← The Daily
The Daily
The Demise of U.S.A.I.D. — and American Soft Power
00:33:52
Warning: This episode contains strong language. As President Trump demolishes the government’ s biggest provider of foreign aid, the United States Agency for International Development, he is ending a 60-year bipartisan consensus about the best way to keep America safe from its enemies. Michael Crowley, who covers U.S. foreign policy, and Stephanie Nolen, a global health reporter for The New York Times, discuss the rise and fall of U.S.A.I.D. — and American soft power.
Loading summary
Transcript100 lines
- [00:00]
David Marchese
David I'm David Marchese.
- [00:02]
Lulu Garcia Navarro
And I'm Lulu Garcia Navarro.
- [00:04]
David Marchese
And we're the hosts of the Interview.
- [00:05]
Lulu Garcia Navarro
From the New York Times.
- [00:06]
Michael Crowley
David and I have spent our careers.
- [00:08]
David Marchese
Interviewing some of the most interesting and.
- [00:10]
Michael Crowley
Influential people in the world, which means.
- [00:13]
David Marchese
We know when to ask tough questions and when to just sit back and listen.
- [00:16]
Michael Crowley
And now we've teamed up to have.
- [00:18]
Lulu Garcia Navarro
These conversations every week.
- [00:20]
David Marchese
We'll try to reveal something about the.
- [00:21]
Michael Crowley
People shaping our world.
- [00:23]
David Marchese
And we'll get some great stories from them, too.
- [00:25]
Michael Crowley
It's the Interview from the New York Times. Listen wherever you get your podcasts.
- [00:32]
Lulu Garcia Navarro
From.
- [00:33]
David Marchese
The New York Times, I'm Michael Babaro. This is the Daily the horrible usaid, the horrible things that they're spending money on, it's got to be kickbacks. As President Trump demolishes the government's biggest provider of foreign aid, the United States Agency for International Development, which he calls wasteful and misguided. It's absolutely obscene, dangerous, bad, very costly. I mean, virtually every investment made is a con job. He's ending a 60 year bipartisan consensus about the best way to keep America safe from its enemies. Today, my colleagues, State Department reporter Michael Crowley and health reporter Stephanie Nolan on the rise and fall of USAID and American soft power. It's Tuesday, February 11th. Michael, as we speak to you, USAID has basically been dismantled. A judge has paused elements of that dismantling, but the writing is very much on the wall. It's a shell of itself, so much so that its name has literally been removed from its headquarters in Washington. And I think a lot of us have the sense that this elimination of this agency is a very big deal, even if we don't entirely understand exactly how USAID worked and why the United States was doing so much of this kind of foreign aid work on this scale to begin with. So what is that backstory?
- [02:38]
Lulu Garcia Navarro
Well, USAID was founded by President John F. Kennedy, who created it with an executive order in 1961. And he did that not out of some pure sense of charity, not out of a sense that there was famine in the world and America had a responsibility to address it. The people who are opposed to aid should realize that this is a very powerful source of strength for us. It was a matter of national security. It permits us to exert influence for the maintenance of freedom. He was reacting to the Cold War competition with the Soviet Union that was underway at the time. If we did not, we're not so heavily involved, our voice would not speak with such bigger and which he saw as a real threat to America's primacy and security. And, you know, the Soviet Union was presenting itself as, as the champion, particularly in the developing world, of countries that had been under colonialism for decades or more and, you know, felt that they had been treated badly by the West. And as we do not want to send American troops to a great many areas where freedom may be under attack, we send you. And Kennedy felt like America had to show that we are not exploiting the world around us. We care about its welfare, working with the people in those countries to try to work with them in developing the economic thrust of their countries so that they can make a determination that they can solve their problems without resorting to totalitarian control and becoming part of the bloc. And ultimately, this is the most important part. Choose us and not the Soviet Union.
- [04:40]
David Marchese
Right. Choose democracy and capitalism, not communism.
