Former Ukrainian Foreign Minister on the Tensions Between Washington and Kyiv

Summary

---

Fareed Zakaria GPS

Episode: Former Ukrainian Foreign Minister on the Tensions Between Washington and Kyiv

Date: March 10, 2025
Host: Fareed Zakaria
Guests: Dmytro Kuleba (former Ukrainian Foreign Minister), Catherine Bennett (New York Times), Douglas Irwin (Dartmouth College)

---

Episode Overview

This episode of Fareed Zakaria GPS centers on the seismic changes in U.S. foreign policy—particularly the Trump administration’s decision to pause military aid and intelligence sharing with Ukraine. The episode explores how these shifts are affecting Ukraine, Europe’s security outlook, and the broader global order. Fareed speaks with former Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba about reactions in Kyiv, Europe’s potential response, and the future of Western alliances. The episode also features discussions on Germany’s defense rethink, the political landscape in Europe, and a segment on the pitfalls of protectionist U.S. tariff proposals.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. U.S. Policy Shift: From Ally to Transactional Partner

• [01:29–08:34] Fareed’s Monologue
  • The Trump administration has initiated a dramatic foreign policy shift—pausing critical military aid and intelligence to Ukraine, demanding a share of Ukraine’s mineral wealth as “payback,” and escalating trade wars.
  • European leaders (especially Germany’s likely next chancellor, Friedrich Merz) question continued U.S. security guarantees, with some advocating for European military independence and even a “nuclear umbrella” aside from NATO.
  • Countries like Taiwan fear U.S. abandonment, which could spur global nuclear proliferation and alternatives to dollar dominance. Fareed frames these moves as “a revolution in foreign policy everywhere.”
• Notable Quote:
  • “The post-American world is now in plain sight.” — Fareed Zakaria [07:11]

2. Ukrainian Perspective: Learning to Live Without America

Initial Reaction in Ukraine

• [08:34] Fareed asks Kuleba: “What is the reaction ... about what has happened in the transformation of American policy toward Ukraine?”
• [08:34–09:02] Dmytro Kuleba:
  • “There is a great deal of frustration. There is a sense of being abandoned. There is also a feeling of … patriotism, like we have to come closer … but overall, we are learning how to live without America.”

Immediate Military Effects

• [09:02–10:38]
  • Currently, the effects of suspended U.S. aid are not fully felt, but Kuleba warns that running out of Patriot interceptors will soon leave cities and energy facilities vulnerable to Russian attack. The loss of U.S. intelligence will also degrade defense capabilities over time.
  • Quote:
    • “The moment will come when we will run out of Patriot interceptors … and we won’t be able to intercept Russian ballistic missiles hitting our energy facilities in peaceful cities.” — Dmytro Kuleba [09:51]

Oval Office Showdown: Trump vs. Zelensky

• [10:38–12:00]
  • The Oval Office clash escalated tensions, resulting in halted military support. Kuleba insists emotion was controlled in the meeting but says, “There was a moment when things went off the rail and that was a disaster, of course.”
  • Quote:
    • “What really matters is the consequence … and the immediate consequence … was the suspension of military aid and intel sharing.” — Dmytro Kuleba [11:30]

Current Battlefield Situation

• [12:00–13:34]
  • Ukrainian forces are experiencing more challenges in regions like Kursk and are holding the line elsewhere, but Kuleba emphasizes the mounting risk as European aid lags.

---

3. Can Europe Fill the Gap Left by the U.S.?

Europe’s Readiness

• [14:53–16:10]
  • Fareed: “Can Europe really do what the United States was doing?”
  • Kuleba: “Europe has everything but time. The sense of urgency is there. … All they have to do is just start implementing [decisions]. … Every day counts.”
  • He points out Europe’s “mixed record” and insists that further delays are not sustainable.

What Ukraine Needs Most

• [16:10–18:14]
  • The two most urgent needs—Patriot interceptors and high-level intelligence—are beyond Europe’s current capacity. While Europe can ramp up hardware production, intelligence gaps and delays are critical vulnerabilities.
  • Frustration mounts over ongoing political infighting in the EU over how to implement agreed military support.

