John Micklethwait (3:28)

There's a lot of money set to come into the United States and big bets, a ton of fdr. We can get into that in just a moment. I just want to stay on G7 allies. This Week's big. Quite a week. Emmanuel Macron, the French president, said, basically accusing the US of trying to subordinate the Europeans. The Prime Minister of Canada, I'm sure you heard his speech, Mark, said, this is not a transition, it's a rupture. How would you describe relations with those countries at the moment?

U.S. Commerce Secretary (3:53)

I think our relations are perfectly fine. Right. I described the relationship with respect to the whole. When, when Greenland was going back and forth before we. We sort of settled it with a framework agreement. Right. I called it a kerfuffle. Right. It basically, like if you have an argument with your spouse that's not real, you know, it's not a real one. It's like a small thing.

John Micklethwait (4:15)

My spouse doesn't go out there and deliver a speech after that argument and say it's the end of the relationship.

U.S. Commerce Secretary (4:19)

Fair enough. But you're right, and I think they overreacted. And it's proof that they overreacted because a day or two later, there's a framework that makes sense. Right? What did we say? We said we cared about it for national security. Right? We said we care about it national security. I mean, it's obvious we care about it for national security. Because if you're going to build a golden dome over the United States of America. Right. Wouldn't you prefer the golden dome? Cover Greenland? So when you're knocking out the Missiles, you're not knocking them out right over your head. Like we've all seen Israel knocking out the missiles right over their head with their iron dome. Wouldn't you prefer to knock out the missiles if you live on the east coast of the United States of America over Greenland, a couple of thousand miles away where there's no people. Right. Does not sound better. So this is sort of where we're thinking about it and how our national security team is thinking about it.

Bloomberg Analyst (5:06)

So what's actually in the framework?

U.S. Commerce Secretary (5:08)

Well, the framework. Framework is a national security based framework that that's what the United States cares about. We care about our national security and we care about the shipping lanes. So let's talk about the national security and shipping lanes and let's see if we can't figure out a framework to do that together. And I think that's what the President truthed about. He said we're going to try to figure that out together because those were the key points that the United States of America cared about. And I think the President's been clear about it and he just wants people at the table dealing with it swiftly. I mean, think about this. He sends out a truth and like within four days, right? We have a framework agreement. Like that's. By the way, that's a pretty effective.

Bloomberg Analyst (5:47)

And we had tariffs on. We had tariffs on, tariffs off.

U.S. Commerce Secretary (5:50)

They were never on. They were never on.

Bloomberg Analyst (5:52)

The threat of them are coming on for February 1st. What does this do now for the agreement you and your team struck with Brussels? Because the legal implementation has now been put on hold.

U.S. Commerce Secretary (6:01)

Oh, I think it'll be put on hold probably tomorrow. I mean, come on. That's why I said it's an overreaction. I mean, they know when the President says this is what's going to happen. I mean, what provoked the president. What provoked the president was that they sent military people to Greenland. I mean, they didn't send military people to Ukraine. Like, why are they sending military people to Greenland? You know, it was so. It seemed like a provocation.

John Micklethwait (6:27)

We spoke to the Finnish leader and he suggested that was a miscommunication and he cleared that up pretty quickly. There's something I want to get into with you that I think is quite important. This, of course, is the art of the deal. We talk about it on the program all the time. The President anchors the story to the stream and then gets a favorable deal for the United States. I think that's well understood. Something happened though in the last 12 months that I think is really interesting. He tried the same thing with Canada and totally upended the election in Canada north of the border. Polyevre was going to sail away with that. The reason Mark Carney's here as Prime Minister is because the President took such an assertive stance on Canada. Now, at the time, I was finding the humor in the conversation. Then the Canadians started lighting up the Bloomberg terminal, sending messages. They were deeply offended. And we've seen that damage the economic relationship, relationship with Canada and the United States and the risk. Mr. Secretary, and I'd love your thoughts on it and your reaction because I think this is really important. Regarding the Europeans. The points you're making about Europe and have made over the last week are valid points and they're actually well received by a lot of Europeans. But the style in which is being delivered at the moment, some of them are finding it offensive. Do you think there's a risk here that we damage the economic relationship with the Europeans in the same way we do with the Canadians and for that matter, derail the conservative movement in Europe that's well underway?

