Antony Blinken’s Exit Interview

Summary

The New Yorker Radio Hour: Antony Blinken’s Exit Interview
Hosted by David Remnick
Release Date: January 17, 2025

---

Introduction

In this pivotal episode of The New Yorker Radio Hour, host David Remnick conducts a profound and revealing exit interview with Antony Blinken, the outgoing U.S. Secretary of State. Blinken, who has been a central figure in President Biden’s administration, discusses his experiences managing global crises, his perspectives on the Middle East, and his insights into the shifting landscape of international relations as he prepares to hand over the reins to the incoming Trump administration.

---

The Middle East and the Gaza Ceasefire

David Remnick opens the discussion by highlighting the recent announcement of a ceasefire in Gaza, presenting it as a fragile beacon of hope amidst ongoing conflict. He underscores the complex dynamics, including internal pressures within Israel and the dire humanitarian situation in Gaza.

Blinken elaborates on the administration’s efforts to foster regional integration and normalization, particularly through the Abraham Accords. He emphasizes the strategic importance of establishing a credible pathway toward a Palestinian state as a cornerstone for lasting peace.

“We were making good progress on building relationships among countries to integrate the region, focusing on normalization between Saudi Arabia and Israel” (04:48)

Challenges with Israeli Leadership

Remnick probes into Blinken’s interactions with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, referencing reported frustrations within the administration.

Blinken responds by distancing Netanyahu’s individual actions from broader Israeli societal sentiments, attributing policy shifts to the collective trauma and political landscape in Israel.

“What we've seen in Israel since October 7th reflects the sentiments of 70-80% of Israeli society, not just the Prime Minister” (09:42)

He further addresses allegations regarding the intent behind Israeli actions in Gaza, clarifying his stance on the definition of genocide and condemning the suffering of civilians without categorizing the conflict as such.

“The intent to erase a population is not what I see or what's going on in Gaza” (12:14)

The Palestinian Question

Remnick challenges Blinken’s claim that there has been insufficient focus on Hamas, to which Blinken responds by highlighting the disproportionate condemnation of Israel compared to the silence around Hamas.

“I believe that if there had been a sustained public, vocal demand that Hamas put down its arms, much suffering could have been alleviated” (13:12)

Transitioning to the Incoming Administration

As Blinken prepares to depart, Remnick delves into the dynamics of the upcoming transition to a Trump-led State Department, expressing concerns about appointments such as Marco Rubio and their implications for U.S. foreign policy.

Blinken cautiously addresses his views on Rubio, emphasizing their productive conversations and Rubio’s preparedness for the role, while remaining non-committal about the specifics of the Trump administration’s policies.

“I've had really good conversations with Senator Rubio, and he is extremely well prepared for the job” (24:22)

Perspectives on Russia and China

The discussion shifts to broader geopolitical tensions, with Blinken offering insights into the challenges posed by Russia and China. He highlights the importance of maintaining a strong, unified stance to deter aggression and preserve international norms.

“China has the capacity to change the rules in a way that reflects its interests and values, not ours” (31:51)

Taiwan and Potential Chinese Aggression

Remnick questions the Trump administration’s potential stance on Taiwan, to which Blinken underscores the importance of regional stability and the economic ramifications of any conflict over Taiwan.

“If there were a crisis with China making over Taiwan, the entire world would be affected” (30:00)

Reflections on Biden’s Foreign Policy

In a conversation with staff writer Evan Osnos, Blinken reflects on the limitations of American influence under Biden’s administration. He acknowledges the evolving nature of global power structures and the increasing complexity of international relations in a post-Cold War era.

“We are living in a period that is more combustible, more contested, more complicated than any since the end of the Cold War” (31:51)

Legacy and Future Outlook

As Blinken contemplates his departure, he reflects on his long career and the challenges faced in maintaining American leadership amid rising global adversaries. He expresses cautious optimism about the future, emphasizing the need for strong alliances and adaptive strategies to navigate the complexities of the modern world.

“The speed with which things are happening is much harder, and the challenges are more interconnected than ever” (32:10)

Closing Remarks

David Remnick concludes the interview by acknowledging Blinken’s significant contributions and the nuanced legacy he leaves behind. Blinken expresses gratitude for his tenure and emphasizes the importance of loyalty and steadfastness in leadership.

“Every decision that was made, every policy that was pursued, reflected his judgment and his decision” (37:38)

Conclusion

This comprehensive exit interview offers a rare glimpse into the mindset of one of the most influential figures in recent American foreign policy. Blinken’s candid reflections on the Middle East, his dealings with international leaders, and his assessments of the evolving global order provide invaluable insights for listeners seeking to understand the complexities of U.S. diplomacy and the challenges facing the next administration.

---

Notable Quotes

• Blinken on Regional Integration:
  “We were making good progress on building relationships among countries to integrate the region, focusing on normalization between Saudi Arabia and Israel.” (04:48)

• On Israeli Society vs. Leadership:
  “What we've seen in Israel since October 7th reflects the sentiments of 70-80% of Israeli society, not just the Prime Minister.” (09:42)

• Defining Genocide:
  “The intent to erase a population is not what I see or what's going on in Gaza.” (12:14)

• On U.S. Influence:
  “We are living in a period that is more combustible, more contested, more complicated than any since the end of the Cold War.” (31:51)

• On Leadership and Decision-Making:
  “Every decision that was made, every policy that was pursued, reflected his judgment and his decision.” (37:38)

---

Additional Insights

Following the interview, the episode features a discussion with Evan Osnos, a staff writer with extensive experience covering China. Osnos critiques Biden’s foreign policy, suggesting that the administration may have overestimated its personal influence in shaping international relations, particularly with leaders like Netanyahu. He contrasts this with the more impersonal and strategically driven approach of Chinese leadership under Xi Jinping.

Osnos also examines the potential implications of a Trump administration on global stability, especially concerning Taiwan and China’s regional ambitions. He highlights the unpredictability introduced by Trump’s nominations and policies, raising concerns about the consistency and reliability of U.S. foreign policy in response to emerging threats.

