Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. One of the most
Speaker 1: difficult and demanding jobs in any White House is that
Speaker 1: of National Security Advisor. It comes with a long list
Speaker 1: of responsibilities. You're a counselor to the president and someone
Speaker 1: who coordinates with policymakers and intelligence officials and governments all
Speaker 1: over the world. It's as close to a twenty four
Speaker 1: to seven job as you can find, and it's one
Speaker 1: that's been held by Condelliza Rice, Henry Kissinger and Jake Sullivan.
Speaker 2: You know one thing I've learned over four years is
Speaker 2: national Security advisor is that the most persistent question that
Speaker 2: one faces in a job like that is okay, then what?
Speaker 1: There is no downtime. You're always thinking about what will
Speaker 1: happen next. During Sullivan's tenure, war erupted in the Middle
Speaker 1: East and the conflict escalated in Ukraine. There was chaos
Speaker 1: as the US withdrew his forces from Afghanistan. Since January,
Speaker 1: Sullivan has had a chance to gather his thoughts and
Speaker 1: to catch his breath. He's fielded questions about decisions he made,
Speaker 1: and in interviews like this one on the Rockman Review
Speaker 1: podcast from The Financial Times, He's been asked about the
Speaker 1: president he worked for and that presidential debate in June
Speaker 1: of twenty twenty four, which led to Joe Biden stepping aside.
Speaker 2: So the debate, I mean it was bad. Did it
Speaker 2: come as a shock too, Yeah, it came as a
Speaker 2: shock to everybody. I mean it was shocking, and it
Speaker 2: was shocking to me. I thought it was something I
Speaker 2: had not seen before that kind of How did its response.
Speaker 2: I don't have a good explanation. I mean, I think
Speaker 2: some part of it has to be the stakes of
Speaker 2: that performance, and you know how people get in their
Speaker 2: own heads, but that's just armchair. Yeah, you know, I
Speaker 2: don't know. I watched that and I thought that is
Speaker 2: something I have not seen from Joe Biden before, nor
Speaker 2: had other people.
Speaker 1: In an interview at the Aspen Security for Him, Jake
Speaker 1: Sullivan and I talked about regrets he has and about
Speaker 1: his time in the Biden white House. Sullivan also shared
Speaker 1: his perspective on today's foreign policy and national security challenges,
Speaker 1: which he is now watching play out from the sidelines
Speaker 1: as a professor at the Harvard Kennedy School. And on
Speaker 1: that note, before we talked policy, I asked him something
Speaker 1: i'd wondered about what happens when you leave a job
Speaker 1: that is so all consuming, like national security advisor, what
Speaker 1: happens when you're done well?
Speaker 2: In the most immediate sense, I had a security detail,
Speaker 2: big secret service detail. They were with me twenty four
Speaker 2: to seven, and at twelve noon on January twentieth of
Speaker 2: this year, they dropped me off at a bar and
Speaker 2: walked away, I mean shook my hand and I said
Speaker 2: thank you to them, and then they walked away and
Speaker 2: I went to the bar and joined friend and hadn't
Speaker 2: early drink. That's the short answer. The longer answer that
Speaker 2: it's obviously a huge shift from the point of view
Speaker 2: of adrenaline stress intensity, and it takes them getting used to.
Speaker 1: I'm David Gera and this is the big tape from
Speaker 1: Bloomberg News Today. On the show, my conversation with former
Speaker 1: National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan. At a time when there
Speaker 1: is so much conflict around the world, when long standing
Speaker 1: alliances are under strain and President Trump is waging a
Speaker 1: trade war, I asked former National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan
Speaker 1: what concerns he has about the US national security apparatus
Speaker 1: he helped oversee.
