PBS News Hour - Full Show - August 21, 2025 – PBS News Hour full episode

Episode Date: August 21, 2025

Thursday on the News Hour, an appeals court throws out President Trump's half-billion-dollar fine in his civil fraud case. The director of national intelligence slashes her agency's workforce and budget, including an office to track election interference. Plus, we sit down with Canada's foreign minister to discuss tariffs and the uncertain future of U.S. relations. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

Good evening. I'm Jeff Penn. And I'm Omna Nawaz on the news hour tonight. An appeals court throws out President Trump's half billion dollar fine in his civil fraud case. The director of national intelligence slashes her agency's workforce and budget, including an office to track election interference. And we sit down with Canada's foreign minister to discuss tariffs and the uncertain future of U.S. relations. The question of how a security guarantee

or guarantees will be implemented needs to be fleshed out. Welcome to the NewsHour. A New York Appeals Court today dismissed a $500 million civil fraud penalty against President Donald Trump and his companies for overvaluing their properties and financial statements. In the ruling, the judges upheld the fraud judgment but said, quote, the half a billion dollars to the state of New York is an excessive fine that violates the Eighth Amendment

of the United States Constitution. The case centers on allegations that Mr. Trump misled banks and insurers by inflating or deflating the value of his assets when it suited him and exaggerated his net worth by billions of dollars. State Attorney General, Leticia James, says she plans to appeal the ruling for more on the impact of the decision. I spoke earlier with former federal prosecutor Jessica Roth, currently a professor at Cordozo School of Law. Jessica Roth, thanks for being with us. We appreciate it. It's my pleasure. So this was a lengthy ruling, more than 300 pages. What were the main points of contention among the judges and how did their differing opinions shape the outcome?

Yeah, so this was a complicated split decision. As you noted, it's over 300 pages. And we have three opinions and the reasoning of the judges divided two, two, and one. There was one point of commonality among all the justices, and that was that the trial court's order could not stand as it was written. But beyond there, we had disagreement among the justices. The effect of the decision of the appellate division today is to affirm the judgment, right, the verdict against Trump, his sons, their business associates, and their businesses, finding them liable. under New York's civil fraud law of engaging in persistent fraud. Two of the justices thought that actually that finding was supported by the record

and was appropriate under the law. Two other justices thought that the record was problematic and that there were errors in the conduct of the trial and would have sent the case back to the trial court for a new trial. But those two additional judges who thought there were problems in the trial decided to sign on to the judgment of the first two judge justices in order to get the case up to the New York Court of Appeals, the highest court of New York, for a final decision.

And the effect of those two justices joining essentially in the decision of the first two justices is that we now have a majority effectively affirming the verdict of liability against Trump and the other defendants. Okay. So if the appeals court upheld Trump's liability for fraud, Why did it still decide to void the nearly half billion dollar penalty? Because in theory, fines deter wrongdoing by imposing financial consequences that outweigh the potential gains. And that was the point of imposing this $500 million fine in the first place on the Trump organization. So even the two justices who would have affirmed the finding of liability based on the record here thought that the penalty imposed by the trial court was excessive and that, in fact, it violated

the U.S. and New York State Constitution's protections against excessive fines. They said that it was just vastly disproportionate to any harm caused by the defendants. So although they would affirm the finding of liability that there was a pattern of fraud, they thought that the remedy for that in terms of the amount of the penalty or disgorgement of profits, that that or ill-gotten gains as articulated by the trial court, that that was just vastly excessive so much so that it was unconstitutional. But notably, the justices who were prepared to affirm the finding of liability said that the other remedies imposed by the trial court that were injunctive in nature, barring the defendants from holding corporate offices, from making applications to borrow

funds, for example, and also imposing a monitor, an independent monitor on the businesses, that those could be affirmed. So the financial penalties, the disgorgement they thought was excessive, but the other injunctive relief, they said, was actually appropriately tailored to address the findings of misconduct and to curb potential wrongdoing in the future. Well, we are all certainly getting a legal education today as a result of all this. The president crowed about this ruling in a post on his social media site, calling it a total victory. Is that how you see it? I don't see it as a total victory for the president because, as I said, the effect of the ruling is to affirm the finding of liability.