---

Final Thoughts

Antony Blinken’s exit interview serves as a critical reflection on the Biden administration’s foreign policy achievements and shortcomings. It underscores the delicate balance between diplomacy and decisive action in addressing global conflicts and managing relationships with key international players. As the U.S. transitions to a new administration, the insights shared by Blinken and Osnos offer a sobering perspective on the future directions of American diplomacy and its role on the world stage.

---

For more in-depth reporting and analysis, visit newyorker.com.

Transcript

[Antony Blinken]

This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance.

[David Remnick]

You chose to hit play on this podcast today.

[Antony Blinken]

Smart Choice make another smart choice with.

[David Remnick]

Auto Quote Explorer to compare rates from.

[Antony Blinken]

Multiple car insurance companies all at once. Try [e-mail], progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Not available in all states or situations.

[David Remnick]

Prices vary based on how you buy.

[WNYC Studios]

Listener Supported WNYC Studios.

This is the New Yorker Radio Hour, a co production of WNYC Studios and the New Yorker.

[David Remnick]

Welcome to the New Yorker Radio Hour. I'm David Remnick. The announcement earlier this week of a ceasefire deal in Gaza is maybe the most hopeful news from this terrible conflict since the October 7 attack. Now, it has to be said that even with the possibility of a ceasefire, there are many reasons for caution here, not least that far right elements in Israel may well try to undermine the deal after the initial and horrific attack on October 7. The war in Gaza has left tens of thousands dead and Gaza itself a near ruin. Israeli hostages remain in captivity. We'll see if they're released soon.

[Antony Blinken]

We'll see.

[David Remnick]

Hezbollah has been decimated. Iran is weakened and isolated. So maybe after so much suffering, this is a moment when change is possible. That, at least, is the position of Antony Blinken, the outgoing Secretary of State. He's been President Biden's chief partner in attempting to manage the many global crises of the past four years, including the invasion of Ukraine and China's continuing threats toward Taiwan. We spoke about all of that last week as Secretary Blinken was on the verge of turning over the State Department to Marco Rubio and the Trump administration. And just before the announcement of the ceasefire deal. Secretary Blinken, thanks for coming to the New Yorker Radio Hour. And this turns out to be your absolute exit interview.

[Antony Blinken]

That's right.

[David Remnick]

I think we can acknowledge that in the position that you have that sometimes you have to stick to talking points or formal language. But with all due respect, I'm hoping that we can peel aside some of that, at least some of that caution, and confront some serious and even contentious questions more directly than before.

[Antony Blinken]

I'll do my best to take on my deep rooted instincts of caution and sticking to talking points.

[David Remnick]

Exactly. So let's start with the Middle east, which is always a good place to begin. Before October 7th, your colleague, the National Security Advisor, Jake Sullivan, wrote a 7,000 word essay for Foreign affairs magazine. And he wrote, although the Middle east remains beset with perennial challenges, the region is far quieter than it has been for decades. He even congratulated the administration for having what he called de escalated the Crises in Gaza. Now, this went to print on October 2nd. How did the Biden administration, seemingly before October 7th get things wrong?

[Antony Blinken]

Look, I think when you look at where we were before October 7th, and I think what Jake was talking about or writing about, rightly so, were the efforts we were making, and I think making real progress on to bring countries together, not to try to change the nature of the regimes or the systems, but to try to change the relationships among them, to integrate the region. And the fact is, up until October 7th, we were making good progress on that. Building on the Abraham Accords that the first Trump administration initiated, bringing disparate countries together, everyone from, in one case, the uae, Israel, India, and the United States, on common projects, working with the Abraham Accord countries to actually do things together, concrete things that would deliver results for people in each of those countries. And what we were really focused on in that moment was kind of the ultimate culmination of the Abraham Accords, and that was normalization between Saudi Arabia and between Israel. And in fact, David, on October 10th of 2023, I was scheduled to go to Saudi Arabia and Israel to try to work on resolving some of the remaining.

[David Remnick]

I understand that the critique of the Abraham Accords was that it was missing a very vital piece, and that was what to do with the Palestinian question.

[Antony Blinken]

That's exactly right. Actually, that's exactly what I was going to the region to focus on in the context of normalization between Saudi Arabia and Israel. We knew that for us and also for the Saudis, getting to normalization required also having a credible pathway toward a Palestinian state. We saw it as essential, not just a normalization.

[David Remnick]

Are you saying that the Israelis were prepared to make a very serious accommodation?

[Antony Blinken]

So this was and remains an incredibly important question, because even as we speak today, even with everything that's happened since October 7th, I believe that there is a possibility, an opportunity to actually move forward on integration, to move forward on normalization. But it requires two things. It requires an end to Gaza, and it requires a credible pathway to a Palestinian state. I've sat with the leader of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Salman, on many occasions before and after October 7th and before October 7th, having that credible pathway for a Palestinian state was important. But since then, since October 7, the price has gone up, and it's more than important.

[David Remnick]

How do you mean the price has gone up?

[Antony Blinken]

Meaning that I think for the Saudis. Let me put it this way, on one of these occasions when I was meeting with Mohammed Salman, he reminded me that about 70% of the Saudi population is younger than he is, and that's saying something because he's very young. And before October 7, they were not focused on Palestine, on the cause of Palestinian self determination. Since October 7th, they've been fixated on it. And in order for him to be able to proceed with normalization, it's very clear that he has to have at the least, a credible pathway to a Palestinian state. And that I think is more deeply felt, more strongly felt now than it was before October 7th. But here's the thing that I think is why this question remains so important. First, I've also had many opportunities to meet with Prime Minister Netanyahu. And when the conversation comes to normalization with Saudi Arabia, I that's the point at which he sits up, leans forward, leans in. He knows that for Israel too, that would be an absolute game changer. Because think of it this way, the one thing that Israelis have wanted from day one of their founding, the one thing that they've sought the most, was to be treated like any other country, to have normal relationships.

[David Remnick]

I understand that. But he sits up and takes notice when the Saudi question comes up with normalization. How does his body language change when the Palestinian question comes? Because it seems his interest in normalization. There is quite something else.

[Antony Blinken]

Well, it may well be, but the point is that to get there, to get to normalization, that road leads through a pathway for Palestine in the context of two states. So he other Israelis, Israeli society will have to choose. They'll have to decide if that's the path that they're ready and willing and able to travel in order to get to normalization. We can't answer that question for them now.