Speaker 2: I would say I have two major concerns. One of
Speaker 2: them is immediate to some of the decisions taken by
Speaker 2: this administration in the last few months, one of which
Speaker 2: is more long standing. The immediate one is that I
Speaker 2: I really do believe there has been an basically all
Speaker 2: out assault on the professionalism the patriotism of incredible public
Speaker 2: servants at multiple different agencies. And I think DOGE drove
Speaker 2: a lot of that, but it's continued beyond DOGE, attacking
Speaker 2: people who gave their career at USAIDE or the State
Speaker 2: Department or other federal agencies. And I think this is
Speaker 2: something deeply corrosive. It is going to reduce the extent
Speaker 2: to which people are inspired to get into public service,
Speaker 2: and I think that will come at both an immediate
Speaker 2: cost to us because of all the talent capacity we've
Speaker 2: lost and all the institutional memory and know how we've lost,
Speaker 2: but I think it will come as a longer term
Speaker 2: challenge as well. And then the more long standing thing
Speaker 2: is that I fundamentally agree with the critique that says
Speaker 2: we cannot move fast enough, big enough when it comes
Speaker 2: to solving some of the key challenges that we face.
Speaker 2: Fixing our defense industrial base, solving our reliance on rare
Speaker 2: earth minerals from China, other things like that. Where do
Speaker 2: I feel we've made progress in the Biden administration, Absolutely
Speaker 2: more than we'd seen before. Do I feel we solve
Speaker 2: the problem? No, these are generational problems, but we don't
Speaker 2: have a generation to solve them. We got to solve
Speaker 2: them much more rapidly.
Speaker 1: Let me take those in kind and start with your
Speaker 1: first concern, and that is the level of expertise that's
Speaker 1: left government. Has it trickled down from Washington to the
Speaker 1: rest of this country? Do they see the damage that
Speaker 1: you say has been done?
Speaker 2: You know, I think it's really hard to ask somebody
Speaker 2: who is working a job, taking care of their family,
Speaker 2: thinking about their aging parents, trying to make ends meet,
Speaker 2: to care deeply about a reduction in force at the
Speaker 2: State Department. And I would never profess to do that.
Speaker 2: But I do believe that there are going to be practical,
Speaker 2: real world manifestations of the hollowing out of government capacity.
Speaker 2: And you know, I think we'll see those when crisis hits.
Speaker 2: I think we'll see those when it comes to people
Speaker 2: being able to rely on government to deliver the services
Speaker 2: that are required. And then I also think that there's
Speaker 2: something else going on here which isn't quite so transactional.
Speaker 2: Am I getting exactly what I want from government? That's
Speaker 2: a little bit more about a sense of pride and
Speaker 2: purpose in our country. If you run down and denigrate
Speaker 2: public servants constantly, you say they're you know, in it
Speaker 2: for the wrong reasons, they're criminals in certain cases. I
Speaker 2: think you undermine a basic sense of cohesion and common
Speaker 2: purpose in our country that I think has all kinds
Speaker 2: of lingering effects that aren't about a particular agency not
Speaker 2: having a particular level of expertise. It's that more ineffable
Speaker 2: quality that I think is eroding, the kind of deep
Speaker 2: sense of American can do and the sense that you
Speaker 2: know or out for a larger purpose that really will
Speaker 2: leave a mark.
Speaker 1: I think a lot of people saw the videos from
Speaker 1: a few days ago of career employees leaving the State
Speaker 1: Department for the last time to the applause of their colleagues.
Speaker 1: When you look at the cuts that have been made
Speaker 1: both to funding and to staff, are you optimistic that
Speaker 1: that can be reversed in a future administration or is
Speaker 1: the damage going to be wherever?