And two of the justices were prepared to say and did say in their opinion, they thought that the factual record strongly supported the finding of persistent fraud by the president, his sons, his associates, and his business. So I don't think it is a total victory for the president. He's still going to have to go to the New York Court of Appeals to get that finding of liability overturned if that is the eventual outcome in this case. So not a total victory for the president. But that said, I would say it's a significant loss for the Attorney General. And as we mentioned, the Attorney General Letitia James says she will appeal the ruling. At the same time, President Trump's Justice Department has launched multiple investigations into her, part of a broader pattern of retribution against his perceived political enemies. What are the implications of that dynamic and how might it affect the likelihood of her appeal succeeding? That's very hard to say how all of those factors were way into the Court of Appeals deliberations on this appeal. I mean, they're going to be looking at the record here of what happened below and should not be taking into account sort of the political machinations on either side, sort of outside of what transpired in the courtroom.

That said, sort of the politics of this actually made its way into the opinions here to a certain extent. A number of the justices had some choice words about statements by the attorney general when she was running for office, effectively sort of pledging to. take on Trump and investigate him and suggesting that those were unwise words and sort of injected a certain amount of concern into the case, but not to the point, at least according to most of the justices, that that would be an independent reason and for setting aside the verdict. But that's certainly a dynamic sort of atmospherically, if not legally in the case as it goes forward. Well, in a separate matter, Jessica, a federal judge today said that President Trump

Trump's former personal lawyer, Alina Haba, is not legally serving as the acting U.S. attorney for New Jersey. So as best as we know, what happens now? Well, now that's going to go up on appeal as well. That is something on which the Third Circuit for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which has jurisdiction over New Jersey, is going to weigh in on. And they will make a determination about whether the trial court is correct that legally Ms. Haba is not authorized to serve as the U.S. attorney. And then I wouldn't be surprised if that went to the Third Circuit in Bonk after our panel rules and eventually up to the United States Supreme Court. And New Jersey is not the only jurisdiction in which we have seen

the president engage in these are machinations to make sure that his hand-chosen individuals and appointees serve in these functions when they have not been accepted by the United States Senate or by the judges of the district. Jessica Roth, former federal prosecutor and professor at Cardozo Law. Thanks again for being with us. We appreciate it. It's my pleasure. We start the day's headlines with the latest show of federal force on the streets of Washington, D.C., this time from President Trump, himself. We're not playing games. We're going to make it safe. The commander-in-chief met with law enforcement

and National Guard troops this afternoon, thanking them for their efforts patrolling the nation's capital. Trump claims that the city is overrun with crime. His administration launched a federal response in the Democratic-led city last week. That's led to hundreds of federal agents and National Guard soldiers on the streets. That is despite statistics that show that crime is largely down in the city. Turning to the Middle East, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said today that Israel will rejoin talks with Hamas to release all hostages from Gaza and end the war. Meeting today with army officers and cabinet ministers near the border with Gaza, Netanyahu

also said he would finalize plans to take over Gaza City. The Israeli military has begun urging evacuations of the area and has called up tens of thousands of reservists. Meantime, in Tel Aviv, thousands of protesters rallied to support the families of the hostages and push for an end to the war. Such protests have become more frequent amid growing frustration over the handling of the war. While in Gaza today, hospital officials say Israeli strikes killed at least 36 Palestinians across the territory. Russia launched a a rare attack on Western Ukraine overnight, adding further uncertainty to recent efforts at ending

the conflict. The barrage of more than 600 drones and missiles was one of the biggest of the war, striking a U.S.-owned electronics plant, among other targets. At least one person was killed and 15 others injured. Today, Russian President Vladimir Putin and his foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, met with top Indian officials. Speaking to reporters afterwards, Lavrov once again insisted that Russia play a role in any security guarantees for Ukraine. The aim, pursued by the so-called Coalition of the Willing, is to shift focus from elimination of the root causes of the conflict and achieving a sustainable settlement,

to providing security guarantees for Ukraine without participation of the Russian Federation. This is so obvious to everyone that I do hope this plot, this adventure, will fail. For his part, Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky said Russia's overnight attacks are just the latest sign that Moscow is trying to avoid peace talks. U.S. and European officials released a rough outline today of the trade agreement they informally struck last month, though some details remain unfinished. According to a joint statement, the U.S. will maintain its 15 percent tariffs on most goods arriving from EU member countries. However, the rate for autos will stay at 27.5 percent. pending further moves by Europe to lower tariffs on American goods. Both sides called the deal a first step that will be expanded over time.