[David Remnick]

It's hard to count the number of former American presidents and diplomats who've left their posts infuriated by their experience when dealing with Benjamin Netanyahu. This has been going on for a very long time. In Bob Woodward's most recent book, a book that I think if I learned how to read, has the imprints of the administration's highest level security and foreign policy voices, his sources. President Biden is quoted as saying, that son of a bitch Bibi Netanyahu, he's a bad guy. He's a bad fucking guy. This was in the spring of 2024. What is your honest assessment of working with Benjamin Netanyahu? Is he trustworthy as an interlocutor?

[Antony Blinken]

One of the mistakes that I think people make is to ascribe to Prime Minister Netanyahu all of the policies and actions that Israel's taking that they don't like or beyond, don't, like, profoundly contest. And I say that because I think what we've seen in Israel since October 7th is a reflection not of an individual prime minister, not of individual members of. Of his cabinet, but genuinely reflection of 70, 75%, 80% of Israeli society. The trauma, societal trauma, is reflected in its policies and support for those policies, even those who.

[David Remnick]

But what I'm asking you is, does he deal with you truthfully.

[Antony Blinken]

In our conversations, in the moment of those conversations? Yes, but look, why are you laughing.

[David Remnick]

In the moment, then? What happens when.

[Antony Blinken]

Well, I'm laughing because.

[David Remnick]

Slams shut and you leave.

[Antony Blinken]

Yeah. No, I'm laughing because. Particularly right now in Israel, given the incredibly complicated politics and coalition politics that exist, I think he proceeds in many ways on the basis of what gets me to tomorrow and keeps my coalition together. And so if he might say one thing to me, and then depending on the audience he's before next, maybe that takes a little bit of a different turn.

[David Remnick]

A lot of people are dying in the meantime.

[Antony Blinken]

Well, the point is this. We have been laboring to try to get to a better place in Gaza and particularly to get a ceasefire that brings the hostages home, that stops the firing in both directions, that surges humanitarian assistance, that also creates space to get something permanent. As we're sitting here together, we're, I hope, finally, belatedly, on the brink of getting that. And everything that we've done, everything that I've done, everything that my colleagues have done these past months, has been in service of getting to that point, because we believed it was the quickest and most effective way to actually end the conflict and get to a better place. So in the course of doing that, sure, there are many moments of frustration and more, and I can think of a lot of them, but you have to keep your eye on the prize.

[David Remnick]

Now, you've said more than once that what's happening in Gaza is not a genocide. You were asked this by the New York Times and you simply said no. You didn't really elaborate. So I wonder what your definition of genocide is when the State Department has classified what's gone on in Sudan and with the Uyghurs as genocides, I more than realize how powerful a charge that is, maybe not least when it comes to Israel, considering its. Its history and the history of Jewish people in the 40s.

[Antony Blinken]

And yet, simply put, the intent. The intent to erase a population. And that's not what I see or what's going on in Gaza, as horrible, as horrific as conditions are for innocent children, women and men who are caught up in a crossfire of Hamas's initiation that they obviously didn't start and that they're powerless to stop. As horrific as that is and as much as one can, and as we have disputed some of the actions that Israel has taken, it does not, by a long stretch, amount to the intent to erase a population.

[David Remnick]

Do you think such charges are anti Semitic?

[Antony Blinken]

I don't want to ascribe motives to the charges that people are making. And also, look, I more than understand the passions that people feel on all sides of this issue.

[David Remnick]

Secretary Blinken, you gave sort of a farewell speech at the State Department today addressing the Middle east in particular, and you said something curious. You said that too few people, if any, have focused much on the Hamas regime in Gaza and its horrific actions on October 7th. With respect, I don't see that. And not in this publication, not in the best newspapers that I could name. Plenty of publications, even as they document the destruction and death in Gaza, have gone a long way toward describing the nature of sinwar and Hamas. Do you disagree with that?

[Antony Blinken]

As I hear it, around the world, not just in the region, well beyond, but in, and also in our own country, there is a chorus of condemnation of Israel. And again, I understand why people get to that point, but I still hear deafening silence when it comes to Hamas. And I really believe that if there had been a sustained public, vocal demand that Hamas put down its arms, that it give up the hostages, that maybe many, many months ago Hamas would have felt pressured to actually do that, and a lot of the suffering would have been alleviated. But I really hear deafening silence about Hamas.

[David Remnick]

Look, you've heard deafening. I mean, I don't mean to be defensive, but even if somebody has written a 10,000 word profile of sinwar, deafening silence on Hamas.

[Antony Blinken]

I wish the New Yorker was reflective of, you know, all of our, all of our media, all of our social media.

[David Remnick]

Social media is something else. Social media is something.

[Antony Blinken]

Well, but unfortunately, everybody plays the game.

[David Remnick]

Yeah, yeah.

[Antony Blinken]

But social media, as we both know well, is so much of what drives conversations and drives perceptions at the same time.

[David Remnick]

The politics are such that the course for annexation of the west bank, for potentially resettling, putting settlements back into Gaza, if not expelling more people from Gaza, has grown louder and more prevalent in Israeli politics. And not just on the far, far.

[Antony Blinken]

Far right, it's grown louder. I don't think it represents a majority, but it's certainly grown louder. And to your point, not just voices, but actions, including on the west bank, more settlements, more illegal outposts, More violence, more taking of land, more violence against Palestinians by extremist settlers than we've seen at any time in the recent past. But I think what's also evident is this. Start with Gaza. Right now, Israel has accomplished what it sought to accomplish in trying to ensure that October 7th couldn't happen again. It has destroyed the military capacity of Hamas, and of course, it's dealt with the leaders who are responsible for October 7th. If it stays in Gaza, it's going to get bogged down there. There is going to be an enduring insurgency. By our assessment, Hamas has been able to recruit almost as many new militants as have been killed. And we see that every day in the north, where Israel has cleared an area, and then Hamas returns, Israel goes back. That is a recipe for perpetual war. It's a recipe for dealing with insurgency.

