Former Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell

Summary

Amanpour – April 17, 2025

Episode: Former Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell
Podcast: Amanpour (CNN Podcast)
Host: Christiane Amanpour

---

Overview

This episode focuses on the escalating impacts of President Trump’s trade war—examining U.S. tariff policies toward China, the potential for global economic realignment, and the strain on American allies. Christiane Amanpour speaks in-depth with Kurt Campbell, former Deputy Secretary of State and a key architect of U.S.–China policy, about the uncertain strategic direction of American foreign and trade policy, risks of economic decoupling, and fractured alliances. The episode also features a discussion with documentary director Marcel Mittelsiefen about children affected by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and closes with interviews with two American entrepreneurs navigating the economic fallout from tariffs.

---

Main Themes

• Strategic implications of Trump’s tariffs for U.S.–China relations and global alliances
• Risks and consequences of U.S.–China economic decoupling
• The weakening of American diplomacy and retreat from international leadership
• Human perspectives from regions affected by conflict and trade policy changes
• Real-world stories of small businesses grappling with tariff-driven disruptions

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. U.S.–China Trade War: Strategy and Global Implications

[04:18–08:47]

• Lack of a Grand U.S. Strategy: Campbell argues that the Trump administration is improvising rather than executing a coherent plan.
  • “They’re sort of playing it as it goes. ... I’m not sure they had originally decided that part of the negotiating plan with allies and partners would be to pressure them about their trade or their economic relations with China.” (Kurt Campbell, [04:18])
  • Negotiations are newly targeting partners (Japan, South Korea, Europe, Australia), who now have as many doubts about Washington as Beijing—threatening U.S. strategic interests.
• Pressure to Align: Trump’s team uses tariffs to push allies into restricting trade with China, but many partners are confused and blindsided:
  • “Most of the countries … find themselves sort of waiting to hear at the table what the United States is proposing.” (Kurt Campbell, [08:47])

2. Decoupling and Economic Risks

[09:16–12:48]

• Chinese Perspective: China positions itself as a stabilizing force and is exploring global markets to counter U.S. actions.
• Soundbite: "Eventually...trade between China and the United States both ways will grind to a halt and...will have decoupling. But...that will not make America stronger or greater." (Chinese analyst Victor Gao, [09:34])
• Campbell’s Caution:
  • Full decoupling is unlikely or desirable; both nations are deeply economically intertwined.
  • Even with discomfort about mutual dependence, neither side wants a full-blown crisis, but neither knows how to step back or restart dialogue.
  • “There are no two countries that are...more interdependent than the United States and China across every possible vector.” (Kurt Campbell, [10:26])
  • The challenge is finding channels for dialogue to prevent economic calamity.

3. Leadership & Global Alliances

[12:48–16:25]

• Declining U.S. Influence: Concerns from allies about the U.S. retreating from the world stage, ceding ground to China.
  • “Everything that the United States has ever done of significance on the global stage, we’ve done with Europe... The United States cannot afford...to go it alone.” (Kurt Campbell, [13:57])
• Alliances Under Strain: Trump’s approach makes cooperation more difficult. Many traditional Republicans still see alliances as vital, but the administration’s language and actions have eroded trust.
• Memorable Quote: “I am struck at how many actors internationally and domestically the Trump administration is reaching out against as opposed to trying to bring on board.” (Kurt Campbell, [16:25])

4. U.S. Diplomacy Retreat and Internal Political Climate

[16:25–23:53]

• Shrinking Diplomatic Footprint: Reports of closing embassies and cutting diplomatic staff alarm Campbell, who highlights the State Department’s relative lack of resources.
  • "[Cuts] would pose just a devastating hit to an institution that always struggles… financially." (Kurt Campbell, [18:16])
• Funding Diplomacy vs. Military (“Mattis Doctrine”):
  • "If you don’t fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition ultimately." (James Mattis, [17:18])
• Atmosphere of Fear in Politics: Senator Lisa Murkowski describes widespread anxiety and fear of retaliation among Republican lawmakers:
  • “We are all afraid… I have not been here before… I’m very anxious myself about using my voice because retaliation is real.” (Sen. Lisa Murkowski, [20:41])
  • Campbell: “I cannot believe the American system is facing a situation that a… senator like Senator Murkowski feels fear to speak out. That’s not something that we can be comfortable with.” ([21:52])

---

Segment: "State of Rage" Documentary – Human Impacts of Conflict

[25:05–39:04]

• Children Trapped in Cycles of Violence: Filmmaker Marcel Mittelsiefen discusses his documentary “State of Rage,” which chronicles the lives of Israeli and Palestinian children shaped by endless conflict.
  • Focus on microcosms: “If this country, these two people want to have something called a future, they need to find a way of coexistence.” (Marcel Mittelsiefen, [27:26])
  • Both Palestinian and Israeli children express rage, fear, and trauma.
  • Notable Moment: Soundbites contrast the anger of an Israeli settler girl and a Palestinian child standing amid rubble, underscoring mirrored emotions on both sides ([31:40]).
• Lack of Hope: Mittelsiefen struggles to find optimism: “It’s a dark film… I try to use the word rage, hoping that there is still a way to stop all this… But… it needs to stop now because otherwise the… spiral of violence [is] just going to [continue].” ([32:37])
• Mechanisms of Hate: The documentary avoids comparing victimhood and instead examines the mechanisms of radicalization, focusing on girls to challenge stereotypes.
  • “None of those two set of children chose where to be born. And yet they are shaped by the context where they live in.” ([32:37])

---

Segment: U.S. Tariffs and Small Business Chaos

[39:59–54:48]
Interviewer: Michelle Martin. Guests: Debbie Way Mullen (Copper Cow Coffee), Sarah Lafleur (MM Lafleur)