The details laid out today are seen as a political commitment and are not legally binding. California state legislature is upping the ante in the growing national debate over redistricting. Lawmakers in Sacramento are moving closer to passing a new congressional map that aims to net five seats for Democrats in next year's midterm elections. The map is meant to counter the one passed by the Texas House yesterday, which would help Republicans win five seats. California Democrats say they feel obligated to push back, while Republicans insist the redistricting hurts voters. We don't want this fight, and we didn't choose this fight, but with our democracy on the line, we cannot and will not run away from this fight. You move forward, fighting fire with fire. What happens? You burn it all down.

And in this case, it affects our most fundamental American principle, representation. California's lawmakers don't have final say, though. If passed, it would go to voters in November for approval. That is not the case in Texas, where the state Senate is expected to approve its new map tonight, which Governor Greg Abbott would then sign. The Supreme Court is letting the Trump administration cut nearly $800 million in research funding from the National Institutes of Health. The cuts were part of a government push to rid such agencies of diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts, or DEI. Advocacy groups say the slashing of hundreds of NIH grants will, quote, hurt public health and human life.

The court was split five to four with Chief Justice John Roberts siding with the court's three liberal justices in wanting to keep the funds in place. Hurricane Aaron is slowly beginning to turn away from the U.S. East Coast, but not before lashing the shoreline with strong way to. and dangerous waves. The Category 2 storm is forecast to gradually weaken over the next couple of days as it moves away from the U.S. and Canada and turns farther out to sea. It has remained hundreds of miles offshore, but the massive hurricane has sent huge ocean swells and violent surf crashing into piers and spilling over dunes along North Carolina's outer banks. Meanwhile, officials further north in New York are warning people to avoid the water. The ocean is rough. We have waves that are expected to be between 10 and 15 feet, which are very large.

So that is why I would abundance of caution we will not allow people on the beach or in the water today. All beaches remain closed to swimming today in New York City and on Long Island. Many more have been shut from New Jersey to Maryland and Delaware. Even in Massachusetts, waves were expected to reach 10 feet with high surf advisories through Saturday. The State Department says it's reviewing the records of more than 55 million foreigners who hold valid U.S. visas for potential violations. According to the Associated Press, the department says it carries out, quote, continuous vetting with an eye towards overstays, criminal activities, and providing support to a terrorist organization. The meantime, the nation's immigrant population dropped for the first time in decades. According to the Pew Research Center, the foreign-born population fell by nearly 1.5 million between January and June.

Just under 52 million immigrants, the vast majority here legally live in the U.S. The decline follows an unprecedented spike in illegal immigration with a record 14 million people living in the U.S. in 2023. Public tours of the White House have reportedly been canceled for the foreseeable future due to President Trump's plans to be. build a ballroom on the grounds. The administration canceled tours scheduled for next month and is no longer taking bookings past September. That's according to multiple congressional offices who arrange such visits for constituents. An estimated half a million people take that tour each year. The White House says the $200 million ballroom project will begin next month, though no specific start time has been announced. Dawn Wall Street today, stocks slipped

ahead of a closely watched speech by Fed Chair Jerome Powell tomorrow. The Dow Jones Industrial Average gave back about 150 points. The NASDAQ fell around 70 points. The S&P 500 fell for a fifth straight session. And Dr. James Dobson has passed away at the age of 89. A therapist, presidential advisor, evangelical broadcast personality, and conservative activist, his public stances on contentious political issues won him fans and foes. Respondent Lisa Desjardin looks back on his life in public view.

Mr. President, you've had a busy day, haven't you? From the Oval Office to broadcast airwaves, James Dobson helped shepherd the rise of the modern religious right. You do not need anger to control children. He rose in the early 70s, a Ph.D. in child development, offering parenting advice, who soon founded the group Focus on the Family. That would grow into a media empire, a pioneering blend of politics, and religion, at its peak, reaching 220 million people around the globe each day.