Peace Prospects

• [18:14–19:32]
  • Trump claims he is pushing for peace, but Kuleba is blunt:
    • “When I look around, I see daily missile attacks … I see statements coming from Washington announcing another concession to Russia on Ukraine. I mean, this is not peace. This is the exposure of Ukraine to being destroyed by Russia under the slogan of bringing back peace.” — Dmytro Kuleba [18:54]

Kuleba’s Closing Perspective

• [19:32–21:30]
  • On America’s withdrawal:
    • “For a century, Europe forgot how to live without America. Now it’s time to remember those days… The biggest lesson…is that there is no one you can genuinely rely on in this world in a long term perspective…”
    • Predicts more self-sufficiency, global instability, and the growth of Chinese influence.
    • “It’s regrettable to see how America dismantles America-led world. But that’s the choice the people of America made by casting their votes. And we have to learn how to live with it.” — Dmytro Kuleba [21:05]

---

4. Germany’s Shift: A New Defensive Posture

Germany's Response and European Security

• [21:30–23:35] Fareed interviews Catherine Bennett:
  • The White House fallout has been “very clarifying” for Germany and Europe. Friedrich Merz’s push for defense independence—even breaking historic debt limits—signals a dramatic shift.
  • Quote:
    • “Three in four Germans are behind this … there’s buy in with the Germans.” — Catherine Bennett [23:35]
  • This transformation is unprecedented, especially given traditional German and European aversion to military build-up.

Political Risks in Europe

• [23:35–27:11]
  • Populist parties, such as Germany’s far-right AfD, pose risks to this defense turn, as they have often sided with Putin and exploit the erosion of traditional party dynamics.
  • Possibility that strengthened coalitions between mainstream parties could inadvertently bolster the opposition and populist forces.
  • Quote:
    • “Beyond that, we have to secure our democracies on the inside. … The AfD and far-right populist forces … are a big problem for Germany.” — Catherine Bennett [25:40]

---

5. Trump’s Tariffs: Lessons from History

• [27:13–33:57] Discussion with Prof. Douglas Irwin
  • Trump proposes tariffs rivaling pre-1940s levels, especially targeting NAFTA partners and China.
  • Long-term trend (post–World War II) has favored global trade liberalization, driving worldwide prosperity and poverty reduction.
  • Tariffs cannot replace income taxes to fund government programs—historically, tariffs now account for only about 2% of federal revenue.
  • Trade wars tend to create entrenched protectionism and are difficult to unwind—reversal can take decades.
  • Notable Quotes:
    • “It would bring [tariffs] up to levels we haven’t seen since the 1940s.” — Douglas Irwin [29:45]
    • “When tariffs go up, they can go up very quickly, but bringing them down is a very slow process.” — Douglas Irwin [33:27]

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “There is a great deal of frustration. … We are learning how to live without America.”
  — Dmytro Kuleba ([08:34])

• “The moment will come when we will run out of Patriot interceptors and we won’t be able to intercept Russian ballistic missiles hitting our energy facilities in peaceful cities.”
  — Dmytro Kuleba ([09:51])

• “It’s regrettable to see how America dismantles America-led world. But that’s the choice the people of America made by casting their votes.”
  — Dmytro Kuleba ([21:05])

• “The post-American world is now in plain sight.”
  — Fareed Zakaria ([07:11])

• “Three in four Germans are behind this … there’s buy in with the Germans.”
  — Catherine Bennett ([23:35])

• “It would bring [tariffs] up to levels we haven’t seen since the 1940s.”
  — Douglas Irwin ([29:45])

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• [01:29–08:34] — Fareed's "My Take": Shifting U.S. foreign policy and global implications
• [08:34–13:34] — Interview: Dmytro Kuleba on Ukraine's reaction and frontline situation
• [13:50–19:32] — Interview: Kuleba on Europe's readiness and the illusion of peace
• [19:32–21:30] — Kuleba's reflections on U.S. withdrawal and global consequences
• [21:30–27:11] — Interview: Catherine Bennett on Germany and European political dynamics
• [27:13–33:57] — Interview: Douglas Irwin on historical lessons about tariffs

---

Conclusion

This episode underscores a world in the grip of rapid realignment. Ukraine, once confident in Western support, now faces an existential scramble for survival. Europe, led by Germany, is forging a new, independent defense vision—fraught with political risks. Meanwhile, U.S. retreat is causing potential allies everywhere to rethink their security and economic strategies. Fareed Zakaria and his guests paint a sobering picture: a post-American order is materializing faster than most predicted, with unpredictable risks for geopolitics, global stability, and economic prosperity.

---

Transcript

[Progressive Insurance Announcer]

This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Fiscally responsible financial geniuses, Monetary magicians. These are things people say about drivers who switch their car insurance to Progressive and save hundreds. Visit progressive.com to see if you could save Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Potential savings will vary. Not available in all states or situations.

