Return to Transcripts main page
Connect the World
U.S. Trade Representative Testifies to Senate Committee; Nightclub Collapse in Dominican Republican Killing at Least 18; Global Markets Rebound After Steep Declines; Trump Threatens to Impose 50 Percent Tariffs on China; High-Level Nuclear Talks Between the United States and Iran. Aired 10-11a ET
Aired April 08, 2025 - 10:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[10:00:00]
ANNOUNCER: This is CNN Breaking News.
CHRISTINA MACFARLANE, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome to our second hour of Connect the World. I'm Christina MacFarlane in London.
And we will take you to Washington, D.C. in a few minutes where President Trump's top trade representative will testify in front of the Senate
Finance Committee on the White House tariff policy.
But first, we are following breaking news, a desperate rescue mission underway in the Dominican Republic. That's after the roof of a popular
nightclub collapsed. At least 18 people have died and dozens more are injured. And we're hoping to go to the scene in Santa Domingo shortly. So,
do stay with us for that.
Now, China says it's not backing down in its trade standoff with the United States. The U.S. president is threatening to take his tariffs even further,
raising them another 50 percent on top of the 34 percent set to go into effect tomorrow. That is unless China calls off its own retaliatory tariffs
on 34 percent on U.S. goods.
Investors are trying to figure out how to price in all this uncertainty. And trading on Wall Street has been underway for just over 30 minutes now.
The big three indices are all up considerably, rebounding over 3 percent, and that is despite the escalating tit for tat, between the world's two
largest economies.
CNN Correspondent Anna Stewart here with me. So, a little less agitated today, the markets. Thank goodness. How do we read this bounce?
ANNA STEWART, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I mean, it's extraordinary really. It's a completely different day on the markets and we can't really tell you
necessarily why, because there hasn't been a huge amount of great news for investors, particularly with China's stance, they're not backing down. So,
if anything, we could be seeing further escalation.
The E.U. have suggested that perhaps they could offer zero tariffs on industrial goods for tit for tat if they got zero from the U.S. But
President Trump says he's really not interested in that. So, not a huge amount of good news.
Talks in Japan -- trade talks with Japan are apparently going well, according to the treasury secretary in an interview with CNBC, but that's
pretty much it. And yet, let's check in on the markets. Asia was significantly higher. The Nikkei was up 6 percent, perhaps that's on the
Japan talks. We also had Europe opening around 1 percent. Now, I believe around 3, 4 percent high. You're seeing those there.
Tomorrow we're expecting E.U. leaders to actually vote on retaliatory measures for tariffs for the U.S. So, yes, Christi, a lot of bad news, but
some positive market.
MACFARLANE: I like to see you optimistically matching the green of the markets with the green in your jacket this morning. Let's keep it going in
that way. Anna, thanks.
Let's bring in Marc Stewart. He is in Beijing. Marc, of course, we're talking about that escalating war, that fighting talk between China and the
U.S. Oh, actually, Marc is not with us. So, why not -- let's talk about that escalating fight between China and the U.S. and the impact that is
going to have, not just on, you know, long-term projections for economic downturn, but the markets themselves are going to have to react to this.
STEWART: It was utterly extraordinary, and I would say it was always unbelievable if it weren't with the fact that every day has been
unbelievable in the last couple of weeks. But the decision from the president to potentially escalate tariffs and implement another 50 percent
tariff on China, which takes it on total to 104 percent. China says they are not backing down from their retaliation. So, that looks set to be
implemented potentially tomorrow.
Now, imagine what this will do to certain products in the U.S. and imagine what it'll be like for the U.S. consumer. For instance, iPhones. There is a
manufacturing facility in India, but a huge amount of them are made in China.
Now, the increased costs on certain products, the impact for certain sectors will be huge and investors will be certainly looking that,
consumers will be worried, and I imagine politicians, even in the United States. Even some Republicans may be questioning whether this is the right
move. Christina.
MACFARLANE: Well, that is a good moment for me to turn to Stephen Collinson to talk about the kind of political implications of all of this,
because we heard U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is one of the most public supporters of President Trump's tariffs, of course. He's been urging
America's trading partners to seek out the Trump administration for new trade details. Have a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SCOTT BESSENT, U.S. TREASURY SECRETARY: President Trump, as you know, is better than anyone at giving himself maximum leverage. So, what he's done
is we outlined the tariffs on April 2nd, and then gave the countries several days to think about it. As I advised on many shows in April 2nd, I
suggested that the foreign officials keep your cool, they do not escalate and come to us with your offers and how you're going to drop tariffs, how
you're going to drop non-tariff barriers, how you're going to stop your currency manipulation, how you're going to stop the subsidized financing?
And at a point, President Trump will be ready to negotiate.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[10:05:00]
MACFARLANE: Well, Bessent also pushing President Trump to focus his messaging on the endgame for Americans that U.S. tariff's threat equates to
better trade deals with foreign nations.
Stephen Collinson is joining us from Washington. So, Stephen, is this warning from Scott Bessent an acknowledgement perhaps from within the Trump
administration that this is beginning to cost them politically? How do you read those comments from Bessent?