Speaker 2: Look, you can rebuild these muscles, but it takes longer
Speaker 2: to rebuild them than it takes to destroy them. And
Speaker 2: that's true in our lives, like if you lay off
Speaker 2: exercising for a while, it just takes you that much
Speaker 2: longer to get back in shape, and I think that's
Speaker 2: going to be true with government as well. And I
Speaker 2: want to be clear, I'm not arguing there is no
Speaker 2: scope for streamlining or personnel reform or programmatic reform or
Speaker 2: budget savings. I'm not arguing that at all. What I'm
Speaker 2: arguing is something more fundamental, which is the method by
Speaker 2: which this has been approached has been, in my view,
Speaker 2: basically to borrow a tailor swift line. It's been casually
Speaker 2: cruel in the name of being honest. They say, oh,
Speaker 2: we're just doing what's right, and we're telling it like
Speaker 2: it is. No, there's a cruelty to this that I
Speaker 2: think is totally unnecessary, and I think it also means
Speaker 2: it's not rigorous, targeted, focused on genuine reform, genuine streamlining.
Speaker 2: It's using a bludgeon a sledgehammer, where I believe that
Speaker 2: much more precise tools are required to improve the function
Speaker 2: of government.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about a few hotspots and you spend a
Speaker 1: lot of time shuttling back and forth between Washington and
Speaker 1: the Middle East, certainly after October seventh, and I'm curious
Speaker 1: how reconfigured the Middle East is today than before that
Speaker 1: attack that Hamas launched. How different does the Middle East
Speaker 1: look today than it did?
Speaker 2: It's considerably different, So first when we left office, and
Speaker 2: even more so now, Iran is at its weakest point
Speaker 2: since nineteen seventy nine. It's lost its main proxies, it's
Speaker 2: lost its main client stat a SAD, lost its conventional
Speaker 2: military deterrent, and now its nuclear program has been set
Speaker 2: back but not completely eliminated, and we are going to
Speaker 2: have to continue to solve for that. So that remains
Speaker 2: a constant, the need for a deal to solve a
Speaker 2: Iran's nuclear program. Then you look at the possibilities that
Speaker 2: exist in both Lebanon and Syria, but their attendant with
Speaker 2: really significant risks as well. And so to me, the
Speaker 2: most important thing that can happen at this point is
Speaker 2: to get an end to the war in Gaza and
Speaker 2: then to get a credible pathway to a Palestinian state,
Speaker 2: because without a credible pathway to a pals Danian state,
Speaker 2: I do not see a future for normalization between Israel
Speaker 2: and Saudi Arabia and other of its Arab neighbors. And
Speaker 2: I do not see a way of building on the
Speaker 2: promise of a new Middle East. I think we may
Speaker 2: just get into further cycles of instability and challenge. And
Speaker 2: what we've seen, for example, just in the last few
Speaker 2: days in Syria is a reminder that this is not
Speaker 2: just going to be some smooth pathway to a better
Speaker 2: future for Syria or for other countries. It's going to
Speaker 2: require hard decisions, and it's going to require connecting military
Speaker 2: actions today to a strategic endgame tomorrow that is sustainable
Speaker 2: and just. And so far I haven't seen from this
Speaker 2: Israeli government a willingness to do that to.
Speaker 1: Israel has attacked Syria in recent days. Do you share
Speaker 1: this administration's optimism about the path forward for Syria.
Speaker 2: I believe that it is right to give this new
Speaker 2: government in Syria a chance, And in fact, the Asad
Speaker 2: regime fell in the closing weeks of the Biden administration,
Speaker 2: and almost immediately we sent a senior official to go
Speaker 2: meet with El Shara and the new leader of Syria.
Speaker 2: We began the process of lifting some sanctions, and we
Speaker 2: set a pathway which then President Trump took a huge
Speaker 2: step forward on a quite significant step in basically saying
Speaker 2: We're going to normalize relations and lift all the sanctions.
Speaker 2: And I applauded that at the time, and I think
Speaker 2: that that is the right thing. Does that mean I
Speaker 2: share optimism as an irishman, I'm going to reserve anything
Speaker 2: remotely resentling optimism here. What I would say is, there
Speaker 2: is an opportunity, and we should do our best to
Speaker 2: test and pursue that opportunity. But we also should be
Speaker 2: strong in pushing back against actions, including actions by Israel,
Speaker 2: that could potentially take this fragile opportunity and make it
Speaker 2: more difficult to consummate.
