← The Monocle Daily
Loading summary
Transcript56 lines
- [00:00]
A
You're listening to the Monocle Daily, first
- [00:02]
B
broadcast on the 20th of February, 2026 on Monocle Radio.
- [00:07]
A
As the US Supreme Court rules that Donald Trump's tariffs are illegal, is this a return to the rule of law? And what's the future of European defence? I'm Emma Nelson and the Monocle Daily starts now. Hello there, and a very warm welcome to the Monoc Daily coming to you from our studios here at Midori House in London. It's Emma Nelson here and we will be crossing to Milan to bid farewell to two weeks of radio shows as the Monocle in Milan program delivers its final episode. So stay tuned to that. That's all coming up on the Monocle Daily. Hello and a very warm welcome to the Monocle Daily coming to you live from Studio one here in London. It's Emma Nelson here. And in the last few hours, the US Supreme Court has pushed back, indeed smacked hard against Donald Trump's global tariff scheme. It's ruled them illegal. Their majority decision of six votes to three didn't say the tariffs themselves are illegal, but that the piece of law that the president had used to justify his ability to impose them couldn't be used. While the ruling has prompted extreme reactions, we're expecting Donald Trump to speak in a little while. He will probably no doubt be very, very critical and defiant. But first, let's hear from H.J. mai, a journalist based in Washington. D. Very good afternoon to you, H.J.
- [01:37]
C
hi there. Thanks for having me.
- [01:39]
A
A huge, huge development then which has left anybody who does any trading in any form with the United States reeling.
- [01:46]
C
Yeah, I would agree with that. You know, we've been waiting for weeks now for the Supreme Court to finally make its ruling. And, yeah, now, you know, there's some hope within the business community, but also a confusion and uncertainty, which is obviously what the terrorists themselves have done to the business community. So, you know, it's a mixed bag on this day. And as you mentioned, we're waiting for the president, who's already announced that he has a backup plan. So we will see how that will shape up.
- [02:20]
A
Right. Well, let's just have a look at the way that this thing is now going to work, because it took a very long time for people all over the world, for business leaders and for small businesses and for anybody who did any trade with the United States to work out what paperwork needed doing where and how much things were going to cost in. It took time and it hurt. What happens now that the Supreme Court has said, no, this was all illegal? Does an enormous Pause button just get pushed.
- [02:48]
C
That's pretty much it. You know, I talked with former commerce secretary here during the first Trump administration, Wilbur Ross, just less than an hour ago, you know, and he mentioned, you know, that there is now a lot of uncertainty. And, you know, we talked about the immediate impact that this will have. Let's take a listen.
- [03:08]
D
That will create enormous confusion and litigation in the trade communities. So if there aren't these tariffs, you can be sure the foreign countries are going to dump as much stuff in here as they can as quickly as they can to take advantage of the lower tariffs.
- [03:31]
A
So that's the former Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, on the immediate impact of the decision. So it's unlikely, though, that Donald Trump will abandon the tariff strategy. As we say, he's already saying that he's got a backup plan. What do we do now, then? What are we waiting to see next?
- [03:49]
C
So, you know, the ruling that came down this morning from the Supreme Court struck down this emergency law from the late 70s that he used to justify his broad swath of global tariffs. But there are some, obviously, he has a lot of other tools in his pocket as the president. Obviously, he wants to work with Republicans in Congress to keep that tariff policy on. But again, I also talked to Will Barras, the former commerce secretary, about that part. And while he thinks, you know, there will be some opportunities to, you know, continue this tariff policy, first of all, it will take time, and he doesn't think that it can replace all of those tariffs.
- [04:31]
D
The other measures that facilitate putting tariffs involve processes. So it takes some time. So while they are at least partial substitutes, I don't believe they are complete substitutes. And in any event, there would be a gap of perhaps a few months during which there wouldn't be tariffs, at
- [04:55]
A
which point everybody starts to trade furiously. That was former Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross. Again, H.J. just explain, explain to us a little bit more now about what this says about the way that Donald Trump runs the White House, runs his administration, and where the checks and balances are actually able to step in.