Dobson lobbied both presidents and the public with his view of biblical and traditional family values. We receive here at Focus on the Family, something on the order of 200 to 250,000 letters and phone calls a month. So we have a feel for what's going on out there. And was especially strident when it came to abortion and gay marriage. They both attacked the family. both weaken the family, undermine it, and compromise it.

Dobson's views on LGBT-Q individuals were extreme, pushing gay conversion therapy, an idea debunked by medical professionals as harmful. He took those fights to the courts, co-founding the conservative legal organization that became the Alliance Defending Freedom. In 2004, President George W. Bush earned Dobson's first explicit endorsement, triggering a new era of influence with his listeners. I beg you to go to the polls on November the 8th. Please don't even think about sitting out this election.

Leading to his significant 2016 endorsement of Donald Trump, breaking with other evangelical leaders. James Dobson, great man, great guy. He told the Christian Broadcasting Network, I couldn't be more pleased with him. Now, he's not a perfect man, but I'm not either. Dobson is survived by his wife, children, and grandchildren. He was 89.

For the PBS NewsHour, I'm Lisa Desjardin. Still to come, on the News Hour, taking stock of housing in the U.S. as the president proposes cuts to rental assistance. Why the federal government is considering taking a stake in chipmaker Intel. This is the PBS. NewsHour from the David M. Rubinstein studio at WETA in Washington and in the west from the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism at Arizona State University. The Trump administration announced yesterday that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence

or ODNI would have its staff cut by 40 percent for a cost savings, they say, of more than $700 million a year. Telsie Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence, said, quote, Over the last 20 years, ODI has become bloated and inefficient, and the intelligence community is rife with abuse of power, unauthorized leaks of classified intelligence, and politicized weaponization of intelligence. The ODINI was created after the September 11th attacks to better coordinate the 17 separate intelligence agencies. To help explain the changes being made to the intelligence community, we turn now to Sue Gordon.

She had a decades-long career at the CIA and was the principal. deputy director of national intelligence at the ODNI from 2017 to 2019. Sue Gordon, welcome back to the news hour. So a 40% staff cut. What's your reaction to that? What kind of impact will that have? Well, one, thanks for having me. A great topic. When I looked at what's been released, I kind of had the reaction of there's some good, there's some bad, and there's some danger. So I think the good is any organization that's 20 years old, particularly a staff organization, you ought to look at it to make sure that it hasn't grown beyond what it was intended to do. So I think some of the things I see in there

are well-placed, just make sure that there is efficiently done and whether they still need to be done at the ODNI, now 20 years after its formation. I think what is potentially bad is, I see no definition of what the ODNI is going to do. Like, what's its mission? When it was first formed, it was really to do policy and oversight and to align the community. In the middle years, it was to integrate intelligence. So you had the best of all the agencies in the product. And in the years that I was there, we were trying to do more leadership using the budget to make sure that we could invest across the community in artificial intelligence and make a move to China. Well, what is this OD and I can be? And if you don't know what it's going to be, and you're going to cut it

by that much, you run the risk of damaging the foundation of what you're going to need to support policy. And the dangerous piece is, I'm pretty on the record here. I think the predicate for this, that the intelligence community has become malfeasant in some way or corrupt or abuse or politicized, I find that to be completely inconsistent with my 30 plus years of experience and more, some of the things they talk about of aligning it to a particular view of what the policy is, is antithetical to intelligence and the dangerous piece is, you actually make it worse. Well, let me ask you a little bit more about that because one of the core justifications that Director Gabbard laid out was what she says, this effort to return to ODNI's core mission.