[David Remnick]

And inside your speech, in your speech today, you gave a lot of time and credibility to and hope for the Palestinian authorities role in this situation going ahead, which is, you know, oh, were it so. But it's extremely weak and even more unpopular, as you well know. And on the Israeli side, Bibi Netanyahu continues to dominate the Israeli political scene. Anybody that's risen up as a potential challenger to him, either within his party or outside of his party, has the half life of a loaf of bread. And so the prospects for what you're hoping seem to be extremely far off.

[Antony Blinken]

Look, in this moment, David, no one's ready for that conversation. I acknowledge it. But it proceeds in steps. First step is getting an end to the conflict in Gaza. And again, as we speak, we're on the brink, at least of getting an initial ceasefire. Then it's turning that ceasefire into something permanent. And in order to do that, we have to have understandings, we have to have arrangements for what's going to fill into Gaza, for security, for governance and administration, for reconstruction. That is not Israel and not Hamas. And we've done a lot of work on that over the last six months. With Arab partners.

[David Remnick]

Absolutely.

[Antony Blinken]

With others, so that we can hand over a plan to the incoming administration which it can use or not use, look at or not look at to do that. But if we can get to that point where we have a permanent ceasefire, okay, Gaza is then settle down at extraordinary, excruciating cost. But that's one piece. And then I come back to what we were talking about before, which is again, why I believe that the road to finally resolving the Palestinian question is still there. And that is the prospects for Israel of finally integrating the region, finally having normal relations with everyone. We saw powerfully what that can mean for Israel's security when not once but twice Iran attacked Israel. The first time unprecedented hundreds of ballistic missiles and drones. And what happened? Because of countries that we, the United States, put together, including countries in the region, Israel was defended. The attacks failed.

[David Remnick]

I'm speaking with Secretary of State Antony Blinken. We'll continue our conversation in a moment. This is the New Yorker Radio Hour with more to come.

[WNYC Studios]

This week's episode is sponsored by Neon's film Presence. Directed by Steven Soderbergh and written by David Kappa, Presence is a thrilling new ghost story about a family that moves into a new home and becomes convinced they are not alone. Starring Lucy Liu, Chris Sullivan and Julia Fox, Presence has been hailed as one of the scariest movies you'll see this year. Experience it in theaters on January 24th.

WNYC Studios is supported by Babbel. Are you holding back on foreign travel plans this year because you are afraid of the language gap? Well, no need to mind the gap if you have Babbel this year. Speak like a whole new you with Babbel, the language learning app that gets you talking. Babbel's quick 10 minute lessons, handcrafted by over 200 language experts, get you to begin speaking your new language in three weeks or whatever pace you choose. And because conversing is the key to really understanding each other in new languages, Babbel is designed using practical real world conversations. Let's get more of you talking in a new language. Babbel is gifting our listeners 60% off [e-mail] WNYC get up to 60% [e-mail] WNYC spelled b a b b e l.com WNYC babel.com WNYC rules and restrictions may apply.

[Jason Adam Katzenstein]

The New Yorker Radio Hour is supported by Rocket Money. The start of a new year is the perfect time to get organized, set goals and prioritize what matters most. One common top priority for many of us is financial wellness. Thanks to Rocket Money, financial goals can feel achievable. They show you all of your subscriptions right in one place and pull together spending across different accounts to track spending habits. Rocket Money's dashboard also gives you a clear view of your expenses across all of your accounts and can help you easily create a personalized budget with custom categories to help keep your spending on track. Whether your goal is to pay off credit card debt, put away money for a house, or just build your savings, Rocket Money makes it easy. Rocket Money has over 5 million users and has saved users a total of $500 million in canceled subscriptions. Cancel your unwanted subscriptions and reach your financial goals faster with Rocket Money. Just go to RocketMoney.com NYRH today. That's RocketMoney.com NYRH.

[WNYC Studios]

Here'S a way you can support WNYC in our centennial year. Donate your used car. We'll turn your old car into the news and conversation that we've been serving to the community for over 100 years. Many listeners have already donated their cars to WNYC. It's an easy way to support the station and you'll get a tax deduction. Learn [e-mail] car.

[David Remnick]

This is the New Yorker Radio Hour. I'm David Remnick at the New Yorker. We're reporting this week on the horrific fires in Los Angeles and the conditions that produced them. In fact, a couple of our riders lost their homes. We've looked at the dangers faced by a private fire crew, the crisis of housing in the region and a lot more. You can find all of that reporting@new yorker.com Our thoughts are with our listeners in or near Los Angeles and anyone who's been affected by this terrible dis. I'll return now to my conversation with Secretary of State Antony Blinken. He's finished his work with the Biden White House and he's turning the reins over to a new administration. Donald Trump's State Department will almost certainly be led by Marco Rubio of Florida, who seems at this point a shoo in for confirmation. How do you feel about the decision makers that are coming in? You've got Tulsi Gabbard in intelligence, Pete Henry Hegseth in defense, seems likely to be to make his way to the top at home. Domestically. Kash Patel, how will this team serving under President Trump, who President Biden has, in no uncertain terms and everybody in your administration has described as everything from dangerous to unstable to authoritarian. What does that spell in your mind for the future when it comes to a national security issue as enormous and as complex and as dangerous as the Middle East?

[Antony Blinken]

David as someone who actually worked on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee staff for six years, I hate to get ahead of the Senate confirmation process. So let's see what actually happens over the course of the next week. But let me look, let me just say this. I've had a number of conversations with Marco Rubio, Senator Rubio, who I've known for years, in part because of his service on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. And at the risk of, you know, damning him with praise that he might not want. We've had really good conversations. And Tulsi Gabbard, I don't know her, have not talked to her, but I do know Senator Rubio, and I think he's extremely well prepared for the job by his service on the Foreign Relations Committee, on the Intelligence Committee, and he's deeply thoughtful about most of the things we have to confront.

[David Remnick]

I want to switch to Russia, if you don't mind. I know you have limited time. Do you think Zelenskyy is inclined to or can sell to his people the notion of a Ukrainian future in which they lose 20 odd percent of their territory for the foreseeable future? And can Putin reconcile himself to that future in which Ukraine, the heart of it, the remaining 80% or whatever it is, is in fact free, sovereign and aligned with the West?