STEPHEN COLLINSON, CNN POLITICS SENIOR REPORTER: I think it's a warning from at least one sector of the Trump administration. The problem is, is
it's not clear which wing of the administration is in control here, and there's a massive contradiction at the center of this entire program
because Trump is saying that the point of all this is to restore manufacturing in the United States to recreate the industrial heartlands
that have been hollowed out by globalization. That is a project of years and potentially decades.
Now, it's possible that he could get better trade deals. For example, there's a delegation, he says, coming to the United States from South Korea
right now to talk about that. But that is not something that's going to end up, you know, restoring the manufacturing base. It could give some U.S. --
the U.S. economy a better deal on the international trading system. So, you can see the different motivations here.
The other thing is that there was an interesting press conference in the Oval Office with the president with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu yesterday, and the president basically made clear that he's interested in deals that involve other parties lowering their trade
barriers, their restrictions to trade, but he's not interested in giving anyone anything else.
For example, on the European idea of zero tariffs, it's not clear, as Anna said, that he wants this, this was actually on the table years ago in a
trade deal proposed between the U.S. and the transatlantic nations in his first term, which he ended.
So, the idea that everyone can get out of this and declare victory doesn't seem very lightly, and I think that's going to be. An impediment to all of
these trade negotiations that the president says he wants.
MACFARLANE: Yes. Stephen, stay with us. I just want to turn to Marc Stewart, who is now joining us from Beijing. Marc, as we consider this
moment, this sort of escalation between the United States, between China with kind of fighting talk now coming from China, what other measures do
you think they are considering in retaliation as we look to what comes next?
MARC STEWART, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Look, as we've talked about before, Christina, China has this big toolbox of weapons. It has an arsenal. So,
we've heard a lot of conversation. In fact, there was a commentator, a Chinese state media commentator today who made a post talking about what
some of these options could be. So, certainly, we could see additional tariffs. Tariffs that would focus the -- on the agriculture industry such
as soybean.
We know that soybeans are a very important export for the United States, very integral to the U.S. farming industry and to middle America. So, we
could certainly see that. We could even see possible restrictions even banning American films in China. So, it's a wide scope of potential
options.
But Beijing, you know, is making it very clear. There is -- there's no room, it's not going to budge despite what Washington may want. And it's
continuing the shift from diplomacy to defiance. We heard a lot of very remarkable phrases such as additional tariffs levied by the United States
would be a mistake upon a mistake.
Let's take a quick listen to what one government spokesperson had to say and pay attention to the very strong language. Let's listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LIN JIAN, CHINESE FOREIGN MINISTRY SPOKESPERSON (through translator): Pressure, threats, and blackmail are not the right ways to engage with
China. If the U.S. disregards the interest of both countries and the international community, insist on launching a tariff or trade war, China
will fight to the end.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
M. STEWART: China will fight to the end. It doesn't get that much stronger than that and is part of that shift in tone. Another question that I think
a lot of people are asking is, what about the possibility of the U.S. and China sitting down, talking together at the negotiating table. But at this
point, the feeling from Beijing is that the United States is not showing a genuine willingness to sit down and have what would be certainly a very
serious conversation. So, that's where it stands late at night here in Beijing, Christina. And again, the countdown is on as these tariffs are set
to kick into place.
[10:10:00]
MACFARLANE: They absolutely are. We'll be watching very closely in the hours ahead as those that midnight hour ticks over and those retaliatory
tariffs come. Marc Stewart in Beijing, thank you. And our thanks Stephen Collinson as well.
Now, Donald Trump's plans include a 20 percent tariff on most products coming from the E.U. That includes Italian cooking staples that many
Americans rely on, and that could cause scarcity for Italians too. Barbie Latza Nadeau explains.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BARBIE LATZA NADEAU, CNN REPORTER: The U.S. is the second largest consumer of this, Italian produced olive oil made in the Tuscan region. It's
products like this that will be affected by U.S. tariffs announced by President Trump, but it won't be consumers who are affected, at least not
yet. It will be production lines that are hit hardest.
Extra virgin olive oil producers export about a hundred thousand tons to the U.S. each year, and the U.S. is Italy's third largest trading partner.
Products like Parma Ham turn a multimillion-dollar business a year. Now, subject to 20 percent tariffs. These extra costs are likely to be handed
down to the consumers in the long run. Eventually, even here in Italy.
Producers are worried that if exports to the U.S. slowed down through a lack of demand for made in Italy products, they will have to make cuts. And
that could mean a drop in supply even here in Italy, meaning shelves like this could soon be bare.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MACFARLANE: Well, let's bring back Stephen Collinson, who is joining us again from Washington. Stephen, I know -- I mean this kind of moves on from
-- or is in relation to what you were talking about just a minute ago, but you've written an opinion piece for CNN Digital today highlighting that
President Trump's refusal to blink on tariffs raises the risks of an ugly endgame. Can you tell us a bit more about what you mean by that?
COLLINSON: Yes, it's very difficult when you look at what the president is saying to work out how we get out of this without a lot more damage to the
U.S. economy. The president has made this a test this entire trade war of his own personal credibility and power. So, therefore, it's going to be
difficult for him to climb down.