- [05:16]
C
Yeah, I think this was obviously the biggest decision so far. I mean, we have seen that Republicans in Congress are not really pushing back against anything that comes out of the White House, that comes out of the executive branch. So I think, you know, this shows that at least the, you know, judiciary, you know, is putting some checks on the president's power that have, you know, certainly increased over the past year since he retook office. You know, I think it just, you know, and the fact that he has a backup plan, you know, just shows that he has a clear idea of what he wants to do. I think, you know, I heard the conversation, you know, that Andrew had last week at the Munich Security Conference. I think, you know, that the White House has a clear vision of wants to make, how it. It wants to do things, and it just goes full speed ahead. So given that this has taken so long for the Supreme Court to rule on, I mean, I guess in Supreme Court terms, it was actually quite fast. But in general, the judiciary takes forever to come up with those rulings. I think the administration will just go ahead and follow through with its plans. So, yeah, there are checks and balances, and I think this was a positive step. But I think the President is still in the driver's seat here.
- [06:32]
A
And although he may be in the driver's seat for a little while. The idea is, though, that there's going to be a direct effect on American citizens. In fact, lots of citizens around the world. And the Democrat, Chuck Schumer has called the ruling a win for the wallets of every American consumer. But there were beginning to be slight signs, weren't there, or reports that because of this idea of pulling up the shutters or pulling down the shutters, I should say, Americans, America was importing less, and as a result, its economy might have been changing to become stronger.
- [07:08]
C
Yeah, you're right. There have definitely been those reports. And then also the last statistics, I mean, we have seen that the tariffs in 2025, I think they brought in close to $200 billion for the Treasury. But then again, that doesn't really account for, for the extra prices that Americans had to pay. Obviously, we're heading into the midterm elections. Affordability has become the it word here in the US when it comes to Democrats and Republicans trying to lay out their strategies of how Congress will look going forward. And so I think there was some concern within the White House of how does this continued policy without this decision today would have affected Americans and would have affected American businesses and obviously the global standing. And as you mentioned, also it affects people around the world who trade and do business with the US There was definitely some concern, and I think the White House has acknowledged this, and we will see how much of those tariffs will be brought back by the White House. There's also obviously an upcoming trip now that was just announced that the President will head to Beijing in late March. And so I think also in those negotiations, I think the President lost a little bit of leverage now with that decision. So we will see how the two big economies will, will figure out how they will move forward with their, you know, bilateral trade.
- [08:34]
A
H.J. mai, journalist based in Washington, D.C. thank you so much for joining me on the Monocle Daily. Now, the last 12 months have been tough for the transatlantic alliance marked by the US Vice President JD Vance at the 2025 Munich Security Conference. Well, at this year's conferen, the US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio was there and was a little more tactful, but the message was much the same. Well, Evelyn Farkas is director of the McCain Institute and former U.S. deputy assistant secretary of Defense, and she spoke to Monocle's Andrew Muller at the conference last week. Andrew began by asking her whether the Trump administration's anti EU rhetoric was designed to rile up the domestic MAGA audiences or if it's something the block should take more seriously.
- [09:29]
E
I think it's a good question. It's probably still an open question. You know, I think if the administration keeps force levels in Europe roughly the same or doesn't do anything to damage deterrence here, then the answer is it's probably more performative because at the end of the day, what really matters is the US Commitment to security and the ties that we have, the values that we share, which of course back up our prosperity as well. So I think the rhetoric is more than unfortunate, but I think the fact that we are still continuing to speak with our allies, the allies get access to President Trump when they want it, which is important. And, you know, our Congress has also increasingly started to speak up and assert itself. And that matters because our government is not just the executive branch.
- [10:20]
F
But are you perceiving a difference or something fundamental shifting in how Europeans see the United States? Because I think probably, certainly during the first Trump term, Europeans were thinking, okay, this is just one of those weird things that happens from time to time. It's a bit of a glitch. It'll all go back to normal. It'll all be fine. But they can't keep thinking like that, can they?
- [10:39]
E
No. And I think that there's something different this time around where there's a real erosion, a real step down in trust. I think our European allies and frankly, our Asian allies, I just came from, from Japan last month. We held our Sedona forum for the first time outside of the US And Tokyo. And they are also, they're very nervous. Their trust has not been, I think, eroded as much as European trust has been because we haven't seen the overtures to XI that parallel the type of red carpet treatment that President Trump has given Putin and the ancillary advantages of staying our hand with sanctions. So I would say that at the end of the day, the relationship has been more harm this time around. The Greenland threat is a serious threat. And I think for the first time, Europeans had to contemplate, you know, what that would mean in real terms, because we don't know whether to take President Trump seriously or not. Having said that, again, I think Congress spoke, and I don't think the military, the US Military would follow orders that are illegal.
- [11:47]
F
This kind of preempts what I did want to ask, because you were deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, do you have, I guess, any insight or idea of how American service chiefs would have responded on the quiet, perhaps, to being told to draw up plans to invade Denmark?
