What's At Stake Between US & China

Summary

Amanpour Podcast: "What's At Stake Between US & China"

Date: May 14, 2026
Host: Paula Newton (for Christiane Amanpour)
Key Guests: Rush Doshi (Council on Foreign Relations), Louis Goodall (British journalist), Scott Bezant (US Treasury Secretary), Brendan Ballou (author and legal expert), Jeremy Dimon (CNN Jerusalem)

---

EPISODE OVERVIEW

This episode centers on the high-stakes summit between US President Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing, the current state and trajectory of US-China relations, and significant global ripple effects from their diplomacy—including trade, technology, Taiwan, Iran, and broader global power dynamics. Additional segments cover political turmoil in the UK, developments in Israel-Lebanon, and an inside look at how corporations use arbitration clauses to evade legal accountability.

---

1. US-CHINA SUMMIT: SYMBOLISM OVER SUBSTANCE

[00:04]–[03:58]

Key Discussion Points

• President Trump's first China visit in nine years marked by pageantry, shifting public tone, and “warm words” from both sides.
• Xi Jinping emphasizes partnership:
  • “Our two countries should be partners rather than rivals.”
    — Xi Jinping (via translation), [01:37]
• Trump's softer rhetoric:
  • “Such respect for China, the job you’ve done, you’re a great leader. I say it to everybody.”
    — Donald Trump, [01:49]
• Summit is "heavier on symbolism than substance."
  • “This summit has been heavier on symbolism… because the issues that divide the two countries are very hard to resolve quickly.”
    — Rush Doshi, [03:13]

Continuity, Not a Breakthrough

• The meeting “probably isn’t an inflection point,” but rather a quieter phase in a tense relationship.
• Key conflicts—Taiwan, trade, technology (notably AI), and Iran—remain unresolved.

---

2. CHINA’S LEVERAGE, SHIFTING DYNAMICS

[03:58]–[06:34]

What’s Changed Since 2017?

• China feels more confident and claims to have “won” last year’s trade war after the US raised tariffs to 145%—which China countered by restricting rare earth minerals, pressuring US manufacturing.
  • “Beijing feels it has the wind in its sails, that the so-called east is rising and the west is declining.”
    — Rush Doshi, [04:25]
• China’s goal: Use leverage to freeze US pressure, maintain stable economic and tech ties, and buy time for further growth and fortification.

---

3. TAIWAN: THE TOP-FRAUGHT ISSUE

[06:34]–[08:29]

Xi’s Stark Warning

• Xi to Trump: Mishandling Taiwan “could lead to a highly dangerous situation.”
  — [06:36]

Behind-the-Scenes Pressures

• China wants the US to (1) change its longstanding policy on Taiwan, and (2) let China “negotiate” US arms sales to Taiwan, making American support for Taiwan more difficult.
• Trump administration keeps public policy unchanged, but private negotiations could be more complex.

---

4. IRAN: QUAGMIRE AND GEOPOLITICS

[08:29]–[11:51]

China’s Perspective

• Sees the Iran conflict as a US “unforced error,” draining resources that could otherwise deter China in the Taiwan Strait.
• China is the main buyer of Iranian oil and is allegedly exploring arms transfers to Iran.

US Seeks Chinese Help

• US hopes China will pressure Iran—especially on oil purchases and military assistance—but China is likely to “watch and see us flounder,” as it holds vast oil reserves and feels less urgency.

Counterpoint from US Politicians

• Senator Marco Rubio:
  • “It’s in [China’s] interest to resolve this. We hope to convince them to play a more active role in getting Iran to walk away from what they’re doing.”
    — [10:20]

Doshi’s Insight

• “The U.S. has a long history of trying to tell China what’s in its interests… it doesn’t always work out.”
  — Rush Doshi, [10:48]
• China is insulated from short-term oil shocks and is not incentivized to help US interests.

---

5. THE AI RACE AND GUARDRAILS

[11:51]–[14:23]

Big Tech’s Stake

• US and China are “the two AI superpowers.”
• Treasury Secretary Scott Bezant:
  • “We’re actually going to be discussing the AI guardrails with the Chinese. …The two AI superpowers are going to start talking [about] best practices for AI to make sure nonstate actors don’t get a hold of these models.”
    — Scott Bezant, [12:11]

Realistic Cooperation?

• Doshi recounts prior efforts to ensure “AI would never be connected to nuclear command and control.”
• Skepticism: Past dialogues saw low-level Chinese participation; real progress requires higher engagement.
• “If they want to take it seriously, they’re going to have to change the participation… and they, frankly, will have to pick up the phone [in a crisis].”
  — Rush Doshi, [13:36]

---

6. HUMAN RIGHTS: TRANSACTIONAL OR ABANDONED?

[14:23]–[18:46]

Decline in Emphasis

• The Trump administration’s approach is “fully transactional”—human rights raised only when there’s a direct deal to be made, e.g., for “show of good faith” releases of individuals like Jimmy Lai.
  • “I’m not sure it’s high on his list… the president does view human rights in transactional terms.”
    — Rush Doshi, [15:12]
• Western leverage on human rights is waning as China’s power grows.

Why the Shift?

• “If the US couldn’t get China to change behavior on economic priorities… it’s much harder on human rights.”
  — Rush Doshi, [15:55]

Need for Allied Unity

• “Our ability to compete is really going to be driven by creating scale with our allies.… You simply can’t do it alone as effectively.”
  — Rush Doshi, [17:38]
• Warns that by alienating allies, the US risks ceding ground to China.

---

7. UK POLITICS: LEADERSHIP CRISIS & PARTY SYSTEM FRACTURE

[18:59]–[29:48]
(Segment led by Paula Newton with Louis Goodall)

Crumbling Support for Starmer

• After disastrous election results for Labour, PM Keir Starmer faces internal revolt; Health Secretary Wes Streeting resigns and challenges loom.
• “It almost makes American politics look simple, doesn’t it?... a coup, sort of not having a coup, leaders who are sort of half in the race and not in the race, and a Prime Minister who is so lawyerly that he thinks you need to have a coup only when the proper forms are submitted.”
  — Louis Goodall, [20:31]

Roots of Discontent

• Labour’s “loveless landslide” in 2024 yielded little public goodwill; many voted only to oust Conservatives.
• “He was never a much loved figure. What he was, was not the Conservatives…the default option.”
  — Louis Goodall, [23:13]
• Long-term economic stagnation feeds public anger and volatility.

Party System Breakdown

• Labour and Conservatives polling at less than 40% combined—fragmentation leading to uncharted outcomes, giving rise to populists like Nigel Farage and surges for both Greens and the far-right Reform Party.
• “You only have to go back to 2017…now they’re barely getting 40% between them.”
  — Louis Goodall, [25:04]

Rise of Nigel Farage and Reform

• Farage’s Reform Party capitalizes on anti-immigration and populist discontent but is divisive.
• “He’s adored by some—I think Labour and Conservative people think with the right leadership…it is possible to take him away.”
  — Louis Goodall, [27:00]
• Greens, moving leftward under new leadership, are also winning over Labour’s base dissatisfied by incrementalism.

