Bianna Golodriga (2:18)

So is there any chance of breaking the stalemate? Much of the American public will be hoping so. And without a last minute agreement, food assistance programs and student loans could be impacted. Parks and museums could close. And President Trump has threatened mass firings of federal workers to break it all down. I'm joined by Jared Bernstein, who served as chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers under President Biden. Jared, it is good to see you. So you've worked through shutdowns before in your career. How is this one different, if at all? And what are you going to be most focused on if we do, in fact have a shutdown over the next 72 hours?

Jared Bernstein (2:57)

I think this one is more worrisome in a number of ways. For one thing, some of the shutdowns in the past have been partial shutdowns because some of the agencies have been funded and their workers could stay at work. In this case, none of the agencies have been funded. So we're talking just about a magnitude of well over 800,000 government workers being furloughed. Yet they will be paid. That's the law. So they get their back pay after that. There are two things that are just particularly crazy about that. First of all, there's a lot of essential work, so called essential workers who still will be working. You know, workers at the tsa, people who get out your Social Security checks. Those folks will be at work. They'll be working without pay. Air traffic controllers working without pay. That's just a horrible thing to have to go through, particularly in an economy where people are so stressed by affordability. But remember, everybody gets their back pay after this is over. So it's just extremely wasteful and you know, a big own goal kick in my view, by dint of these folks just not being able to keep the lights on.

Bianna Golodriga (4:07)

So up to 800,000 potentially federal employees furloughed and you have the President of the United States, as I noted just a moment ago, threatening to fire federal workers as well. What's the impact on the workforce and is the firing even legal at this point?

Jared Bernstein (4:25)

Well, first of all, the impact on the workforce alongside just really damaging morale, which I think is already pretty low following the Doge cuts, is higher unemployment. Now, we've already had the unemployment rate creeping up, still relatively low, 4.3%. But we've seen the black rate creep up to 7.5%, up from 6 just in May. And so a lot of that increase, a good chunk of that increase has been layoffs of government workers. This of course would exacerbate that in terms of its legality. Well, unfortunately, the conservatives on the Supreme Court have given the President a lot more leeway than many of us think the law allows. So the legal question is an open one.

Bianna Golodriga (5:13)

You also say that Democrats need an ironclad agreement that Republicans won't rescind funds later. That is a core demand of Democrats as well. In addition to extending the ACA subsidies, how can they even assume that if this administration at some point guarantees that, that they won't walk that back later?

Jared Bernstein (5:37)

Right? This is Charlie Brown with the football all over again with much higher consequences. Well, first of all, let's be sure everyone gets what we're talking about. These are these arcane budget issues that we all have to think about every six months or so. Recently, Republicans, led by President Trump, unilaterally decided not to spend money that had been allocated to be spent in this fiscal year. That's called a rescission. The only way that's legal is if both sides agree to it, because these appropriations are legislated. They're in the law. So it was my view, not a lawyer here. So, you know, I want to be clear about that. But it's my view that that was an illegal move to rescind that spending. They went to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court said, as it has done all too often these days, well, we're not going to rule on the merits. We're going to rule on whether whoever brought this to us really had the ability to do so. It's one of these process decisions. So it's a very problematic development and one that, again, I think is illegal. But from the perspective of democr Democrats, why would you shake hands and make a deal with somebody on a spending plan if you don't believe they're going to spend it? Now, to directly answer your question, there are a few changes, they're pretty technical that could be made that would make it harder for Republicans to break this law. Part of it has to do with timing. One reason they are able to do those rescissions is because they're doing them right towards the end of the fiscal year. If you have a law that prohibits that, look, at least you could sue them. I don't know how far that would go these days, but I still think Democrats are well within their rights to not shake hands with someone who you can't trust.

Bianna Golodriga (7:18)

Right. Especially if ultimately the desire, as this administration has shown, is to go to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court takes it and just punts. So we still don't know a definitive as to the legality here. In terms of the polling during shuts downs, the New York Times Sienna shows 26% would blame Trump and Congress, 19% blame Democrats, about a third bl both equally. Do you agree that the party in power usually takes the biggest hit? And is there a difference now, given how unpopular and weak the Democratic Party appears to be for a number of polls that we've shown over the last few months? I mean, Ezra Klein had written that Democrats need to stop acting like shutdowns are normal and try to actually win the argument. Do you see leadership either in the House, Democratic leadership in the House or the Senate stepping up and doing just that?