[Fareed Zakaria]

This is gps, the Global Public Square. Welcome to all of you in the United States and around the world. I'm Fareed Zakaria, coming to you live today on the program. On the heels of that Oval Office showdown between Presidents Trump and Zelensky, the White House this week paused critical military aid and intelligence sharing to Ukraine. Can Kyiv fight on without it? I will talk to Ukraine's former minister of foreign Affairs, Dmytro Kuleba. Also, how to make Europe Great Again Germany's likely next leader says he wants to make the continent independent from the United States. How is he planning to do that? We will explore. Plus, Trump loves tariffs. That much is clear. Tariffs, tariffs.

[Douglas Irwin]

It's a beautiful word, isn't it?

[Fareed Zakaria]

But have they ever really benefited America? We will bring you a history lesson, but first, here's my take. Singapore plays its geopolitical cards carefully as a country that tries to maintain good relations with America in a region dominated by China. So it's worth paying attention when its defense minister says that the image of the United States has changed from liberator to great disruptor to a landlord seeking rent. Its senior minister, Lee Hsien Leung, summed up the challenge the world the US Is no longer prepared to underwrite the global order. This makes the international environment far less orderly and predictable. In a few short weeks, the Trump administration has effected a revolution in foreign policy. It has largely abandoned a longstanding democratic ally, Ukraine, whose security the US has pledged to uphold since signing the Budapest memorandum 30 years ago. In fact, it now asks for a big share of Ukraine's mineral wealth, which the administration describes as payback for American support. Meanwhile, Washington declared a tariff war on its neighbors and closest trading partners, Canada and Mexico, and demanded that Denmark sell it, Greenland and Panama hand over the Panama Canal. It has moved to withdraw from the World Health Organization, which the US Helped found. It has tried to shutter most of its foreign aid programs to the world's poor, reversing a tradition of generosity that dates back to World War I. Its tariffs are clear violations of trade rules that Washington itself created and championed for decades. These remarkable turnarounds are being noticed around the world and will result in a revolution in foreign policy everywhere. Friedrich Merz, the man who is likely to become Germany's next chancellor, said recently, my absolute priority will be to strengthen Europe as quickly as possible so that step by step, we can really achieve independence from the usa. I never thought I would have to say something like this, but after Donald Trump's statements, it is clear that the Americans, at least this part of the Americans, this administration, are largely indifferent to the fate of Europe. Germany stood at the center of the security system the US built after World War II. For that country to start shaking is a seismic shift. Metz has even raised the idea of France and Britain extending their nuclear umbrella to German because he's no longer convinced that the US Would defend his country. That American promise was the essence of NATO, but no one in Europe knows if Trump would actually honor it. People in Taiwan have watched nervously as the Trump administration has turned on Ukraine. And rather than offering support against the predatory intentions of Taiwan's bullying neighbor, Trump has berated Taiwan for not spending enough on its own defense. Many on the island now worry that Trump might make a deal with Beijing that leaves them abandoned, like Ukraine. All these American moves will have an effect. They will begin to usher in a new multipolar world. Major countries like Germany and Japan will inevitably look out for their own security. That could mean for Japan as well as for South Korea, nuclear weapons become an attractive option, an insurance policy against aggression. Under the US Security umbrella, the world has seen remarkably little nuclear proliferation. That could change dramatically. Every country will consider how to wean itself off dependence on the U.S. as countries seek independence from the U.S. they might also seek alternatives to the dominance of the dollar. Europeans, who are really the only ones who could mount an alternative, might start issuing EU bonds, which would be the most effective competitor to US treasury bonds. America's exorbitant privilege of owning the world's reserve currency, which has allowed it to run up massive deficits at low cost, might erode faster than we could imagine. All these changes are gifts to Russia and China, whose goal has been to weaken America's power and presence in the world. As one Russia analyst said recently on GPS about Trump's Ukraine policy, it's indeed like Easter, Hanukkah, Christmas, birthday of Vladimir Putin, and everything is happening in one day. To those who think it's high time that we changed an international system that was so dependent on the US have you weighed the costs and benefits? The United States has spent eight decades building an international system of rules, norms, and values that has produced the longest period of great power, peace, and global prosperity in human history. Its alliances are the greatest force multiplier for American influence around the world. And America has been the greatest beneficiary of this system, even now, decades later, setting the agenda and dominating the world economically, technologically, militarily. As this world unravels, America's privileged position will also decline, creating a more dangerous and impoverished world and a more isolated, mistrusted and insecure America. The post American world is now in plain sight. Go to CNN.com fareed for a link to my Washington Post column this week. And let's get started. Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is heading to Saudi Arabia this week ahead of talks there between Washington and Kyiv. This is the first high level engagement between the two countries since last week's clash between Trump and Zelensky, after which the US Froze military aid and intelligence sharing with Ukraine. So what does all this mean for Ukraine's fight against Russia? Joining me from Kyiv is Dimytro Kuleba, who served as the country's foreign minister between 2020 and 2024. Demetro, welcome. And let me ask you first, what is the reaction to in Ukraine among official circles, among people in the country's leadership, about what has happened in the transformation of American policy toward Ukraine?