- [12:03]
E
I mean, I would imagine that several would have resigned and they would have quietly gone, of course, to Capitol Hill and made it known, and maybe that is what happened. We don't know. And they would have said, it's not lawful for us to. I mean, we have a treaty of collective security that is, it is illegal to go and invade, you know, any one of those NATO countries. So I would like to think that that's what they would have done, that they would have said, no, we're putting our pens down. We're not drawing up that plan.
- [12:33]
F
I think it does often register among the countries that thought or still like to think of themselves as US Allies as just as much spite as anything else. But does it strike you that you can see any actual strategic logic in what the administration is doing? Is there an endpoint they want to get to in these relationships?
- [12:51]
E
They haven't given us a strategy. I mean, yes, they gave us something called the National Security Strategy, but it basically just said, we're going to prioritize the Western Hemisphere, which to me seems like the wrong priority. We need to prioritize dealing with our adversaries, making sure they don't harm us in terms of our national security, security, and our economic interests and our values. Of course. So it's not a document that I think is terribly strategic. It's not. Again, the priorities are not correct, and there's no vision laid out in it, really. Maybe there are some subtexts, some of the languages. White supremacist, almost. But then it's not coherent. Several people have commented. It seems like multiple authors had a hand in it. Now, that's not unusual, but there was no final author who smoothed it out and made it seem like it was something coherent. So I haven't I don't feel like there's a clear strategy. And part of it is that this administration is letting the president kind of just by whim, decide what the agenda is. And we have serious, you know, national security issues that we need to grapple with. China and Russia, it feels like we're just kind of going along and not really grappling with them in any bold way. But yet we are bold when it comes to Iran, we're bold when it comes to Venezuela. And I'm not saying those are not important also, you know, important issues that we need to grapple with. But I would like to see us be bold when it comes to deterring the bad guys.
- [14:19]
F
Well, just finally then, we are, of course, obviously living in a completely ridiculous time to ask anybody to predict the future. So I apologize in advance for what I'm about to do, but leaving it with the assurance that I'm not going to hold you responsible for anything that you do actually say. But do you think fundamentally the US or the transatlantic relationship that has built up since, well, World War I really is strong enough that it can actually survive another three years of this?
- [14:45]
E
Yes, because we have core interests and values that bind us together. And the majority of Americans believe that as well. You will see that come to the fore more in the United States in our midterm elections, which of course are not first and foremost about national security, but national security is there. It is underlying concerns in America. Americans do not view Europeans, Danes as their enemies. I mean, the American people know enough to draw a red line in their own minds. And they will speak up and they will speak out if they feel that they need to.
- [15:18]
A
That was Evelyn Farquhars, director of the McCain Institute and former U.S. deputy assistant secretary of defense. She was talking to Monocle's contributing editor Andrew Muller at the Munich Security Conference last week. But the announcement that we've had today is that the member states of the so called E5 group, France, Germany, Italy, Poland and the UK have signed a joint declaration to develop what they say is the most advanced industrial sector in security and defense. Well, to tell us what that means, let's hear from Dr. Mariam Mesmer, Senior Research Fellow in International Security at Chatham House, a regular voice here on Monaco Radio. Good evening to you, Marion.
- [15:54]
B
Hi, good evening.
- [15:55]
A
Let's just go back to what we heard there from Evelyn Farkas, talking about a fundamental erosion in trust between the US And Europe. How much has that breakdown in relations pushed the E5 together to actually get their act together when it comes to Security, I think, hugely.
- [16:15]
B
I mean, we're seeing this not just with the E5, but across Europe generally. And I think this E5 meeting today and the announcement on more jobs, joint defense cooperation, and working on joint systems is essentially just another iteration of that. It, of course, does not just have to do with the Trump administration, but also with the threat from Russia that Europe is facing. But I think had it not been for the Trump administration over the past year moving so decisively away from Europe, European states would have very likely been a lot slower on some of these defense investments and on developing joint cooperation projects. Just because, you know, the U.S. of course, has a lot of defence tech ready for purchase, but European states are increasingly clear that they would prefer to invest in European solutions and become much more independent from the US So what's
- [17:09]
A
in this declaration today, then?
- [17:12]
B
There's quite a lot there. Lots of different elements. I think at the core is this commitment to develop more joint defense cooperation projects. And one specific program of work that was also announced was something around air defense systems. This is something that's been quite important, especially for Poland, who was hosting today, because we've had various incursions into Polish airspace over the last few weeks. And so this is essentially part of a European attempt to replace some of the U.S. air defense systems that they have been relying on and essentially developing European alternatives so that European states are able to protect themselves from any drone threats that have really increased over the last few months.