• Direct Impact:
  • Debbie Way Mullen: Shocked by tariffs on Vietnamese coffee, threatens business viability, especially since U.S. doesn’t grow coffee at required scale.
    • “We were really particularly surprised, not only because it’s coffee… but also [because] Vietnam really does admire Trump and has been really willing to concede to whatever demands that he wants… We were really shocked.” ([42:11])
  • Higher prices cannot be easily passed to retailers; organic and sustainable investments could become unviable.
• Sourcing Challenges in Apparel:
  • Sarah Lafleur: Manufacturing shifted from New York to China due to skill, scale, and declining U.S. garment industry.
    • “Every single thing that you are wearing, someone is sitting behind the sewing machine... You can’t develop that skill overnight.” ([45:18])
  • Reshoring not impossible, but would require major government investment and infrastructure—currently unfeasible.
  • Tariffs have forced her to cancel entire collections: “My May collection has 90% evaporated overnight because we cannot afford to bring in goods from China.” ([48:10])
• Unpredictability is Devastating:
  • “Unpredictability is the enemy of business growth. I think what we are asking for is really communication with a lot of advance notice... Right now, that is what feels is lacking.” (Sarah Lafleur, [53:50])
• Systemic Unfairness:
  • Exemptions seem to benefit industries able to lobby the White House (electronics)—leaving small businesses feeling voiceless.
  • “Small businesses make up 45% of the country’s GDP. ... We are not capable of actually making… our voices heard.” (Sarah Lafleur, [51:08])

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “There are no two countries that are…more interdependent than the United States and China across every possible vector.”
  —Kurt Campbell, [10:26]

• "If you don’t fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition ultimately."
  —James Mattis, [17:18]

• "We are all afraid… I have not been here before… I'm very anxious myself about using my voice because retaliation is real."
  —Sen. Lisa Murkowski, [20:41]

• "I am struck at how many actors internationally and domestically the Trump administration is reaching out against as opposed to trying to bring on board."
  —Kurt Campbell, [16:25]

• “My May collection has 90% evaporated overnight because we cannot afford to bring in goods from China.”
  —Sarah Lafleur, [48:10]

• “I try to use the word rage, hoping that there is still a way to stop all this… it needs to stop now because otherwise the scale of this violence... just going to [continue].”
  —Marcel Mittelsiefen, [32:37]

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Intro/context on tariffs/upheaval: [01:17–04:18]
• Campbell on U.S. strategy with China/allies: [04:18–08:47]
• U.S.–China decoupling: risk and reality: [09:16–12:48]
• Global alliances and American leadership: [12:48–16:25]
• Retreat in diplomacy and U.S. politics: [16:25–23:53]
• "State of Rage" documentary & child perspectives: [25:05–39:04]
• Entrepreneurs affected by tariffs: [39:59–54:48]

---

Tone

The episode combines serious, often urgent analysis about international strategy, diplomacy, and the dire state of U.S. leadership and alliances, alongside deeply personal narratives from business owners and those affected by conflict. Amanpour and guests use clear, sometimes blunt language, directly critiquing policy decisions, expressing alarm at the retreat from diplomacy, and highlighting emotional realities on the ground.

---

Summary

This episode delivers an unvarnished look at the far-reaching shocks of U.S. trade tariffs with China, the growing confusion and risk to global alliances, and the weakening of U.S. leadership and diplomacy. Kurt Campbell, drawing on years in high-level diplomacy, voices alarm at lacking strategy, declining alliances, and the dangers of isolationism. The real-world impact of these policies—evident in both war zones and American small business—punctuates the discussion, with a powerful reminder of the human cost and the complex, interdependent global landscape facing the United States.

Transcript

[Christiane Amanpour]

CNN's Comedy Quiz show is back. Have I Got News for you Returns.

[Marcel Mittelsiefen]

Tackling the week's top stories, making sense of the mayhem and definitely adding to it.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Get ready for a brand new season premiering Saturday, September 6th on CNN.

[Kurt Campbell]

This episode is brought to you by KPMG. Making an impact is how KPMG Helps.

[Michelle Martin]

Make the difference KPMG applies advanced tools.

[Debbie Way Mullen]

And strategic thinking to convert data into.

[Michelle Martin]

Actionable knowledge and deliver value by improving performance through transformation, modernizing processes with technology, harnessing of data, navigating complex MA transactions and enhancing trust among stakeholders.

[Kurt Campbell]

Go to KPMG US Advisory to learn more. KPMG make the [e-mail], it's not just about window treatments.

[Christiane Amanpour]

It's about you. Your style, your space, your way.

[Kurt Campbell]

Whether you DIY or want the pros.

[Christiane Amanpour]

To handle it all, you'll have the.

[Kurt Campbell]

Confidence of knowing it's done right.

[Christiane Amanpour]

From free expert design help to our 100% satisfaction guarantee, everything we do is made to fit your life and and your windows. [e-mail] the only thing we treat better than windows is you. Visit blinds.com now for up to 45% off with minimum purchase plus a professional measure at no cost. Rules and restrictions apply.

[Kurt Campbell]

Hello everyone and welcome to Amanpour. Here's what's coming up could chaos from Trump's trade war cause a major global realignment? I asked Kurt Campbell, architect of US China policy under Presidents Obama and Biden. Then a state of rage. A new documentary looks at how Palestinian and Israeli children are impacted by occupation and conflict on the west bank. And Michelle Martin speaks to two American entrepreneurs about how tariff uncertainty disrupts their business and their lives. Out of the script. We should do the more open welcome to the programme everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London. This stark warning on tariffs from the U.S. federal Reserve Bank Chair Jerome Powell sent stocks tumbling today.

[Christiane Amanpour]

The level of tariff increases announced so far is significantly larger than anticipated and the same is likely to be true of the economic effects, which will include higher inflation and slower growth. Both survey and market based measures of near term inflation expectations have moved up significantly, with survey participants pointing to tariffs.