I think we could see, as we were talking about before, some smaller trade deals with individual nations, South Korea, Japan, et cetera. Experience
shows us from the first term with deals with China and with Canada and Mexico that these agreements are often a lot less than is advertised. So,
they're not going to really do the kind of fundamental restructuring of the American manufacturing economy and the world trade system that Trump
appears to want, but that would be one way out.
But now, we have this brewing massive showdown with China that would end up being, I think, if it goes ahead, one of the pivotal moments in U.S.-China
relations over the last 50 years, that started with an attempt to bring China into the global trading system. And now, it looks like degenerating
into hostility, direct trade wars between two 21st century superpowers.
So, I think the stakes here are very high. There clearly are people in the administration like Scott Bessent, the finance secretary -- the treasury
secretary who believe that there should be a way out of this through deals, and that could be something that the administration could tout as a
success.
But Trump has believed in tariffs since the late 1980s in his career as a businessman. He seems completely adamant that the World Trade System must
be tilted towards the U.S. and the U.S. might -- must prevail, America first he said in that Oval Office press conference yesterday.
So, while there are influences in the administration that appear to be want to tone this down a little, the power is with the president, and he appears
to believe that he's all powerful in his second term. There's nothing that can stop him. And in many ways, he's carrying out all of the things he
wanted to do in his first term, but felt he was constrained.
So, the impact, I think, on the U.S. economy, on rising prices for consumers, on the possibility that all this could tip America and the world
into recession is very serious. So, as I said, it's very difficult to see how this ends in a way that does not do considerable more damage. And it
doesn't look like this thing is just going to be, you know, a few weeks and then we all move on to the next crisis that's precipitated by Trump. This
looks like it's going to be locked in for some time.
MACFARLANE: And you mentioned -- I mean, you say, Stephen, that President Trump in this moment appears to be all powerful, but there -- we are seeing
or beginning to see sort of some serious pushback coming from within the Republican Party. We know that seven Republican senators have put their
names forward on this -- by passing Trade Review Act 2025.
[10:15:00]
I mean, it's all kind of symbolic, right? We know President Trump is likely to veto that. But do you expect we're going to see more Republicans join
that movement? How significant is that as an indication that he perhaps doesn't have, you know, consistent support in this moment?
COLLINSON: I think it's a sign that some people in the Republican Party are starting to think about the political implications of all this. The
midterm elections for Congress are next year and all of that is going to start working through in the coming months from the summer onwards, I
think.
It is unusual for any Republican lawmakers to break with the president, such as his control over the party and popularity with the Trump base. But
I think you are going to see perhaps, for example, lawmakers whose seats are considered vulnerable lawmakers more to the center in states like New
York and California. They're going to start getting a bit concerned about this. We're waiting for a hearing to start with the U.S. trade
representative, Jamieson Greer, in the Senate.
I think in that hearing, you're likely to hear mild expressions of concern from senior senators about the political impact, about what is the strategy
for the Trump administration here?
Right now, it doesn't look like that bill you were mentioning is going to be brought up in the Senate. One reason why is because Trump's support in
the House is so extensive that it's not going to get a hearing there. But it certainly is something to watch in the coming months as we work through
price increases, global disruption, and look at how it's hurt Trump's credibility personally and is impacting the political fortunes of his
party.
MACFARLANE: Yes, and we are expecting that Senate Finance Committee meeting at some point this hour. We'll continue to keep an eye out and see
how Jamieson Greer fears. Stephen, always great to have your analysis. Thank you so much.
Trump's top trade representative will testify in front of the Senate Finance Committee, as we've been saying in a few minutes, and we're keeping
an eye on that.
Still to come though, high-level nuclear talks between the United States and Iran. We'll have the latest.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MACFARLANE: We want to take you now to Capitol Hill where the Senate Finance Committee is hearing testimony from Donald Trump's trade
representative on the U.S. president's trade war. Let's listen in.
JAMIESON GREER, UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE: Our agricultural trade balance, which historically resulted in trade surpluses for our farmers was
in deficit the last two years of the Biden administration and likely will take some time to recover. These are all serious indicators of an economic
and national security emergency, and we can't ignore it.
One important driver of these negative trends has been unfair, unbalanced, and non-reciprocal trade. This includes the effect of higher tariffs
imposed by other countries on the United States. The effect of non-tariff measures that promote other countries exports and obstruct U.S. exports and
other foreign economic policies favoring overproduction, degrading America's manufacturing capacity. And the lack of reciprocity is an
important driver of our global trade deficit and with particular countries. So, it's common sense to focus on these indicators.
[10:20:00]
For example, the European Union can sell us all the shellfish they want, but the E.U. bans shellfish from 48 states. The result is a trade deficit
in shellfish with the E.U. We only charge a 2.5 percent tariff on ethanol, but Brazil charges us an 18 percent tariff. The result, we have a large
trade deficit ethanol with Brazil.
Our average tariff on agricultural goods is 5 percent, but India's average tariff is 39 percent. You understand the trend here. Our trade deficit
driven by these non-reciprocal conditions is a manifestation of the loss of the nation's ability to make, to grow, to build. And the president
recognizes the urgency of the moment.