---

8. ISRAEL-LEBANON: JERUSALEM DAY AND CEASEFIRE STRAINS

[31:13]–[35:55]

Jerusalem Day Tensions

• Israeli far-right marchers provoke Palestinians in Jerusalem; less violence than recent years, but continued tension.
• National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir inflames the situation by asserting “Temple Mount is in our hands.”

Lebanon Front

• Despite a “ceasefire,” airstrikes and attacks persist.
• Israeli and Lebanese officials, with US mediation, hold a third round of talks as civilians on both sides suffer ongoing violence.

---

9. WHEN COMPANIES RUN THE COURTS: CORPORATE ARBITRATION CLAUSES

[36:58]–[51:45]
Michelle Martin with Brendan Ballou

Key Findings

• “When you sign up for something, you are essentially signing away your right to the public justice system…forced arbitration agreements.”
  — Brendan Ballou, [37:28]
• Supreme Court decisions have broadened forced arbitration, often tilting the process wildly toward corporations, even in severe injury or death cases.
• Personal anecdotes—such as Disney seeking to compel wrongful death suits into arbitration—illustrate the system’s injustices.

Reasons and Recourse

• Courts, especially conservative justices, appear hostile to class actions, favoring mechanisms that limit consumer and employee recourse.
• “Companies are increasingly beyond the reach of the law. Forced arbitration is a large reason why that’s the case.”
  — Brendan Ballou, [44:48]
• Ballou argues that legislative solutions and state-level innovations are needed for meaningful reform.

---

10. INSPIRATION: HAITI’S WORLD CUP TRIUMPH

[51:45]–[52:55]

Memorable Moment

• Amid conflict and hardship, Haiti’s football team qualifies for the World Cup, sparking hope for youth and national pride.
• “I want to play for the national team. My dream is to win a World Cup with the Haitian team to show others what Haiti is.”
  — Saeed Zavi, 12-year-old player, [52:35]

---

QUOTABLE MOMENTS & TIMESTAMPS

• “Both China and the United States stand to gain from cooperation and lose from confrontation.”
  — Xi Jinping (translated), [01:30]
• “This summit has been heavier on symbolism than it has been on substance.”
  — Rush Doshi, [03:13]
• “Beijing feels it has the wind in its sails, that the so-called east is rising and the west is declining.”
  — Rush Doshi, [04:25]
• “If both sides want to buy time, then who will spend it better?”
  — Rush Doshi, [06:24]
• “I think the president does view human rights in transactional terms.”
  — Rush Doshi, [15:12]
• “Our ability to compete is really going to be driven by creating scale with our allies.”
  — Rush Doshi, [17:38]
• “Almost makes American politics look simple, doesn’t it?”
  — Louis Goodall, [20:31]
• “He was never a much loved figure. What he was, was not the Conservatives.”
  — Louis Goodall, [23:13]
• “You only have to go back to 2017 to see the Labor and Conservative parties getting 83 to 84% of the vote; now they’re barely getting 40% between them.”
  — Louis Goodall, [25:04]
• “When you sign up for something, you are essentially signing away your right to the public justice system…forced arbitration agreements.”
  — Brendan Ballou, [37:28]
• “If you really see companies behaving differently to their customers than they did a generation ago, it’s because they cannot be held legally responsible… forced arbitration is a large reason why that’s the case.”
  — Brendan Ballou, [44:48]

---

FINAL THOUGHTS

This episode delivers an incisive, multi-layered examination of US-China relations at a diplomatic crossroads, exposing the deep strategic calculations beneath the surface and exploring the fragility of global alliances and democratic institutions. Listeners are also treated to sharp analyses of political crises in the UK, legal system trends in the US, and resilient hope from the Haitian national football team—reflecting a moment when global power, justice, and aspiration are all in tense, dynamic interplay.

Transcript

[Louis Goodall]

Foreign.

[Paula Newton]

Hello, everyone, and welcome to Amanpour. Here's what's coming up. We should be partners, not rivals, the words of President Xi to President Trump. But challenges remain. Rushdashi unpacks day one of this historic summit. Then uncertainty in Westminster, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer warns any leadership challenge would plunge the country into chaos. So how did we get here? Speaker journalist Louis Goodall. Plus, When Companies Run the Courts, author Brendan Ballou joins Michelle Martin to explain how the terms and conditions Americans unthinkingly agree to on a daily basis are actually shielding corporations from accountability. And a very warm welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Paula Newton in New York sitting in for Christine Amanpour. It's been a day of pageantry and flattery in Beijing. On his first trip to China in nearly a decade, President Trump was greeted by cheering crowds and a red carpet. And some warm words in translation from Chinese leader Xi Jinping.

[Louis Goodall]

Both China and the United States stand

[Scott Bezant]

to gain from cooperation and lose from confrontation.

[Jeremy Dimon]

Our two countries should be partners rather than rivals.

[Paula Newton]

Trump, for his part, sounded very positive and confirmed he'll host Xi in D.C. in September.

[Louis Goodall]

Such respect for China, the job you've done, you're a great leader. I say it to everybody.

[Rush Doshi]

You're a great leader. I wanted only the top. And they're here today to pay respects to you and to China. It's an honor to be with you.

[Jeremy Dimon]

It's an honor to be your friend.

[Paula Newton]

So that's a marked change in tone to how the president used to speak of Beijing. And accompanying this US Delegation is a who's who of big tech. For them and the world, there's a lot at stake here. Tariff tensions, the AI race and the war with Iran all on the table, along with a stark warning from Xi on Taiwan. China says he warned that if the issue is mishandled, in his words, it could lead to a highly dangerous situation. So what is the US Hoping to get out of this summit and what are the risks and the opportunities? Rush Doshi served as a top official on China and Taiwan on President Biden's National Security Council. He's now a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and he joins the program from Washington. Good to see you. As we continue to try and parse this trip, and if we're thinking about that historical arc of U. S China relations, how big of a deal is this summit? Could it be an inflection point or more of a continuum, as you see it?

[Rush Doshi]

Well, this is the first in person meeting in Beijing between two US Presidents in nine years. So that alone is a big deal. And any kind of summit between the US And Chinese president requires our attention. But that being said, I think this summit has been heavier on symbolism than it has been on substance. And that's in part because the issues that divide the two countries are very hard to resolve quickly. We saw President Trump was quite taken with the welcome that he received in front of the Great hall of the People. We also saw that President Xi went out of his way to show respect to President Trump and vice versa. But on the hard issues of the day, from Taiwan to trade to technology and artificial intelligence, and especially Iran, it's not clear that these two countries are seeing eye to eye. So is this an inflection point? Perhaps not. Is it continuity in a quieter moment in the relationship? Probably. And what comes next over this year is going to be critical. There's going to be at least three more meetings between these two leaders over the course of 2026.

[Paula Newton]

And yet the stakes are so high, not just for these two countries, but obviously for the world now, as we said, Trump last visited China in 2017. What has changed in the relationship since then?