She put it to provide objective and unbiased intelligence to the president. She cited specifically the weaponization of intelligence. And she also referenced the intelligence community's assessment that Russia interfered in the 2016 election with the goal of trying to help then candidate Trump win, which Gabbard says was false. So what's your reaction to that? Well, I think that's a statement being made by this administration that supports a view that they'd like to have. I think this has been reviewed over and over. the assessment itself has been validated not only by DCIA Ratcliffe's own re-look at that assessment

that though it did find some tradecraft issues, it did say that the conclusions that Russian intended to influence our election was valid. Then the Senate Select Committee United Intelligence on which Marco Rubio said had an extensive view that again validated it. The Durham report validated it. And so I just think that the information that the administration is putting out to try and counter it, and far worse, the actions they're taking against some really talented officer in that name is dangerous. But let's just put it in context. The people who are trying to align the intelligence community to a particular view seem to be this administration. But the issue is intelligence is the one discipline that is policy independent.

What you want intelligence to do is to have as many views as you can to put down what is perceived to be the best known collective information so that the policymaker can decide on a policy with a really clear view. When you start using intelligence and shaping it to be ahead of time, only supportive of policy, you undermine its value in with national security. And we should note there's a number of specific centers and agencies being eliminated as part of this. Related to the note earlier you made, there's one called the Foreign Malign Influence Center

that looks at foreign interference in American democratic processes. But, Sue, can I ask you to step back for just a moment and kind of assess where we are with this president and his relationship to the intelligence agencies because he's publicly disagreed with them at times? what is your assessment based on your time in government service of how President Trump is using the intelligence that he's being briefed on? Yeah, I think one of the things that people should know is intelligence is almost always inconvenience. I remember walking into a different president's office and sharing some information

and he said you've just stolen some of my decision space. Because the policy, is the policy, sometimes you walk in the door and you have inconvenient, inconvenient information. An example, Russia has no intention of seeking peace right now in Ukraine. That's inconvenient information that I would expect this intelligence community, if it had that would present the president, or that the intelligence community finds that Iran is not imminent in developing a nuclear weapon. The president's saying that's wrong. He can do. whatever he wants with policy. But it becomes dangerous when you try and shape the intelligence to fit the policy you want because you eliminate its value to you. Intelligence is about seeing

what is not what you prefer and you want it to be able to walk in, say inconvenient things so that it helps the decisions be better. And I think you can look at the record and see that going back to president's first administration where I served, and now accelerating and now accelerating the actions to shape the community so it doesn't do anything and the new thing is a destructive trend. And it's destructive for the president in terms of the decisions he wants to make. Sue Gordon, former intelligence official joining us tonight. Sue, thank you for your time. Good to speak with you. Great. See you again.

The housing market showed signs of life in July, with existing home sales up 2% from the month before, offering a bit of momentum to a market that's been struggling. The national median sales price inched up just 0.2% in July from a year earlier to $422,400, dollars, marking the 25th consecutive month of year-over-year price increases, and sales edged up 0.8% compared with July of last year. That's all according to a new report out today by the National Association of Realtors. Joining us now to break down the numbers is Darrell Fairweather, chief economist for the real estate company Redfin. Daryl, thanks for being with us. Thank you for having me. So what's your read on today's report? Does the bump in sales

suggest the market is turning a corner, or is this just a temporary rebound? It's not. It's not. It's nice to see that there's been some improvement in home sales. I think that's reflective of there being more inventory on the market. Buyers have more to choose from, which allows for more sales to happen. But this improvement is coming from a near record low. We are still deep in the hole when it comes to home sales. And we're going to need to see a lot more home sales in order for this to feel like a healthy market. And we're also seeing some big regional differences. Prices falling sharply in the west and parts of the south are rising in the Midwest and northeast. What explains that divide. It has to do with the amount of homes for sale. There are many more sellers

and there are buyers in the south and in parts of the west, which is allowing buyers to have more negotiating power and they're getting better deals on prices. In the Midwest and the Northeast, however, there was not a construction boom during the pandemic. There's much more limited inventory there. So buyers have to play on sellers terms and they have to accept these higher evaluations. And let's talk about mortgage rates, because mortgage rates dipped slightly in July, but they remain far above the historic lows we saw during the pandemic. To what extent is the lock-in effect still shaping the market? People really refusing to put their homes on the market and move because they've benefited from historically low mortgage rates. One reason we're not

seeing price cuts happening more often is because home sellers feel like it's not worth it for them to sell if they can't get a high enough price. They have these record low mortgage rates, which means they're not paying very much in their monthly mortgage payment. And if they were to sell and buy again, they would have to buy at these higher rates and pay a lot more money, which means that they are looking for a lot more money when it comes that the offers that they're getting. And if they don't get enough in terms of the offer, they'll just take their home off

the market and not sell. So that's putting a floor on how low prices can drop. Mortgage rates are so much higher now. Normally we would expect prices to fall by more to compensate that, but sellers are being stubborn when it comes to their prices. And what's your outlook for mortgage rates? Is there room for a more substantial decline? It really depends on what we see happen in the economy.