[Kurt Campbell]

This kind of intervention is rare from a Fed chief, and Trump was quick to attack the messenger. Powell's termination cannot come fast enough, he posed. But countries around the world are asking a fundamental question. Is it in our best interest to align more closely with China or with the United States? The Wall Street Journal reports the Trump team, led by the Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant, is using tariff negotiations to pressure allies to limit trade with China. While China seeks to position itself as a force for stability and peel business away from the United States, China may be pushing on an open door. As economist Mark Blythe tells the New York Times, the whole world has decided that the US Government has no idea what it's doing. Kurt Campbell helped guide China policy, China U. S Policy through multiple administrations and was deputy secretary of state under Joe Biden. He joins us now for his first interview since leaving government. Kurt Campbell, welcome back to our program. It's a long time since we've spoken. So what do you think about this big strategic picture that the Trump administration appears to be thinking about, as reported by the by the New York Times, to gather its trading partners and to essentially, I don't know what the right word is, gang up or isolate China, you know, and make it come to the negotiating table? What do you think? Is that, Is that a possibility?

[Christiane Amanpour]

Christina, first of all, it's great to be with you. Thank you so much for having me back on the program. Thank you for raising the pressure. My first interview, but I'll do my best. Not let the side down. Look, the first question that every government or representative asks me is, does the Trump team have a larger plan, a sort of a strategic approach? And I think it is fair to say in many of these circumstances, they're sort of playing it as it goes. I'm not sure they had originally decided that part of the negotiating plan with allies and partners would be to pressure them about their trade or their economic relations with China. Most of the focus, as you know, have been about the bilateral relationships between these countries and the United States and trade imbalances there. And so I think these negotiations that are just beginning, I do want to underscore the idea that you can complete 90 negotiations or even 10 or 15 in 90 days is just remarkably challenging. Some of the negotiations that we've had on trade with countries and partners, like with Japan, Christian, the so called SII talks, the strategic impediment talks of the 1980s and the 1990s, looked at why it was difficult for American exporters to penetrate the closed Japanese market. Those negotiations went on for years. Now, I think there is some incentive to move more quickly now, but at the base of this is that unfortunately many of the countries that we would count as our closest partners right now, Japan, South Korea, Europe, Australia, they're all feeling the heat and they have as many questions now about Washington as they do about Beijing. And that's not in our strategic interests.

[Kurt Campbell]

Okay. But in terms of the question about the Trump administration's apparent strategy. Yes, you say that. And we've seen them punish allies as well as adversaries with these tariffs. We've got the Italian prime minister in the White House today talking on behalf of Europe. But is it a smart idea to get trading partners to, I use the word gang up, but I'm not sure what the right word is against China, who the US Considers, as you know, to be involved in unfair trade practices, et cetera, and thus force China, because China seems to be doing the same thing. It's going around to its allies in the region and even reaching out to EU and all the rest of it, seeming to want to do the same thing, say, come to us, we'll be trading partners in this climate.

[Christiane Amanpour]

So look, Christiane, I think there are some critical issues in which coordination and close alignment between the United States and partners is essential. Technology, advanced areas like AI, quantum computing, synthetic biology, you can go down the list. I think those areas require much closer engagement between the United States and its partners, not only to advance certain technologies, but to restrict the flow of certain technologies to China. I think those are appropriate areas of engagement. And there are other strategic elements, strategic minerals and the like, where organization of the partners is essential. But to go beyond that to sort of the normal flow of economic intercourse, consumer goods and the like, I think that's going to be harder to get countries and partners to restrict those investments and engagements. And so the truth is, Christiane, they are talking about trying to get countries to work with the United States, but we don't know what the terms are. We don't know the subject areas. And so we're waiting to see what the initial discussions with Japan, with Italy and other countries, what is the framing for what the administration is seeking in these bilateral talks? And in truth, I will tell you quietly, most of the countries that go into these talks find themselves sort of waiting to hear at the table what the United States is proposing.

[Kurt Campbell]

So it's all kind of a surprise to them as well. But China has been very defiant publicly. There's no doubt about that. President Xi himself has said things. Their Foreign Ministry spokespeople and all sorts of independent, you know, analysts and experts with obviously close government ties, like Victor Gao, who runs the think tank in Beijing. He's been quite robust on what he's saying. This is his latest on, on this issue. Take a listen.

[Christiane Amanpour]

China is at this moment of truth again.

[Marcel Mittelsiefen]

We are mobilizing all domestic demand, try to accommodate whatever that could not be sold to the US Market while exploring.

[Christiane Amanpour]

All the possible overseas market to make.

[Marcel Mittelsiefen]

Up for whatever businesses lost in the US market.

[Kurt Campbell]

So eventually I think we are faced with a possible situation where trade between China and the United States both way.

[Marcel Mittelsiefen]

Will grind to a halt and China, US economically speaking, will have decoupling. But what will be the consequence that.

[Kurt Campbell]

Will not make America stronger or greater. That will make the United States probably more miserable. Kurt Campbell, he's raising the real threat of a complete decoupling. You, you know, have, have, have sort of treaded a hard line stance in terms of, under the Obama administration, the Biden administration, with trying to deal with China. Democrats and Republicans have a fairly similar view on what economic threat China poses and even military threat. How bad would decoupling be?

[Christiane Amanpour]

Look, Christiana, I do not think either China or the United States are prepared for, for a full decoupling. And I think the art of the deal here is to find what elements of commerce are unobjectionable and that you would want those to continue in people to people engagements so that there is appropriate economic and commercial interaction between the United States and China and restrict those areas that have true national security significance. I think the point that you're getting at, Christian, is this, that there are no two countries that are frankly today more interdependent than the United States and China across every possible vector. Manufacturing, finance, look at how many treasuries the Chinese hold in American dollars. But at the same time that there is this deep integration that has been built up over decades again in everything in pharmaceuticals, in manufacturing, in agriculture. At the same time, both countries are deeply uncomfortable with that interdependence and are seeking to ease it in various ways. But that process takes time. It is challenging given, you know, the mutual vulnerabilities. And so I think what's happening right now, I do not believe either China nor the United States seeks a full out economic crisis. But I also think that neither side knows how to climb down right now, how to create the venues for appropriate dialogue. I think we know in the last couple of days the United States, you know, told China that President Trump would be prepared to accept a call from President Xi. That's a hard way to get dialogue started just at the very top with no clear parameters about what either side would discuss. So I think the key is to find those lines of communication that allow for feeling each other out in terms of what's possible and then build towards more high level engagement. I think that's the challenge right now. It's not clear that either side is prepared to take those steps, steps that are frankly essential for the global economy.