- [04:44]
Lulu Garcia Navarro
That's right. And in Kennedy's mind, the United States had a real problem. The United States was at risk of losing this competition with the Soviet Union.
- [04:53]
David Marchese
Why?
- [04:54]
Lulu Garcia Navarro
Well, one thing that motivated Kennedy, and it's such an interesting footnote to all of this, was a popular best selling book at the time called the Ugly American. The Ugly American essentially told the story that American diplomats in Asia were out of touch with the places where they were working. They didn't understand the local culture. They seemed like they had parachuted in from another world and in some cases made more enemies than friends. And this was a big problem for the United States, that Americans were seen as ugly. And Kennedy actually recommended that his associates and members of Congress read this book to understand this problem. And he felt like America had to stop presenting the ugly face and had to present a more benevolent, helpful face.
- [05:48]
David Marchese
Fascinating. So USAID in Kennedy's mind, is the antidote to the perception of the ugly American. It is the generous American, the altruistic American who shows up strategically with humanitarian aid and makes your life, if you're overseas, skeptical of America materially better.
- [06:08]
Lulu Garcia Navarro
That's exactly right. USAID is building schools, building hospitals, providing people with clean drinking water, life saving medicines, helping them find employment, developing local infrastructure, all kinds of things that help people in a fundamental day to day way have better lives in these countries. But part of what's happening as USAID does this work is you're gaining influence. You're getting to know government officials, you're getting to know people in the local population. So this kind of becomes the basis of what we know as soft power, which is distinct from hard power. That's military power. Soft power is influence and relationships and a bipartisan consensus. Forms around the value of soft power as an instrument of. Of American foreign policy going forward for decades. And so Kennedy launches usaid. But year after year, presidents of both parties accept USAID as a central part of American foreign policy.
- [07:10]
David Marchese
I have to imagine, however, that when the US wins the Cold War, by the end of the 1980s, the early 1990s, that this poses something of a challenge to USAID's purpose.
- [07:22]
Lulu Garcia Navarro
It does. But at the same time, some pretty good new rationales emerge for the continuation of a robust USAID. Why? Because after 9 11, America realized that the Soviet communist ideology that threatened us had been replaced by a new ideology. It was a terrorist ideology. It was a radical fundamentalism that was emerging from parts of the world where USAID did a lot of work, and that terrorism really flourished in countries where there was instability, weak civil society. You know, when a state collapses entirely, that becomes a breeding ground for radicalism. And so there was a new value placed on American aid programs in countries that could maintain stability, try to help find jobs for people who might otherwise turn to radicalism. All kinds of programs that were perceived as being part of the mission of combating worldwide terrorism.
- [08:22]
David Marchese
Right.
- [08:22]
Lulu Garcia Navarro
But it's also during that period that we see some of USAID's real limitations and frankly, some of the most wasteful projects that it's ever undertaken.
- [08:31]
David Marchese
Huh. Like what?
- [08:32]
Lulu Garcia Navarro
Well, there was one project in Afghanistan known as Promote that was meant to empower women in the country, give them workplace experience. It was originally budgeted at $280 million, and it was supposed to help 75,000 women get jobs, promotions, apprenticeships, internship. But an inspector general report that came out a few years ago found that only 55 women had been promoted to better jobs.
- [09:00]
David Marchese
Wow. Out of 75,000. Original goal.
- [09:02]
Lulu Garcia Navarro
That was the original goal. And the inspector general essentially said the whole thing had been a complete waste.
- [09:09]
David Marchese
So Basically, a nearly $300 million program funded by us, the taxpayer, turned out to have been a boondoggle.
- [09:16]
Lulu Garcia Navarro
Yeah, basically down the tubes. So, look, you might cut them some slack for having been in a war zone. A lot of projects were tried by a lot of different parts of the U.S. government in Iraq and Afghanistan that just flopped.
- [09:29]
David Marchese
Right.