Speaker 1: The last time you spoke with Bloomberg was in January,
Speaker 1: and you said, of the conflict between Israel and Hamas,
Speaker 1: there could be a deal maybe in a matter of weeks.
Speaker 1: Here we are many months since then. What's it going
Speaker 1: to take to get one, as you see it?
Speaker 2: Well, first of all, there was a deal within a
Speaker 2: matter of weeks after I made that comment. There was
Speaker 2: a deal consummated in the closing days of the Biden administration.
Speaker 2: It was a ceasefire. The ceasefire consisted of six weeks
Speaker 2: of an end to all of the military action on
Speaker 2: both sides, the return of many hostages, and a surge
Speaker 2: in humanitarian assistants. And it also included a key provision
Speaker 2: that said, during those six weeks, Israel and Hamas should
Speaker 2: begin a series negotiation through third parties to turn that
Speaker 2: temporary ceasefire into a permanent ceasefire. That's what we handed
Speaker 2: off to the Trump administration. That's what they inherited on
Speaker 2: day one, a ceasefire in place for six weeks, with
Speaker 2: a provision not only that they should use the six
Speaker 2: weeks to turn it into a permanent ceasefire, but also
Speaker 2: that the six weeks could be extended indefinitely if they
Speaker 2: were making progress. After forty two days, instead of working
Speaker 2: diligently towards a permanent ceasefire, Israel went back to the conflict.
Speaker 2: And so here we sit today in July, after many
Speaker 2: more months, and the answer is quite straightforward, which it
Speaker 2: is time to bring an end to this war, to
Speaker 2: bring the hostages home, to get humanitarian assistance in and
Speaker 2: to work towards a two state solution. And I believe
Speaker 2: that the Trump administration, having taken the action, they took in.
Speaker 2: Iran should use all of their capacity and clout to
Speaker 2: try to bring that about. But my hope is, and
Speaker 2: I can't say it's my expectation because I don't know
Speaker 2: what will happen, But my hope is that in the
Speaker 2: coming period a ceasefire will get in place and it
Speaker 2: will stick.
Speaker 1: How did you navigate the thorniness of Israeli domestic politics
Speaker 1: during all the negotiations that you were party too and
Speaker 1: trying to encourage. So we've seen this very comprehensive piece
Speaker 1: in the New York Times laying out the timetable from
Speaker 1: October seventh to a day when there were deals on
Speaker 1: the table, when they weren't, when they were scuttled. And
Speaker 1: an overarching theme of that is that Prime Minister Ntya,
Speaker 1: who's domestic concerns play the sizeable role in how all
Speaker 1: of this has evolved. Is it going to continue to
Speaker 1: play that bigger role going forward? Do you think? Well?
Speaker 2: It has over the course of the past several months.
Speaker 2: It had did under President Biden, it has under President Trump.
Speaker 2: That's a fixed variable. Prime Minister Ntya, who is going
Speaker 2: to focus on his political position, That's what he's done,
Speaker 2: That's what we will continue to do. But I think
Speaker 2: I have to say that even though I never found
Speaker 2: prime Minister in Nyah who particularly the enthusiastic about doing
Speaker 2: a deal, was not enthusiastic about doing a deal either,
Speaker 2: And there were many months where Israel had actually said
Speaker 2: yes to a basic framework where Hamas really didn't want
Speaker 2: to negotiate seriously. Now, do I think that that means
Speaker 2: it's all Hamas's fault and not the prime minister's And
Speaker 2: that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is you had,
Speaker 2: on the one hand, a prime minister who was not
Speaker 2: particularly keen on closing a deal. But on the other hand,
Speaker 2: you really didn't have a party in Hamas that was
Speaker 2: serious about closing a deal. And that was also a
Speaker 2: factor we had to contend with in the Biden administration.