On the first day of a second term, President Trump issued a comprehensive memorandum setting out his trade policy directive. And over the past 10
weeks, he has executed on nearly all of these priorities. He has tightened tariffs on steel and aluminum, he's imposed new measures on auto and auto
parts not made in the United States. And on April 2nd, the president declared the national emergency that we've discussed.
And so, the president has imposed a reciprocal tariff along with a global baseline tariff to achieve reciprocity with other countries and to drive
the dangerous deficit down. And the present strategy is already bearing fruit. Over the past few weeks, a planned layoff for an auto production
shift in Tennessee's been suspended. Another automaker is hiring additional employees and expanding overtime to increase auto production in Indiana.
Companies have announced $4 trillion in new investment in the United States. Nearly 50 countries have approached me personally to discuss the
president's new policy and explore how to achieve reciprocity, and they've spoken with many members of the administration.
Several of these countries such as Argentina, Vietnam, India, and Israel have suggested that they will reduce their tariffs and non-tariff barriers
in line with the president's policy. And these obviously are welcome moves.
Our large and persistent trade deficit has been over 30 years in the making, and it will not be resolved overnight. But all of this is in the
right direction, particularly as we start to negotiate with these countries. We must move away from an economy that's based solely on
government spending in the financial sector. And we must become an economy based on producing real goods and services that provide jobs for working
class and middle-class Americans in their communities. This adjustment may be challenging at times. And in a moment of drastic overdue change, I'm
confident, I'm certain that the American people can rise to the challenges they've done before.
I appreciate this committee's interest in President Trump's trade agenda. I'm glad we're talking about this. That's created debate. And we may not
agree on everything, but I know that you want to do what's best for America, so does the President, and so do I, and we'll collaborate together
on this. Thank you again for your time and I look forward to our conversation.
SEN. MIKE CRAPO (R-ID), U.S. SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE CHAIR: Thank you, ambassador. Yesterday, Secretary Bessent stated that you and he both will
lead trade negotiations with Japan. I am very pleased that President Trump has decided to press for market access in this case. I hope we'll see more
negotiations that press for zero-to-zero barriers. But could you explain a little bit what is the scope of these negotiations?
GREER: Certainly. Thank you, Chairman. So, as you know, yesterday, the president directed Secretary Bessent and myself to interact with the
Japanese. We've already been having several conversations with them over past weeks. So, this is not a new development, but we are taking it to a
new level.
Obviously, we want to have more market access in Japan. For us, we feel like we could have more and better agricultural market access. There are
also structural impediments to some of our industrial goods in terms of standards and regulations and that kind of thing. I also think that there
are things we can do with our trading partners, things that aren't always purely in the trade sector with respect to economic security, whether it's
export controls, alignment or investment screening, alignment or energy, making sure that our partners are tied up with us with respect to liquified
natural gas and other resources as opposed to being dependent on other countries that may not be as friendly. And so, I think all of these factors
will go into these discussions with Japan in the coming weeks.
CRAPO: Well, thank you. And as you indicated in your testimony, you've been approached -- the administration or you have been approached by about
50 other countries already. I assume that the objective in the -- in these approaches, and I assume that there will be discussions and negotiations
with them. But first, could you verify that, is the objective here to engage in market access negotiations with these countries?
GREER: Chairman, as these countries approach us, the idea is that we've had years and years of non-reciprocal access and it's contributed to these
trade deficits. As the country's come to approach us, what we've told them is, if you have a better idea to achieve reciprocity and to get our trade
deficit down, we want to talk to you, we want to negotiate with you.
[10:25:00]
And it goes both ways. Sometimes they have exports to us that are driven by subsidies and unfair trading practices. And then, obviously, they have non-
reciprocal treatment on their end where they block our exports, sometimes through prohibitive tariffs, quotas that are not administered in the
appropriate way or other unfair trading practices. So, these are the kinds of things that should be targeted.
And I don't want to prejudge the negotiations, but if they're able to provide an alternative plan that can further these objectives, I think
we're open to that.
CRAPO: Well, thank you. The America First Trade Policy Memorandum rightly tasked the USTR to review China's compliance with the phase one agreement.
Under the agreement, China is obligated to purchase more U.S. goods and change basic practices and laws, the so-called structural commitments. The
prior administration refused to discuss whether China complied with its structural commitments. And by the way, these were commitments made in
response to tariffs in President Trump's first presidency, correct?
GREER: That's right.
CRAPO: What is your analysis of China's compliance with the structural commitments that it made in phase one so far?
GREER: Our assessment, Chairman, is that in the initial stages of implementing the agreement China made significant movement to make these
structural changes, whether it was with respect to agricultural rules, financial services, or IP.
We found during the Biden administration there was little enforcement and little communication, and that the Chinese did not comply with this
agreement in large part. I've had a call with my counterpart. I've communicated to him our feeling on this, that they have not complied with
the agreement. And I think we're disappointed by this. It's not surprising. But we are certainly disappointed by that.
CRAPO: And now, you're engaged to, again, see if we can get compliance?
GREER: We will see, right. The Chinese obviously have agency in this. It's not just a matter of U.S. policy. We, of course, welcome and we hope that
foreign countries will change their practices to make sure that they're fair. And we look forward to continuing to monitor that situation.