[Kurt Campbell]

Yeah. So as if the global economy wasn't important enough, there's another huge macro picture as well, and that is increasingly being talked about overseas. For sure, who's going to lead the world order, the next world order that comes out of this? And we hear reports from China, even some from Russia, who seem to be thrilled that the United States seems to be shooting itself in the head. And potentially, certainly we've heard that from a former conservative British prime minister who says any sort of cozying up with these adversaries and distancing from allies just makes Xi and Putin, quote, dance a jig. And, and they think that they are, or at least certainly China, which is the big hegemon, will replace American leadership, that they see the decline of America. They're only too eager to facilitate it. And you've written Washington would be particularly unwise to go it alone in a complex global competition. By retreating to a sphere of influence in the Western Hemisphere, the United States would cede the rest of the world to a globally engaged China. Discuss.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Christine, look, let me just say that I think over the course of the last several years, it was China's overreach, it was Xi's tendency to use hard power with neighboring countries and other players on the international stage that frankly alienated some of China's natural interlocutors. And I think it was the United States that tried to build allies and partnerships and innovative new gatherings like the Quad. I think the hope is, and the belief is that the challenges are so enormous that the United States is better off working closely with allies and partners. And frankly, I put Europe first and foremost in that. Everything that the United States has ever done of significance on the global stage, we've done with Europe, but also the connections between Europe and the Indo Pacific, Japan, Australia, South Korea, increasingly India. These countries, I think, want to partner with the United States. It has undeniably become more difficult under President Trump. The hope is and look, there are still lots of issues that are yet to be worked out in the Trump administration. And there are a number of traditional Republicans who are who believe fundamentally that strong allies and partners is the key ingredient in sustaining American power in a complex and increasingly challenging world. Now, I don't know where the Trump administration will ultimately land. And like you, I'm troubled by some of the language we hear coming out of Washington about Europe. But the hope is with more engagement, more dialogue with allies and partners, they will understand the stakes and the strategic significance that the United States cannot afford Christianity to go it alone. We don't have the power, we don't have the capacity, we don't have the markets. And so this next six to eight month period for the administration, frankly, is going to be central as they conduct all these negotiations and try to position themselves globally. I will say, and again, we all have an interest in a degree of success here. I am struck at how many actors internationally and domestically the Trump administration is reaching out against as opposed to trying to bring on board.

[Kurt Campbell]

Well, well, look, I mean, you know, as a European, it's hard to hear that we're pathetic and freeloaders and all the rest of it, given the amount of, of cooperation that Europe has had over the decades with the US but so on the diplomatic side, and you were Deputy Secretary of State and you see that the Secretary of State Rubio is talking about, or at least there are reports that the administration is looking to close nearly 30 embassies and consulates around the world. Rubio announced he's shutting down the State Department office that battled battles, foreign disinformation. We've seen that. And I just want to play this really interesting soundbite from James Mattis, former general who was Trump's first defense secretary. This he said, you know, years before he was in the Trump administration, but it was about diplomacy versus the military. Take a listen.

[Marcel Mittelsiefen]

If you don't fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition ultimately. So I think it's a cost benefit ratio. The more that we put into the State Department's diplomacy, hopefully the less we have to put into a military budget as we deal with the outcome of an apparent American withdrawal from the international scene.

[Kurt Campbell]

So right now, Rubio and others, Witkoff, the special envoy, are in Paris meeting President Macron and basically trying to discuss the whole, well, many things, I'm sure, but also the Ukraine, Russia situation. So when you see how many diplomatic crises and challenges exist on the horizon right now, what do you think would happen if that number we don't know where of embassies and staffing and various consulates are cut back?

[Christiane Amanpour]

Look, Christina, those reports affect me and concern me more than just about anything else. Like you've indicated, I've had the honor of serving a couple of different times at the State Department. These are some of those patriotic, tremendously determined and dedicated individuals I've ever worked with. And the idea somehow that this agency is not working to support American interests and has to be tamed or cut back, I just think is just flat wrong. And I worry that the kinds of cuts that are being discussed would pose just a devastating hit to an institution that always struggles, I think, as you know, financially. If you look at the various bureaucracies, Chris, again, the Pentagon really is an institution and our intelligence agencies, almost on steroids. They have a lot of support, bipartisan. The State Department, we do have our supporters on Capitol Hill, but almost always its budgets are a little bit on life support in comparison. And so it always struggles. And I think the most recent reports of cutting way back in Africa and Europe are not going to be in American strategic interests. My hope will be that determined bipartisan actors on Capitol Hill and elsewhere will make clear that these are not simply decisions that the executive branch can take and that there are other agencies and actors that have a say in these decisions. And I think you're beginning to see key voices on Capitol Hill speak up about sustaining American purpose internationally.

[Kurt Campbell]

Okay, so that brings me to a little bit of something that Senator Lisa Murkowski said that has gone viral because you're talking about people speaking up. Many people say it has to be Republicans. You know that Senator Marco Rubio, as a senator, was much more traditional Republican when it came to foreign policy than he is now as a Trump secretary of state. But here's Lisa Murkowski talking about the difficulty of speaking up, especially if you're a Republican. Here.

[Sarah Lafleur]

We are all afraid.

[Kurt Campbell]

Okay.

[Sarah Lafleur]

It's a quite statement, but we are. We're in a time and a place where, I don't know. I certainly have not. I have not been here before. And I'll tell you, I'm, I, I'm oftentimes very anxious myself about using my voice because retaliation is real and that's not.