- [09:30]
Lulu Garcia Navarro
Even granting that USAID has maintained strong bipartisan support for years and years, and the view of both parties is that not every project is gonna work perfectly, not every dollar is going to give you an ideal return, but that at the end of the day, relative to the national budget, USAID does not spend that much money. And actually, overall, you get a good return on your dollar and you're getting real value for American interests. And that USAID is important to continue and support that. It's really good for the United States of America.
- [10:10]
David Marchese
Perhaps the clearest example of how USAID exerts American soft power is through the work it's done in public. And to understand that, I spoke with my colleague, global health reporter Stephanie Nolan. Stephanie, how big a part of USAID's budget and work? Is healthcare, the subject you have spent so much of your career covering?
- [10:47]
Michael Crowley
So it's roughly a third, if you think about USAID having a budget of about $40 billion, about 12 and a half billion of that was spent on health care.
- [10:57]
David Marchese
Wow. So it's a really meaningful part of what this agency does around the world.
- [11:01]
Michael Crowley
Yeah, totally.
- [11:02]
David Marchese
And in your global travels, which are many and varied, how frequently do you encounter a U.S. aid program of one kind or another?
- [11:15]
Michael Crowley
I would have to think for a long time to think of a trip when I have not come across either US funded research or medications or humanitarian assistance. And one of the big ones is the HIV program, which was started at the height of, you know, if you think back 20 years to when there were almost 30 million people living with HIV in sub Saharan Africa and no treatment and people were dying in just these extraordinary. And at that point, President George W. Bush created this emergency AIDS response program and it has brought life saving HIV medication to millions and millions of people. Today there's about 21 million people who rely on that program for that medication. It's been responsible for getting drugs to hundreds of thousands of women with HIV who were giving birth to make sure that their babies weren't infected. Less well known, but I would argue about as important is something called the President's Malaria Initiative. And it does malaria control programs across the countries that have the highest burden of malaria. And they do an extraordinary range of things, from helping people put the chemicals in water supply to control mosquitoes, giving out bed nets, giving out malarial treatments, supporting the research that finds new drugs to control the parasite. They've played, I would say, like an essential role in the fact that deaths from malaria were cut in half over the last 15 years that the program was operating.
- [12:50]
David Marchese
So let me be dense for just a moment. Deliberately. So how do those two programs, which are clearly saving hundreds of thousands, in the case of the HIV program, millions of lives in places like Africa, how in the minds of USAID and the US Government, do those, beyond the indisputable altruism that you're describing, advance American interest as this program has Always been envisioned.
- [13:19]
Michael Crowley
I think one really basic but important thing is that it really directly touches people's lives. Right. You're getting help, and it's made clear to you where that help is coming from. So the medications you get, emergency supplies, tents, food, aid, it all comes branded with the words a gift of the people of the United States. Right. And it's a message from the US Government saying, we are here for you in this difficult moment, in your moment of need. We are a compassionate and benevolent actor. We are good guys who care about you. We're on your team. And that's like, viewed as laying a kind of cornerstone for a positive foreign policy relationship.
- [14:02]
David Marchese
Right. This is essentially President Kennedy's vision of USAID from the beginning, which we just talked about with Michael Crowley. This is the opposite of the imperialistic, ugly American image that Kennedy was trying to fight.
- [14:17]
Michael Crowley
Exactly. You're taking your baby in to get TB medication, and the little counter that they're sitting your kid up on to weigh and examine them has a little American flag in the corner. This is not a nefarious actor. Right. This is a country that's here to help. And then I think, you know, it's also important to recognize that this, of course, it's not only about goodwill. There is economic value in a lot of this for America and American companies.
- [14:49]
David Marchese
So how so?
- [14:51]
Michael Crowley
You know, as I look back over kind of 25 years of covering the response to the AIDS epidemic, keeping those people alive was the right thing to do. You know, in human terms, it also had economic payoff. Right. Like I used to go to Zambia, for example, and report when close to a third of people who would be your productive workforce, like people between the ages of about 18 and 45, a third of those people had untreated HIV.
- [15:19]
David Marchese
Right.