U.S. Commerce Secretary (7:40)

I don't. I think the fact is that you need to rethink. I think Europe is amazing and it's got extraordinary opportunity and a $20 trillion economy. But think about this. If they had the right digital rules, meaning similar digital rules to the United states, we have $6 trillion worth of committed investment to build data centers in America. And we have a $30 trillion economy. Economy. So if they had a $20 trillion economy, you'd say, okay, if they had the same rules, they could get 4 trillion. Or how about 2 trillion? You realize 2 trillion for their economy. Right. Would be 10 points of GDP spread over three or four years. I mean, that would produce amazing growth. And let me sort of explain how that works. So we did a deal with Micron, right? They're going to build $200 billion in America. So on Friday, last Friday, we did a groundbreaking of their mega fab hundred billion dollar fake fab. And where did they do it? They did it in upstate New York, in Syracuse. Now, there hasn't been industrial building in upstate New York in probably 40 years. But if you think about it, it had a huge industrial base once upon a time. So what does it have? It has power because it has the power infrastructure for that. So what that does is it creates like this enormous uplift. And I think Europe can do the same thing. I think the UK can do the same thing. And Canada is just thinking in this arrogant kind of thought.

Bloomberg Host (9:04)

Well, but just to build on what John is talking about it's a style question. Can you get the same results without using words like calling leaders weak or their economies decaying?

4imprint Announcer (9:14)

Right.

Bloomberg Host (9:15)

Is it necessary to provoke the visceral feeling that we feel among a lot of leaders here and in conversations with international investors? I mean, is there any other way? Is that style more harmful than it is humble?

U.S. Commerce Secretary (9:29)

Well, I think it creates listening. Like people pay attention to it and listen to it. If you just sort of blend in, no one hears anything in Davos, right? Everybody says the same, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And if you need to break out and you need to say it. So my view is right, that Canada has never expressed to the world that they have the best deal, the second best deal in the world. The best deal in the world is Mexico because Remember, they have us which means 85% of the Canadian economy comes into the United States for zero. And there he is complaining that he's going to go to China and improve it. What's he going to do? China's delighted to sell to him, but do you think China is going to open their economy to accept exports from Canada? This is the silliest thing I've ever seen. They have the second best deal because Mexico's got a little better deal. They have 25% on the extra 15%, whereas Canada's got 35% in the extra 15%. But give me a break. They have the second best deal in the world and all I got to do is listen to this guy whine and complain.

Bloomberg Host (10:30)

Mr. Secretary, in fairness, you've seen from the airplanes, you've seen about a 30% decline in Canadian visitors to the United States, if not significantly more. You've seen a similar type of decline from China. European travelers inbound have come down. There is a sense that people do not want to come to the culture of the US and there is of a sense anchor about it. I just wonder if you think that that's just temporary or you just sort of dismiss that or you think it's irrelevant to the actual issues.

U.S. Commerce Secretary (10:55)

I think what that is is political marketing, right? The Canadians have the second best deal in the whole wide world. If they continue this path, right, which is a political path of a certain thing, I'm going to go fly to China. I'm going to open up my markets to China. I'm going to take Chinese electric cars and do all sorts of this stuff. Then when you s M C A gets re negotiated this year, this year, sort of like towards the end of the summer and the middle of the summer, do you Think the president, United States is going to say, you should keep having the second best deal in the world. I mean, you guys are such great friends. I mean, they are playing with a set of rules that they haven't really thought.

John Micklethwait (11:39)

I can hear it in your voice. You're excited about negotiating this, aren't you?

U.S. Commerce Secretary (11:41)

Like this year? Well, they, they've sort of given a sort of a roadmap of saying, so I guess we should change the whole deal, right? You want to be like the rest of the world. You don't want to be this favored neighbor because you've taken it so for granted that you're willing to come to Davos and say, there's two hegemic powers in the world and we're going to decide which one we're going to work with. Really? You're going to either work with the United States of America, where 75% of your economy is totally tied to it, or China. Why would you say that? It just, I think it's political. You know, I think if we take it correctly, we should look at it as just political noise coming out of a prime minister and maybe this is working for his election. Right. Because I don't think it can be real. Because if you took out the math of Canada's economy and it's doing business with the United states of America's $30 trillion economy, there's no such thing as changing what they have today. No one would vote for changing what they had today. Now marketing it well, but they're just for their politics, but they're surely not marketing it well for their fundamental economics for long term.