[Kurt Campbell]

Right. Right. Well, I don't know how much you were able to hear of that. It was subtitled. But basically, she says we're all afraid. She herself says she's very anxious about using my voice because retaliation is real. But then she goes on to say, I will use my voice in the right lanes and in the right way. What's your gut reaction to that?

[Christiane Amanpour]

I mean, it concerns me about the American system. And I can tell you that, you know, I spent a lot of time in my previous incarnation at the White House and the State Department meeting with key partners on both sides of the aisle. Cristian up on Capitol Hill in the Senate and the House, talking about American pursuits internationally. I didn't find any of those guys lacking in courage or having any hesitation about being direct with me. And I just, I think, maintaining that voice is going to be central. I would also just underscore, and this is something that I don't think is as well appreciated, much of what we've done with allies and partners, really the topics that you're discussing, our China play, how we've engaged allies and partners, has had a remarkable amount of bipartisan support over the last four or five years, true engagements on both sides of the aisle on technology policy and efforts that we've tried to do in terms of, again, working with allies and partners militarily, strategically and diplomatically. Increasingly, the Trump approach is somewhat different than both the Democratic and Republican approaches. And the hope will be over time where there are growing concerns. And I agree with Senator Murkowski, who I think does a fine job not only representing Alaska's interests but helping us think particularly about our responsibilities in the Indo Pacific. I do believe behind closed doors there are people that are feeling that they have to speak out more. And I think we're seeing signs of that. I cannot believe the American system is facing a situation that a powerful, extraordinarily accomplished senator like Senator Murkowski feels fear to speak out. That's not something that we can be comfortable with.

[Kurt Campbell]

She says she will continue to Kurt Campbell, thank you very much indeed for joining us. And we'll be right back after this short break.

[Christiane Amanpour]

This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Do you ever find yourself playing the budgeting game? Well, with the name your price tool.

[Marcel Mittelsiefen]

From Progressive, you can find options that.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Fit your budget and potentially lower your bills. Try [e-mail] Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates Price and coverage match limited by state law, not available in all states.

[Marcel Mittelsiefen]

I'm Dr. Sanjay Gupta, host of the Chasing Life podcast.

[Sarah Lafleur]

If you think about your devices that can integrate vocal biomarkers to help understand your health, that's really where the future is going in my opinion.

[Marcel Mittelsiefen]

Dr. Yael Bahnsusin is a laryngologist. She is director of the University of South Florida's Health Voice Center. She is co leading research there on.

[Kurt Campbell]

Using AI to try and detect diseases.

[Marcel Mittelsiefen]

And perhaps even treat them. Listen to Chasing Life Streaming now, wherever.

[Kurt Campbell]

You get your podcasts. Now to the crisis in the Middle east where Israel's ban on humanitarian aid in Gaza leaves children malnourished and clean water scarce. Defence Minister Israel Katz has said the siege will not be lifted because it is, quote, one of the main pressure levers preventing Hamas from using it as a tool with the population. Just a note, it was similar talk of starvation of Gaza civilians that landed. Then Defense Minister Yoav Gallant with an indictment from the International Criminal Court. Today, with Gaza's buildings in rubble, Israeli forces are targeting tents carrying out deadly airstrikes on displacement camps in the north and the south. Israel is also applying so called Gaza tactics in the occupied West Bank. The UN reports that almost 1,000 Palestinians were killed there since October 7th. The Hamas attack there, a large scale military operation named Iron Wall has left thousands more homeless. Now a new documentary called A State of Rage aims to put a human face on all of this through the eyes of children who on both sides of the conflict. Here's a bit of the trailer. The director is Marcel Metelsifen, he joins us now. And you're in Ecuador, we'll talk about why in a second. But you are, you know, in your continuing your program of exploring the world through the eyes and the experiences of children. So tell me what drew you to the one that we're talking about, State of Rage. Basically I'll just put it out. Jannah and Heber are two 10 year old Palestinians in the Jenin refugee camp and in the settlement Havat Gilad. Renana and Naomi are two sisters. And you focus quite a lot on the older one, Renana. It's really interesting to see it from both sides. How did you choose them? What brought you to this place?

[Marcel Mittelsiefen]

Well, thank you for having me, Christiane. It was, I think would be fair to say it's one of the most difficult and complicated films of my career. When October 7th happened, the terrible attack in Israel, I was here in Ecuador actually working on my film and doing right now. And I immediately thought I need to go to Israel. And I arrived I think on October 25 means there have been 15 days after, about 15 days after the attack. And I needed to decide where to go, what to do. Over a thousand journalists been already in the country gaining access to the hostage families. And I thought, okay, I'm not able to go to Gaza. I gonna look into the, to the west bank where nobody's looking. And I think if this country, these two people want to have something called a future, they need to find a way of coexistence. So I said, okay, let's go and look into the most extreme parts in the west bank which is on the Palestinian side is the three areas which are controlled by the so called armed resistance against occupation, which is Jenin, Tulkaram and Nablus refugee camps. And I decided to go and look into Jenin because of different reasons. It's small enough in order to be able to walk around. And I Very quickly met Gianna and her family context. Father is somebody who's afraid that especially his son is picking up arms. And you have this loving grandma. And they're living amongst the 20,000 people within these refugee camps, surrounded by funerals every day, demonstrations. The context of pain, hate and rage on the other side. I decided, okay, whom can I follow there? And I very quickly said, okay, I need to look as well. On the most extreme part, the scale of the Israeli population, which are the settlers. And I was much harder to gain access. And it took me a while until I got to Havat Gilad, which is the coast next to Nablus, where I met Yael, mother of five.

[Kurt Campbell]

Yes. So, yeah, I just want to interrupt you because I want to play some of your sound bites that you got from them. It's actually both extraordinary families. The settler family. The father, Rabbi Raziel Shavak, was killed in a terror attack in the northern West bank in 2018. And you talked to the daughter and the mother. But we'll get to. Let's talk about the kids first. Here is what, Here is what Renana, the oldest sister, the oldest daughter of this rabbi who was killed tells you about October 7th and how that affected her. Here's what she says. So extremely upset, extremely angry, hate filled, fear filled. Now I'm going to play this. The young girl on the Palestinian side who. She's there standing on rubble. The sisters. Oh, I think they're sisters. They are basically standing in front of a poster of a dead Palestinian militant. Here's what one of them says. A kid.