Jared Bernstein (8:16)

I see them very much trying to do. So how that will work is a matter of a public opinion. Now, you know, you read out those statistics, I think it's really important to note that we've actually had single digit numbers of shutdowns over many years. We've often got to this point where they've been threatened. I've been in the government where everybody's ready to undergo all this, all this upheaval due to a shutdown, and then a minute before midnight they decide not to do it. By the way, the betting markets have this at a north of 80% probability. And I think they're about right, if maybe even a little low. So I do think we'll likely get a shutdown, but there's just not enough cases here in the sample to really know which way public opinion bounces. And sometimes it can be a very particular and interesting thing that happens. Some family was planning to go to a park and they weren't able to go and they canceled their vacation. And TSA lines are getting longer and longer and it becomes almost an anecdotal buildup. And at that point, who the public blames is up for grabs. So I wouldn't be too convinced as to which way this goes. Now, it is true that the, it is true that when you control the presidency, the Senate, the House and arguably even the Supreme Court, when all the levers of government are controlled by Republicans, they probably are more likely to get the blame. And frankly, I think that's fair because I think Democrats are arguing with them. You've got to agree with us that you're not going to rescind this spending, which again, I think is a condition for having a deal. So we'll see where the public goes. But yes, the Republicans are probably more likely to own this end of the day, just by dint of how much of the government control.

Bianna Golodriga (10:07)

Yeah. And rescinding the spending, that's clearly a fight that President Trump has been longing to have as well. So I can't imagine him agreeing to something on that in the last minute. We will see. In my opening question to you, I asked, what are you going to be watching over the next 72 hours? And I asked that because on Friday we have a key economic report coming out, the jobs report, that during a shutdown we would not be getting. And it's notable in your substack, you've argued that it's less about cooking the books and numbers in terms of concerns about how this administration can possibly get around economic data that they don't like and more about delaying and suppressing them. How big of a risk is that? And how do you anticipate markets to respond to a Friday without a jobs report?

Jared Bernstein (10:55)

Well, let's start with the last part of your question, because that's the easiest one. And the answer is badly. We've already actually seen markets being a bit shook up by the potential of not getting the jobs report in a timely manner. By the way, to be clear to our viewers, when the government reopens, that jobs report would come out. So if it's a shutdown that lasts a couple of weeks, you get the jobs report for September in the middle of October instead of the beginning. And yes, that's disconcerting to markets who use that information, especially right now as we're trying to figure out just how many cracks are developing in the job market, but also to the central bank. Remember the Federal Reserve, our Federal Reserve has a meeting at the end of October. And this jobs report would be a really key data input into, into that meeting. Now, in terms of my point about delaying the data, I do think that it is kind of a feature, not a bug, for folks who, for folks in the Trump administration who don't want anyone to see any more data or information showing that the job market is, in fact, developing some cracks. And you saw that the commissioner of the, of the bureau who publishes that data got finished, got, got fired when they didn't like one of the reports. So I do think that this, you know, delaying or suppressing the data is a more likely form of monkeying around with that than actually trying to go in there and cook the books, the numbers themselves. That's really quite hard to do. Quick, last point on this. Tomorrow, Wednesday we get adp, which is a different private source of employment data. Most of us have long discounted that because there's much more information in the BLS report. But we're going to all have to be looking at the ADP a lot more closely because it looks like it may be our only alternative for the next couple of weeks.

Bianna Golodriga (12:49)

No doubt. And as you noted, without reliable data, you risk the Fed sort of steering blind on important indicators like inflation and the employment situation here in the country as well. Jared Bernstein, I wish I had you on for a better story. It's always good to see you, but never a good, never a good subject matter. Just hours ahead of a potential government shutdown doesn't really benefit many Americans, if any at all. Have a great day. Thanks so much. And later in the program, is peace in Gaza within reach? I'll Discuss President Trump's 20 point plan to end the war with Israeli journalist Anshul Pfeffer. That's coming up next. When did making plans get this complicated? It's time to streamline with WhatsApp, the secure messaging app that brings the whole group together. Use polls to settle dinner plans, send event invites and pin messages so no.

Cory Schaeck (13:51)

One forgets mom 60th and never miss.

Bianna Golodriga (13:53)

A meme or milestone. All protected with end to end encryption. It's time for WhatsApp message privately with everyone. Learn more@WhatsApp.com I'm Dr. Sanjay Gupta, host.

Cory Schaeck (14:05)

Of the Chasing Life podcast.

Bianna Golodriga (14:08)

I'm worried about this generation in Face.

Hari Srinivasan (14:10)

To face communication because it's not an.

Anshul Pfeffer (14:11)

Easy thing to do.

Hari Srinivasan (14:13)

Susan Greenfield is the author behind Mind.

Cory Schaeck (14:16)

How Digital Technologies Are Leaving Their Mark on Our Brains.

Hari Srinivasan (14:20)

We discuss outsourcing our lives to digital.

Bianna Golodriga (14:24)

Devices and how that impacts our human connections.

Hari Srinivasan (14:28)

Listen to Chasing Life Streaming now wherever you get your podcasts.

Bianna Golodriga (14:38)

Now. Could an end to the war in Gaza finally be in sight? After Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ostensibly agreed to President Trump's peace plan, it looks slightly more likely. The answer lies partly with Hamas now, which has been offered an accept the deal or face consequences.