CRAPO: Thank you. The administration has announced it is negotiating an agreement also with India, and it appears already to be yielding results.
Such as India dropping its digital services tax. Although India has high tariffs, its non-tariff barriers are just as significant, if not more so.
Will you try to include commitments on matters such as intellectual property, technical barriers to trade and science-based agricultural rules
to take on those barriers?
GREER: Yes, and I have a standing call with my Indian counterpart to address these very issues.
CRAPO: All right. Thank you. Senator Wyden.
SEN. RON WYDEN (D-OR): Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I saw at page four of your testimony, Mr. Greer, you said the president's
strategy is already bearing fruit. Well, I can tell you for a lot of Oregonians who have 401(k)s that are being drained out, that's pretty
rotten stuff, and you ought to realize how serious this is for the country.
Now, everybody in the administration practically has a different story about the Trump tax hike. So, I'm interested in knowing what the story is
today. Will higher tariffs go into effect tomorrow as announced?
GREER: Senator, yes, they're scheduled to go into effect. We are having negotiations with all kinds of countries at this time. The president is
fixed in his purpose. The nature of the emergency that I discussed earlier is not something we can wait on anymore. So, we'll -- we will have the
president's plan go into effect, and we're coupling that with immediate negotiations with our partners as they seek to --
WYDEN: So, it's not a question of something being scheduled, you're committing this morning that they're going to go into effect?
GREER: The -- this is what the president has said, Senator. Yes.
WYDEN: For how many countries? I understand it's over 50?
GREER: That are negotiating with us?
WYDEN: Yes.
GREER: We have about 50 that have come to speak with us, and we have -- I'm constantly talking to my counterparts. I have staff right now at USTR
meeting with others, and we will have the tariffs in place. And if the other countries can come to an agreement on reciprocal trade, then that's
something that the president can consider. I don't want to prejudge the negotiations or the president's decision, but that's what we're doing.
WYDEN: Now, you've said you've been negotiating deals. Foreign countries have already retaliated against our farmers and ranchers and small
businesses. How can you commit that negotiations are not just going to stop bleeding, but are actually going to open up markets that the Trump tariffs
have closed off?
GREER: So, Senator, we've already had many countries -- many of our markets explain that they are not going to retaliate against the United
States. And in fact, Vietnam for example, they've lowered their tariffs already on cherries, they've lowered them on almonds and apples. Things I
know are important to the Pacific Northwest. And this is exactly the right direction that we want to go in. I look forward to hearing from you what
other kind of market access you want as we turn these negotiations.
[10:30:00]
WYDEN: Well, what's the status of China? As you know, that's a big market for us in the Pacific Northwest. What's the status of discussions there? I
don't see much progress. What I see is it looks like it's going to escalate and escalate some more and hurt our consumers and our small businesses in
our part of the world.
GREER: Well, Senator, unfortunately, China, for many years, seems to be choosing its own path on market access. Again, they have agency in this.
They elected to announce retaliation. Other countries did not. Other countries signaled that they'd like to find a path forward on reciprocity.
China has not said that. And we will see where that goes.
I think we need to work with our closest friends to make sure that we have trading arrangements that work. And if the Chinese are open, you know,
we'll see what -- but they haven't signaled that at all. So, I don't think that's the -- I don't think that's in the very near term with China.
WYDEN: I just am concerned that there's no strategy at all. I'm committed we understand in the Pacific Northwest what the stakes are, to have a
smart, tough strategy. I don't see any strategy at all, and you really haven't said much about what the strategy is this morning.
GREER: Senator, I appreciate your concern. I want to keep having a conversation with you about this, but I see a distinct difference between
those countries who have come to us and they said, we understand your issues, we understand the deficit, we understand your desire for
reciprocity, and we want to work with you on this. And the Chinese approach, which has been, we're going to retaliate.
We're trying to remedy a situation. We're trying to remedy a situation that's persisted for many years. And it would be wonderful if the Chinese
agreed with that and wanted to persist in -- you know, work with us on that, but that's not where they are. And the president has recognized this
and he wants to focus on other partners.
WYDEN: Let's talk before my time is up about services. The United States is a service powerhouse from travel and technology to finance and media.
Our services industry account for nearly 80 percent of the U.S. GDP at eight out of 10 American jobs. Other countries are responding to Trump's
global tariffs by retaliating against American services. Can you explain how your tariff actions aren't putting our services exports at risk like so
much of your trade policy?
GREER: Senator, and Chairman Crapo mentioned this, we had India already pull down a digital advertising tax that affected some of our most
competitive tech companies. We're already in conversations with other countries that if they want to have reciprocal trade with us, that's
something that we need to consider as well. And we expect them not to discriminate against our services companies.
We have some of the most competitive in the world, I agree with you. And to me that's part of this calculation.
WYDEN: I wrapped up with the services question because it seems to me it's classic Donald Trump really good at talking about problems, even saying
that there is some reason to go forward identifying a problem, but pretty damn bad at fixing them. And there's going to be a whole lot of collateral
damage in the process if you all continue with these trade policies and services and in other areas.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CRAPO: Thank you. Senator Cornyn.
SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R-TX): Ambassador Greer, thank you for being here today. I know there's been a lot of discussion about tariffs, but would you just
briefly discuss non-tariff barriers to trade? In other words, the barriers that countries put up to deny market access from U.S. exports into those
countries that aren't tariffs, per se.
GREER: Yes. Thank you, Senator. I have here in my hand a book that's become very popular in recent days. This is the National Trade Estimate on
Foreign Trade Barriers. And the Office of the United States Trade Representative puts this together with input from, you know, civil society,
unions, industry, business, small business. And this is 400 pages of all the non-tariff barriers that you're talking about.
You know, just a few examples. You know, in India, you know, huge trading partner, they restrict the. imports of ethanol for fuel use by using
restrictive import licenses. These are the types of border measures that don't sound very sexy to talk about and they don't make for a great
soundbite, but these are the things that actually block our exports where they have licensing regimes or they have fake signs that these to block our
imports.
CORNYN: Just one example that seems to me to make the point is that our friends in Australia basically have put up barriers to the export of beef
from the United States. My state, Texas, happens to produce a lot of beef cattle and Australia basically denies access to its huge market, but not as
a result of tariffs so much as non-tariff barriers to trade. Could you speak to that?
[10:35:00]
GREER: Yes, Senator. And it's always surprising because we have a free trade agreement with Australia and we would expect that we would have fair
and reciprocal trade. Last year, I think we imported about $3 billion worth of Australian beef and we exported zero dollars of American beef to
Australia. And it's not just beef. Australia also blocks on species, you know, fake science grounds, the export of fresh and frozen U.S. pork. So,
it's incredible that they do this. We have zero exports of the fresh and frozen U.S. pork to Australia.
CORNYN: I find it interesting that people express surprise at President Trump's policies, when he's been talking about these policies, for -- best
I can tell, for decades and how unfair trading arrangements are between various countries. And indeed, some of these unfair trading practices have
resulted in the de-industrialization of America. We've exported manufacturing to Asia and other -- particularly China and other countries
that now appear to be willing to hold us hostage to those supply chains.
A few years ago, we passed the Chips and Science Act. We worked with Secretary Pompeo, Secretary Ross during President Trump's first
administration, and later was signed by President Biden. But to bring advanced semiconductor manufacturing back on shore because we recognized
that the vulnerability that existed if there was another pandemic, there's a natural disaster, or heaven forbid, a military conflict breakout in Asia,
we wouldn't have access to these advanced semiconductors that run everything from your cell phone to the avionics on an F-35 joint strike
fighter.
But China has basically held us hostage and continues to use some of these vulnerabilities to our detriment, for example critical mineral processing.
Would you speak to the vulnerability that exists as a result of China basically processing 90 percent of the critical minerals in the world that
are essential for our daily lives?
GREER: Yes, Senator. And that figure is always one that gives me great concern. The 90 percent of the processing. We do have critical minerals in
the United States. We have lithium here. We have other critical minerals here, and a lot of it is that China has centralized the processing of
minerals, right? We have, in the western hemisphere, in Bolivia and Chile, we have all kinds of critical minerals, and that's in our hemisphere, but
they get sent to China, they're processed and they come here. And then if China wants to exercise economic coercion or other practices, they do have
a stranglehold on these kinds of things. That's a very dangerous situation to be in. I mean, this is part of the urgency of what we're talking about.
And I think as the Trump administration certainly takes action on trade, but also takes action on the environmental side and permitting and
regulation, that's an area where we can actually have more of that activity here in the United States, or we can work with our trading partners to try
to incentivize production there as well.
CORNYN: Thank you very much.
CRAPO: Thank you. Senator Bennet.
SEN. MICHAEL BENNET (D-CO): Chair -- thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ambassador, it's good to see you again. Could you talk a little bit about the
relationship of the tariffs that you have put on, and rising prices for the American people? What is it the American people should expect to be able to
suffer as a result in terms of rising prices? I understand your position is that the long-term gain is worth the short-term pain, but what is that
short-term pain going to look like?
GREER: So, Senator, I think we can look at -- I think we should look at history and data for this. You know, it's hard to project what's going to
happen with prices, but we know in the first term -- first Trump term that the president imposed historic tariffs on China on an enormous amount of
goods coming from China. And during that time, inflation went down by 0.1 percent.
During the Biden administration, the historic inflation was not on imported goods or related to tariffs that President Biden put in place, it was
related to, frankly, services, healthcare, education, et cetera. So, I think there's not really a one-to-one on tariffs and price effects and so
many things go into price.
I know you think I'm probably like dodging and weaving on this, but --
BENNET: Well, I --
GREER: -- but I'm looking at data, sir.
BENNET: Yes.
GREER: And data says it's not what you want.
BENNET: But I know you're smart enough to know that the likelihood is that prices are going to go up for the American people as a result of the
tariffs that you put in place. Do you disagree with that?
GREER: Oh, I think it's --
BENNET: I mean, when you say that the American -- in your testimony that you expect the American people will bear the burden or that -- and I'm sure
they will bear any burden on some level. But what do you think the -- what do you think that burden is actually going to look like?
GREER: Well, I think the challenges, frankly, are going to be more for companies that are largely dependent on imports from China and Asia where
they have to adjust their supply chains in a quick set of time. And the way the tariffs get allocated between the foreign -- you know, the foreign
producer and the importer. That's where the majority of adjustment comes.