[Sarah Lafleur]

Lazimindafa.

[Kurt Campbell]

Wow. I mean, both of them are so powerful. Both the Israeli and the Palestinian kids who use profile is so powerful. I guess it's very dark. Did you see anything other than that, Anything else from those, from those kids? Was there any hope or do you think it's. It's baked in.

[Marcel Mittelsiefen]

Well, look, it's. It's a. It's a film which is. It's a dark film. I normally try to look for the light and the darkness. I. For hope. And I've been struggling. I went back and forth for nine times over a year trying to see if there is something beyond hate, beyond rage. I try to use the word rage, hoping that there is still a way to stop all this. And that's basically where I land the clear message, a simple message that it needs to stop now because otherwise the scale of this violence, of this spiral of violence just going to further and further because that's what is interesting with these Families is that both families, Yael on mothers of the settlers and the father realizes that this is a young generation which is just becoming more radicalized. And none of those two set of children chose where to be born. And yet they are shaped by the context where they live in. And in a very unbalanced conflict. We have to really understand this, that it's not a balanced situation, it's an unbalanced conflict. One of these groups are occupied and not able to choose anything and the others are able to choose and deliberately choose where to live. But I think for me it was very important to say I'm not comparing victimhood, I'm not comparing the two realities. What I do compare and what I try to show is the mechanism of this anger, the mechanism of radicalization through the eyes of girls, not boys. Again, something I deliberately try to look for because otherwise you would immediately say, well, why should I care for these boys who are going to become the next terrorist?

[Kurt Campbell]

That's so interesting.

[Marcel Mittelsiefen]

The settler violence would there as well.

[Kurt Campbell]

Yeah, that was really interesting to see those girls. And also the mother, as you say, the Israeli mother, Yael Shabak, who says, or you say that she's an immigrant from Paris and she's been thinking since October 7th more and more, as she says in the film, about the environment in which she's raising her kids. And here she's talking in your film about what's kind of changing her thought process. Take a listen, Shimukaf. It's really interesting because it's very introspective and she becomes more and more introspective and very different to the tone of her young 16 year old daughter. I found that really an interesting observation because the parents can see what's happening and how their kids or the next generations will be radicalized one way or the other.

[Marcel Mittelsiefen]

Absolutely. No, Yael is an extraordinary character and so is as well. The grandmother on the Palestinian side for me was, well, the amount of dehumanization, especially from the settler side towards the Palestinians, something I was not prepared for and I did not expect. And it was actually Yael who surprised me. And that's why I picked her up. Because I thought to pick somebody who is absolutely without limits, radicalized, what's the point? And I was looking for something which just gives an arc of development, although it's obviously naive to think that there is something which changes from one day to the other. But it's a process and I think that's what I tried and that's why I struggled to find landing Point. And we reduced it to this very, very, very simple message of enough is enough.

[Kurt Campbell]

Yeah. And as you mentioned, on the Palestinian side, the father of the boy, you know, the brother of these two girls, was very concerned that he shouldn't this young boy grow up as a militant or anything like that. And the grandmother, as you point out, was incredibly loving and trying to shield. Shield the girls. What, you know, you, you're doing another film on kids in Ecuador. You've done, you know, kids under the Taliban and elsewhere. What is the common thread? What are you finding in Ecuador right now? What did you find, you know, in Afghanistan?

[Marcel Mittelsiefen]

Well, what I'm trying to do is always trying to find this little microcosmos and tell the bigger context through, through the strong characters I'm able to gain access to. And here in Ecuador, I'm in a country which used to be the safest place in Latin America, one of the safest countries in Latin America. And since COVID it became the most dangerous country in Latin America. My mother's from Ecuador. I'm familiar with this country. And we do have now a new President Noboa, who is likely like as Nobo Em, trying to. To fight violence with even more violence. And I think I'm doing a film here right now which shows how far can a country go in their quest to fight evil. And I think that's when it starts to become again, very universal. And through the children, obviously, it's the next generation. We are in times where everything is so divided, so polarized, and I think the lack of dialogue just fuels the incapacity of put ourselves in the shoes of the other. And this just creates this split more and more and more. And I think, yeah, going. Finding this kind of strong characters and children is obviously something which is very challenging and sometimes quite effective.

[Kurt Campbell]

Very effective. And the whole idea of being able to see the story of the other, especially through children's eyes, is fundamental. We look forward to your Ecuador film. And thank you so much, Marcel Mittelsiefen, for joining us. And in Europe, you can stream A State of Rage right now, including on Channel 4 here in the UK. Stay with CNN. We'll be right back. Now, as we have been discussing, President Trump's tariffs are prompting radical changes for American business owners like Debbie Way Mullen, the founder of a coffee company rooted in Vietnam, and Sarah Lafleur, who owns a clothing brand which relies on overseas factories. They speak now to Michelle Martin about what this has done to them.

[Michelle Martin]

Thanks, Christiane. Debbie Waymull and Sarah Lafleur, thank you Both so much for joining us.

[Sarah Lafleur]

Thank you for having me, Michelle.

[Michelle Martin]

Thank you so much. So the reason we called you both is that you have been affected by these promised, threatened tariffs. Both of you are entrepreneurs. Both of your businesses are established. So before we get into that, why don't you just start by telling us why you're in the business that you're in. Debbie, why don't you start?

[Debbie Way Mullen]

So I started Copper Cow Coffee as the first premium Vietnamese coffee company. And it's a real homage to the way I grew up. My mom is from Vietnam.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Vietnam.

[Debbie Way Mullen]

And I'm really passionate about all things Vietnamese cuisine and think that Vietnamese coffee, which is the second largest coffee producer in the world, was really not seen in the US Market and really wanted to elevate Vietnamese coffee as a way to bring development to Vietnam.