[Rush Doshi]

Well, you know, the biggest change is probably that China feels far more confident today than it did in 2017. This is a China that just last year felt that it decisively won a trade war with the United States. Let's not Forget that the US increased tariffs on China to 145% last year. China responded by restricting the flow of rare earth minerals and magnets upon which, frankly, American manufacturing depends. And that would have been, you know, a devastating blow to the U.S. economy. And President Trump essentially did fold. He pulled down the tariff rates and decided to pursue a much more stable, even conciliatory relationship at times with China to make up for that moment in the trade war. Since then, Beijing has felt that it has the wind in its sails, that the so called east is rising and the west is declining. To quote Chinese Communist Party texts, that's the single biggest change in the relationship. China now feels it has the leverage to fully withstand U.S. pressure and return it with pressure of its own. Today, the question is going to be, you know, exactly how long will this fragile truce between the two sides continue? There are some signs that both leaders want it to continue for longer. And I think Beijing is hoping to bank in this stability not just for the rest of the Trump administration, but really to set this as a new baseline for beyond the Trump administration. What that means for Americans is it's much harder for Washington to take steps that might be in defense of American economic or technology interests if Beijing has to have the upper hand.

[Paula Newton]

And that leverage that you speak of in terms of China having, what can they use that leverage to achieve in this summit and beyond in the next few months?

[Rush Doshi]

Well, really, the purpose of that leverage right now is to just get the US to back off. I mean, I think what President Xi's objective is in the summit, and of course none of us are in our headin his head. So we're all speculating, but I think one of his key objectives is to basically maintain a stable U. S. China relationship. And that particularly applies to the economic, technology and trade. You know, President Xi does not want to see the US Increase tariffs on China. He'd like to keep selling goods to the United States, even if those goods sometimes put American workers and businesses at risk. The US he'd like to absorb them, essentially. On the technology side, he'd like to see American technology most likely continue to flow to China in ways that will support China's development, but also its ability to climb the value chain in key industries. So you put all that together. What he's looking for is time. President Trump wants the same thing. And the question of the moment is if both sides want to buy time, then who will spend it better?

[Paula Newton]

Hmm. President Xi, perhaps arguably the newsworthy component of the first day was when he warned President Trump that any mishandling of Taiwan could, and I'm quoting here, lead to an extremely dangerous situation. So much talk has been about whether or not the US Would change officially its policy towards Taiwan. What leverage does China have now? I want to note that Marco Rubio has said that, look, U.S. policy on Taiwan is unchanged. That might be the public posture. Barash, do you believe that behind the scenes something else may be going on here in Taiwan?

[Rush Doshi]

Well, we don't know exactly what has happened behind the scenes. When President Trump was asked, when I think he was touring the temple of heaven, did you discuss Taiwan? He didn't answer. And when Secretary Bessen was asked, you know, what will be talked about in the next day? This is only the first day of the summit so far. There will be a second day. And he indicated that there might be some more conversation on Taiwan. We should be clear, I think Beijing has a few goals on Taiwan. They want President Trump to change U. S. Taiwan policy, which hasn't changed in over 40 years. They also want the US to basically agree to negotiate the quantity, the quality, the composition of arms sales to Taiwan with China in advance, which again would be a big change from policy over the last 40 years. It would also make it a lot harder for the US to support Taiwan's ability to defend itself and deter Chinese aggression. So those are two of the big things that we suspect have been on Xi's agenda. Whether they were discussed and to what degree President Trump made a commitment, we don't know yet. What's interesting, though, and I'll end with this, is if you look at the US Readouts of last interactions between President Trump and President Xi, including phone calls, you often see President Trump talk about what's on his mind, economics, technology, and this time, Iran. But President Xi, for his part, will often emphasize Taiwan in these contexts. He'll talk a lot more about the importance of Taiwan. So this is the top issue. It's the most sensitive issue. It's a war and peace issue. And clearly it's on the agenda, know exactly what was said.

[Paula Newton]

That does, though, lead us to the task at hand, which is trying to find some kind of resolution in Iran. I mean, how does China regard this conflict? And do you think it will actually shape the outcome of what we're going to see in the next few weeks or even months?

[Rush Doshi]

You know, I think that China looks at this conflict as basically an own goal for the United States. An unforced error that the US Essentially has once again put itself into a Middle east quagmire. It is expending large quantities of the munitions that it needs to be able to deter China in the Taiwan Strait, and it's spending lots and lots of money to do so. And the net result might end up being that the US Essentially loses the ability to stop Iran from throttling trade in the Strait of Hormuz, that we end up essentially worse off than we were. The Chinese know, and Venezuela and Iran show this, that US Military power projection around the world is unmatched. The US has incredible capability, but a military victory, or rather an operational victory, can also be a accompanied by a strategic defeat. Now, what does President Trump want from China on Iran? Well, China is the biggest purchaser of Iranian oil. He'd like, I think, ideally China to purchase less of it, maybe none of it. He'd also like Iran to not receive Chinese dual use items that could support its military or weapons. And there's been some reporting just yesterday indicating that China is looking for ways to deliver weapons to Iran, perhaps through covert, if not overt channels and through third countries. All of that would be used against American forces. So I'm sure these issues were discussed between the two leaders President Trump, I think wants is China's help in solving this issue. And from China's perspective, look, it's a long term problem to have the Strait of Hormuz closed, but in the near term they can weather it. They're not exactly excited to help the United States out of this quagmire.

[Louis Goodall]

No.

[Paula Newton]

In fact, as you point out, they might be working against the United States interest even at this hour. I want you to listen now, though, to Marco Rubio, what he said before this trip started in terms of Iran.

[Louis Goodall]

Well, of all the countries of the world economies are melting down because of this crisis in the Straits. They're going to be buying less Chinese product and the Chinese exports are going to Dr. Precipitously. So it's in their interest to resolve this. We hope to convince them to play a more active role in getting Iran to walk away from what they're doing now and trying to do now in the Persian Gulf.

[Paula Newton]

I'm not exactly sure how what he said translates to what is going on in the here and now in China, but what was your takeaway from that?

[Rush Doshi]

Well, the U.S. has a long history of trying to tell China what's in its interests, especially when it comes to regional hotspots like Iran, like North Korea. And it doesn't always work out. And I'm not sure it's going to work out as quickly this time. I think the secretary is right that. But essentially China does suffer, right? It'll suffer if there's a global recession and fewer countries are buying Chinese goods. It'll also suffer if energy prices stay high. But we also can't forget that China has a 1.2 to 1.4 billion barrel stockpile of crude and it imports about 5 million barrels a day from the Strait of Hormuz. So we do the math. They have a lot of time that they can use to kind of watch and see us flounder before they face really serious problems. And even then, they might be able to adjust those problems by paying more for oil or simply using other ways, ways to get around oil consumption. So it's not clear to me that China is feeling the heat the way other economies in the region with less robust stockpiles and more dependence on crude are feeling the heat. And ultimately, if they think that the conflict is putting the US At a disadvantage and distracting us from China, they don't really have an incentive to see it end that quickly.

[Paula Newton]

Yeah, it's been staggering to me. I didn't realize before this conflict exactly what they had achieved in Terms of having those stockpiles for this such conflict, I do want to get to the tech billionaires that are in tow. And Treasury Secretary Scott Bezant talked to see NBC about his expectations for an agreement on AI. Let's take a listen.