[Dmytro Kuleba]

Hi Farid. It's good to be back. Well, there are mixed feelings. There is a great deal of frustration. There is a sense of being abandoned. There is also a feeling of certain search and patriotism, like we have to come closer to each other, we have to stand united. But overall, we are learning how to live without America.

[Fareed Zakaria]

And when you say that on the front ranks, on the front lines, what is the effect? Particularly I wonder about the pause in intelligence sharing because I know that that has been crucial. US has satellites all over. It has been able to provide information to Ukrainian troops. How are Ukrainian troops handling this pause in aid and information sharing?

[Dmytro Kuleba]

Ukraine does not feel immediate effects of the suspension of arms delivery and intel, intel sharing so far. But the longer it takes, I mean, as the world will move on, the impact will be felt more and more and it will be detrimental. The moment will come when we will run out of Patriot interceptors and we won't be able to intercept Russian ballistic missiles hitting our energy facilities in peaceful cities. This is how civilians are going to feel the impact. The moment will come when, because of the shortage of intel sharing, our army will not be able to counter Russian actions as efficiently as it used to be. So we have to hold up. We hold on. We have to stay strong and seek for solutions to the problems created by the Trump Administration.

[Fareed Zakaria]

What is your interpretation as to what happened last Friday in the Oval Office? Was this inevitable and was it, was it personal at some level that Trump and Zelensky just don't like each other? What is your sense?

[Dmytro Kuleba]

Well, nothing is predetermined. So in principle everything can be handled until certain point. And that was the case in the Oval Office. I don't think both sides were kind of happy, entirely happy with each other, but they kept their emotions under control and they held a sensible conversation. But then there was a moment when things went off the rail and that was a disaster, of course. So, but whoever, you know, whatever happened in the Oval Office, what really matters is the consequence of what happened. And the immediate consequence that we observed was the suspension of military aid and intel sharing. So now, of course, you know, hats in both capitals were cooled down and I would expect that next contacts and next conversations will be more diplomatic.

[Fareed Zakaria]

And when you say the entire. The effect hasn't yet been felt though. We are getting reports that the Russians have launched major attacks on Ukrainian, you know, civilian targets, energy targets, that the area around Kursk, which is the one part of Russia that Ukraine was able to to conquer, is now under threat. How precarious is this? How much are Russians on the move and how much are Ukrainians kind of holding the line?

[Dmytro Kuleba]

Let me be clear on this. The longer we fight without America's support, the longer European Europe is making up its mind on how to provide necessary practical assistance to Ukraine, the more visible consequences of the suspension of deliveries and sharing by the US Will become so today. Yes, you see that we are not doing as well as we did in the Kursk region, but we're doing better around the city of Pokrovsky, which was doomed to fall like months ago. Right. So of course there are some immediate effects, but they will become visible and people will begin to feel, to feel them over time. This is why it is so important to adopt necessary decisions now without delaying them.

[Fareed Zakaria]

Stay with me, Dimydro. When we come back, we're going to talk to the Dmytro Koleba, former Ukrainian Foreign Minister, about whether Europe can fill the gap or is Ukraine really alone?

[Progressive Insurance Announcer]

Why choose a sleep number? Smart bed.

[Fareed Zakaria]

Can I make my sight softer?

[Progressive Insurance Announcer]

Can I make my site firmer? Can we sleep cooler? Sleep number does that cools up to eight times faster and lets you choose your ideal comfort on either side. Your sleep number setting. It's the final days of sleep number's biggest sale of the year. All beds on sale up to 50% off the limited edition Smart bed ends Monday. All Sleep number Smart beds offer temperature solutions for your best sleep. Check it out at a sleep number store or sleepnumber.com today.

[Ashley Graham]

I'm Ashley Graham and as a parent I know the back to school transition can be a lot when it comes to wellness. Ollie supports me and my family through it all. Kids multi is big in my house. It supports their immune system and they love to take it. A win win for everyone. Shop these [e-mail] or retailers nationwide. These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

[Fareed Zakaria]

I'm back with former Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba who joins me from Kyiv. Dimitri, you've written an article in Foreign affairs saying this is now Europe's war. My question to you though is in the short run in the next year, can Europe really do what the United States was doing? Does it have the supply of arms and ammunitions? Does it have the intel capacity to actually step in and replace the United States?