If we see more inflation, we saw a bit hotter inflation in producer prices this last week. So that's one reason that rates might stay high. but also we're seeing a weakening job market with fewer jobs created, and that might be one reason to expect rates to fall. It has a lot to do with how tariffs end up impacting the overall economy. If the tariffs result in higher inflation, then the Federal Reserve will have to keep interest rates high. But if it results in fewer jobs created,

then the Fed would have to step in and cut rates in order to simulate the economy. But we don't really know what's going to happen. It's still early days in terms of seeing the effects of the tariffs. maybe the effects won't really be that large at all. We just don't know yet. Yeah, good point. You know, the data about first-time buyers really stood out to me. First-time buyers made up just 28% of sales in July, down from 30% in June.

A decade ago, the average first-time buyer was 31 years old. Now it's closer to 38 years old. What does that say about the barriers that young buyers are facing? Young buyers are often borrowing a substantial amount in order to afford their home, Whereas existing homeowners, they are usually selling their homes. They get some proceeds from that that they can put towards their next home. So they aren't taking on as big of mortgages as potentially first-time homebuyers are. So that mortgage rate increases hitting first-time homebuyers a lot harder than it is existing

homebuyers. And that's why we're seeing a lot of first-time homebuyers just decide to keep renting. The rental market has been pretty stable over the last couple of months. It's starting to heat up a little bit, which may be a sign of more rent and increases to come. But for the time being, if you're comparing, say, a one-bedroom apartment to a one-bedroom condo, it's going to be more affordable in the short run to rent that apartment than it will be to buy it. Is there any realistic path for this generation to enter the housing market in significant numbers? Yeah, I think that there are some reasons

to be optimistic. Gen Z is a smaller generation. The millennials were, millennials are a bit past peak home buying age. They're in their late 30s, not their early 30s anymore. So I think there'll be less competition from the buy side in terms of buying homes. And then on the sell side, baby boomers are getting older. They should be downsizing soon. So that could create more inventory. And then another reason to be optimistic is that many states have made it easier to build more housing. So the next time we do see an increase in demand for housing, hopefully it will also come with an increase in supply as builders jump in to take advantage of increasing demand for homes. Fairweather Chief Economist at Redfin.

Great to speak with you. Thank you. Thank you. The President wants to put America's needs first, both from a national security and economic perspective, and it's a creative idea that has never been done before to ensure that we're both reshoring these critical supply chains while also gaining something of it for the American taxpayer. That was White House Press Secretary Caroline Levitt explaining why the president is weighing,

taking a 10 percent stake in computer chip maker Intel. If approved, it would mark one of the largest U.S. government interventions in a private company since the auto bailout of 2008. It's the latest in a series of actions by the administration to take direct financial interest in American businesses. Joining me now to discuss this is Peter Harrell from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He's a former White House Economic Advisor in the Biden administration. Peter, welcome to The News Hour. Thanks for joining us.

Thanks for having me on. So before we get to the bigger picture here, I just want to ask you about Intel specifically. If this deal goes through, the U.S. becomes the largest shareholder in Intel. In your view, is it a good idea for the government to take this move, to essentially pick and put a thumb on the scale among the many chipmakers in America? Well, I think it would be fair to count me as skeptical that this is the right way, either to save Intel or to help build U.S. semiconductor manufacturing. I think there is bipartisan support. We worked on it when I was in the Biden administration, which is going back to Trump's first term.