[Michelle Martin]

Interesting. Sarah, what about you? You also have a story that you've shared on your website about why you started your business.

[Sarah Lafleur]

Yes, I started my business back in 2013. I myself actually don't come from the fashion world, but I was a management consultant. I found it very hard to find good, practical, but fashionable clothing for professional women. Women, on average, spend two more weeks per year getting ready for work versus men. And I really wanted to tackle that challenge. I partnered with my co founder, Miyako Nakamura, who came from a high end fashion background. And our goal has always been to provide luxurious fabrics, luxurious manufactured clothing to hardworking professional women.

[Michelle Martin]

So, Debbie, coffee isn't really grown in the United States, is it? Maybe in Hawaii, right? In Hawaii, yes. But not in the continental United States.

[Debbie Way Mullen]

Never a fraction of what the US Consumes in terms of coffee consumption.

[Michelle Martin]

But you couldn't have the kind of coffee company you have without sourcing it from Vietnam, right?

[Debbie Way Mullen]

Absolutely not.

[Michelle Martin]

Okay, so how did you when you first heard that Vietnam was on this schedule of tariffs, and in fact, Vietnam was one of the countries that was originally supposed to be hit with one of the highest tariffs at like 46%. Do you remember what went through your mind?

[Debbie Way Mullen]

Just complete shock, to be honest. As I'm sure you're aware, we've been suffering through a coffee crisis for the past year and a half. And with double coffee prices already having to adjust the business to that has been a complete whirlwind. And so I think that we were really particularly surprised, not only because it's coffee, which the US Primarily doesn't grow, but also Vietn really, really does admire Trump and has been really willing to concede to whatever demands that he wants. They are really cooperative with them. So I think that we went into the tariff, the idea of tariffs being relatively a lower possibility for Vietnam and for coffee. And so I think we were really shocked to be on the high upper end of what they were.

[Michelle Martin]

What would this do if the 46% tariffs were to hold? How would you absorb that? I mean, what would you do?

[Debbie Way Mullen]

Honestly, the direct to consumer business side is a little bit easier. People are coming to your website, you have real estate to really explain the dynamic. You can instantly change your prices to accommodate these changes. The hardest part is that half of our business today is actually in retailers where it takes a minimum of six months for us to do a price change. And also we have no idea what that's going to do with our position with the company, with these clients. And I think that's what's really hard, is that Vietnam, the kind of coffee that we grow, is much easier to grow. It's much easier to grow organically. There's a lot of advantages of what we're doing for the coffee space to make it more sustainable and much more affordable for organic coffee. And it's really, it's incredible how much work is being completely basically leveled from these tariffs in terms of our ability to make affordable, organic, great tasting coffee no longer, no longer applies with these tariffs if they were to come through.

[Michelle Martin]

And I want to come back more also to your mission with this. I mean, you say on your website you actually pay these farmers twice what the market rate is. And, and why is that? Because you want to raise their living standards?

[Debbie Way Mullen]

Yeah, and it's also just because the kind of coffee that Vietnam grows is Robusta coffee, which has historically not been treated as well in its processing and its cultivation. And we've proven that if you, if you put much more care into the processing and the way that it's grown, it can create a delicious cup of coffee. And not that it really can make it a very much more sustainable through organic farming because it's so much more pest resistant. What's been really hard is that we've done a lot of also investment into the farms, into the processing, into the manufacturing to make organic and the grade of coffee that we have possible on the premise that it will be much cheaper in the long term for our customers to have organic coffee and the tariffs erode those savings. Right. And so then no longer are we going to be a competitive product with what we've been working on for the last several years.

[Michelle Martin]

Sara, let's go to you. You're a New York based company, so you know, New York Used to be. It's still a fashion capital, but a lot of the fashion shoes, clothes are manufactured in China. Why is that?

[Sarah Lafleur]

When we started our business, we actually did manufacture in the garment district right here in New York City. And even compared to when I started the business in 2013, the Garment District has shrunken dramatically. We manufactured a lot of our clothes until 2017 in New York City. And really, as the business grew, which was wonderful, we had no choice, actually, but to leave a lot of our partners in New York City. And at the same time, they were also losing business. And so they were starting to shut down. And so really, I want to say since 2018, we've been mostly 100%, you know, manufacturing overseas. China has been just an amazing source of manufacturing. Their skill level is so high. The, the. The craftsmanship, you know, it takes really generations to. To create good sewers. You know, everyone thinks that that clothing, oh, you know, some part of it must be automated. And, and yes, there is some machinery involved, but every single thing that you are wearing, someone is sitting behind the sewing machine putting those fabric, pieces of fabric together. And that's not just a skill you can develop overnight. You know, even some of the best sewers in New York City, who still remain, they're in their 70s, and they don't have anyone to pass it down to. And so I think China does have that craftsmanship. They have that level of skill. And honestly, when we moved some of our manufacturing out to New York, from out from New York City to China, we were surprised by the level of quality that we were getting.

[Michelle Martin]

The argument the administration is making is that the whole point of this, they say, is to reshore these industries. How long would it take from your experience to reshore your operations? Assuming it could be done in a way that you could sustain your business?

[Sarah Lafleur]

It's obviously not impossible. It would take a ton of infrastructure from the government. Even the factory spaces that you see in the garment district are tiny compared to the, you know, tens of thousands of square footage that you have in factories in China, in Vietnam. And then you've got generations of, you know, so is training the next generation. So, of course, all of this is possible. It would take enormous resources. And also we need to think about how we actually, you know, transport those goods. And so that's infrastructure, again, at a different scale. Do we actually have the. The tanker ships to, you know, get things over from, I don't know, New York to, To different parts of the country, or trains? It's, it's. It's Kind of. You know, I'm. I'm not an economist, but to me, that sounds like a lot more money.

[Michelle Martin]

If the tariffs are hold, what do you do?