[Scott Bezant]

We're actually going to be discussing the AI guardrails with the Chinese. It will, because the Chinese are substantially behind us, but they have a very advanced AI industry here. So the two AI superpowers are going to start talking. We're going to set up a protocol in terms of how do we go forward with best practices for AI to make sure non state actors don't get a hold of these models.

[Paula Newton]

Rush, what kind of AI guardrails are really realistic here? You've been in the room. What kind of discussions were you a party to when you were with the Biden administration?

[Rush Doshi]

Well, it's a great question. In 2023, we actually pushed for an AI dialogue with Beijing, and we also pushed to basically ensure artificial intelligence would never be connected to nuclear command and control. Seems obvious, but, you know, we have agreement on that very basic principle. So we pushed for that, too. And basically we got both those things. The latter one was announced in 2024. What we heard from the Chinese side essentially was that they are interested in a dialogue. And as Secretary Besant mentioned here, I think the Trump administration wants a dialogue. We haven't had one since 2024. It's probably about time, given the leapfrog capabilities these models have made, especially the new model from Anthropic, the Mythos model that's like a cyber master key to a lot of networks around the world. So there is a real need for dialogue between the two countries, I think. Here's the question I'd ask, and this is where I think public pressure will be important. Will these dialogue Mechanisms matter in 2024? It isn't the case in my recollection, that China sent the right people to the dialogue. They sent kind of your standard diplomats, people who didn't know the issues. If they want to take it seriously, they're going to have to change the participation that they send to a dialogue on artificial intelligence. And they frankly, will have to pick up the phone. If there's a crisis involving artificial intelligence, which the administration has suggested, they want to set up a crisis mechanism that both sides can use. All of that will take time. It will take a lot of trust, and it won't happen overnight. But I think it's a good sign that both sides are talking about artificial intelligence. And as Secretary Bessen noted, the US And China are the two AI superpowers. So, you know, they're the countries that matter the most when it comes to figuring out how to govern this technology.

[Paula Newton]

Yeah, that would make all of us feel a little bit better. And the fact that. That it's likely not in China's interest to really have this go bad, poorly for them as well. Some kind of cooperation is likely needed, as you say. I do want to turn to another topic, though. Earlier this week, President Trump said he will discuss the case of jailed Chinese media executive Jimmy Lai with President Xi. And yet it seems the Trump administration has really dropped any pretense of pressuring China on human rights, including even the repression of Uyghurs. That's just to mention one human rights issue. Is the new phase of U. S. China relations over in the sense that this relationship is now fully transactional? There is no pretense of bringing this up. And Russia, I have to mention, it's not like the Biden administration had a lot of luck on that score either.

[Rush Doshi]

Yeah, you know, the first Trump administration did make human rights a priority, including on Xinjiang and Hong Kong, but a lot of that work was done by Congress and it was done by President Trump's staff and his cabinet. I'm not sure President Trump ever thought it was a priority. You may recall he is rumored to have told President Xi to go ahead and build those internment camps in Xinjiang on Hong Kong. He once said, I'll stand with President Xi, not with the people of Hong Kong. In effect, I'm paraphrasing. And so, you know, I'm not sure it's high on his list, but I will say that I think the president does view human rights in transactional terms, which means that he sees the possibility of getting a few folks out, like Jimmy Lai, the billionaire media tycoon who was imprisoned in Hong Kong, effectively given a life sentence for doing nothing more than in Hong Kong, expressing his views, issues, and supporting others in doing the same. That case, along with a few other cases, are probably going to be passed to the Chinese side. Often it's done with a piece of paper you give to them, and then there's a message that accompanies it from the president. And my hope, and I think the president's hope might be that this sort of ends up being a kind of an instance of deal making where you're able to get a few of these folks out as a show of good faith. But comprehensive, systematic pressure on China to change its human rights record is very challenging given how strong China is today. If the US Couldn't get China to change its behavior on our economic priorities, which are very important for Americans and for American companies, it's much harder to do it on human rights in China, where we have even less direct leverage.

[Paula Newton]

You know, it's interesting that you say that, because the Trump administration has had some success on these kinds of human rights wins, but even that has a more transactional character. To that end, I know Michael Kovorg, who I'm sure you're familiar with, is a former Canadian diplomat who was arbitrarily detained for years in China. And he wrote just in the last week that this is really a dangerous precedent. And he does couple that theory with the fact that the loss certainly of any kind of commercial leverage against China means there will be virtually no leverage when it comes to human rights. I mean, he's saying that, look, Western countries should have some kind of a coalition here to make sure they have more strength against the mercantilism, as he calls it, but also the dangers that may come with it, like arbitrary detention. What do you think, Rush? I mean, because to me, it seems even from when you were sitting down with the Biden administration, things have seemed to change with China in war. Warp speed here.

[Rush Doshi]

Yeah, look, China is very powerful. And you know, recently Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell and I, former Deputy Secretary under President Biden, we published an article talking kind of as Michael does, about the need for allies to band together. China outscales the US in a lot of metrics. It's two times America's manufacturing now, value add. It's 30% bigger than our economy in purchasing power terms. It produces three times the power the US Produces. Right. These are enormous statistics. And we could go down the line list. So the US Our ability to compete is really going to be driven by creating scale with our allies. If China outscales us, then we should create scale with our friends. And together we can sort of outscale them. And if you do that, you look down every list, right? Every metric, you look down trade, you look down defense spending, you look at who's the top trading partner or top scientific publications or patents, that group of countries comes out on top. And so I think what we need to see is a kind of more humble and more modest America that understands if you want to have leverage on the issues you care about, whether that's human rights, trade, technology, or other issues like artificial intelligence, you simply can't do it alone as effectively. You have to do it in common with like mindeds. And I think the Trump administration, in some ways, by alienating some of these allies, has left itself open to a world where China can run the field and America can't keep up. And I think that is the risk that we currently face. We can fix it, but it has to happen soon.

[Paula Newton]

Yeah. And to be noted, China rolled out the red carpet for a lot of those Western leaders in the last few weeks as well. Rashdoshi, I kind of feel like I was in the room speaking to you. Thanks so much. Really appreciate your insight. Insights.

[Rush Doshi]

Thank you very much.

[Paula Newton]

Now we turn to the United Kingdom and it is once again engulfed in political drama. You'll remember the chaos of the post Brexit years when the Conservative Party churned through four Prime Ministers and now it's the ruling Labour Party who has their own issues. Keir Starmer's party performed terribly in last week's local elections, prompting a growing chorus from within his own party calling for the Prime Minister. Well, today the drama kicked up a notch with his health secretary, Wes Streeding, resigning in an attempt to trigger a leadership election and a Labour MP standing down, hoping to give another leadership contender. Stay with me here. Andy Burnham, the chance to re enter Parliament. He is currently the Mayor of Manchester and he needs that seat now. It's already a tough time for the country. The post Brexit years have been turbulent, with the high cost of living in particular leading to widespread dissatisfaction. Joining us to discuss all of this is prominent British journalist Lewis Goodall, formerly of Sky News and the BBC, is a co host of the very popular newsagents podcast. We will lean on you to figure out what the heck is going on here. Wes Streeting just resigned as Britain's Health secretary, saying bluntly he's lost confidence in Starmer's leadership. Streeding is seen by many as the most likely challenger. But now we have, you know, the mayor of Manchester trying to enter this race, perhaps. What is going on? What does it all mean and what do you believe the next steps are here?