[Antony Blinken]

It depends, I suppose, for reach, how they see the alternative. In the case of Zelenskyy, he has to be responsive to the Ukrainian people. And if the Ukrainian people feel, believe, desire that there be a resolution or at least a ceasefire, then I suspect that he'll reflect that in the policies he pursues. But he has to be responsive to them. Look, here's what I think the fundamental issue is going to be, especially for the incoming administration as they're looking at this, if there's going to be a ceasefire, we've tried to do everything possible to make sure that Ukraine could, if that's the decision it made, to pursue a ceasefire, they could do it from a position of strength. And I think it's also in the interest of the Trump administration to make sure that if a deal is cut, it's a good deal, a strong deal. President Trump prides himself in making the best deals, so it needs to be from a position of strength. But there's something else that's critical. One thing that has to be built into any resolution. And when I say resolution, I really mean a ceasefire, because there's not going to be an ultimate resolution in the near term. The question, the status of the territories currently under Russian control probably won't be resolved for a long time. But if there's going to be a ceasefire, it has to be one that holds. And that means that there has to be a credible deterrent, because Putin will use any ceasefire to rest, refit and then eventually reattack.

[David Remnick]

Do you think the Russians and the Chinese are thrilled to see a second Trump administration?

[Antony Blinken]

Oh, I think they're diff. I think they're different. Different ways that each of them probably looks at it. They probably see some things that they like and some things that they have to be concerned about, too, because.

[David Remnick]

How would you spell it in?

[Antony Blinken]

Look, a certain degree of unpredictability can be useful, and it may be that in the case of adversaries, competitors, that's something that does concern them. But the real question is how that actually plays out in practice. What are the policies that the administration pursues? What's the effect of those policies? That's where the rubber meets the road. So at some point, you actually have to make decisions. You have to choose, you have. You have to pursue a certain policy. So we've got to see how that plays out.

[David Remnick]

If China were to move to seize and occupy and take over Taiwan, how would the Biden administration have behaved? And how do you think the Trump administration will behave? It seems very different on this issue.

[Antony Blinken]

We've done everything possible to make sure that it didn't come to that point and that that was not a decision that anyone had to make. And I think we've been very successful in doing that, and for a number of reasons. First, of course, look, I think from.

[David Remnick]

China's perspective, I'm saying, if they had invaded, would you have sent American troops to Taiwan?

[Antony Blinken]

Look, we said, and I'll continue to say that we would do everything possible to ensure that Taiwan had the means to defend itself, but that's a pretty tall order. Part of that, though, is making sure that, and this gets back to Ukraine, among other things. One of the reasons that our response to Ukraine was so important was because this aggression committed against Ukrainians and against the country was also an aggression against some pretty basic principles at the heart of the international system that everyone looks at. And had we allowed this to go forward with impunity, the message to would be aggressors. Anywhere is open season. You can get away with it. One of the most powerful moments in the aggression against Ukraine was when the Japanese prime minister, half a world away, Kishida, the then prime minister, who stood up almost immediately, put in his lot with Ukraine and said, what's happening in Ukraine today could be happening in East Asia tomorrow. That's why this response has been so important, not just for Ukraine, as important as that may be, but because of what it says more broadly. I think China's paid very close attention to that. At the same time, we brought country after country together with the proposition that what happens in and around Taiwan matters to them, including countries way far away from Taiwan, because you've got 50% of commercial container traffic going through that strait every day. 70% of the semiconductors made on Taiwan. If there were a crisis of China's making over Taiwan, the entire world would be affected. We'd have an economic crisis. That's why we got country after country to weigh in with China, with Beijing, to say, keep the peace, preserve stability.

[David Remnick]

But it doesn't be true. But soon to be. President Trump has made it plain that his view of China's relationship to Taiwan is of minimal concern to him.

[Antony Blinken]

And I obviously can't speak for him, and I also really can't predict.

[David Remnick]

What.

[Antony Blinken]

He would do, how the administration will approach this. I think he also, rightly, in my judgment, during his first term, put more focus on some of the challenges coming from China. That was a good thing. Now, where I disagreed was the way he went about trying to meet those challenges. And that is also at the same time taking it to our allies and partners, who we actually need with us if we're going to be effective in dealing with China. When we're dealing, for example, with economic practices that China's engaged in that we don't like, undercutting our companies, our workers, with overcapacity, destroying communities by flooding in subsidized products, doing all sorts of things in their trade and commercial relationships that are unfair, that we don't do to them when we're taking those on alone, we're what, 20% of world GDP? If we're aligned with allies and partners in Europe and Asia, we're 40, 50, 60% of GDP. And China can't ignore that. That's exactly what we've done. David, we have more convergence now in how to deal with all of the challenges posed by China, with Europe, with Asia, than we've ever had before. And that's a source of strength now. Maybe we haven't done a good enough job explaining it. Just as with NATO, people don't want war. They don't want conflict. Of course. Well, President Biden got us out of America's longest war after 20 years.

[David Remnick]

We're roughly the same age. We lived in the post Soviet era when there was the illusion, I think it was an illusion, of American singularity. And now every year or so, there's another article about how Pax Americana is over. Is it true?

[Antony Blinken]

What's true is this. I think we're living in a period that is, in so many ways more combustible, more contested, more complicated than any since the end of the Cold War. And as we've seen it, we are moving into a new era, a new phase.

[David Remnick]

What's the greatest danger of this new.

[Antony Blinken]