There is bipartisan support in Washington for the idea that we need to be building more leading edge semiconductor chips here in the United States. That's why we've had the CHIPS program to provide incentives for reshoring semiconductor manufacturing going back for five or six years now. What's different is whether taking a 10% stake in the company is really the most effective way to do that. And I don't really see how taking 10% of Intel is either going to help turn Intel around or help this reshoring agenda. Are there questions around the legality of this move as well?

I mean, back during the financial crisis of 2008, it was Congress that authorized specific bailouts for specific auto companies and banks. That's not the case this time. Is this legal for the president to do? I think there are questions about legally how they are going to structure this. So if we look back, back in 2022, so three or four years ago now, Congress appropriated money for the Chips Act. So the Chips Act that actually proceeded getting money, Congress appropriated money. And then the Commerce Department went through a period of giving grants, which are clearly authorized by the Chipsack, to a range of companies, including Intel, including a company called TSM, which is a Taiwanese company, including Samsung and others, to give those companies

incentives to build semiconductors here in the U.S. And the reason the government didn't take ownership in those companies then was really twofold. First, there's a question about whether it's legal. But second, you know, these are companies, these are not, this is not a bailout situation. These are companies that had been making chips very profitably overseas. And the government wants them to do it here and had the government said, we're going to take equity in you if you come to the United States. The companies just have said, thanks, but no, thanks. We're fine manufacturing in Taiwan and Singapore and Korea and places like that. So I don't think that taking equity is really about, you know, very helpful to getting the companies to onshore. Now, Intel's a little bit

different because Intel over the last couple of years has had some serious technological problems, some serious business problems. Again, we still have to get through, is this really legal? And I think it would be helpful for the Trump administration to spell out its legal rationale because it was definitely not originally contemplated in the Chips Act. So put this into some larger context for us here. If this deal goes through, and that is still an if, it would just be the latest example of the Trump administration essentially taking a cut from different American companies. They're sharing in profits from Navidia and AMD sales of computer chips to China. It's taken a share in U.S. steel as part of a deal that would approve its merger with Nippon's

steel. Bigger picture here, Peter. What do you see going on? I mean, this is very different from what we've seen in the U.S. over at least the sort of 80 years since the end of World War II. You know, as you alluded to, there is some history in the context of financial crises or other kinds of crises of the government taking some stake in companies as part of a bailout. We saw that during the financial crisis. We also saw it some during the COVID pandemic in 2020, where some of the COVID relief the government and acted was tied to the government getting some stakes in companies that were getting bailed out. But these have traditionally been short-term stakes.

You know, the government's saying, we'll take a stake to get you through the tough times and then we're going to sell it off. This is much more of a scenario where the president is saying he wants the government to own stakes, not just in companies that are failing, but in a whole bunch of companies on a kind of open-ended basis, very different from the way the U.S. has. operated on our economic model over the last 80 years. And I think it's going to raise a bunch of questions about, you know, is the government really going to be the right shareholder to help these companies succeed? Is the government going to start showing favoritism to these companies

over companies that it doesn't own? What are the kind of political requirements that are going to be put on companies that the government is taking an ownership in? Because this is just not a business model that has been the way the U.S. government and the private sector have interacted in kind of the modern era that we have all lived through. Peter Harrell from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Thank you so much for joining us. Thanks for having me. today to meet with Secretary of State Marco Rubio as President Trump spoke with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney about the two countries' ongoing trade negotiations. The U.S.-Canada relationship, for decades, a symbol of stability, has been rockier under President

Trump, who has joked about making Canada the 51st state. But Anon said today's conversation with Rubio was positive and spoke to Nick Schifrin, who's here with me now. Jeff, we discussed the trade negotiation that you just mentioned after President Trump earlier this month raised tariffs on Canada on goods that are not covered by USMCA, the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement. We talked about Haiti, where the U.S. and Canada are trying to develop a new path forward to try and bring stability. But we began with Ukraine, where Anon believes recent diplomacy represents a new opportunity for peace.

The meeting of the European leaders on Monday with President Trump does present a renewed approach to seeking peace. Our chiefs of defense staff are meeting, including Canada's, Jenny Caragnan, and that is the work that the military leaders are doing right now. So, yes, this is a different moment. So as you point out, President Trump has made positive statements this week about guaranteeing Ukraine's long-term security. Earlier this year, he was much more skeptical.