[10:40:00]
BENNET: And we have a bunch of those companies in Colorado, and I know that Osprey Packs, for example, they probably don't want me to mention
them, but I will. And in Southwest Colorado would be a very good example of that. I mean, they're very dependent on the supply chain from Vietnam. And
they probably are really worried today about what's going to happen, which a lot of people are.
I mean, I think one of the things about the situation we find ourselves in is the degree to which we we've now created huge or uncertainty in our
economy, and I'm worried that that is going to result in a lack of investment, capital investment. You've mentioned some new investments that
have been made in our economy, but I think that anybody who knows anything about the economy knows that uncertainty results in people freezing up, a
paralysis, a lack of investment, which can make it hard for our economy and may actually provoke a recession.
Could you comment on your concerns about that and how you're thinking about that? And I have one more question before I'm out of time.
GREER: So, Senator, the best way to have certainty is to build in the United States, right. That's the best way to have certainty.
BENNET: But that's going to take a long, long time. And what's going to happen in the meantime, do you think?
GREER: So, Senator, we have, I would say, dillydallied for years on this issue. We've done these, you know, broad studies, which are interesting and
helpful that we saw come out of the Biden administration. But we have to act. We -- I can't sit for three years and try to find something --
BENNET: I hear you. But you could have made a different choice, which was to strategically target a geography, which strategically target Beijing,
strategically target certain industries that were -- you know, all industries in America weren't affected at the same time. You didn't make
that choice.
I mean, you're in the midst of having trade negotiations with 90 different countries at the same time, by your own testimony, all of whom can make
their assessment, I assume, these are sophisticated people, about where the pressure points are on you, where the pressure points are going to come for
us to not necessarily get the best deal because we're spread all over the globe, negotiating every one of these agreements at the same time, rather
than a more strategic approach, which would've had the benefit of giving us I think a much greater degree of certainty about where we were headed.
Obviously, you made a different choice. And I'm just curious about how you think about your responsibility -- how you think about that.
GREER: So, I would note -- and I think it's thoughtful to think about things in this way. If you look at the results of the reciprocal tariff,
the Western Hemisphere generally is at the lowest tariff rate. If you look at where we have our largest problems with non-reciprocity in deficit
countries, it's mostly in Asia. And so, you do actually see pretty strategic outcome with respect to promoting production in the Western
Hemisphere as opposed to where we have all this overproduction in Asia that's given rise to our current problems on trade.
BENNET: I would just say in closing, Mr. Chairman, that's true, what the ambassador said is true, but it still doesn't -- I still cannot fathom why
we are treating Canada and Mexico, our largest trading partners, basically the same way we're treating Beijing. It doesn't make any sense to me. It
makes no sense that we would do it all at the same time like that and we're going to have to stay on it, which is why some of us have introduced
legislation to make sure that Congress begins to take its appropriate role again in making these very important trade decisions. Thank you for your
testimony.
CRAPO: Thank you. Senator Langford.
SEN. JAMES LANKFORD (R-OK): Mr. Chairman, thank you. Thank you --
MACFARLANE: You have been listening there to U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer testifying in front of the Senate Finance Committee being
challenged, frankly, on the targeting and implementation of Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs and the cost this is all going to have to the U.S. people,
to U.S. consumers.
I want to bring in Stephen Collinson, who is in Washington, Anna Stewart, who is watching from London. And as expected, Anna, the bulk -- a large
contingent of those questions directed about the China tariffs, the effect all of this is going to have and concern that there doesn't appear to be
any real strategy in this escalating trade war with China.
A. STEWART: And bringing it very much home to all of the states that we saw the senators representing, what it will mean for their businesses
sectors in their states. And some huge concerns. China was mentioned, but also the overall strategy. Was it right? We were hearing from the last
senator, was it right to decide that you're going to open up this and negotiate with all countries all at the same time, rather than take a
strategic approach?
[10:45:00]
Is it right to be treating Canada and Mexico, your neighbors, your allies, the same as you were treating Beijing? So, some real tough questions. But
of course, what we had and what we were expecting was a strong defense for Jamieson Greer, defending why they're doing this, saying this is an
emergency. They couldn't wait another moment. And frankly, they've been pushed into developing this tariff strategy.
MACFARLANE: Yes. Defense from Jamieson Greer, but was it effective, Stephen Collinson, from what you were hearing in that defense? I mean, not
only was he challenged on the effect that all of these tariffs will happen at one time, but the premise that companies relocating to the U.S. is
actually a good idea and the fact that will take a very long time, the timeframe on this?
COLLINSON: Yes, the -- it was kind of an interesting hearing because that was the kind of hearing you could have heard at any time in any
administration. It was civil. It was getting in depth on trade issues. It was a complete contrast to the volatile, hysterical, angry, intimidatory
approach that President Trump brings to these issues. And I think it really shows how countries that come to negotiate with the United States in good
faith may well have a problem, because you can negotiate with Jamieson Greer, a straight up trade negotiator, and then anything that gets
accomplished could then be undone by the president.