[Dmytro Kuleba]

Europe has everything but time and time becomes a crucial factor. Now the sense of urgency is there. The understanding that America is gone is there. All the decisions necessary to actually ramp up production and procurement of weapons were taken. All they have to do is just to start implementing them. Europe has mixed record on that, let's be frank. But under these circumstances, we can only hope and Ukraine will be pushing as hard as it can to make Europe act fast because it's really like every day counts. It's not an exaggeration.

[Fareed Zakaria]

But when you, when you think about this issue, is it what is the most urgent thing for Europe to do right now? Is it to develop an intelligence capability that it doesn't quite have yet? Is it to ramp up military production? You know, what is the thing that Ukraine needs most urgently from Europe?

[Dmytro Kuleba]

Unfortunately, two things that Ukraine needs more than anything else is something that Europe will not be able to, to provide within short term perspective. And these are Patriot interceptors to shoot down Russian ballistic missiles and intelligence. With all my respect to French, British and German intelligence, I highly appreciate their efforts. But you know, they all, let's be, let's be honest, they all relied on American intelligence for decades. So they cannot, this is not the capability that you can build in a blink of an eye. It just takes time on everything else, especially on hardware. Europe is well positioned to increase the production of tanks, cannons, artillery, rounds and this kind of, and other types of military equipment. But again, everything takes time and we in not in A position to drown in any internal discussions anymore. And this is why it is actually frustrating hearing the reports from the inside of the European Commission that despite the fact that all the decisions were adopted just a couple of days ago, France and Germany are still fighting each other to identify the best way to implement these decisions. This is not like rearming Europe. Defending Europe should be taken outside of the political discourse. This is not an issue where you can spend years, months, weeks and months debating on what to do. Just do it.

[Fareed Zakaria]

And you know, Donald Trump says that his goal here is to force a peace and that, you know, both sides need to act. And he said it's easier actually to deal with Russia than Ukraine. Ukraine. Do you think there's any prospect that all this produces a ceasefire and some kind of peace?

[Dmytro Kuleba]

Listen, we hear word peace very often, but we don't see it around. When I look around, I see daily missile attacks. When I look around, I see daily on the ground offensive. When I look around, I see statements coming from Washington announcing another concession, concession to Russia on Ukraine. I mean, this is not peace. This is the exposure of Ukraine to being destroyed by Russia under the slogan of bringing back peace. So we have to be very clear with the terms that we are using. We all want peace. Europe wants peace. Ukraine wants peace. Peace more than anyone else. But real peace, not a peace that will first destroy Ukraine and then will destroy Europe, while the United States will be making great deals with Russia.

[Fareed Zakaria]

Let me ask you finally, Dmytro, you've been around for a long time. We don't have a long time. But very briefly, what is your reaction, just as a Ukrainian, as a European, to what has happened in America? What this transformation of policy? How do you, you know, do you understand it? What do you, what do you think it's. What do you think is going on?

[Dmytro Kuleba]

Well, America came to Europe 108 years ago amidst the First World War, right? And for all, for a century, for slightly over 20th century, Europe forgot how to live without America. Now it's time to remember those days. Now it's time to learn how to live. Not only on the assumption that America will not be in Europe, but also that America may openly be against Europe. But the biggest lesson that we all learn, I believe, is that there is no one you can genuinely rely on in this world in a long term perspective, because the moment will come when your interests and the interests of that other that you had relied on will come into conflict, which will push countries to self sufficiency to the limit, which is very hard to comprehend. At this point. And this will be, this will be a global trend. And of course this will all result in the growth of China's influence all over the world. It's regrettable to see how America dismantles America led world. But that's the choice that the people of America made by casting their votes. And we have to learn how to live with it.

[Fareed Zakaria]

Demetro, as always, a pleasure to have you on. We will be back. As I mentioned earlier, the likely next German leader, Friedrich Merz, said recently that his number one priority would be to quickly strengthen Europe so that it could achieve independence from the United States. It's an extraordinary statement from a chancellor in waiting, especially one who is an old school conservative and a traditional transatlanticist. To understand what Merz is thinking, I want to bring in Catherine Benholt. She is the former Berlin Bureau chief for the New York Times, now a senior writer for that paper. Catherine, that is a remarkable statement. Do you think this is widely felt in Germany that the United States no longer is the guarantor of German security that it has been for eight decades?