- [15:20]
Michael Crowley
So now today, 20 years later, thanks in large part to this US funded program, almost all of those people with HIV are on treatment. They're back to work. They don't even think about it. And that's obviously incredibly valuable for them, for their families. But it also had an economic impact on the country. Right. Like it became a much more economically stable country when it was not being crippled by hiv. And is it kind of grim to think about it in these terms? Sure. But if you're looking for a justification for the investment of American taxpayer dollars, well, Zambia has a very busy mining sector. The US has a lot of mining interests there, including agreements for electric vehicle supply chains. So I think it's pretty clear that this was the right thing to do in human terms. It also had direct economic benefit to the United States.
- [16:11]
David Marchese
That might sound kind of very pragmatic, but you're saying the reality is that when the United States does right by the people of Zambia by giving them HIV drugs and saving their lives, they happen to ensure the country's economic health persists in a way that way downstream benefits Americans and the American economy, which really does feel like the ultimate win win version of foreign aid.
- [16:41]
Michael Crowley
That's exactly right. And every year or every couple of years, a USAID partner country kind of graduates from the roles of foreign assistance and stops being a country that's getting USAID and becomes just a trading partner. Like there is ultimately long term economic payoff in something like helping a community get bed nets and malaria treatment in all of their rural clinics.
- [17:08]
David Marchese
And you're suggesting that that journey from being dependent on foreign aid to becoming a potential US Trading partner, that journey seems unimaginable if these countries can't surmount their overwhelming HIV and malaria problems to begin with, which is what the American assistance allowed them to do.
- [17:25]
Michael Crowley
I think this gets to another point because these countries that have received all of this assistance, we imagine them, you know, becoming global actors who are also American allies.
- [17:37]
David Marchese
Right.
- [17:37]
Michael Crowley
And, you know, the US is not the only country cap of providing this kind of assistance. When I go to Zambia these days, I actually see a bigger presence from China than I do the U.S. and so not only, you know, is the U.S. attempting to buy some goodwill, but they're occupying space that otherwise might be taken up by other people. So it's also sort of a deliberate foreign policy play in that way.
- [18:02]
David Marchese
Well, I think that brings us to the moment we're in, right, where President Trump is inaugurated, looks at this agency, and sees a lot of problems. I mean, is he right to think that there is some real cost cutting to be done at usaid? Putting aside the extent of it for.
- [18:21]
Michael Crowley
Just the moment, I will say that everyone I have ever spoken to who works for USAID has said that they wished that things about the organization were done differently and more efficiently and often in a way that would probably save money. I don't think I've ever met anyone who worked there who would not have said that there was room for significant improvement and lots of ways that things could have been done better. But I don't think any of those people would have said that even badly needed reform would look like what we've seen in the last few days.
- [19:05]
David Marchese
Of total dismantling and in a very real sense, a shutting down of usaid.
- [19:11]
Michael Crowley
Yeah, it's the complete eradication of this agency with this 60 year history in hours, basically. I mean, I feel like I watched it dissolve in real time.
- [19:33]
David Marchese
We'll be right back. This podcast is supported by NetSuite. Okay, business leaders, are you here to play or are you playing to win?
- [19:44]
Lulu Garcia Navarro
If you're in it to win, meet your next mvp.
- [19:47]
David Marchese
Netsuite by Oracle. Netsuite is your full business management system in one convenient suite with NetSuite, you're.
- [19:53]
Michael Crowley
Running your accounting, your finance, your HR.
- [19:55]
Lulu Garcia Navarro
Your E commerce, and more, all from your online dashboard.
- [19:58]
Michael Crowley
Upgrade your playbook and make the switch to NetSuite, the number one cloud ERP.
- [20:03]
Lulu Garcia Navarro
Get the CFO's guide to AI and machine learning at netsuite.com NYT netsuite.com NYT.
- [20:10]
David Marchese
This is an advertisement from the American Petroleum Institute. America's energy future begins now. We have the opportunity to strengthen our.
- [20:18]
Lulu Garcia Navarro
Economy and reduce inflation.