[Louis Goodall]

Almost makes American politics look simple, doesn't it? Look, British politics at the moment, what we're basically saying is an ongoing crisis of confidence in Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister. Why? Well, we just had local election and national election results in the UK last week. They were catastrophic. Starmer's Labour Party, and you've got tons of Labour MPs who were elected less than two years ago worried about not only the idea that they would lose their seats, the Conservatives having the kind of traditional swing of the pendulum that's the sort of normal thing in politics. They're worried about the idea of the entire system, the entire clock from the pendulum being smashed to bits in the form of the populist, almost trump light, Nigel Farage and his Reform Party, who did well in council election local area after local area in those elections last week, they swept all before them. And what they're worried about is that Keir Starmer simply does not have the political charts, the political vision, a loyally figure, not very political figure, someone who has for whatever reason become despised by a lot of the British public, that they don't believe that he has the vision or the political nous to lead them out of this crisis. And so what you're seeing is a series of different people gingerly come forward suggesting maybe they're the person. Is it Wes Freedom, the House Secretary you suggested? Well, he would dearly love to have it. He'd basically be desirous of being Prime Minister since he was basically came out of the womb. The problem with him is he doesn't have enough support in the parliamentary party party. You've got Andy Burnham, who is the Mayor of Manchester, as you say. The problem for him is he doesn't have a parliamentary seat. We've got Angela Rayner, the former deputy Prime Minister until today she had a tax investigation dogging her. So you've got a situation where you've had the Prime Minister who is deeply unpopular both within his party and within the British public, but a series of pretenders to the throne who have their own individual problems, individual reasons as to why they can't become Prime Minister or leader of the Labour Party. So what, you have a good old fashioned British political mess with a Labour Party basically in a situation where it's sort of having a coup, sort of not having a coup, leaders who are sort of half in the race and not in the race, and a Prime Minister who is so loyally that he seems to think that you need to have a coup only when the proper forms are submitted and it's all in triplicate. It's all a mess.

[Paula Newton]

Louis, you have given us a very good and precise oversight of that mess. When you are on the doorstep though, and I know that you have been on the ground, I know you speak to so many people. What is the kernel of the discontent here? Why did they turn on Keir Starmer who we have to say had an impressive majority when he was actually elected? Why? What is it? Is it all about cost of living? Is it about the culture war? What is it?

[Louis Goodall]

Well, We've got to remember that, as you rightly say, Keir Starmer was elected with a very, very impressive majority, one of the biggest parliamentary majorities in history. But we've got to remember it was a loveless landslide. He was never a very popular political figure to begin with. He got less than 35% of the vote. That was a record for an incoming majority government. He was never a much loved figure. What he was was not the Conservatives. He was the kind of like default option, the person that you needed to vote for in order to get rid of the Tories, who by that time were much reviled by much of the British public. And they went to their worst election result in history in 2024. But that meant that he had neither built up much of a relationship with the British public. And to be honest, he didn't really develop much of a sense of what he wanted to do. It seemed very much when you talked to Keir Starmer, that he thought that it would be enough for him simply not to be the Tories, that he would be, have more integrity, he would be more sensible, he would be more competent and that would unlock all of the, or solve all of the problems that Britain had been afflicted by. It was never going to happen because Britain's political and economic problems are simply too deep. You've got to remember we've had 20 years now in Britain, unlike the United States, of declining living standards, living, the average person in Britain today is no better off than they were in 2004. And the British public consistently are voting for someone, anything, anyone, who might try and deal with that problem. And each time seems to be rolling double ones. And that's a large part of the answer as to why Starmer has ended up not just being disliked. And you might think this is unfair if you're in Britain or you know Starmer because he's quite a mild mannered kind of guy, but not just dislike, but in many cases actively despised by a lot of voters.

[Paula Newton]

And it is incredible that someone who comes across, as you said, lawyerly and like a technocrat can be so despised. And we hear that. But if we try and turn the page on Keir Starmer, what can any of these new candidates offer? And I ask you, so many people saying that you can't govern the UK anymore, are we seeing the breakdown of the two party system?

[Louis Goodall]

Well, we certainly appear to be seeing the breakdown of the two party system. And you only have to go back to 2017 to see the labor and Conservative parties getting 83 84% of the vote and most of the polling now they're barely getting 40% between them. So for now at least, we do seem to be seeing that that is leading to fragmentation, it's leading to panic, it's leading to all sorts of political outcomes that we've never seen before. And it's all being funneled through the same electoral system the United States basically has, which is first past the post, which basically means that In a non two party system you only need to sometimes be getting 20, 25% of the vote to win a seat. And that is creating chaos and dysfunction everywhere. My own personal view is I don't think the British system is ungovernable. I think it looks ungovernable at the moment because there is no one governing it terribly well. On paper, Britain should be easier to govern than say the United States with its separation of powers or France with its complicated constitution. With power, power levied and distributed in different directions. In the British system, if you've got majority of one in the House of Commons, as someone once said, you are an elected dictatorship, you can do whatever you want. The House of Commons is sovereign. The problem right now is, is that party after party and Prime Minister after Prime Minister have not had a political vision or the political space to be able to truly prosecute true government and true reform of the country. And until you have that, then what you're going to basically see is more and more of what we have, which is, is drift, which leads to division, which leads to instability, which leads to coups and the prospect of us facing, I think, what would it be? Our seventh prime minister in 10 years.

[Paula Newton]

Yeah, perish the thought. For many people in Britain right now, like Donald Trump and Maga though, Nigel Farage has really stoked up the anti immigration fervor. How do you view reform rise? Of course, Nigel Farage, do you expect that he will be the next Prime Minister? But at the same time we have to counter the fact that in local elections the left, the Green Party also had success. So where do you see voters going here?

[Louis Goodall]

Well, look, it's very easy to overestimate the sort of reform for our search. It is impressive. There's no way two ways about it. It is very rare for a party which isn't the Conservative Party, the Labour Party or to some extent the Liberal Party from getting serious fracture. Local government reform is really doing that. They're doing well across England, they even doing well in Scotland and Wales, which is not something that Nigel Farage has done before because he's been around British politics in one form or another for 20 years. That said, you've already alluded to, to him in terms of how they're doing nationally, they're probably getting 25, 26% of the vote. That for a party which has pretensions to government, isn't that great. It's just that all of the other parties are doing somewhat less well. And it's also true to say that Farage is a very well known figure. He's adored by some, much like Donald Trump. He's adored by some and reviled by others. There are few, I think, who do not have an opinion about the man. If you talk to Labour Party people and Conservative people, they think that he's still beatable. They think, think that with the right leadership and with the right approach, that actually this guy who's quite checkered, he's very associated with the Brexit legacy, which many British people don't think has gone so well. They think that he is someone who can be taken on, but you need someone with the power and the vim and the argument to do it. Because there's no doubt, much like Donald Trump is great hero. He's very good performer on the media, he's very good on social media. He has a certain charisma which is undeniable. But they think that it is possible to take him away. The Labour Party, they've just come to the conclusion that Keir Starmer is not the man to do it, or many of them have anyway.