[Sarah Lafleur]

It has been total chaos with our partners, both in Vietnam and China, but specifically in China, my May collection has 90% evaporated overnight because we cannot afford to bring in goods from China. Wow.

[Debbie Way Mullen]

Wait, wait, wait, wait.

[Michelle Martin]

Let me understand this. Do you literally have a collection that you cannot afford to bring in?

[Sarah Lafleur]

Correct. I mean, from a cash flow perspective, too. I think that's the other thing people don't quite understand when they say, well, just raise prices. Yes, of course we could raise prices. And, you know, eventually, perhaps the customers will cover the cost of the tariff. But if you think about the duty that is actually the tariffs that we have to pay to the government, we pay that the moment our goods hit the United States border. So from a cash perspective, that's. That's an outlay that we are making to the US Government. And without certainty that the customer is actually going to be willing to take on those price increases, if you can't.

[Michelle Martin]

Afford to bring these. These goods in, what's going to happen to the company?

[Sarah Lafleur]

It's a really good question. Honestly, I've been grappling with just what the reality looks like for my business. You know, I think in times of chaos, the advice that I've gotten is move slow. And I think right now, things are changing so rapidly. You know, one moment it's 47%, the next moment it's 150%. I don't actually know what this means. I'm just trying to take it one step at a time. You know, we are raising prices. We know that we're doing that. I have already cut costs, and I will probably have to cut some more. I am rejiggering entire collections. I'm now trying, you know, literally in the office next door, I've got Portuguese partners who I'm. I'm trying to woo because, you know, the tariffs in Portugal are going to be better than the tariffs in China. It is just like a complete upheaval. I hope my business survives. In fact, I should say, I know my business will survive. You know, Covid was one of those moments where it was so devastating and I didn't know if we would make it through. And somehow we magically. We magically did through. Through the team's exceptionally hard work. And it is one of those moments, again, where I'm looking at my team and I'm saying to them, it's. It's Going to be another hard, gosh, two, three years. Will you fight this with me? So that's what we're facing right now.

[Michelle Martin]

Just a few days ago, the administration decided to exempt certain products from these tariffs, mainly electronics. And Sarah, when you heard that, what went through your mind? Did you feel some kind of way about that? Like why that and not this, this?

[Sarah Lafleur]

I mean, my honest reaction is I felt angry. You know, I think people with direct access to the White House and people who have the ability to lobby, they, they will get special privileges and advantage that, advantages that small businesses like myself won't. You know, we are a small, small business in, in the context of the US economy, but I think it's also important to REM. Small businesses make up 45% of the country's GDP. We are not the ones making electronics. We are the ones making clothing, making coffee, engaging in agriculture, you know, and we're a really, really important part of the US economy, but we are not capable of actually making, I think our voices heard in a way that the US government will understand.

[Michelle Martin]

The president's kind of theory of the case, as it were, is that short term pain for long term gain. So Debbie, in your case, there's really no way you can, you can't reshore the coffee business from, you can't reshore Vietnamese coffee.

[Debbie Way Mullen]

I'm not going to buy farmland here and plant trees and wait for them to harvest them five years later. I don't think that that's something that the US is in a position to even do. I think that it's been, it's, it's one of these things where it feels, it feels like it could be like Sarah said, I think we're just trying to see what it is because there are levels of tariffs where it's just, it's just lethal to, to businesses, to small businesses. And whether that's cash flow because, or if that's just because your, your, your customers, your grocery stores are going to drop you because you're going to say you're going to have to increase prices by 40, 40%. I mean, I can't think of a retailer who would, who would possibly let you do something like that, regardless of what the macro environment is. And I think that this is just something that, that is, that it's just something where we're just collateral damage to, to an argument or a strategy that like you said, what the long term gain for who, and I'm really not sure who that is when it is kind of it is going to be those who have the money to lobby for protections against these tariffs. And it's just something that doesn't totally make sense from where I'm sitting today.

[Michelle Martin]

And Sarah, is there any long term gain that you can envision here?

[Sarah Lafleur]

No. And I think we will, we will find a way. We will, we will survive this. That I think I'm wondering at what cost that that's really the main question running through my head right now. I think one of the things that businesses, you know, any business owner will tell you that that unpredictability is the enemy of business growth. And I think what we are asking for is really communication with a lot of advance notice and a lot of from communication, a lot of these challenges could be overcome. There are ways that we can get around it with advanced notice. But I think right now that is what feels is lacking. We don't know what to expect. Every day is something different.

[Michelle Martin]

Debbie Way Mullen of Copper Cow Coffee and Sara Lafleur of MM lafleur, thank you both so much for speaking with us.

[Debbie Way Mullen]

Thank you so much.

[Sarah Lafleur]

Thank you so much.

[Kurt Campbell]

We wish them good luck. That's it for now. Thank you for watching. Goodbye from London.

[Debbie Way Mullen]

This week on THE Assignment with me, Audie Cornish. My guest is Larry Wilmore.

[Sarah Lafleur]

He's a writer and producer who has worked on some of the most successful shows of the century. In living Color, the Bernie Mac show, the Daily Show, Black ish, and we're just naming a few.

[Kurt Campbell]

But in his heart, he's still a comedian.

[Christiane Amanpour]

I'm getting back into doing standup again, which I really haven't done full time in a while. So. Wait.

[Kurt Campbell]

What?

[Sarah Lafleur]

Wait a second.

[Michelle Martin]

Like, you're going, you're doing open mics?

[Christiane Amanpour]

I'm going up Saturday night. I'm gonna start working on a new hour. Yeah. So it's a little scary. Audie, don't get me wrong. I can imagine.

[Sarah Lafleur]

What do you think is pulling at your chest here?

[Marcel Mittelsiefen]

I feel like I have to say something.

[Christiane Amanpour]

I can't stay silent anymore about just the world that I'm in.

[Kurt Campbell]

Listen to the Assignment with Me, Audie Cornish.

[Debbie Way Mullen]

Streaming now on your favorite podcast.

[Michelle Martin]

Apparently.