Anshul Pfeffer (14:56)

I have a feeling that we're going.

Bianna Golodriga (14:57)

To have a positive answer, but if not, as you know, Bibi, you'd have.

Hari Srinivasan (15:01)

Our full backing to do what you.

Bianna Golodriga (15:04)

Would have to do. But convincing Hamas to agree to terms like its own disarmament could be a roadblock. And just how aligned Trump and Netanyahu really are is unclear. While the proposal creates a pathway for a Palestinian state, the prime minister says Israel will, quote, forcibly resist the idea. So let's bring in the Economist Israel correspondent Anshel Pfeiffer. For many years. What does it tell you that President Trump was able to get him to do something that his predecessors were not, and that is publicly to accept a ceasefire?

Anshul Pfeffer (15:48)

Well, I think that behind the scenes, there's been intense pressure on Netanyahu in recent weeks to agree finally to. Sorry, to a public and clear plan for ending this war, something that he's resisted for almost two years now. And you know, you saw a lot of bonhomie, you saw a lot of Trump saying many nice words about Netanyahu. Yes. At the press conference. But we know that behind the scenes, it, it hasn't been always that friendly. Trump has started to lose his patience with this war and this has led to these final few days of getting this plan together and forcing Netanyahu to stand there and accept it.

Bianna Golodriga (16:37)

So, aside from the traditional hyperbole that we've come to know from Donald Trump calling this potentially one of the great days in civilization, promising eternal peace, just stripping that away, what's genuinely new here in terms of the details, because it's been argued that a very similar plan was put on the table and then rejected ultimately last year by President Biden. And there's some criticism that perhaps he wasn't able to pressure him to accept the deal the way that President Trump effectively was.

Anshul Pfeffer (17:10)

Well, that's true. And it's also true that the ceasefire that went into effect in January, which had two phases to it, the first phase was phase which was carried out. The second phase, which Israel basically binned by closing Gaza and going back to war in March, was very much also like this plan. So we've had two very similar plans to the one that was presented yesterday in the White House. Netanyahu managed to get from Trump in the last few days, before the final plan was presented, a couple of, I think, important elements which will make it very difficult for Hamas to accept the plan. One is that the entire release of all the remaining Israeli hostages in Gaza. We know there's 48 hostages, about 20 of whom are believed to still be alive. That will happen at the very first stage of the. Of the ceasefire, when basically the moment Israel stops the war, Hamas is supposed to, in the space of three days, to locate and bring out all the hostages, both those who are alive and their bodies. And that basically means that Hamas gives up all its bargaining chips. I mean, it's very crude to talk about hostages as bargaining chips. That is how Hamas sees that. This is Hamas's leverage. So they have to give up their leverage very much at the beginning of the process. That's one thing that Hamas will find very difficult to swallow. The other thing is that the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza Strip is both gradual and we don't know, there isn't yet in the plan a clear timetable about how that takes place. And also the last stage within the plan, Israel still remains within parts of Gaza, in the perimeter, sort of like a kilometer or so strip within Gaza's borders, and also along the Gaza border with Egypt. And that, for Hamas, I think, is going to be a huge issue. They are not achieving a full withdrawal of Israel. There is in the plan a full withdrawal from all of Gaza's territory. But that's only when Israel accepts that there is no longer any threat to it from Gaza. And it's hard to say how and when that situation is achieved. So I think Netanyahu got in the last few days. Also a couple of important changes which didn't exist in the previous plan. The previous plans saw a more phased release of the hostages and also spoke about a much earlier Israeli withdrawal of all of Gaza. So I think those are the changes. But still, essentially what we've seen here in the Trump launches is not very different from what was talked about in the second and third phases of the ceasefire that Israel accepted in January and then abandoned and of last year's Biden administration plan.

Bianna Golodriga (20:00)

Yeah, it did seem that President Trump lost all patience with a phased plan in terms of the release of hostages. He kept on saying he wants them all out at once. And so now this plan calls for essentially all of them to be released over the course of three days. Prime Minister Netanyahu did warn, however, if they reject this deal, that Israel would act. Here's what he said.

Hari Srinivasan (20:25)

If Hamas rejects your plan, Mr. President, or if they supposedly accept it and then basically do everything to counter it, then Israel will finish the job by itself.

Bianna Golodriga (20:43)

This can be done the easy way or it can be done the hard way. So, Ansho, this stood out to me because this was the threat that Israel had been putting forward to Hamas over the last month before they went into Gaza City saying, you can end this war now or we are going to go into Gaza City. And Hamas didn't blink at that point. Is this added pressure from Qatar and all of the other Arab and Muslim countries that have signed onto this deal? Is that what you think could perhaps get Hamas to finally agree to something they didn't before? Because you mentioned how crude and horrific they are as an organization in using hostages as leverage. The same can be said about their own people who they've seen be killed and die over the last two years as well.