[Paula Newton]

And when it does turn though to the left here and the Greens, do you believe that they could carry a lot of agency with voters, depending on what happens with labor in the next few years?

[Louis Goodall]

Well, of course. I mean, this is the Labour Party's problem. It's now finding itself bleeding, hemorrhaging votes in both directions, which is basically the electoral valley of doom for any party. Right, You've got Labour ceding votes to its left with the Green Party and Zach Polanski, who's this new force in British politics, or even new British politics anyway, who's moved the Greens, who historically in Britain were a rather sort of slightly hippie ish kind of force, slightly conservationist, mainly concerned with environmental issues, animal issues, animal rights issues and so on. He's moved them more to the sort of economic populist left, kind of Bernie Sanders plus plus plus and that has had a certain residents with labor voters who are frustrated that Keir Starmer's government is too incrementalist, too gradualist, not radical enough and at the same time, you've also got reform, reform leading votes for the labor to its right. And in many of those local elections that I just spoke about, it was usually very often Greens wouldn't win a seat, but their votes taken away from the Labour vote allowed reform to slip through the middle. So it is absolutely true to say that any incoming Labour leader has to deal with both a problem to their left and their right. But of course, great political leaders are able to do that while still managing to sort of maintain their initial coalition. And that's kind of what I think Labour are looking for because they're not convinced that Stalin is the guy to, to do it.

[Paula Newton]

And as dramatic as this all is coming at a point in time when global politics is really fraught as well, certainly both on the economy and geopolitics, really tense times ahead for the UK You've given us quite a picture there. Louis Goodall, the podcast is News Agents. We will have to listen in a little bit more, apparently, because it's about to get even more dramatic. Louis Goodall for us. Thanks so much. Really appreciate it.

[Louis Goodall]

Absolutely.

[Paula Newton]

Stay with cnn. We'll be right back. In a Mom. Foreign

[Louis Goodall]

I'm CNN tech reporter Claire Duffy. This week on the podcast Terms of

[Brendan Ballou]

Service, tell me if you've ever felt

[Rush Doshi]

this way while sitting at your desk

[Brendan Ballou]

at work, eyes burning back and shoulders

[Rush Doshi]

curled up like a boiled shrimp and feeling cranky.

[Brendan Ballou]

That is how journalist and podcast host

[Rush Doshi]

Minouche Zomorodi describes the experience of working

[Brendan Ballou]

at a desk in front of a

[Rush Doshi]

laptop all day in her new book, today on Average Information Worker.

[Brendan Ballou]

Most of us are information workers.

[Rush Doshi]

90% of our time is spent CNN. It's wild.

[Louis Goodall]

I mean, it increases the possibility of

[Paula Newton]

diabetes, obesity, all sorts of chronic health issues.

[Louis Goodall]

Listen to CNN's terms of service wherever you get your podcasts.

[Paula Newton]

Now, despite an apparent ceasefire, the people of Lebanon are still living under Israeli airstrikes. 22 people were killed on Wednesday alone. That's according to Lebanon's health ministry. And the IDF says it continues to intercept attacks from Hezbollah. Meantime, peace talks are continuing with Israeli and Lebanese officials and they are meeting for a third round in Washington today. Jeremy Dimon joins us from Jerusalem, where it is Jerusalem Day in which many nationalist Israelis march through through Palestinian parts of the Old City. Glad to have you here, Jeremy. As we continue to parse exactly what's going on, I do want to turn to that Jerusalem Day march where every year we often see violence and far right crowds marching through the Old City. Controversially, the National Security Minister Atomir Ben GVIR went to the Temple Mount, the Al Aqsa compound, and waved the Israeli flag. I mean, what did you witnessed today and what do you think it tells us about Israeli politics at the moment.

[Jeremy Dimon]

To what we've seen on Jerusalem Day in previous years and in recent years in particular, which is once again the Muslim quarter of the Old City, was effectively shut down by Israeli authorities as they prepared for these hundreds of young teenagers, mostly ultra national, who then storm the Muslim quarter of the Old City, begin chanting racist anti Arab slogans such as may your village burn and oftentimes try and deface some of the shops and property in the area. We saw some of them putting stickers on some of these Palestinian owned shops in the Old cities, talking about Mayor Kahane, a notorious Jewish terrorist, saying that Kahane it was right. We saw also some of these, you know, young far right nationalists attacking journalists and also, you know, some of these peace activists who tried to protect Palestinians who were trying to get through the Old City. But I must say, overall, it does seem like there was less violence than we had seen the last two years of Jerusalem Day in the Old City. What we did see once again as well, well, was Itamar Benvir, the far right national security minister, going to the Al Aqsa Mosque, known as the Temple Mount in Judaism. He went there alongside other far right lawmakers and he declared that the Temple Mount is in our hands. Benvir has been critical to trying to change the status quo at the Al Aqsa Mosque at the Dome of the Rock to allow Jews to be able to pray there, which has been something that the Israeli governments over decades now have prevented Jews from doing at the Temple Mount. But Ben GVIR has really been testing the bounds of this, which falls in line, of course, with more broadly his efforts to kind of assert Jewish supremacy over Jerusalem and across Israel and the west bank as well.

[Scott Bezant]

Of course, as well, Paula and Jeremy,

[Paula Newton]

we do want to turn to developments between Israel and Lebanon. I mean, I mean, what can you tell us about any possible deal? They are meeting in Washington. And how is the Israeli government viewing efforts to end the war in Iran as well?

[Jeremy Dimon]

Well, listen, we saw the third round of negotiations take place today between the Israeli and Lebanese ambassadors to Washington, mediated by the United States. Interestingly, today there was also the addition of a few other officials on the Lebanese side. You had the former ambassador to Simon Karam, who had previously led negotiations, direct negotiations with Israel back in December that took place before this current round of negotiations. And then you also have on the Israeli side, the deputy national security adviser now involved. And their inclusion perhaps signals that the negotiations are deepening, getting to the more substantive issues of how exactly to work towards disarming Hezbollah. Of course, the critical issue that they had to address today as well was extending the ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah, guaranteed effectively by the Lebanese government on the Lebanese side. We haven't officially gotten confirmation that that happens. It was set to expire tomorrow. But of course, what we have seen is that this cease fire in many ways has led to a reduction but not a halt to the attacks on both sides. Frankly, we have seen daily Israeli airstrikes in Lebanon and and also near daily Hezbollah attacks against Israeli soldiers in southern Lebanon, as well as today, for example, a drone that Hezbollah fired that impacted a northern Israeli community, wounding at least one Israeli civilian in that attack.