Speaker 1: I remember speaking with Secretary State Anthony Blincoln days before
Speaker 1: he left office, and it was clear to me in
Speaker 1: that conversation how much diplomacy surrounding the war in Gaza
Speaker 1: was weighing on him. The moral stakes of that, chiefly
Speaker 1: is that something that you think a lot about. How
Speaker 1: difficult is it to, on the one hand, undergo the
Speaker 1: diplomacy the work of it, and then have the other
Speaker 1: compliment to that, the moral aspect of that weighing on you,
Speaker 1: of course.
Speaker 2: I mean, you wouldn't be human if the tragedy of
Speaker 2: October seventh and it's aftermath and the war between Israel
Speaker 2: and Hamas, if that didn't weigh on you. And it
Speaker 2: weighs on me every day. It keeps me up at night.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's just an god awful tragedy. The suffering,
Speaker 2: the death of innocence, the holding of hostages, the struggle
Speaker 2: of civilians. Yes, it's policymaking at the end of the day,
Speaker 2: is about human beings occupying these jobs, not automatons. And
Speaker 2: it's about the human stakes and consequences of things. And
Speaker 2: no word is that more true than in the war
Speaker 2: on Gaza. And of course I wish that things had
Speaker 2: turned out differently so that so many civilians, innocent people
Speaker 2: hadn't died, so that we could have gotten even more
Speaker 2: humanitarian assistance in while we were there, although I worked
Speaker 2: every day and so did Tony and others to get
Speaker 2: more humanitarian assistance in and to stave off of famine.
Speaker 2: And I think about many other decisions too that have
Speaker 2: human mistakes and consequences, and you'd be an unthinking and
Speaker 2: unfeeling person if you didn't ask yourself, what could I
Speaker 2: have done? Could I have made this decision differently or
Speaker 2: that decision differently? But one thing I will say is
Speaker 2: that when we handed off to the Trump administration, through
Speaker 2: all of the challenges and difficulties that we confronted over
Speaker 2: a four year period of great turbulence, I felt that
Speaker 2: we handed off a circumstance in which our alliances were stronger,
Speaker 2: our adversaries were weaker, the engines of our national power
Speaker 2: had been enhanced, and we were no longer at warm.
Speaker 2: And so I felt we handed off a country that
Speaker 2: was in good shape. And for that I am immensely proud.
Speaker 2: Even as I continue to turn over in my mind,
Speaker 2: I had many of these difficult issues, among them very
Speaker 2: much centrally among them the issue of Gaza.
Speaker 1: My conversation with former National security advisor Jake Sullivan continues
Speaker 1: after the break. During a wide ranging conversation with former
Speaker 1: National security advisor Jake Sullivan, we talked about many global conflicts,
Speaker 1: including the ongoing war in Ukraine. I'm curious as you
Speaker 1: look at President Putin and has approached this conflict from
Speaker 1: the beginning through today. What do you see as the mechanism,
Speaker 1: the thing that's going to get him to withdraw step
Speaker 1: back from the conflict. He seems unmoved by loss of life.
Speaker 1: The economic situation in Russia has been worsening. What's going
Speaker 1: to make a difference do you think in the status
Speaker 1: of that conflict.