Anshul Pfeffer (21:37)

Well, I don't think what we've seen over the last two years should give anyone reasonable, any room to think that Hamas cares about the people of Gaza. They've brought down upon them death and destruction. But ultimately, Hamas wants to survive as an organization. And it's an organization which has different elements. It has a political leadership. It has its social elements within Gaza, but also other Palestinian areas. And there's the military wing. Now, the military wing faces basically losing its arms in Gaza and its power base there. On the other hand, the political wing, who are based outside of Gaza and mainly in those two countries, in, in Qatar and in Turkey, who are also supposed to be partners with Donald Trump in this, in this deal, they're expected to now pressure them very, very heavily to try and to accept this deal. Now, this deal will only be even if they accept this deal, it'll be a yes, but, because the but is that the details still need to be hashed out. And there are a lot of details here about the, about the hostage and prisoner exchange, about the timetable for Israeli withdrawal, how this disarmament of Hamas in Gaza is going to take place, and what will be this new international stabilization force which is supposed to come into Gaza. All these things have to be worked out before a ceasefire can come into effect. So even if Hamas says yes tomorrow to the Trump deal, that's not yet a ceasefire. But this is where really the Qataris and the Turkish government also probably come into their role in both bringing Hamas to say yes, even if it's a qualified yes. And then there will probably be the main mediators, probably the Qataris will be the main mediators for the actual deep, detailed negotiations which will have to take place over weeks until there is a ceasefire deal.

Bianna Golodriga (23:33)

Yeah, we should note you mentioned the international stabilization force. No country has yet to sign off on that. That's an important point to make right now as well. On paper, Anshul, Israel is essentially getting most of what it had been demanding in terms of war goals, dismantling Hamas, getting its hostages back. So why, in your view, is Netanyahu still hedging? I know we are hearing from some far right members of his coalition who are criticizing this deal publicly at home. And Thomas Friedman pointed out that Netanyahu is known to say one thing to one audience and a different thing to another audience. What is more important, what he said with the president there at the White House yesterday or what he is telling his constituents back home in Hebrew?

Anshul Pfeffer (24:22)

Well, they're both important. And I think Donald Trump over the last eight or nine months has learned that he needs to keep Netanyahu on a very short leash when he, when these negotiations are taking place. So Trump is certainly a hugely important audience and you know the American media environment that Trump is so much a part of. So we saw Netanyahu giving interviews to Fox and to various right wing influencers when he was in the US over the last few days. So that's one audience he's talking to. He's talking to the Israeli public because at some point over the next 12 months there will be an election in Israel and he needs to try and somehow regain some of the voters who he's lost. And we've seen in the polls that he's lost a lot of his voters. But at the same time, there's a third conversation he's having, and that's with his base. And now this deal. The first polls are about to come out, so I can't give you the exact numbers, but we can expect this deal to be wildly popular in Israel. We already know that over 70% of Israelis are in favor of such a deal and of ending the war with a hostage release. But there is roughly 25, 30% of Israelis who want to continue the war until Hamas is totally obliterated and Gaza is totally obliterated. And, and they're a minority, but they're a big chunk of Netanyahu's own political base and he needs that base in the next election. It's not just the parties who are his coalition partners. He needs this entire coalition to stay in power after the election. So he's also having a conversation with them and he's saying to them, look, I may have signed up to some kind of notional idea of a pathway to a Palestinian state. Don't worry, it's not going to happen. I may have signed up to something which says the Palestinian Authority will at some point resume control of Gaza. That's not going to happen. So he is having almost three parallel conversations right now, and he will continue having them throughout the next few months and right up to the election.

Bianna Golodriga (26:26)

Yeah, well, I would imagine that he needs this war to be over if he stands a chance to win another term as well. And God help us if we're talking about this war extending into 2026. We're already approaching the tragic two year mark next week. Anshul Pfeffer, thank you so much.

Anshul Pfeffer (26:46)

Thank you, Adam. Bianna.

Bianna Golodriga (26:48)

Well, up next, as lawmakers scramble for a deal to stop a government shutdown, President Trump addressed an unusual gathering of military brass at a Marine Corps base in Virginia. It's all part of Defense Secretary Pete Hex heseth's plan to overhaul the military, which he says has become distracted by political correctness. Hegseth used the opportunity to announce an end to diversity efforts, while Trump covered everything from tariffs to the Nobel Peace Prize to his feelings about Russian President Vladimir Putin. So what exactly is America's new defense strategy? Cory Schaeck is the former state and Pentagon official currently at the American Enterprise Institute in she joins me now. Corey, good to see you. You have covered this industry for much of your career. Have you ever seen anything quite like this? Especially given the high profile nature of the announcement last week with the Defense Secretary calling in all of these high ranking generals and admirals to come and gather in Quantico in Virginia.

