zelenskyy and his administration in Ukraine have been
trying to figure out how to deal with them because obviously Ukraine relies so much on the U.S. as a partner, as an ally in defending against Russia.
But the signals from the Trump administration have been mixed, to say the least, because while the U.S. still provides a lot to Ukraine, the
rhetoric, as you said, can be so confusing and can throw people off so much here. And, you know, one day President Trump looks up and says something
that is essentially pro-Russian, and the other day something that is not so pro-Russian. So, it is about -- and it is -- it can be very annoying when
you're following that from Ukraine, as you can imagine.
So, I mean, I think with the -- with Zelenskyy trying to figure out what Ukraine can offer to other potential partners and existing partners, he is
trying with his tour in the Middle East and offering the defense technology. It is one of the ways for Ukraine to potentially differentiate
and decrease its dependency. And I think it's true to say that Zelenskyy or Ukraine gave up on the relations with the Trump administration.
But I think the past year has demonstrated that Ukraine needs to be strategic about it and can't rely or rely on one partner too much, even if
it is such a big partner as the U.S.
GOLODRYGA: What about its partnership with the E.U.? There was a huge sigh of relief with the election of Peter Magyar's party in Hungary and Viktor
Orban stepping down. Obviously, he had been an impediment and a roadblock for getting aid for Ukraine throughout this war. But at the same time,
Bulgaria handed a landslide to Rumen Radev, who opposed Bulgaria's defense pact with Ukraine, and said that before the election that Crimea is, in
fact, Russian. So, how is that all being interpreted in Kyiv?
RUDENKO: Well, as you said, the election in Hungary brought a sigh of relief in Kyiv, very much so, because Hungary has made itself the biggest
roadblock in the E.U. to aid Ukraine. There's a very sizable 90 billion loan that is hanging in the air now that was being blocked by Hungary that
hopefully Ukraine will now receive, because we really need this funding. And as for Bulgaria, we will see how it will act from now on.
But what is very certain is that Vladimir Putin has been searching and finding, and he will not stop searching and finding useful allies in the
E.U. And it is up to E.U. to figure out how to deal with things like this, how not to let one member block something that is so essential for the
defense of the E.U.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, a lot of change happening there in Europe and not enough attention is being focused, as it should be, on this war, obviously,
because so many eyes are now focused on what's happening in Iran there as the war in Ukraine is in its fifth year. Olga Rudenko, thank you so much
for the time and for joining us. Really appreciate it.
RUDENKO: Thank you for having me.
GOLODRYGA: And finally, for us, an environmental success story right here in New York City. The New York State Health Department has declared that
some fish from the lower Hudson River are safe to eat. Yes, you heard that right.
After decades of being described as a cesspool, a $1.7 billion project successfully removed millions of cubic yards of contaminated gunk from the
river, lowering levels of toxic PCB chemicals classified as likely human carcinogens. Health Department guidance suggests that it's safe for
everyone to consume one portion of striped bass a month. So, happy fishing to everyone who dares.
[13:55:00]
I run alongside the Hudson River almost every day. This news made me very happy.
All right. That is it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. Remember, you can
always catch us online, on our website, and all-over social media. Thanks so much for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