Bloomberg Analyst (12:50)

The United States, the US Is doing deals with China. And I'd love you to walk us through what's going on with the H20s. Is it accurate now that basically for China to get the H20 chips, Taiwan needs to send them to America for us to put a tariff on them to make money off it and then send to China. And is it your understanding that China might be suspectable now to these chips? Suspect because they're entering through the United States.

U.S. Commerce Secretary (13:11)

So it's the H200. Right. So that's, that's the chip we're talking about. And Jensen Wang came to the Oval Office and he argued that, that this is a better chip than they can actually make in any scale. Right. So if we sell them to China. Right. In Chinese businesses, then they'll start using them and they'll, they'll, you know, develop on the American tech stack and that will take some money away from the Chinese tech stack. And that's. It's an interesting argument. There are two sides. There are strong two sides. We shouldn't sell them any or we should sell them. Where do you and I stand? Right in the middle. It was a really, really good discussion, okay? And the President decided that, fine, we'll sell the two hundreds to them, okay? And he made that decision. And after he was done, he said, and you know what? I think if we do that, we should get 25% for the American taxpayers, right? Because we're creating something.

Bloomberg Analyst (14:00)

China wants to buy them knowing that they're going from Taiwan now back to.

U.S. Commerce Secretary (14:04)

Us getting to China, United States, because in order to collect 25%, right. The process matter to do it, right. Is he imported, put a tariff on it, and then export it again. Okay? And so that's the model. It's the process model to execute a plan that the President, United States of America made, right? So that's just the execution model of how to do it. It's not. It's just process. Right. And it's the same H200 chip. And the question we'll find out is that businesses in China want to buy it. That's for sure. The question is, does China central government. Right. Want, you know, when they have that same argument, do I want to give my companies this chip that they're all clamoring for, or do I want to force them to take the pain of. Of using lesser chips that are domestically made, but helping our domestic companies grow? And that's a question. We're going to see how it goes. But I think the President put that question out there, and I think it's a really interesting one. I didn't say there's not two sides of that coin. Right. But the President thought having Chinese developers on the US Tech stack, right. Given sort of the middle, he falls that way. And it was a really robust discussion. Both sides of the discussion were in the room. It was a deep and thoughtful discussion. And that's where he came out. And that's why he's the President.

John Micklethwait (15:25)

So, you know, just a final thought. Just listening to this engaging conversation of the last 15 minutes or so. Do you fancy the Fed seat over the Federal Reserve? I can see Commerce section. You can see him in the Ecclestone. Can you imagine the magic of that news conference? These news conferences, the news conference I'd.

U.S. Commerce Secretary (15:43)

Be going, you know what I call that? I call that an Amy Winehouse. No, no, no.

John Micklethwait (15:48)

I call that box office. It's good to see you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you. I'm just making sure Mrs. Farrow hasn't scheduled a speech. Don't want that to we Mr. Secret, thank you. Appreciate your time.

4imprint Announcer (16:02)

Finding the right promotional products can feel overwhelming. But with 4imprint, it can be easy. They call it 4imprint certainty, which means the process is stress free, straightforward and backed by real peace of mind. Not sure what promo products to order? No problem. You can get free samples, product guidance, even free help with your logo so everything can meet your expectations. Need options? They've got thousands, including branded apparel, drinkware, outdoor and all the tradeshow essentials. And when your order arrives, it's backed by their 360 degree guarantee. That's four imprint's promise your order will be packed with care, show up looking great and right on time in a rush. 4imprint has quick turnaround options too to help you hit your deadline. Whether you're prepping for an event or just refreshing your promo lineup, 4imprint helps you get it done. Head to 4imprint.com to explore. That's 4imprint.com 4imprint for certain. With 4imprint, finding the right promo products can be easy. They call it four Imprint Certainty, which means you get free samples, expert help, art assistance and their assurance your logo looks great. 4imprint offers thousands of options to choose from, including branded apparel, drinkware, outdoor and more. And it's backed by their 360 degree guarantee. That's 4imprint's promise that your order will be packed with care and delivered on time. Need your order faster? 4imprint offers quick turnaround options too. Visit 4imprint.com to explore 4imprint for certain.