Cory Schaeck (27:52)

Yeah. Pulling together three to 400 of the senior military leaders, both the commanders and their senior non commissioned officers, for a lecture about the warrior ethos. On the one hand, it seems ridiculous that people who spent 30 to 40 years of their adult lives in military service for our country need to be told about the warrior ethos by the civilian secretary and the President. But there was a much darker undercurrent than that, which was the President talking about enemies within, telling the military that they take their oath to defend the country against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and saying that we have domestic enemies, in particular in democratically controlled cities in states across the country. That's a very disturbing and dangerous thing that the President and the Secretary have been up to this morning. And the only positive element that we should take away from it was how disciplined and professional the response of the military was. They did not engage in the partisan politics that the President and the Secretary did.

Bianna Golodriga (29:09)

And President Trump, I'm glad you brought this up, because he praised deployments to Democratic controlled cities like Portland and Chicago and to the border as well, and even suggested using American cities as, quote, training grounds for U.S. troops. Let's play more of what he said on that front.

Daeg Kang (29:28)

It's a war, too. It's a war from within.

Bianna Golodriga (29:30)

Controlling the physical territory of our border.

Hari Srinivasan (29:34)

Is essential to national security.

Bianna Golodriga (29:36)

We can't let these people in.

Daeg Kang (29:37)

I want to salute every service member who has helped us carry out this critical mission. It's really a very important mission. And I told Pete we should use.

Hari Srinivasan (29:45)

Some of these dangerous cities as training.

Anshul Pfeffer (29:47)

Grounds for our military, National Guard, but.

Bianna Golodriga (29:50)

Military, what do you think of that idea, Cory? Using American cities as training ground for our military?

Cory Schaeck (30:01)

It's a terrible idea. It's an illegal idea. You know, since 1875, the posse comitatis act has prevented the deployment of American troops domestically unless the President declares an insurrection is occurring or a governor requests it. The governors of the states the President wants to deploy military troops to are vehemently objecting to it. And the constitutionality, the legality of what the President is proposing is deeply suspicious. And it's also bad for the relationship between our military and the American public. You know, the public doesn't like domestic military missions. The military doesn't like domestic military missions. Guarding the border is one thing. Repressing civil dissent in American cities is going to dangerously politicize the relationship between our military and our public. It's a bad idea.

Bianna Golodriga (31:08)

Pete Hegseth characterized the speech this day as yet another liberation day, this time for the military. Let's play some of what he said.

Hari Srinivasan (31:19)

A few months ago, I was at.

Jared Bernstein (31:20)

The White House when President Trump announced.

Hari Srinivasan (31:22)

His Liberation Day for America's trade policy. It was a landmark day. Well, today is another liberation day, the liberation of America's warriors in name, in deed and in authorities. You kill people and break things for a living. You are not politically correct and don't necessarily belong always in polite society. We are not an army of one. We are a joint force of millions of selfless Americans.

Jared Bernstein (31:55)

We are warriors.

Bianna Golodriga (31:58)

What does that mean in practice for the rank and file that's there that have devoted and dedicated decades of their lives and careers? These are all high ranking officials that were sitting in that room when they heard that from the Defense Secretary.

Cory Schaeck (32:15)

Well, I think the reaction was quite telling, which was disciplined silence because, you know, the military has a responsibility to show up when the civilian leadership wants them to, but they also have a professional responsibility not to behave in a partisan political way. And what the Secretary was doing was asserting a much less legally and culturally constrained set of behaviors by the American military. And they sat there in silence and let the secretary and the President say their piece, which is exactly what they should have done. But it's a weird thing to think that people who've spent 30 or 40 years of their adult lives in military service need to be told about a warrior ethos from, especially from this Secretary of Defense.

Bianna Golodriga (33:12)

He also slammed what he described as a woke department in the military. Let's play some sound there.

Hari Srinivasan (33:21)

We've weeded out so called toxic leaders under the guise of double blind psychology assessments promoting risk averse go along to get along conformists instead, you name it, the department did it.

Jared Bernstein (33:35)

Foolish and reckless political leaders set the.

Hari Srinivasan (33:37)

Wrong compass heading and we lost our way. We became the woke department, but not anymore.

Bianna Golodriga (33:48)

So he's essentially saying that the Defense Department under his leadership, under President Trump will be a meritocracy. Do you believe he has a point? I mean, do policies around diversity, energy, cracking down on toxic leadership, have they weakened readiness militarily?

Cory Schaeck (34:08)

So Secretary Hegseth does have a point. Some folks in military service are concerned about a lot of the social policies that civilian leaders impose on the military. That's a pretty standard complaint from the American military though. And so I think Secretary Hegseth in what he is pushing forward is just, it's sort of a cartoon manly military. And Secretary Hegseth actually has been bragging that the military has made its recruiting goals and it actually couldn't have made its recruiting goals without lots of participation by the very people he's castigating and saying have no place in the American military under his civilian stewardship. So I think it's tiresome political correctness by the Trump administration. It's just different tiresome political correctness than in the last administration.