- [20:20]
David Marchese
And with this opportunity comes great responsibility. Working together, we can harness our energy.
- [20:26]
Lulu Garcia Navarro
Advantage and improve the lives of every American. More American energy means more jobs, more security, and more innovation.
- [20:34]
David Marchese
That's the promise of America's oil and natural gas. America's moment is now. Learn more@lightsonnergy.org Stephanie, I want you to talk about what it has looked like for this agency to be dissolved, to use your word, and specifically what that has looked like within the healthcare programs that you have spent all these years covering and that were designed to benefit the United States.
- [21:03]
Michael Crowley
Well, let me give you one example. I spoke to a scientist named Leila Mansoor in South Africa at an HIV research project where I've spent a lot of time. And she was running a clinical trial to test new ways of trying to prevent hiv. And so she had a new experimental ring. It's a vaginal ring that women would wear to prevent both pregnancy and infection with hiv. And it's an early stage trial. So they're just testing these rings to see if they're comfortable, if they fit, that kind of thing.
- [21:32]
David Marchese
And this testing, it sounds like, is funded by USAID.
- [21:35]
Michael Crowley
It's funded by USAID. And so this researcher, Dr. Layla, she gets up one day and she's got this stop work order from Washington. It's an order that she do no activities using US funds. So that's her USAID grant money that's paying for this clinical trial. So she's in fact, not supposed to have any further communication with these women from the community who are now wearing this experimental ring. She's not even supposed to tell them that she's no longer allowed to take care of them, huh?
- [22:10]
David Marchese
That's how thoroughly the Trump administration wants this all to just come to a halt. Yeah.
- [22:16]
Michael Crowley
So Dr. Layla told me that she couldn't accept that as a doctor, as an ethical scientist, and she arranged with her team to bring all of these women immediately into the clinic and to have them remove the rings and collect them and make sure that everybody was okay and just try to explain to them that the US had suddenly withdrawn its funding and the trial was over. And I really wondered, listening to her, what that felt like for those women. This is a community that I know pretty well where literally generations of people have volunteered their bodies for science. Some of the best HIV treatments and prevention mechanisms we have have been tested on these communities. So, as you can imagine, there's a real relationship of trust between these people who volunteer and these scientists. And So I asked Dr. Lela to connect me with who'd been in her clinical trial. And I spoke to a young woman named Azanda Zondi, and she told me about how bizarre it was to just get this phone call that said, come in right away, tomorrow morning. We're going to take out the ring. The trial is over. And she told me how, you know, she and the other women in the trial were talking to each other saying, like, what do you think has happened? And, of course, the explanation they've been given is, like, kind of a non explanation. Right. Which leaves you wondering, like, and she said, you know, really fearful and are you being told the whole truth and what's really happening? And listening to Dr. Layla, like, you could see how this relationship of trust that is foundational to the kind of scientific research the US has wanted to do around the world for, you know, years and years is just shattered instantly.
- [24:04]
David Marchese
So the speed and the manner in which the Trump administration is dismantling USAID means that this medical work in South Africa that has been intended to strengthen ties between the US and the people of South Africa is now dissolved into the situation where they are probably angry and distrustful and fearful. This would seem to be the very opposite of the mission of usaid.
- [24:38]
Michael Crowley
You know, I think in that one relationship in South Africa, you see a kind of overnight switch from appreciation to mistrust and fear. And I think, like, writ large, that's what I've seen, really, in every conversation. And, you know, I've had 30 or 40 of them a day for the past couple weeks, where people have gone from deeply, deeply valuing this relationship that has either made their work possible or kept their kids alive. Or kept them alive to a response that just feels extraordinarily capricious and cruel and profoundly isolating. And so, you know, I guess the thing that really stands out for me is that you could cut the amount the US Spends on foreign aid. You could dramatically change the way the US Spends money on foreign aid. But it would be very hard to overstate the degree of damage that has been done to those relationships with individuals and with governments around the world by the events of the last few days.