- [18:02]
A
Well, these drone threats of which you speak, and actually the whole idea of drone technology now being part and parcel of any kind of conflict, it made me think about what was happening last week when 10 Ukrainians managed to take on two NATO battalions and floor them in a day with drone technology. And it exposed the fundamental slowness behind the more traditional structures when it comes to adapting to modern warfare. Will this declaration actually go anywhere to solve that problem?
- [18:32]
B
Well, it's part of it. Right. I think one of the. One of the lessons that everyone is learning from how Ukraine has been fighting in the war at the moment is that future war is likely going to be a combination of lots of different, different systems. So I think, you know, we shouldn't look just to drones to solve all of our problems because drones are, of course, also a limited system. But it is clear that Western European states at the moment do not have sufficient drone stocks nor drone capabilities because. Because our militaries across Europe essentially have not trained in the same way with drones in the way that the Ukrainians are fighting now. So I think this will help, help and go a long way towards improving the kind of drone defenses that European states need. But of course, we also need to invest in a range of different autonomous drone systems and the kind of drone systems that can fight alongside, alongside soldiers and sailors. And of course, you know, drones essentially just means that they are uncrewed systems, but they of course exist in the air and at sea and on land. And so that's essentially a huge range of different kind of technologies that militaries will need to be looking at integrating and training their troops how to use best.
- [19:52]
A
How much is cost a factor in this? Because we always hear about Donald Trump at least calling on his NATO allies to bolster the amount of money they put into the military coffers, increasing their proportion of GDP every single year. But countries have finite budgets, but they know they need to be nimble. So are drones the most cost effective way of going about this?
- [20:12]
B
This? Yes and no. I mean, what is cost effective about drones is that the unit cost is relatively low. But many drones are also essentially single use. And another thing we have seen about drones is that the technological advancement is really quick, so you can't necessarily ProCure, let's say 100 drones and then put them in storage and expect to use them, you know, 10 years from now because the technology will potentially have moved on in a way that means that those drones are, aren't usable anymore. So there will be some drones that are essentially consumables, similarly to shells or ammunition, and then there are some drones that will be longer term investment. And I think essentially European states will need to get the balance right between that and also look at their procurement models so that they're not looking to procure over a long period of time, as we've seen with aircraft or ships or similarly larger equipment.
- [21:07]
A
Dr. Marion Messmer, senior research Fellow in International Security at Chatham House, thank you so much for joining us on the Monocle D. Now, for the last couple of weeks, Monocle has been broadcasting from the Allianz Winter Sky Lounge for a series of very special programs. It's part of the Milano Cortina Winter Olympics. And as we get ready for the closing ceremony this weekend, let's check in with our team. Here's Monocle's contributing editor, Andrew Muller and our deputy head of radio, Tom Webb. Good evening to you both, gentlemen.
- [21:59]
G
Good evening. Emma. Hello again.
- [22:01]
F
Good evening.
- [22:02]
A
And it's all over. Oh, it's nearly all over anyway.
- [22:05]
F
It pretty much is, yeah. The, the games go on for a couple more days. I think we have the closing ceremony this weekend. I am staying in Milan until Sunday to do one more event here on the 42nd, seventh floor with Allianz. But yes, already everybody else is packing up.
- [22:22]
A
And Tom Webb, you've been here from. Well, you've been there from day one. So you've seen how the last two weeks have unfolded. How has it been?
- [22:29]
G
It's just been remarkable. It's been the smoothest, most welcoming, fun games here in Milan. We didn't get to the mountains, but our hosts have just been fantastic. And I was actually being asked by the newsletter editor to write a summary for Monday's. Monday's newsletter. And I can only describe the legacy here as the city is now just buoyant, it's full of confidence. We've been talking about the skyline that I'm looking at right now. There are cranes everywhere, swinging around. I think this is going to be a real catalyst that drives Milan forward as a sort of European city that is rivaling its neighbors, Rome.
- [23:06]
A
I mean, it's a snappy enough place to be. It's all sort of crisp and cobbley. It's great. And you always get the sense that something is happening in Milan. But how do we think that the atmosphere. How was the atmosphere over the last couple of weeks? Because you have this thing where you've got the Olympics are in different places. So you can say, okay, it's all happening in Milan, but all eyes are actually up to the mountains here in Milan.