Bianna Golodriga (35:13)

And he kept referencing the highest male standard. What does that say in terms of women being welcomed and recognized in the military?

Cory Schaeck (35:26)

Well, what he's suggesting is that the women who are currently in service did not meet the standard. And it's part of an undercurrent of devaluing the service of minorities and women in the American military. And it's not good for the force, to be frank, but it's not nearly as dangerous as other things the president and the secretary said today. I mean, the president encouraging the military that it's part of their oath of office to go after political enemies of the president and the secretary of defense saying, if you don't like this, you should resign your commission. That's a very dangerous way to politicize the American military and something that Congress, in their responsibility as the other source of civilian authority over the military ought to stamp down on.

Bianna Golodriga (36:29)

Finally, I would like to just get you to weigh in on how Pete Hegseth characterized sort of his ethos, I guess, in one acronym. And I think you know where I'm going here, but let's play that sound quickly and we'll have you respond.

Hari Srinivasan (36:47)

Should our enemies choose foolishly to challenge.

Jared Bernstein (36:51)

Us, they will be crushed by the.

Hari Srinivasan (36:54)

Violence, precision and ferocity of the War Department. In other words, to our enemies. Fafo.

Bianna Golodriga (37:09)

Okay. For those that don't know what that means, they can look it up. Corey, I'm sure I don't have to tell you what that means. Your reaction?

Cory Schaeck (37:16)

Well, that sounds like something a Marine sergeant would say to lance corporals, not something appropriate for the secretary of defense to say to three or 400 civilian, excuse me, three or 400 assembled military leaders. It's juvenile and I think the secretary and the president did not well serve the American military today.

Bianna Golodriga (37:45)

Corey, it's really good to see you. Thank you so much for your analysis. Really.

Cory Schaeck (37:50)

Thank you.

Bianna Golodriga (37:52)

And stay with us. We'll be right back after a short break. Next is Silicon Valley, where major US Tech firms are urged to stop exports to the Chinese police, with some lawmakers asking that they appear before Congress. This comes after a recent Associated Press investigation revealed the direct role that US Companies have played in building Beijing's mass surveillance state. AP reporter Daeg Kank investigated this story, and he joins Hari Srinivasan to talk about the complicity of American technology.

Daeg Kang (38:29)

Bianna, thanks. Investigative reporter Daeg Kang from the Associated Press. Thanks so much for joining us. You had a recent piece that uncovered a layer of surveillance that's going on in China that had been previously unreported. But you, in your report, through documents that were handed over from a whistleblower, found connections to American companies. What did you find?

Hari Srinivasan (38:54)

Yeah, basically what we found in these documents is that, you know, in the past, there's been reporting about how American companies have provided components or products to the Chinese police. But what we found is that actually these American companies not only sold some goods to the Chinese police, they actually were complicit in designing the entire system from the top down and working very closely with the Chinese authorities in building the system. And so when you look at, you know, the Chinese policing apparatus as it is today, I mean, it wouldn't have existed without the assistance of American companies. From the very beginning, you know, back 25 years ago, American companies were there right at the start designing and building these systems to a large degree so that the Chinese police could carry out, you know, government repression, censorship, and control of its own people.

Daeg Kang (39:48)

You write, quote, some directly pitch their tech as tools for Chinese police to control citizens. Marketing material from IBM, Dell, Cisco and Seagate show their sales pitches made both publicly and privately cited Communist Party catchphrases on crushing protests, including stability maintenance, key persons, and abnormal gatherings, and named groups that stifled dissent, such as internal Internet Police, Sharp Eyes, and the Golden Shield. What's the Golden Shield?

Hari Srinivasan (40:19)

Yeah, so the Golden Shield is basically China's digital policing apparatus. When it got started, it was a way of kind of getting a hold of the Internet. You know, the Internet was this thing that the Chinese authorities saw as being uncontrollable. Anyone could just go log on online and say whatever they wanted. And so the Chinese authorities wanted some way to be able to control it. And then from that project came this whole digital policing apparatus. They saw that the Chinese government had this need for digital censorship and surveillance, and they pitched their products, products for the Golden Shield for the use of the Chinese police. And, you know, some of the companies, they kind of vary in what they were selling. You know, some companies say, oh, we were just only selling hard drives, or we were just selling kind of, you know, general purpose equipment and stuff like that. But when you actually look at these marketing materials, you find that a lot of these companies were very well aware of what Their products were going to be used for. Some of the most damning material that we found was actually these classified government blueprints that show that IBM actually worked with a Chinese military and defense contractor to build out the Golden Shield Phase two. And in those blueprints, you can actually see them say things like, you know, consolidate Communist party rule. You see these documents that, you see databases that show that they're monitoring people like, you know, followers of dissident religious groups or people in the far western region of Xinjiang where many Western governments say that there was a genocide. And so you see these documents and you see that these companies were actually quite active in pitching their gear to the Chinese police. And this is something that continues all the way up until quite recently, even though there's been repeated warnings about the way the Chinese police were using this kind of technology. And so, you know, if you dig into these marketing materials, sometimes you see references to race. You know, one post we found from Dell advertised, you know, all race recognition with one of their facial recognition powered laptops. They're talking about things like blacklisted individuals, key personnel, which is this, this term that they use to track people that they think are politically sensitive. So, you know, a lot of American companies in the past have basically claimed ignorance. They say, oh, we don't really know how our gear is being used. We don't really have any control over that. But what our article shows is that that's not the case.