[Paula Newton]

Jeremy Dimon for us, I mean, again, as you point out, the civilians on both sides of that conflict really wondering what the ceasefire will mean. As you say, continue the violence on both sides. Jeremy Dimon for us in Jerusalem, thanks so much. Stay with cnn. We'll be right back with more news after a quick break. So when you're signing up for something new, are you reading the fine print in the terms and conditions page? Most of us check off the box without a second thought, Kilty as charged there. But our next guest says we should be much more vigilant. Brendan Ballou is a former federal prosecutor and founder of the Public Integrity Project, an organization challenging corruption and abuses of power. He joins Michelle Martin to discuss how companies are quietly limiting Americans access to the courts in order to evade accountability, as he highlights in his new book. Book.

[Brendan Ballou]

Thanks, Paula. Brendan Ballew, thanks so much for talking with us once again.

[Scott Bezant]

Thank you for having me.

[Brendan Ballou]

Today. We want to talk about something that a lot of us don't even think about, like when you open a new credit card account or you maybe open a bank account or maybe if you sign up for a streaming service, you know, you're going through the terms and conditions and you hit the thing and the thing and you're saying that there are consequences to that that we're not thinking about, most of us aren't thinking about. What is that consequence?

[Scott Bezant]

Yeah, it's a profound consequence, which is you are essentially signing away your right to the public justice system if one of these companies harms you. So what you are almost certainly signing is called a forced arbitration agreement. And what it means is that if one of these companies harms you, hurts you, defrauds you, even potentially injures or kills somebody that you love, you cannot sue them in public court. Instead, you have to go to a private alternative to the justice system called forced arbitration, where the judge called an arbitrator, will most likely, or at least, you know, there's a good chance that will be paid for by the very company that you're suing.

[Brendan Ballou]

How does that work? I mean, how is that. Forgive me, this sounds like such a naive question, but how is that legal?

[Scott Bezant]

It works because the Supreme Court has made it so. So there's an old law called the Federal arbitration Act of 1925 that was really meant for some very specific purposes to really bind sophisticated parties, merchants that had disputes with one another into arbitration so that it would be faster and more informal than using the ordinary court system. But Beginning in the 1980s, the conservative justices of the Supreme Court began to reinterpret the Federal Arbitration act, really expanding it beyond whatever the history or text would have allowed to bind us into arbitration. When we're consumers, when we're employees, when we sign those click to accept contracts that we were just talking about, none of that was necessarily in the text of the statute. But over several years, several decades, the Supreme Court has expanded this practice to encompass virtually all of us.

[Brendan Ballou]

Your book is titled When Companies Run the Courts. I mean, that's a pretty blunt assessment of the situation. Is that your view that companies now run the courts, essentially?

[Scott Bezant]

Well, you know, the specific title refers to the system of arbitration. So, you know, we're talking about a system where, as you said, businesses often pay for the effective judge. And so, you know, unsurprisingly, the statistics show that overwhelmingly companies win in these things. You know, consumers win something like 89% of the time in small claims court, in arbitration before the largest providers, they win somewhere in the order of 20 or 30% of the time. You know, if they don't have a lawyer, it might be less than 10% of the time. So in a very real way, companies dominate the forced arbitration system.

[Brendan Ballou]

Give us some examples of how you say this has worked. And you have several examples. I mean, in fact, you opened the book with one. A man named Jeffrey Piccolo who went on a vacation to Disney World with his wife who had severe food allergies. They went to a restaurant and were assured that her allergies would be accommodated. What happened then?

[Scott Bezant]

Yeah, so, you know, according to their subsequent allegation, his wife, you know, had severe allergies, were repeatedly assured that the food would be okay. It ultimately wasn't, and contained allergens and not Only did she have anaphylactic shock, she died. But when Piccolo sued Disney for wrongful death, Disney moved to compel him into forced arbitration. Again, a system where the company, Disney would pay for the arbitrator. And they moved to do so because he had signed an arbitration agreement when he signed up for his Disney plus account several years earlier. And, you know, in that specific case, the publicity from that story was so overwhelming and so overwhelmingly bad that Disney eventually backed out. But to be clear, the law was on Disney's side. And there's example after example after of companies being able to compel people into arbitration when they're suing over racial discrimination, when they're suing over the murder of their son, when they're suing over their own rape or wrongful birth, allegations of that sort, all of which have been compelled into arbitration.

[Brendan Ballou]

After this backlash, Disney issued the following statement. At Disney, we strive to put humanity above all other considerations, and that the case warranted a sensitive approach to expedite a resolution for the family. You cited another case in the book where a woman who was a crew member on a cruise ship accepted an invitation from a colleague to join him for Christmas and New Year. She woke up in pain, realized that something had happened, realized she had been raped, according to your account, that the crew member admitted that he had raped her. She was discouraged from going to the police. She was discouraged from filing a complaint. And then what? And then what happened?

[Rush Doshi]

Yeah.

[Scott Bezant]

So according to the allegations, this woman was raped, the crew member admitted to the rape, and the company discouraged her from going to the police. She ultimately sues the cruise ship company, and she had a binding arbitration clause and was compelled into arbitration. Not just arbitration, but private arbitration in the Philippines, her home country. And we don't know what the outcome of that arbitration was because arbitration is overwhelmingly kept secret. And I'll say, you know, Congress did make one meaningful improvement in the past few years, which was to exempt allegations of sexual assault and harassment from forced arbitration. But virtually any other potential violation of the law can still be arbitrated, whether you're talking about age discrimination, racial discrimination, or like we were talking about earlier, injury and wrongful death claim. So if somebody that you love dies, you may nevertheless still have to arbitrate a case as serious as that.

[Brendan Ballou]

What you're saying is that there's a huge power imbalance now, that most people don't know that these. That they're going to be put into forced arbitration. And if they do, the arbitrary is generally somebody paid by the company. So what's the Court's reasoning here. I mean, the whole point, I think, of a court system is to balance competing interests. So what was their reasoning in allowing it to be expanded in such a way?

[Scott Bezant]

Yeah, and I don't think that there was really a strong textual or legislative basis for actually expanding this. And there's been broad criticism of sort of the reasoning in a lot of these decisions. Decisions, you know, really think. I think it boils down to a real animus towards consumer and employee lawsuits, which many conservative justices see as frivolous and against class actions specifically. So, you know, class actions being this idea that rather than each person who's similarly harmed having to bring their own case, everybody who's experienced the same harm can go under one umbrella, which saves enormous costs, and it's had enormous impacts in American history. You think about, about Roe v. Wade was a class action. Brown v. Board of Education was a class action. But the conservative justices have a real aversion to class actions. And forced arbitration was a way to potentially kill them in a very specific way, which was that many of these arbitration agreements require you not just to arbitrate your claim, but to do so individually. Each person who's harmed has to bring their own case. And why that matters is you think about all the ways that a company might harm you. Those little 30 doll fees that a bank might add that don't seem to make sense or don't seem fair. You know, they can only get resolved through a class action. And if you can kill the class action and force people to pursue their claims individually, what that means is it becomes economically impossible for anybody to actually do anything about those. And so I would say, you know, to viewers who feel like companies are increasingly sort of scamming them or increasingly beyond the reach of the wild, forced arbitration is a large reason why that's

[Brendan Ballou]

the case, because there's no recourse. I mean, your argument is that that's how they can afford to get away with terrible client service, terrible customer service, because what are you going to do about it?