Speaker 2: I think fundamentally Putin needs to be convinced that time
Speaker 2: is not on his side, and in order to convince
Speaker 2: him of that, he needs to be convinced that the
Speaker 2: United States and its allies are going to stand behind
Speaker 2: and continue to increase support for Ukraine and continue to
Speaker 2: increase pressure on Russia. So grind on, I wouldn't even
Speaker 2: say grind on. What I would say is display clearly
Speaker 2: and emphatically that Ukraine can rely on us for the
Speaker 2: necessary material to hold their ground and can rely on
Speaker 2: us to turn up the dial, particularly when it comes
Speaker 2: to oil sanctions on Russia. And what was more difficult
Speaker 2: two years ago because of a very tight global oil market,
Speaker 2: is now much more straightforward. The supply is there and
Speaker 2: therefore the opportunity is there to take Russian barrels off
Speaker 2: the market, and in doing so, reduce the revenues to
Speaker 2: Putin's war machine. And if President Trump took that step,
Speaker 2: alongside really doubling down on the provision of military assistance
Speaker 2: to Ukraine, I think you can begin to make Putinc
Speaker 2: that the long term trajectory of this conflict is not
Speaker 2: going in his favor, and that would set the conditions
Speaker 2: for a more favorable negotiation for Ukraine. Now, a big
Speaker 2: question is will President Trump see that through? And that
Speaker 2: is a question we will have to watch play out
Speaker 2: here over the course in the next few weeks.
Speaker 1: So let me posit that over the last few weeks
Speaker 1: we've seen a different President Trump in the context of NATO.
Speaker 1: He went to the NATO summit and was talking differently
Speaker 1: about the alliance than he has in the past. It
Speaker 1: seems like he's talking differently about his relationship with President
Speaker 1: Putin as well. Do you detect a similar change, and
Speaker 1: if so, do you expect that to stay?
Speaker 2: Definitely? I don't know if it will stay. I hope so.
Speaker 2: But it's absolutely President Trump singing a different tune on
Speaker 2: both NATO and on the Russia Ukraine war, and in
Speaker 2: both cases I think he has moved in the right direction. Interestingly,
Speaker 2: in both cases, I think he's moved in the direction
Speaker 2: of the American people. The American people support NATO and
Speaker 2: the American people support Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression,
Speaker 2: and they do so on a bipartisan basis. So my
Speaker 2: hope is that it will continue. And when he takes
Speaker 2: steps like that, I will stand up and say that's
Speaker 2: a good thing. Let's keep going. But the question is,
Speaker 2: does putin think President Trump's going to stick with this.
Speaker 2: President Trump needs to prove to him that he will.
Speaker 2: And I think one key step he could take to
Speaker 2: do that would be to tighten these oil sanctions that
Speaker 2: he's threatened. He should actually put them on.
Speaker 1: I want to ask you about that more generally, because
Speaker 1: of course, the Bide administration, like the Obama administration, indeed
Speaker 1: like the first Trump administration, did, rely on sanctions as
Speaker 1: a tool of national security. There are some who question
Speaker 1: the efficacy of them, see means by which countries can
Speaker 1: get around them. Now that you're out of government, how
Speaker 1: do you think about the role that they play, the
Speaker 1: utility of that tool in an administration's toolbox.
Speaker 2: It's not a silver bullet. You're not going to solve
Speaker 2: an international crisis or compel an adversary to particular behavior
Speaker 2: merely through the use of sanctions. But it is one
Speaker 2: in a range of tools that we can bring to
Speaker 2: bear in defense of our interests and our values and
Speaker 2: to try to shape the behavior of our competitors and adversaries.
Speaker 2: And thinking about how to apply it in the most
Speaker 2: effective and coordinated way with allies and partners is a
Speaker 2: critical part of state craft and I think will remain so.
Speaker 2: And by the way, I should just say on the
Speaker 2: Russian economy, it's definitely true that the Russian economy has
Speaker 2: been more resilient, that sanctions alone have not stopped them
Speaker 2: in their tracks. I acknowledge that it is also true
Speaker 2: that the Russian economy is facing particular headwinds and pressures
Speaker 2: right now as we speak that I think are going
Speaker 2: to have to weigh on Putin's decision making, and in
Speaker 2: that respect you can see how it's a tool that
Speaker 2: can be of some considerable use.
Speaker 1: I mentioned that NATO summit, and I'd love to get
Speaker 1: your perspective on the integrity of that alliance, how you're
Speaker 1: feeling about its current strength, its prospects going forward in
Speaker 1: light of the higher commitment these countries have made to
Speaker 1: financing their defense budgets. How do you feel about the
Speaker 1: integrity of the NATO Alliance today?