Daeg Kang (43:00)

For the record, IBM says if older systems, because some of these contracts were back in the early 2000s, if older systems are being abused today, and IBM has no knowledge that they are, the misuse is entirely outside of IBM's control, was not contemplated by IBM decades ago, and in no way reflects on IBM today. So, you know, in, in your story, you said that the, the Xinjiang government has said we are using this, basically these technologies to prevent and combat terrorists and criminal activity. There is absolutely no such thing as large scale human rights violations. Does that ring true, considering what you've seen on the ground?

Hari Srinivasan (43:41)

Absolutely not. I've gone to Xinjiang personally, you know, almost half a dozen times, and I've seen people, you know, be ordered into lines and having their phones checked. Personally, I've seen, you know, particularly members of the Uyghur ethnicity being singled out, while members of China's Han majority ethnicity are kind of waved through security checkpoints. And so, you know, the Chinese government has obviously gone on this big push to promote what it's doing in Xinjiang as being about combating terrorism because they realized that this was damaging their reputation.

Daeg Kang (44:16)

You know, you have in your story this description of what's called basically a digital cage. Explain to our audience what that is, and you profile a family. But you say that this might affect up to 100,000 human beings in China. What's a digital cage? How does it work?

Hari Srinivasan (44:34)

What the digital cage is is that there's all these kind of invisible digital electronic systems that are kind of in place that are able to monitor and in some cases control the movement of the Chinese people. And for the vast majority of Chinese people, this is not a problem because, you know, most people are not explicitly political. They're not going on the streets or, you know, chanting or doing anything along those lines. And so. So these systems are not aimed directly at them. But the moment you do something that catches the state's attention, for whatever reason, you say something against the party or whatever it is, then all of a sudden you might get blacklisted. And then if you're blacklisted, all of a sudden, your life can totally change, right? You have police suddenly following you around, or you try to buy train tickets, and then you get intercepted on the other side where there's officers waiting for you. I know this very well myself because as a journalist, I'm also a person that the state does monitor very closely. Obviously, I'm not in the same situation because they treat me with a certain degree of deference, knowing that I'm a foreign journalist. But there's the sense that you're always being watched and that at any time the authorities could intervene in the situation. And this kind of digital policing is actually invisible to most people. And that's actually what makes it so insidious. It's repression, but it's invisible repression.

Daeg Kang (46:00)

So you point out in your reporting that it's not just IBM that sold their software into China in the first place. Decades ago. You said, you know, here it's that Oracle, Hewlett Packard, ArcGIS, developer of Esri, sold hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of geographic and mapping equipment and software to Chinese police. Nvidia and intel, the chip companies, have partnered with Chinese surveillance companies to add AI capabilities to cameras used for video surveillance. Other companies like Intel, Thermo, Fisher, Motorola, Amazon Web Services, Microsoft, Western Digital, and these are. It's an enormous list of companies you're talking about. And for before I let you answer here, you point out that Oracle, Hewlett Packard Enterprise and tech conglomerate Broadcom, which acquired VMware and cloud company Pivotal in 23, did not comment on the record. HP Motorola and Huadi did not respond. IBM, Dell, Cisco, Intel, Thermo Fisher and Amazon Web Services all said they adhere to export control policies. Seagate and Western Digital said they adhere to all relevant laws and regulations where they operate. And ESRI denied involvement, but did not reply to examples. Microsoft told AP it found no evidence that it knowingly sold technology to the military or police as part of updates to the Golden Shield. So what kind of software did they sell? Are they possibly maintaining?

Hari Srinivasan (47:28)

Yeah, some companies, you know, they're actually actively marketing to the Chinese police for the purposes of the control of their own people. Right. So that, that in that particular case, companies might say, we didn't really know how our gear was being used, but the marketing material there says otherwise. Right. Another thing that this really tells you is that there's a really wide variety of companies that are involved, right? I mean, Thermo Fisher, for example, what they're selling is actually DNA testing kits and things like that, that they were actually explicitly marketing the ability of their test kits to also test members of China's Uyghur and Tibetan ethnicities as well. Right. And so what you see here is that you really have like a broad array of American tech companies. They all kind of rushed into China, you know, in the early 2000s because they saw China as being this huge untapped market. A lot of them ignored warnings about how that technology was being used. And then they end up, you know, selling off unknowingly to the Chinese police for purposes of repression.