Era, I think, fundamentally, look, there are near term dangers that we see playing out in Ukraine. There are near term dangers that you can see anywhere from Pakistan to North Korea. But fundamentally, the larger danger I see is this. We did construct an order after two world wars with the express design of preventing another global conflagration. And that order was always imperfect. It's been tested, it's been challenged, but it basically did its job in making sure we didn't have another global conflagration. And with it came a lot of rules, norms, understandings of one kind or another. And we now have some revisionist powers that are contesting that entire system. The core revisionist powers, Russia, North Korea, Iran, are testing it in certain ways. China's testing it, I think in a different way. It's the one country that has the capacity militarily, economically, politically, diplomatically, to actually find a way to change the rules, but in a way that reflects its interests and its values, not ours. That's the biggest challenge I see, and that's the contest China specifically. And China specifically, but over many years, and there's not a clear finish line. And I think the challenge for us, for any American administration, is amplified by this. One of the things I've been doing this now for 32 years. I came in at the very beginning of the Clinton administration, I'm going out at the end of the Biden administration. And it goes a little bit, David, to the business you're in. So Effectively, back then, 32 years ago, when I went to my office at the White House, or first at the State Department, then at the White House, I did what everyone else does or did back then is you got up in the morning, opened the front door of your apartment or your house, picked up a hard copy of the New York Times or the Washington Post or maybe the Wall Street Journal. And then if you had a TV in your office, if you had a TV in your office, you turned it on at 6:30 and you got the national network news. Now, of course, we all have this intravenous feed of information and we're getting new inputs every millisecond. And the pressure to simply react is more intense than it's ever been. And no one has the distance, the buffer, to really try to reflect and to think before you act. At least it's really much harder to do that. The speed with which things is happening is much harder. The multiplicity, the complexity, the interconnectedness of challenges is greater than it's ever been. So I keep joking about this but my friend Tom Friedman wrote a column a few months ago that I love because it said, parents don't let your sons and daughters grow up to be Secretary of State.

[David Remnick]

Well, Mr. Secretary, I assume you're going to give yourself a week off at least after the inauguration.

[Antony Blinken]

Oh, you bet.

[David Remnick]

And maybe you'll write a book. And you've been working with Joe Biden for a very long time, a very long time. And I don't know anybody in government that's closer to Joe Biden. And you've spelled out here and in other venues his virtues and what you see as your successes and your analysis of the administration. We are, though, ending this era when even very friendly commentators feel that this administration is ending with a central tragedy in that Joe Biden is doing what he never wanted to do, which is to hand the presidency back to his historical foe, who he considers a deep danger to matters domestic and foreign. And it's quite likely that had he decided not to run a second time, we might not be in this position and that he made a perhaps understandable human decision, but born of some denial of the human condition and mortality. Do you wish that he had made a very different decision and not run a second time? And do. Do you think that his aging was to some degree overlooked or even covered up?

[Antony Blinken]

David, here's what I saw, and you're right. I've worked with the President for more than 20 years, and it's really been the greatest privilege of my professional career, starting in the Senate, then as vice president, and then as president. And do we all change as we get older? Yeah, absolutely. When you get to a certain age, are you likely to slow down a little bit? Of course. And this is the God's truth, because I was in the Oval Office and the Situation Room and everywhere else in between with him for four years. Whether you agree or not, whether you like or not, I can tell you that every decision that was made, every policy that was pursued, reflected his judgment and his decision. It's not like someone else was doing.

[David Remnick]

It both sincerely and elsewhere. Yeah, but do you really think he had the capacity to not only finish out this term, but to be President of the United States at the highest level for another four years?

[Antony Blinken]

Well, I think that's exactly the question. And I believe that in answering that question for himself, he came to the conclusion that while he was doing the job now, it was hard to say whether he could do it in the same way for another four years. And I think that's ultimately what motivated his decision to pull out to pull back. That's exactly what drove him.

[David Remnick]

You'll forgive me. And I say this with genuine respect. What I'm hearing mainly is loyalty, and it's a very hard thing to grapple with specifically at this time. Am I right?

[Antony Blinken]

No, I think, yeah, I certainly hope loyalty, because he's more than earned it as the person that he is and the president. He's been. But no, beyond that. Look, I think if I felt that he wasn't up to the job, you know, that's something that I would have.

[David Remnick]

You would have had that conversation with him?

[Antony Blinken]

I would have had that conversation and you didn't. But I saw everything that I experienced myself was when it came to grappling with all these issues, when it came to debating them, when it came to looking at them from every angle, when it came to making decisions, when it came to having judgments, his were strong, his was tough.

[David Remnick]

So when you saw that debate with Trump, yeah, it was an aberration and a shock.

[Antony Blinken]

It was. It was. Now, you know, a lot goes into that. And I think, look, one of the things that I think may have been missed in that period is this is not something he said to me. This is just by way of observation, as someone who knows him and knows his family well, I think that the impact in that period of time of the prosecution of his son weighed very, very, very heavily on him to the.

[David Remnick]

Degree where he performed the way he did in that debate.

[Antony Blinken]

Well, I just think it was a very, very heavy weight and maybe one that we saw reflected a little bit more visibly in those days and in those weeks.

[David Remnick]

Secretary Blinken, thank you so much. I appreciate your time.

[Antony Blinken]

David, great to talk to you. Thanks.

[David Remnick]

Antony Blinken served as Secretary of State throughout Joe Biden's term in office. Confirmation hearings began last week for his likely successor, Senator Marco Rubio. This is the New York Yorker Radio Hour. Stick around.

[WNYC Studios]

This week's episode is sponsored by Neon's film Presence. Directed by Steven Soderbergh and written by David Koepp, Presence is a thrilling new ghost story about a family that moves into a new home and becomes convinced they are not alone. Starring Lucy Liu, Chris Sullivan and Julia Fox, Presence has been hailed as one of the scariest movies you'll see this year. Experience it in theaters on January 24th.

WNYC Studios is supported by Hydro.

[Jason Adam Katzenstein]

Hi, I'm Jason Adam Katzenstein, and I'm a cartoonist for the New Yorker. Something that I like to do is to stay home, because home is where you can wear sweatpants and watch movies. Another benefit of home is that you don't have to be perceived by other people. But I do like feeling healthy and having endorphins and also I need my muscles to be huge so that I can draw those cartoons. And this, dear listeners is what I love about the hydro rowing machine because now I can have the workout of an outdoorsman while being an indoorsman and you get to do the workout equivalent of staying in and watching a movie. But in this case you have that little TV hooked up to the hydro and you get workouts that are led by Olympians and world class athletes. Also the hydro is low impact which means minimal risk of injury and that is great news for me personally because I am very injury prone. Kick off the new year with a full body workout all from the comfort of home with hydro. Head over to hydro.com and use code new yorker to save up to $475 off your hydro pro rower. That's H Y-R-O-W.com code new yorker to save up to $475 hydro.com code new york new yorker the new Yorker Radio Hour is supported by Rocket Money. The start of a new year is the perfect time to get organized, set goals and prioritize what matters most. One common top priority for many of us is financial wellness. Thanks to Rocket Money, financial goals can feel achievable. They show you all of your subscriptions right in one place and pull together spending across different accounts to track spending habits. Rocket Money's dashboard also gives you a clear view of your expenses across all of your accounts and can help you easily create a personalized budget with custom categories to help keep your spending on track. Whether your goal is to pay off credit card debt, put away money for a house, or just build your savings, Rocket Money makes it easy. Rocket Money has over 5 million users and has saved users a total of $500 million in cancelled subscriptions. Cancel your unwanted subscriptions and reach your financial goals faster with Rocket Money. Just go to RocketMoney.com NYRH today that's RocketMoney.com NYRH.