- [26:02]
David Marchese
So, Michael, if, as Stephanie Nolan just explained very clearly, USAID's work, generally speaking, advances America's interest overseas with a full awareness of its potential for bloatedness and wastefulness. But if it generally delivers still on Kennedy's vision of soft power, why, if you are Donald Trump and those around him, eliminate it?
- [26:31]
Lulu Garcia Navarro
Well, Michael, Trump and the people around him have never had much interest in the use of soft power. Trump is a hard power kind of guy. He's not about winning friends and influencing people through favors, charity, sweet talk. He likes to apply muscle, pressure, threats, some people say bullying. So this isn't really part of his playbook. And a lot of this work is done in parts of the world about which he's spoken derisively, including Africa, where a huge amount of USAID work happens.
- [27:09]
David Marchese
Right. Those were the countries that famously, in his first term, he referred to as shithole countries.
- [27:15]
Lulu Garcia Navarro
That's right. So that's one thing, you know, another is that USAID was an easy target.
- [27:22]
David Marchese
Explain that.
- [27:23]
Lulu Garcia Navarro
One of Trump's highest priorities clearly, is really trying to break the bureaucracy, trying to purge federal workers, trying to dramatically shrink the size of the American government. And, you know, Americans, generally speaking, are very skeptical of foreign aid. So I think USAID has almost become a test case or a trial run for Trump's larger plans to smash apart the existing bureaucracy, purge thousands of federal workers, and shrink the size of the federal government.
- [28:01]
David Marchese
What's interesting about the way you're framing this is that it's tempting to see what Trump is doing as, first and foremost, attacking, dismantling the idea of soft power. You're saying that may be incidental to dismantling the federal bureaucracy and that you can't really disentangle the two missions. But I'm still curious why, based on your reporting, the president wants to dismantle USAID so quickly, so haphazardly, in a way that, frankly pisses so many people across the world off?
- [28:40]
Lulu Garcia Navarro
Well, it's a little bit of a mystery, Michael, and I think that we've seen Clues to what the answer might be. Look at comments that people around Trump have made for years suggesting that you have to attack the bureaucracy almost mercilessly. You have to smash it, knock it down and keep it down before it has a chance to get back up. To people around Trump, the bureaucracy is almost like a, a, a movie monster that keeps getting back up. You can't kill it. And I think that there's a sense that you have to deal a knockout blow quickly before the courts, members of Congress, the unions, all these other factors can come in and start fighting back. Now, that doesn't mean that USAID has no defenses. The courts are already involved. We'll see what happens. But the strategy, I think, is speed kills.
- [29:32]
David Marchese
The critique of this, I guess the critique of Trump's critique is that this dismantling of this particular agency, this test case, has real impacts. And the impacts are that it may cede a huge amount of ground to our rivals in the world of soft power, especially China, which has shown enormous enthusiasm for soft power. And we've done so many episodes about this. China wants to build your new highway. China wants to put solar panels on the street lights so that they work at night in a country with not much electricity. China wants to do almost anything it can to deepen its ties to all these countries where USAID has been doing work.
- [30:19]
Lulu Garcia Navarro
That's right. It's going to create a vacuum. And the risk here is that we have circled back to the context that led President Kennedy to create USAID. In the early 1960s, John F. Kennedy believed that America was in a global competition for influence with another great power, and that USAID was a way to win friends and influence people. We are now back at a time where even President Trump and his advisors say the defining national security threat for America is a global competition for power and influence with another great power. In this case, it's China.
- [31:04]
David Marchese
Right. And to really bring it back to Kennedy, based on everything you're saying, Michael, we're not just at this moment getting rid of USAID and the concept of soft power through Trump's actions. We are replacing it, it would seem, with what you described as Trump's approach to hard power, tariffs and threats. And that makes me wonder if we are resuming in that full circle way the version of American foreign policy that existed right before Kennedy created usaid. It's the ugly American approach to foreign policy, perhaps. And what is that going to mean for the US and the world?