Daeg Kang (48:46)

There's a response from Nvidia that kind of begs a different question. Nvidia says, look, it does not make surveillance systems or software. It does not work with police in China, has not designed the H220 check chip for police surveillance. And relationships with Chinese surveillance firms no longer continue. I mean, there's this argument that tech companies are going to make that, look, I'm selling a general use technology, right? A chip is a chip. You could put it in your phone, you could put it in your graphics processor and play video games with it. You could use it for AI and large language models. You can't penalize us for that. That's not what we're doing. Nvidia is in kind of a special case where the US government is going to take 15% of any chip sales that it makes to China.

Bianna Golodriga (49:30)

Right.

Daeg Kang (49:30)

What's the danger here?

Hari Srinivasan (49:32)

Yeah, so Nvidia is a really interesting case, as you point out, because chip companies like Nvidia and Intel will make the argument that they really can't control where their chips go. The thing about that, though, is that we found evidence that both Nvidia and Intel actively partnered with Chinese surveillance companies for policing applications. And in Nvidia's case, they actually worked with a Chinese police research institute. You know, they were testing facial recognition software with Nvidia chips. And so what you're seeing here is that these companies are, on the one hand, saying they're not explicitly being designed for the purposes of surveillance, but they're very much assisting companies in figuring out how their chips can be used for surveillance applications. And so, you know, we groped them about it. I mean, we pointed to specific. Specific relationships that they had with specific Chinese companies. In many of the cases, they kind of dismissed them, saying, oh, you know, that was in the past. After the US Government sanctioned those Chinese companies, We no longer have any business ties with them, but some partnerships with other companies continue. I mean, we saw in the case of Nvidia that they actually touted how two Chinese companies who do sell to Chinese police were using Nvidia chips. And so that really begs the question. I mean, are they just adhering to the letter of the law? Not the spirit of it? They say, you know, all the. All the American companies that we spoke to say that they comply with US Export controls, but what we're seeing is that they're really kind of walking right up to the line of what is permissible. We did not find hard evidence of. Of violation of export controls. Export controls are very complicated. But in a lot of these cases, what these companies are doing is that they're actively working with these Chinese surveillance companies, so long as they're not being sanctioned. And so, you know, even though these chips are not being designed for the purposes of surveillance, they still very much end up in surveillance applications. And with the assistance of these chip.

Daeg Kang (51:45)

Companies, it's worth noting that the White House and Department of Commerce, you know, did not respond to your request for comment in the story. You know, one other idea that it was fascinating in your piece is that right now, your piece focuses on the influence that American technology companies had on the surveillance that's happening in the Chinese state and that Chinese companies could have advanced that technology further. But what's also interesting is that you also point out that, look, there, this type of surveillance is being used well beyond China. China, that there is facial recognition software that's being used, whether it's on the southern border of the United States or in Gaza by Israel.

Anshul Pfeffer (52:25)

Right?

Hari Srinivasan (52:26)

Absolutely. I mean, one of the things that we really wanted to emphasize in writing this report is that this is not just a China problem. I think a lot of people tend to think of China as being this kind of digital totalitarian state. There's a lot of discourse about that. Right. But it's not just a China issue. And in fact, I think it's quite telling that it was American companies that brought a lot of this technology to China because that means that it's also an American problem. And that's something that one of our interviewees actually, actually said when she was speaking with us. She said, you know, right now it might be us Chinese that's suffering, but sooner or later, Americans and people from other countries will suffer the consequences as well.

Daeg Kang (53:08)

Investigative reporter with the Associated Press, Dave Kang. Thanks so much for joining us.

Hari Srinivasan (53:12)

Thanks so much for having me.

Bianna Golodriga (53:14)

And that is it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. Remember, you can always catch us online, on our website and all over social media. Thanks so much for watching and goodbye from New York. This week on the Assignment with Me, Audie Cornish. Jimmy Kimmel was back on air almost a week after ABC suspended his show over comments he made about Charlie Kirk's assassination. Kimmel's suspension ignited this fierce debate about free speech, political pressure, who gets to decide which voices stay on air. So how did we get here? What forces brought us to this moment where conservative leaders and billionaire media owners.

Hari Srinivasan (54:04)

Are reshaping the media landscape?

Bianna Golodriga (54:06)

And what does that mean for you, the viewer? Listen to the Assignment with Me, Audie Cornish, streaming now on your favorite podcast.

Hari Srinivasan (54:14)

Apparently.