[WNYC Studios]

Did you ever wonder what it's like to live alone, hidden in the woods, not speaking to a single soul for 30 years? Or wander the desert, uncover a hidden well and dive to the bottom of the deepest water hole for 2,000 miles? The snap Judgment podcast takes you there with amazing stories told by the people who live them with an original soundscape that drops you directly into their shoes. Snap Judgment Listen and subscribe Wherever you get your podcast.

[David Remnick]

This is the New Yorker Radio Hour. I'm David Remnick. Only one other president was ever elected to two non consecutive terms. The first was the ever memorable Grover Cleveland for the World. Encountering a second Trump administration. It's a kind of whiplash. A radical break from American foreign policy in 2017 and then in 2021, an attempt to restore the old rules. And now there are jokes about the necks in Canada from the next president. Earlier in the program, I spoke with Secretary of State Antony Blinken about the complicated world of 2025. And I'm joined now by staff writer Evan Osnos. Evan reported for years from China, and he's based now in Washington. He covered the Biden administration closely. Evan, earlier in the program, we heard an exit interview with Antony Blinken as he has one foot out the door of the State Department. Now, what you heard from Blinken there, how does it match up with your view of Biden's foreign policy?

[Evan Osnos]

I came through with a very distinct impression of one thing which was the limits of American influence and power over the last four years. And that's either by the force of events that interfered with our ability to achieve what we wanted or, and this is a very controversial question, the limits of what we were willing to do, the limits of what Joe Biden was either capable of or thought that the politics compelled him to do in terms of using the leverage of the presidency. That's a big and quite contested issue.

[David Remnick]

Every time there's a new administration, the president and his circle leave the White House complaining about Benjamin Netanyahu, how difficult it is to deal with him. I, needless to say, ask that question. I got a very, I don't know, measured, disciplined response.

[Evan Osnos]

Diplomatic is the term.

[David Remnick]

So what's the real story among people in the White House or the Biden administration, as we now historically call it.

[Evan Osnos]

There is fury, rage, contempt for Benjamin Netanyahu, really. But, yeah, but I will say there's something else, too.

[David Remnick]

But what is the fury rage? What's the reason for it?

[Evan Osnos]

Because over and over and over, he either ignored what it was that they asked for or played them, would say, okay, we're gonna open up a humanitarian channel, and then, of course, would go and do something offensive in three other ways.

[David Remnick]

But wait a minute. This goes to the question that I believe it was Bill Clinton who first asked about Netanyahu in his frustration. Wait a minute. Who's the superpower here?

[Evan Osnos]

Well, David, this actually gets to, I think, something that is at the core of what has limited and what will ultimately tag Joe Biden's legacy, which is Biden fundamentally misread the role of personal politics, both at home and abroad. Abroad, he said, look, I've known Bibi Netanyahu longer than anybody in American government. I know this guy's deceptions. I know his moves. I'll know how to get him. And he said, right after October 7th, this is the perfect moment. I've got him at a moment where he needs us, and so on, so on. And he stayed believing, even through all of these moments of betrayal and frustration over the course of the next year. Plus, he stayed in the belief that he could just through sheer personal bond, shape that policy, and it failed.

[David Remnick]

Does this apply to our relations with China in the last four years as well?

[Evan Osnos]

Actually interesting. I think he's unencumbered on that relationship precisely because he doesn't have a meaningful relationship with Xi Jinping. Xi Jinping, in his way, is canny enough to know personal politics doesn't matter when you're talking about superpower relations. He sees this as a historical, civilizational kind of encounter. And I think in some ways, Biden was able to navigate the China question a little bit more clearly because he didn't have any illusions that he somehow saw a psychological dimension of Xi Jinping that others could not.

[David Remnick]

What is the passage that we're about to make in historical terms for American foreign policy? What's gonna be the main differences?

[Evan Osnos]

The core of it is Biden's belief that they could revive the post Cold War, even the sort of post World War II set of institutions and understandings, things like the fundamental sanctity of NATO, the power to be able to push back against Russian aggression with it. Because what we're about to see, a president and an administration that is either contemptuous of or untutored in all of the kinds of institutions that defined the US Role in foreign affairs for certainly the last four years and very much the eight years before that. This was partly, in fact, a reflection of the Trump years, that Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, to some degree, Iran and North Korea came to believe that the United States was this frantic, fading power and that it would provide a natural, call it what they see it, a natural enemy in the years to come. And I think that in some ways it's an irony, a kind of bitter irony, that Biden's time will be remembered as the eclipse of so many of those post Cold War institutions to which he devoted his decades of life in the Senate. But really believing that those were the bulwark against a world of cruel power in which Might makes right, because you now have an administration that is coming in that believes quite clearly in the idea that the larger, more powerful side of any encounter deserves to be right.

[David Remnick]

What does Antony Blinken fear going forward? And what could he not say? I asked him, for example, does he think that Taiwan will now be swallowed up by China? And he kind of danced around that.

[Evan Osnos]

He certainly has reason to be afraid of that. Donald Trump has signaled to the Chinese in pretty explicit ways how little he regards Taiwan's integrity and sanctity. I mean, he said at one point last summer that Taiwan is something like 9,500 miles away from us and it's right next to China. They pay tremendous amount of attention to comments like that in Beijing. I mean, compare that to Biden, who said four times that he would put U.S. troops on the ground if China invaded. Now, the administration would walk it back every time and say they never change policy. But it created, at least it maintained a level of ambiguity. There is a pretty worrisome assemblage of evidence that, that Trump is putting forward that he really doesn't care much about protecting Taiwan.