[Catherine Bennett]

Yes, I think the fallout in particular between President Trump and President Zelensky in the White House last week was very clarifying. And I think a lot of people have woken up to this idea that Europe has to go it alone now on security and in a funny way, because of course, Europe has been at war for the last three years and arguably since 2014 when Russia first invaded, you know, Ukraine and Crimea, there should have been perhaps that wake up call before and a kind of a threat perception that would have surged to a point of, you know, really investing massively in defense. But that moment really only arrived now.

[Fareed Zakaria]

And Meirs has talked about something else, you know, which is revolutionary, which is for the Germans. He is willing to break the ceilings on German debt, these are self imposed ceilings, and spend really lots of money on defense. Is there again a consensus on this? Because he's going to be running a coalition government probably with the Social Democrats. Is there a consensus that Germany can blow through these debt limits in order to spend big on defense?

[Catherine Bennett]

I mean, the early polling we're seeing suggests that, you know, three in four Germans are behind this and partly it's that it's not only an agreement for the special fund, you know, that will Invest, you know, 400 billion euros in defence, which is really a lot. If you recall, after the invasion, there was this moment when Olaf Scholz stood before the German people and argued in favor of a 100 billion increase in defence. An extraordinary sort of budget for defence at the time. And that already felt like a momentous shift. Now we're talking about 400 billion, but on top of that we're talking about 500 billion in India infrastructure investment. And I think it's those two things side by side which have buy in with the Germans. And it probably took a conservative chancellor to get this done because the Social Democrats, to their credit, and the Greens and others have argued for this, you know, for a long time. And Mertz was opposed to it until very recently. So this is a very big step for Germany and for Europe because Germany is obviously the biggest economy in Europe.

[Fareed Zakaria]

Now when you look at right wing populists in France and Italy, Giorgio Meloni, the Prime minister, Marine Le Pen, the main opposition leader in France, they have both basically been very broadly speaking pro Ukraine. Le Pen has gone back and forth, but she criticized Trump for his, you know, seeming abandonment of Ukraine. Meloni has been a staunch supporter of Zelenskyy and Ukraine. Ukraine. What is the AfD's position here? It is the second largest party in Germany. It is Germany's far right party. Is there a danger that were they to do better and better, this whole transformation of German policy gets undone?

[Catherine Bennett]

Yeah, I think the real risk, and you're talking, you're basically mentioning this tension right now. We're in this moment, it's a historic moment. We're basically facing this twin challenge of securing our democracies to external threats. And that's the sort of defense budget that needs, you know, ramping up rapidly across Europe in order to actually, you know, be able to defend our border. Right. To an aggressor that has proven to be an aggressor in the recent years. But beyond that, we have to secure our democracies on the inside. So we kind of need that democratic resilience. And the AfD and other other far right populist forces that have in this conflict sided with Putin, in fact are a big problem for Germany. And if I may just add one last thing, and it's been to me a big concern because Friedrich Mearz is now negotiating yet another so called grand coalition, although the parties involved aren't so grand anymore. The Social Democrats and the Christian Democrats are of course the traditional two opponents in Germany. And they used to be the sort of, you know, the two alternatives for voters in the post war decades. There was only one time in the sort of upheaval of the 1968 moment when a kind of government of national unity created a coalition between these two parties. Imagine Democrats and Republicans going into government together, right? It's extraordinary. But under Angela Merkel, we had three out of four terms in this constellation and it really has eroded the sense among voters in Germany, Germany of having a real alternative. And it's one of the reasons, and you see it in the name of this far right party alternative for Germany, that the far right has grown strong. So I fear, and I think Friedrich Merz has a lot of work to do on that front, that this constellation risks, you know, reinforcing the AfD even more because it is the de facto opposition party.

[Fareed Zakaria]

Katherine Bennett, thank you so much for joining us.

[Catherine Bennett]

Thank you very much.

[Fareed Zakaria]

Next on gps, Trump loves tariffs. Tariffs are about making America rich again and making America great again. But what does history tell us about how Trump's tariffs will work? I will explain next.

[Progressive Insurance Announcer]

This episode is brought to you by LifeLock. Between two factor authentication, strong passwords and a VPN, you try to be in control of how your info is protected. But many other places also have it and they might not be as careful. That's why LifeLock monitors hundreds of millions of data points a second for threats. If your identity is stolen, they'll fix it, guaranteed or your money back. Save up to 40% your first year. Visit lifelock.com podcast for 40% off terms apply.