What was also interesting there as well is we saw the full scope of what the U.S. is trying to do. It's not just trying to get trade barriers lifted
tariffs, it wants a complete lifting of all non-trade barriers and other issues. He was, for example, talking about how Australia blocked some pork
imports from the United States on what he said was fake science. This is an issue with Europe as well because some of these countries do not want
American meat imports because they use hormones that are not allowed in the United States or Australia, for example.
So, the United States wants to get rid of all that, which is a much harder lift for politicians in other countries to be able to do with regard to
their own political situations. So, you can see the massive impediments to any deals, even if they do take place.
MACFARLANE: And just briefly, Anna, I mean, have we seen any market reaction? It didn't feel like there was any great revelation in what we've
heard so far.
A. STEWART: I think what investors would've hoped for was perhaps some sort of news about a delay or maybe further progress on negotiations, but
when asked, will these tariffs -- the reciprocal tariffs be implemented tomorrow, it certainly seems that way.
And also, I think the fact that, from Greer, what we heard was at the end of the day, the person will decide how negotiations are going, and with any
leeway is given is the U.S. president.
MACFARLANE: Is Donald Trump.
A. STEWART: So, no market reaction.
MACFARLANE: All right. Anna, Stephen, thank you both for now. And we're back after this quick break. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[10:50:00]
MACFARLANE: Well, as President Trump announced the talks with Iran on Monday during that Oval Office appearance with Benjamin Netanyahu, and CNN
has learned that White House Middle East Envoy, Steve Witkoff, will lead the U.S. side of those discussions, which Mr. Trump claims are already
underway. But the Iranian foreign minister says they're set to take place Saturday and will be mediated by Oman.
Well, last hour I spoke with Mohammad Ali Shabani, editor of Amwaj Media, about what's at stake if they fail.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MOHAMMAD ALI SHABANI, EDITOR, AMWAJ MEDIA: I think a military option has always been on table for success of U.S. administrations. Looking at -- I
think we need to look at the substance of these negotiations rather than to go into discussion about whether they're direct or indirect or which
country's going to host them. What's the substance?
If we're talking about a Libya style dismantlement of Iran nuclear program as the U.S. objective, that's probably a non-starter for Tehran. And what
we're going to see this summer is going to be rising tension, potentially a military confrontation.
If we're talking about what Witkoff has explicitly stated as a verification program, to make sure that Iran's nuclear activities are not diverted
towards weapons, towards nuclear weapons, then we may have a deal on the table. So, I think we're just going to have to wait and see this week. And
what comes out of those talks.
MACFARLANE: I mean, like you say, it's very unlikely that Iran will agree to any sort of dismantling of their nuclear capabilities. So, what is in it
for them? They are under great economic pressure, diplomat -- domestically at home. What did they want to get out of this?
ALI SHABANI: Iran has long wanted sanctions relief, and it has proven itself, as in in 2015 nuclear deal, which Trump left in 2018, that it is
willing to cap its capabilities, it's willing to cap the level of enrichment, the type of centrifuges it uses to enrich uranium and also the
stockpile of uranium. I think if there's a verification program in place to make sure that these capabilities are capped, and if we have stringent
supervision by the IEEA, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, there is a deal to be had, perhaps not that different from Obama's nuclear deal. Maybe Trump
wants to call it the Trump nuclear deal.
But I think end of the day, if we have verification instead of dismantlement, there's a real prospect for peace ahead.
MACFARLANE: And this is important with, you know, the JCPOA agreement as it stands, extinguishing in like October of this year. So, you're saying
that perhaps we could see a framework put in place that isn't that far removed from, you know, the sanctions that were previously put on Iran.
ALI SHABANI: We've seen a similar pattern with, for instance, NAFTA and the U.S., Mexico, United States, Canada deal, a trade deal where Trump
takes preexisting deals, repackages them, adds a few components and calls it his own, which is not a huge problem.
I think if you look at the JCPOA, if you look at the pillars of it, which is about capping capabilities, supervising activities, if you, for
instance, take these timelines that exist in JCPOA, which are supposed to be expiring soon and you add a couple of years on them, that could be one
way forward.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACFARLANE: And our thanks to Mohammad for that. And we'll be right back after this quick break. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MACFARLANE: Now, winter is coming was the iconic star catch plays in "Game of Thrones," just as iconic as their dire wolves.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm sorry, Brad.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Lord Stark. There are five pups. One for each of the Stark children. The dire wolf is a sigil of your house. They were meant to
have them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[10:55:00]
MACFARLANE: The inspiration for the fearsome animals was a wolf species, which died over 12,000 years ago. But thanks to ancient DNA and modern
technology has been resurrected.
So, sweet. Meet Romulus and Remus, who were brought back to life in 2024 by Dallas-based biotech company, Colossal Biosciences. The scientists use
cloning and gene editing technology to alter the genes of the gray wolf. And as a result, it's a hybrid species as close as possible to the
original. The two are now three after a female pup was born in January 2025, and her name Khaleesi, a nod to the famous Queen Daenerys Targaryen.
The company Colossal are also working to resurrect the mammoth and the Tasmanian tiger. Maybe they should have a try at dragons too. A nice note
to end on that Connect the World. Stay with us on CNN. One World is up after this quick break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[11:00:00]
END