- [23:28]
F
I think people have actually been pretty jovial and more than one person has said that they have seen here in Milan the dynamic which now seems pretty common to Olympic cities. You will remember this from Paris. We certainly both remember it from London and I can remember it from Sydney, which is in the build up to the actual Games. Everybody in the host city grumbles and whines, is absolutely convinced it's going to be a total disaster and embarrassment on the world stage. Some people even flee and try to rent their apartments out to gullible tourists. And then when it actually happens, everything works really well and everybody has a good time. And that does seem to have been pretty much what has happened here. I was only able to attend one Olympic event. The studio engineer, Steph and myself went on Tuesday night to see the ice hockey at the new ice hockey arena, which has been a bit controversial. It did attract a great deal of publicity for not being entirely finished before kickoff or whatever they have in ice hockey. But it is the case that certainly some of the stairwells could still do with a bit of a lick of paint, but. But it worked really fine. And when it actually is finished, I think it's going to be a beautiful addition to that neighbourhood.
- [24:38]
A
Wonderful. How about you, Tom? What were the highlights in terms of the sporting events that you got to?
- [24:42]
G
Likewise, I saw hockey twice. Once in the new stadium and once in the old. And they have repurposed the old stadium. In fact, 90% of the stadiums here have been repurposed. It's a very green. It's a very pragmatic games. And actually being in the old stadium, which they had really revamped for a big hockey game was just enormously fun at Olympic events. Isn't this, for want of a better word, heated rivalry? The fans all just get on together and if someone loses, they still leave with a smile on their face, which I can't say for the AC Milan Como game. There's definitely a joylessness in losing.
- [25:23]
A
Excellent. Glad to hear it.
- [25:25]
F
Yeah, we did attend while we're in Milan, one non Olympic event, as Tom suggests, which we did go to the football at the San Siro, which I can see from where I'm standing right now, and did see Milan draw with Como. I got the impression, judging by the reactions of the respective fan bases, the Como fans were rather happier with the point than the Milan ones were.
- [25:46]
A
What about other things? I know that Tom, you had a couple of cultural dips in and out and Andrew, you've been waxing lyrical about dinners.
- [25:53]
F
I have been waxing lyrical about dinners because that's been pretty much so far this week, the only free time we've had when not going to the hockey or the football. The days have been actually quite busy. I am looking forward this weekend to trying to see more of Milan and doing more of the cultural stuff. But yeah, I mean, really, there's nowhere in Italy that's ever going to disappoint where food is concerned. But Milan really has not lasting memory
- [26:19]
G
for you to me, Emma, as you will well know, as I was live whatsapping you during said visit, but I was invited by Milano Partners to the opera. I thought I was just interviewing the artistic director. Instead he ushered me to my seat where Wagner's five and a half hour epic the Closing of the Ring begun. It was a very, very special and beautiful experience. But I do still have a bed sore from it.
- [26:45]
A
Excellent. Well, we shall bring you some Manuka honey, and apply it. Well done for doing Goetherung. That's all I can say. It's not an easy mountain to climb. Okay, we have to say Goodbye to Milan now. So your lasting memory, Andrew.
- [26:59]
F
I mean, I would like to shoehorn in here. A desperate local angle if I can. Or it's kind of a local angle and I always like it. Local newspapers do this, but believe it or not, there was an extremely slender Monocle Radio connection to an actual gold medal win last night. Elisa Lu, the American skater, did her routine to that insane Donna summer version of MacArthur park, originally written by Jimmy Webb for Richard Harris. Jimmy Webb has literally been to Monocle Radio. He has been in the studio in which you are sitting in now. So that that gave me a slight warm inner glow.
- [27:34]
G
For me, Emma, I did manage to see the quad God do a backflip in rehearsals right in front of me. At the time, I thought quad related to the strength of his thighs, but since I've been educated with the ice skating, quad is the four spins that he didn't manage to pull off. But, boy, it was a very, very special moment for me.
- [27:54]
A
Tom Webb and Andrew Muller in the Allianz Skyland, reflecting on the last two weeks of coverage at the Milano Cortina Games 2026. Thank you so much for joining me today. And that's all the time we have for today's edition of the Monocle Daily. The warmest of thanks to all my guests and to the producer Hassan Anderson and researcher Anneliese Maynard. Our sound engineer was Mariella Bevan. I'm Emma Nelson here in London and the Monocle Daily is back at the same time on Monday. But for now, goodbye. Thanks for listening. Have a great weekend.