[Fareed Zakaria]

One could argue that for many Americans, especially those of a certain age, most of what they know about the history of tariffs comes from a movie, the 1986 film Ferris Bueller's Day Off. In 1930, the Republican controlled House of Representatives in an effort to alleviate the effects of the. Anyone?

[Dmytro Kuleba]

Anyone?

[Fareed Zakaria]

The Great Depression passed the. Anyone? Anyone? A tariff bill, the Hawley Smoot Tariff act, which anyone raised or lowered raised tariffs in an effort to collect more revenue for the federal government. The actual history is even more interesting than Ben Stein's character and those students certainly made it out to be. Here to tell us all about the history of tariffs is Douglas Irwin. He is a professor of economics at Dartmouth. He worked on trade policy in Ronald Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers. Professor Ervin, welcome. The first question I guess I would put to you is give us a sense of what do Trump's proposed tariffs look like in comparison, in historical terms. Now, when I say proposed tariffs, I know they switch on and off all the time and who, who knows where they'll be by tomorrow morning. But I mean, broadly speaking, the numbers he's used, 25% against Canada and Mexico, 10 to 20% against China. Assume that we're in that ballpark. What does that look like historically?

[Douglas Irwin]

Well, if you look at the history of US Tariffs, particularly over the last century, it's a true outlier. It would bring them up to levels we haven't seen since the 1940s. Not quite as high as Smoot Hawley in that clip that you just showed, which ultimately reached 60%, but it would push things up to about 20%. And that's because we're hitting two of our largest trading partners, Canada and Mexico, ostensibly with 25% tariffs.

[Fareed Zakaria]

And it's fair to say, as you say, the chart, when you look at of tariffs over the last century, particularly since the end of World War II, is really one of very significant downward movement. You know, we've moved, the whole world has moved into a free trade world. And fair to say that it has coincided with massive prosperity around the world.

[Douglas Irwin]

Absolutely. Not only has U.S. income risen during this period quite dramatically, but particularly around the world as countries have opened up to trade, and some came later, some came sooner, they've experienced tremendous gains in income, massive reduction in poverty, particularly in the 1980s and 90s when there was this Reagan move towards freer trade.

[Fareed Zakaria]

It also strikes me, professor, that the, you know, Trump sometimes talks about how we could use tariffs to replace the income tax. And, you know, that if you look at the math, that is, that is, you know, kind of impossible. If you were to raise tariffs 10% on all goods coming into America, I think it would make up 5% or something like that of the federal government's revenues. Once you have a big welfare state that pays out Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, you can't possibly fund it through tariffs. Am I right? You have to use income taxes.

[Douglas Irwin]

That's absolutely right. So there was a period when we could fund the federal government with tariffs alone, but that was before the Civil War, when government spending was only 2 or 3% of GDP, we didn't have a welfare state and transfer payments. We basically just had, you know, funding of national defense and the national debt from the Revolutionary War in earlier periods. So in that case, the tariff was raised about 90% of the federal government's revenue and imports were the tax base of the economy. But after the Civil War, as the US Economy changed, as we had much greater government spending, and particularly after the introduction of the income tax, the share of revenue derived from the tariff has fallen to very low levels. It's only about 2% now. So the idea that we could balance the budget or even come close to that by taxing imports more, when imports actually are relatively small share of US gdp, a small share of the economy is very difficult to achieve. So we unfortunately need income taxes and other taxes to balance our books if that's the way we want to move.

[Fareed Zakaria]

And when we put these tariffs on other countries, it's become clear will reciprocate. And then presumably Trump has said we would reciprocate to that. So there's a, there's a danger here. You end up in a tit for tat world. And in any case, once you put tariffs on, they're hard to take off because now you've created a protected domestic industry that's, that's used to having no foreign competition or very little foreign competition. Right. So I mean, where this is likely to be a one way ratchet that just moves tariffs up all over the world. What would be the consequence of that?

[Douglas Irwin]

Well, I mean, it would be lower standards of living, I think around the world because you'd be interfering with international trade, which is this conduit for the exchange of ideas, technology, cheaper goods. And you're absolutely right. When tariffs go up, they can go up very quickly, but bringing them down is a very slow process. So for example, you know the clip that you showed about Ferris Bueller talking about the Smoot Hawley tariffs, which took tariffs to very high levels in the 1930s, it really took us until the 1990s to bring tariffs down to much lower levels. It was a very long, arduous process over many decades and a lot of international trade negotiations. It wasn't something that happened very quickly. And so once we put these tariffs in place, even if future administrations want to expand trade and cooperate more with our trading partners, it's going to be a long road to get back to where we were.