[David Remnick]

So why wouldn't Xi Jinping. Why wouldn't Xi Jinping seize the moment in the next four years and do what he's long wanted to do and take Taiwan?

[Evan Osnos]

What's the risk if he does not? I think that the risks are partly domestic. He's dealing with a huge number of problems at home, like the fact that he doesn't have enough jobs for young people, the fact that he has young people who feel demoralized, and you've got wealthy people who are sending their money overseas. All of that's to say, sure, he might imagine he could take a flyer and say, well, maybe I can rally people around the flag, pull them out of their depression a bit by some sort of big foreign adventure. But that is a risk. He is many things. But how could the risk fail if.

[David Remnick]

The United States is uninterested under Donald Trump in defending Taiwan?

[Evan Osnos]

I give you one data point, which is Ukraine. Vladimir Putin thought he would be in Kiev in 72 hours.

[David Remnick]

Yep.

[Evan Osnos]

Xi Jinping does not even have the luxury of imagining that he could undertake a brisk and convenient amphibious assault on Taiwan. It's a very hard thing to do. Why?

[David Remnick]

Why is it. Why is it hard? You look at the map and you think, my, my God, that must be easy.

[Evan Osnos]

I mean, it's a look, I don't want to pretend to be a naval officer, but the smart people on this will tell you it's a very hard thing to do to amass the number of troops to bring them across the Taiwan Straits at the right time of year. There's also the question of how much Taiwan would resist. There's also the question of how ready the Chinese military is. One thing to watch for, David, if you're curious about when it might be that Xi Jinping thinks he's ready to attack Taiwan is will he stop sacking senior generals in his military? He has continued to do that. And part of that is because he evidently does not have confidence in the military that they oversee or in his ability to control it. So there are a lot of things that Xi Jinping is that are similar to Vladimir Putin. But one difference is in terms of risk tolerance. And Xi Jinping has not tended to take great risks when he doesn't have to. And I think for the moment, and this could change anytime, but for the moment, attacking Taiwan might be a bigger risk than he needs to take now.

[David Remnick]

He went to pains Blinken did, to paint a picture of the incoming Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, who will almost certainly be win confirmation in the Senate. He went to great lengths to paint him as a kind of normal, serious foreign policy thinker. Okay, well, what is Donald Trump thinking when he nominates Marco Rubio? What was behind that? Obviously, it's somebody who he's expressed contempt for many, many times over time, but, you know, joined the club.

[Evan Osnos]

Look, Trump has humiliated little Marco, as he called him at various points. One thing he gets out of Rubio, though, is very useful, which is he's obedient, but he's also knowledgeable. This is a thing. I wrote a profile of Marco Rubio in the New Yorker some years ago. So I kind of talked to him enough about foreign affairs to do some basic, we'll call it sort of knowledge checking. And unlike Pete Hegseth, who in his confirmation hearings the other day was asked to name countries in ASEAN and could not, you know, that was his Sarah Palin moment where it was, you know, has he, you know, I love all the countries in asean, right. So he had no idea what he's talking Marco Rubio. I don't agree with him on a whole lot, but he knows he can.

[David Remnick]

Name three countries in NATO.

[Evan Osnos]

But, you know, I remember asking Rubio once, what are you reading? And he said, I'm rereading William Manchester's biography of Church.

[David Remnick]

Everything about that sentence rings of.

[Evan Osnos]

I said at the time, I said, he reading a move nobody read. I don't even think Manchester reread it. It was a thousand pages. But at least he knew what Manchester was, and he knew he could have picked Churchill out of a lineup. So there's a lot to worry about.

[David Remnick]

Such are the qualifications of modernity. Evan Osnos, thanks so much.

[Evan Osnos]

My pleasure, David.

[David Remnick]

Evan Osnos is a staff writer and you can read [e-mail] where you can also subscribe to the New Yorker. I'm David Remnick. Thanks for listening today and please join us next time.

[WNYC Studios]

The New Yorker Radio Hour is a co production of WNYC Studios and the New Yorker. Our theme music was composed and performed by Meryl Garbus of Tune Yards, with additional music by Louis Mitchell and Jared Paul. This episode was produced by Max Balton, Adam Howard, David Krasnow, Jeffrey Masters, Louis Mitchell, Jared Paul and Ursula Sommer, with guidance from Emily Botin and assistance from Michael May, David Gable, Alex Parish, Victor Guan and Alejandra Deckett. The New Yorker Radio Hour is supported in part by the Trina Endowment Fund. WNYC Studios is supported by Carnegie hall, which presents The Orchestra of St. Luke's performing Leonard Bernstein's Kaddish Symphony, set to text by Samuel Pizar, commemorating the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, January 29th. Tickets and [e-mail].

[David Remnick]

My name is Madeline Barron. I'm a journalist for the New Yorker. I focus on stories where powerful people or institutions are doing something that's harming people or harming someone or something in some way. And so my job is to report that so exhaustively that we can reveal what's actually going on and present it to the public. You know, for us at in the Dark, we're paying equal attention to the reporting and the storytelling. And we felt a real kinship with the New Yorker, like the combination of the deeply reported stories that the New Yorker is known for, but also the quality of those stories, the attention to narrative. If I could give you only one reason to subscribe to the New Yorker, it would be maybe this is not the answer you're looking for, but I just don't think that there is any other magazine in America that combines so many different types of things into a single issue. As a New Yorker, you know, like you have poetry, you have theater reviews, you have restaurant recommendations, which for some reason I read even though I don't live in New York City. And all of those things are great, but I haven't even mentioned, like the other half of the magazine, which is deeply reported stories that honestly are the first things that I read. You know, I'm a big fan of gymnastics and people will say, oh, we were so lucky to live in the era of Simone Biles. Which I agree. We're also so lucky to live in the era of Lawrence Wright, Jane Mayer, Ronan Farrow, Patrick Radden, Keefe. And so to me, it's like, I can't imagine not reading these writers.

[Evan Osnos]

You can have all the journalism, the fiction, the the film, book and TV reviews, all the cartoons just by going.

[Jason Adam Katzenstein]

Right now to newyorker.com dark plus, there's.

[David Remnick]

An incredible archive, a century's worth of.

[Evan Osnos]

Award winning work just waiting for you.

[Antony Blinken]

That's newyorker.com dark and thanks.