At this point, do you believe the U.S. will help deliver the kind of security guarantee that Ukraine says it needs. Or will it be minimal, as Vice President Vance publicly suggested last night? The question of how a security guarantee or guarantees will be implemented needs to be fleshed out. There needs to be meat on the bones. And do you think the United States at this point is committed? From the words that we heard on Monday and certainly in my conference,

I believe that we will all be at the table in that regard. Let me talk about the larger U.S.-Canada relationship. Of course, most Canadians still offended, angered by President Trump's 51st state comments mostly earlier this year. So I think Canada is going to be a very serious contender to be our 51st state. When it comes to the military, Prime Minister Carney announced a review of Canada's $27 billion deal to by more than 80 F-35s, suggesting that after an initial delivery, he might look to other countries' planes. Are you withholding that agreement because something in the U.S.-Canada relationship is

leading you to think, ah, I can't trust the United States when it comes to the F-35s? So it's somewhat inaccurate to simply move directly into the F-35 issue without taking a step back to say, what is this relationship all about? In every relationship, there are hills and there are valleys. And what we are doing as diplomats and as countries is to see through the valleys to ensure that we walk this road together. Do you describe today as a valley?

Today was definitely a positive moment. My conversation with Secretary Rubio was, I will say, collaborative, cooperative, focused on areas that we will continue to dialogue and work together. With all due respect, let me ask the question again. Will Canada see through the F-35 deal? Canada's commitment to the F-35 deal has been very well thought out and very well reasoned and will continue to ensure. that the Canadian Armed Forces are well-equipped, and certainly interoperability is one of the

most important aspects of that acquisition. Let me ask about the larger trade relationship right now. Of course, earlier this month on the August 1st deadline, President Trump raised some tariff rates from 25 to 35 percent, although there are a lot of exceptions to that. But is the Canadian government today committed to making a trade deal with the U.S., even if there is a blanket tariff on all goods indefinitely? Are you holding out? Will you refuse a deal until you can remove some of those tariffs? We need to take a step back because we have the USMCA that is in place that governs approximately 75% of the trade between our two countries. The president raised tariffs on non-USMCA goods. And when I say 75% or more of the goods that are traded between our two

countries, that's a significant percentage. And the trade relationship, therefore, is stronger than is often depicted. I will say, though, that steel and aluminum in Canada, for example, are being hit very hard, as are other sectors. The auto sector is another one. Lumber is another one. So, yes, we have concerns. And you mentioned USMCA next year. There will be a renegotiation review. Yes, we use the word review. Okay. But does that mean that you expect the current tariffs to remain in place until that review? Of course, we would like to have the US MCA govern all sectors the way it has been since it was put into place in 2018.

But are we going to sign on to a deal that isn't the best possible deal for Canadians, Canadian workers? Canadian workers, Canadian businesses. That's not the approach that Prime Minister Carney is taking. Let me move in Middle East. Canada and other countries have vowed to recognize Palestine next month during the UN General Assembly. Today, the U.S. Ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, made this argument that your move takes Palestinians, quote, further away from a state, and your announcement was part of the

reason that Hamas dug in at the negotiating table. Do you believe in any way that your announcement has somehow backfired? Canada's intention to recognize Palestine is based on our view that in order to maintain a two-state solution as a viable policy outcome, countries need to step forward and declare their intention to recognize Palestine. And that is it a condition? is not at the detriment of the security of either party in the two-state solution. And I've been having weekly calls with the Palestinian Authority to ensure that they have a roadmap forward for the commitments that they made

relating to democratization in Palestine, demilitarization in Palestine, ensuring that there is a viable Palestinian state. Is your announcement at all conditional on steps either the PA would take in the next couple of weeks before the UN General Assembly or, in fact, Israel might take when it comes to the ceasefire negotiations? So the announcement was predicated on the work that the Palestinian Authority said that it would do.

And finally, I know that you and Secretary Rubio also discussed Haiti today. In fact, that was one of the main points that you discussed today. that you discussed today, is there a new roadmap, or is there a new vision for bringing security to Haiti? While we are both very grateful to Kenya for leading the multi-country mission there, there is a need to re-examine.