[Fareed Zakaria]

Douglas Owen, thank you so much.

[Douglas Irwin]

You're most welcome.

[Fareed Zakaria]

Thank you. Next on gps, I'll dig into where Doge should be focusing if it actually wants to find money that can help cut the deficit. And now for the last look. In President Trump's speech this week, he said his administration had, quote, found hundreds of billions of dollars of fraud and taken back a lot of that money. But he spent much of his time just reciting an exaggerated list of grants that were not fraud, but ones he thought were wasteful. The only example of fraud he gave was a canard from Elon Musk about millions of people with preposterous ages supposedly receiving Social Security. They may be listed in the database, but they are not receiving benefits which cut off automatically at age 115. Trump did cite a real government report from 2024, estimating fraud across the whole government at 233 to 521 billion dollars a year. But consider that instead of focusing on fraud, Musk has pushed to shrink the federal workforce, whose total compensation in non defense roles is about $250 billion. Doge has also singled out USAID grants and DEI contracts, which account for less than 1% of the nearly $7 trillion federal budget. Out of control Government spending today isn't driven by overstaffing or foreign aid. It is from writing checks to take care of individual Americans. $3.6 trillion 52% of the budget goes to health care programs like Medicare and Medicaid, income programs like Social Security and disability and other forms of support like food stamps. There is fraud in those programs, but it doesn't come from dead people take disability payments. The Social Security Administration has dedicated investigators and prosecutors to crack down on fraudsters like this man who faked mental illness and lived in a mansion in Palm Beach. Agents also regularly review whether recipients are still eligible. But fraud does get missed. They just don't have enough resources to catch it all. But for every dollar spent on various such efforts, taxpayers get back 2 to $8 outright. Fraud isn't the only problem. Social Security does make overpayments $11 billion in 2022, much of it due to human error. The inspector general said better technology and data systems would help prevent this. In fact, agencies say the two things they most need to tackle fraud are more resources and better data analytics. The first means more staffing and funding, and certainly not what Trump has done firing inspectors general en masse. Their job is to look out for waste and fraud. The data side seems right in Musk's wheelhouse, but his tech wizards and haven't actually focused much on improving the government's technology yet. By the way, it's not just Social Security where taxpayer dollars disappear. HHS estimates Medicare and Medicaid made over $100 billion in improper payments in 2023. One example, a Wall Street Journal investigation found insurers had charged Medicare an extra $50 billion over three years by adding bogus or inflated diagnoses for patients. Of course, most government payments are correct and legal, so a serious conversation about deficit reduction would put the programs themselves on the table, even unpopular ideas like raising the eligibility age for Social Security and Medicare. Finally, remember, deficits are not just about spending but about how much revenue the government takes in as well. Even before we talk about tax increases. In 2022, the IRS missed out on $606 billion. That should have been paid in taxes. Democrats have provided more money for enforcement because the return on that investment is so good. But Republicans have fought this, and Doge hasn't spared the IRS from large layoffs. Meanwhile, Republicans want to blow a hole in the deficit by extending Donald Trump's tax cuts, which will cost to the tune of several trillion dollars over the next 10 years. Elon Musk said last week that without Doge, America will go bankrupt. So if the crisis is so dire, let us not renew the Trump tax cuts, which would return us to Obama era tax rates, during which time the American stock market doubled and the US Economy grew faster than any major Western country. But when you mention that suddenly the deficit hawks turn into chickens. Thanks to all of you for being part of my program this week. I will see you next week.

[Ashley Graham]

This week on the Assignment with Me, Audie Cornish. My guest is Larry Wilmore. He's a writer and producer who has worked on some of the most successful shows of the century. In Living Color, the Bernie Mac show, the Daily Blackish, Insecure. We're just naming a few, but in his heart, he's still a comedian.

[Fareed Zakaria]

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

[Dmytro Kuleba]

Wait.

[Ashley Graham]

What? Wait a second. Like, you're going, you're doing open mics?

[Fareed Zakaria]

I'm going up Saturday night. I'm gonna start working on a new hour. Yeah. So it's a little scary.

[Douglas Irwin]

Audie, don't get me wrong.

[Ashley Graham]

I can imagine. What do you think is pulling at your chest here?

[Fareed Zakaria]

I feel like I have to say something. I can't stay silent anymore about just the world that I'm Listen to.

[Ashley Graham]

The Assignment with Me, Audie Cornish. Streaming now on your favorite podcast. Apparently.