[Scott Bezant]

Exactly. And that's a change over the last 15 years. So if you really see companies behaving differently to their customers than they did a generation ago, it's because they cannot be held legally responsible by their consumers or employees for all but the biggest harm. Now, the rejoinder to that, of course, is that, you know, this is the responsibility of state attorneys general, prosecutors, the Department of Justice, and so forth. But these are dramatically overwhelmed institutions. And even if they weren't, you know, think about the Current Department of Justice does not seem to show a great deal of interest or empathy towards ordinary consumers or employees on issues like this.

[Brendan Ballou]

How did you come to see this? How did this, how did this story come to you? Especially given that, that as you said, it's really hard to know that there's a pattern.

[Scott Bezant]

Well, you know, for lawyers, I think class action, you know, forced arbitration is a big part of our lives because it's effectively ended so many class actions or the ability to get justice for folks. I'll say, you know, what brought me specifically to this story is, you know, my background was at the Department of Justice. I've been doing antitrust and white collar work. I had written a book that was very critical of private equity a few years ago. And in talking to many non lawyers lawyers through that work, I got the sense that many people, most people feel that the legal system is just profoundly stacked against them and really geared towards big corporations and the very rich or the very powerful. And as a practicing lawyer, I wanted to be able to explain to people that in fact they are right, but explain it in a way that was specific so that people could understand the real mechanisms by which the legal system and the law. Law bends towards the powerful and also how we might bend it back to something more.

[Brendan Ballou]

Just so before we get to that, I will just so ask you though, that we've all seen stories about the person who sues the fast food company because they said their coffee was too hot. We've all seen these stories that suggest that the courts are overburdened with ridiculous cases. Like what would you say to.

[Scott Bezant]

I would say it's entirely understandable that somebody might have that belief that we are sort of deluged with frivolous lawsuits that are burdening our court system and our companies and so forth. But I would implore you that many tens of millions of dollars have been spent to get you to have that belief. In fact, there has been a multi decade long effort to create this idea that there is a litigation explosion in the United States. I think what research is out there suggests that actually that litigation explosion may never have occurred. And in fact, many of the, the most famous stories that we have about this are much more complicated and vastly more plaintiff friendly on inspection than we sort of get in the sound bites or in the cultural memes. You know, you mentioned the person suing over hot coffee. That was, you know, sort of like a, a national joke in the 1990s. The woman who, who sued Stella Liebeck was, I believe, in her late 70s when she spilled the coffee, she got third degree burns on her thighs, buttocks and vagina, had to have skin grafts for two weeks and physical therapy for several years. She even didn't want to sue. She tried to settle for $50,000. McDonald's refused. It was only after multiple refusals from McDonald's that they went to court and it was revealed that the company actually had hundreds of similar burn allegations. And so, you know, the $2.7 million award, I believe it was, was amounted to about two days of coffee sales from McDonald's and was meant to be a deterrent for McDonald's from doing these sorts of overheating policies. But I think it goes to show that those sorts of cases that are meant to deter companies from broad sort of systemic harm are just increasingly impossible.

[Brendan Ballou]

So what's the fix?

[Scott Bezant]

You know, I was saying earlier that I don't think ethical consumerism, you know, all of us reading our contracts really carefully is going to solve this problem problem just because there's so many of them and you know, in many ways we can't actually opt out for a lot of these. It's going to have to be legislation. And in a world where Congress is probably pretty paralyzed on these sorts of issues, it's going to happen in states and localities, in particular California, Maryland and others have done good work passing legislation to make forced arbitration more fair, more transparent, more like a regular court system. And importantly, California has passed this really important law called the Private Attorneys General act, which allows people who are ordinarily bound by forced arbitration with their employer to sue instead on behalf of the California Labor Department, which isn't bound by forced arbitration. So essentially delegating the state authority to employees. We really need legislation like that in other states and on other issues, not just employment, but also discrimination, antitrust, consumer fraud, environmental harms and so forth. If we do that, then arbitration is gonna become a much smaller part of our lives and hopefully companies are gonna start behaving better.

[Brendan Ballou]

Given that this is a multi decade long trend that you've identified in your reporting, do you genuinely see an opportunity to push back against it, to equalize things?

[Scott Bezant]

Yeah, so a couple specific things and then a broader answer. So, you know, I actually do have a lot of optimism here on, you know, the suprem. There's really interesting research showing that on the less salient issues, so the things that aren't voting rights or abortion rights or so forth, the Supreme Court is actually surprisingly responsive to public opinion. And I think the more that we can raise the salience of forced arbitration, the more that the Supreme Court's sort of expansionist agenda can be not necessarily stopped, but at least slowed. And I think we can use that time to pass the legislation that we need. And I have a level of optimism because we've seen states already do so. But I think more generally I have reason to be optimistic because I mean, the best part of my job is that I get to talk to a lot of people who have chosen a specific issue around forced arbitration or private equity or whatever it happens to be, and they stick with it for a matter of months or a matter of years and have an enormous impact. And so I have some optimism that we're going to be able to make progress because I have seen progress happen so many times on other issues.

[Brendan Ballou]

Brendan Blue, thank you so much for talking with us.

[Scott Bezant]

Thank you.

[Paula Newton]

And finally for us, Haiti has scored a place at this summer's World cup for the first time in more than five decades. And the kids are cheering. The young players you see there are hoping to realize their big dream one day playing for the national team despite ongoing gang violence and conflict in that country. Now the Haitian squad managed to qualify for football's biggest tournament while playing all their matches in exile. Think about that. And they're inspiring a new generation to train up. Many, many feel proud to see Haiti represented on the international stage, including 12 year old Saeed Zavi.

[Rush Doshi]

I want to play for the national team. My dream is to win a World cup with the Haitian team to show others what Haiti is not many in

[Scott Bezant]

the world know Haiti.

[Rush Doshi]

Some think that it is a little

[Louis Goodall]

country, a place where there is no football. Haiti has many talents.

[Rush Doshi]

I want to show them what Haiti is like.

[Paula Newton]

Finally for Haitians, something to cheer about. That's it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after airs on our podcast. And remember, you can always catch us online on our website and all over social media. Thanks for watching and goodbye from New York.

[Scott Bezant]

Foreign.

[Louis Goodall]

Reynolds here from Mint Mobile with a message for everyone paying big wireless way too much. Please, for the love of everything good in this world, stop with Mint. You can get premium wireless for just $15 a month. Of course, if you enjoy overpaying, no judgments. But that's weird. Okay, one judgment anyway. Give it a [e-mail] Switch upfront payment of $45 for three month plan equivalent to $15 per month required intro rate first three months only, then full price available, taxes and fees extra.

[Paula Newton]

See full terms at mintmobile. Com.

[Rush Doshi]

Influential journalist Kara Swisher is taking a hard look at the longevity industry.

[Paula Newton]

There's so much bad information that the really good information gets drowned.

[Louis Goodall]

The new CNN original series, Kara Swisher wants to live forever now streaming on the CNN app.