- [31:49]
Lulu Garcia Navarro
Well, that's exactly the concern, Michael. And no one is really providing good answers. People in the Trump administration just kind of dismiss the idea that China or Russia are going to benefit from this. And their critics say they're taking a huge risk and we can't know how it's going to play out. But I think you're exactly right. I think the concern is that the ugly American will make a comeback and that will work to the benefit of our adversaries around the world.
- [32:28]
David Marchese
Well, Michael, thank you very much. We appreciate it.
- [32:30]
Lulu Garcia Navarro
Thanks for having me on.
- [32:35]
David Marchese
On Monday afternoon, the inspector general who oversees USAID issued a report on the impact of the Trump administration's near total shutdown of the agency's operations. Among the findings was that nearly half a billion dollars worth of emergency food assistance, much of it supplied by US Farmers, is now at risk of spoiling inside ports and warehouses across the world. We'll be right back.
- [33:21]
Michael Crowley
CNN's have I Got NEWS for your is back for another season. Join comic Trio Roy Wood Jr. Amber Ruffin and Michael Ian Black as they roast the news, find the funny in the week's biggest stories and bring more.
- [33:34]
Lulu Garcia Navarro
Games, more guests and more mayhem. The new season of have I GOT NEWS for your? Returns on February 15th at 9 on CNN and streaming next day on Max.
- [33:46]
Michael Crowley
I'm Kate Kelly. I'm an investigative correspondent covering money and influence for the New York Times. I remember a story that I worked on. There was a conspiracy theory about this event. At the time I thought that can't be true. That seems extreme. So I went about the reporting. I did a whole ton of interviews and I wrote a draft of the story. But there was a little part of me that thought, you don't quite have this. So I went back out and did some more reporting, digging into that little piece that was bugging me. And it turned out the conspiracists were essentially right because I had that extra time and I was willing to be surprised. I think I got the right story and was able to deliver that to our readers. So I'm really grateful that that open mindedness is there in me, but is also shot through our institution where the editor will say, yeah, take another two weeks and get it right. If this kind of independent journalism is important to you, you can support it and the coverage that I do by subscribing to the New York Times.
- [34:47]
David Marchese
Here's what else you need to know today. On Monday, the Trump administration told federal prosecutors to drop sweeping corruption charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams, who has made repeated attempts to curry favor with the new president since his inauguration. Adams was indicted for allegedly abusing his power to obtain free travel and for accepting illegal campaign contributions. The order to drop those charges raises new questions about the incident, independence of federal prosecutors under Trump, and whether those close to the president will be given preferential treatment by his Department of Justice. And in his latest trade maneuver, Trump has imposed 25% tariffs on steel and aluminum imported from every US trading partner. The tariffs Tariffs are likely to please domestic metal makers, but significantly increase costs for US Companies that make items like cars, planes and food packaging. And it could spark trade wars. The tariffs are likely to please domestic metal makers, but significantly increase costs for US Companies that make items like cars, planes and food packaging. And it could spark trade wars that may bring a variety of retaliatory tariffs against the U.S. today's episode was produced by Nina Feldman and Rachelle Banja. It was edited by Mark George, contains original Music by Pat McCusker, Marion Lozano and Diane Won, and was engineered by Alyssa Moxley. Our theme music is by Jim Runberg and Mel Landsberg of Wonderly. That's it for the Daily I'm Michael Babar. See you tomorrow.
- [37:05]
Lulu Garcia Navarro
And now a next level moment from ATT Business. Say you've sent out a gigantic shipment of pillows and they need to be there in time for International Sleep day. You've got AT and T5G so you're fully confident, but the vendor isn't responding. And International Sleep Day is tomorrow.
- [37:19]
David Marchese
Luckily, AT&T 5G lets you deal with.
- [37:21]
Lulu Garcia Navarro
Any issues with ease, so the pillows will get delivered and everyone can sleep soundly, especially you. AT&T5G requires a compatible plan and device coverage not available everywhere. Learn more@att.com 5G Network.