Speaker 2: I am I'm a mixed minds on this. First of all,
Speaker 2: I'm proud that when we handed off the NATO Alliance,
Speaker 2: it was bigger, it was more purposeful, it was more
Speaker 2: burden sharing than at any previous point. When President Trump
Speaker 2: left office, nine NATO allies had met their two percent
Speaker 2: of GDP commitment. By the time President Biden left office,
Speaker 2: that was twenty three. So that was a big move,
Speaker 2: not in terms of pledges for the future, but in
Speaker 2: terms of actual dollars spent. So I'm proud of that,
Speaker 2: and I think President Trump did a good thing in
Speaker 2: pressing for an increased commitment with respect to defense spending.
Speaker 2: There's a real question about follow through. Now we have
Speaker 2: to make sure that that actually happens. The Germans have
Speaker 2: taken a big step. I'd like to see others do
Speaker 2: so as well. But there is also increasing talk in
Speaker 2: Europe about how much they can trust the United States,
Speaker 2: and that concerns me, and to a certain extent saddens me.
Speaker 2: You know, we were working very closely with Europe over
Speaker 2: the four years of the Biden administration on an aligned
Speaker 2: strategy to collectively de risk from China reduce our strategic
Speaker 2: dependence on China. Now, a lot of the talk in
Speaker 2: Europe is not necessarily about de risking from China. It's
Speaker 2: about de risking from America. And I don't like that
Speaker 2: because I think if we have cohesion and common purpose
Speaker 2: with our European allies, we are stronger. So I think
Speaker 2: this was a good step at the NATO summit, but
Speaker 2: it comes against a backdrop of deep uncertainty about where
Speaker 2: exactly the trust and the common purpose in the relationship
Speaker 2: will be in the years ahead. And as someone who
Speaker 2: believes deeply in the trans Atlantic alliance, I want to
Speaker 2: contribute to that trust and common purpose in any way
Speaker 2: that I can.
Speaker 1: Is that principally because of the trade war, because of
Speaker 1: the position that the administration has taken on its trade
Speaker 1: relationship with Europe, that you see that change.
Speaker 2: I think there's a few factors. I mean, I think
Speaker 2: it was a signal moment when the Vice President went
Speaker 2: to Munich and gave a speech that was greeted frankly
Speaker 2: with horror by the Europeans. And I think the Vice
Speaker 2: President has adjusted his framing to a certain extent since then,
Speaker 2: I think it was part the image of President Trump
Speaker 2: with President's Lensky in the Oval office, and there again
Speaker 2: now you've seen President Trump adjust course. It's the trade
Speaker 2: war and the coercive effort to bend friends to our
Speaker 2: will rather than try to work through whatever issues we
Speaker 2: have with them. And it's a lot of flirtation with
Speaker 2: a particular ideological current in Europe which says we're going
Speaker 2: to you know, we have a preference for right wing parties.
Speaker 2: You know, when the Vice President went to Germany, he
Speaker 2: didn't meet with the chancellor, but he met with the
Speaker 2: head of the AfD, which is their far right party. Okay,
Speaker 2: people in Europe take notice of that. So these are
Speaker 2: some of the factors at play. On the other hand,
Speaker 2: the logic behind this alliance, the history behind this alliance,
Speaker 2: the people to people ties undergirding this alliance, the deep
Speaker 2: integration of our economies and our defense industrial bases and
Speaker 2: our militaries and our intelligence services. These are all very
Speaker 2: powerful things. So I think there is an opportunity to
Speaker 2: have NATO remain a strong and vibrant and task oriented alliance.
Speaker 2: But it's going to require work and it's going to
Speaker 2: require the current administration to take a hard look at
Speaker 2: the ways in which it may be eroding the foundations
Speaker 2: of that alliance for the longer term that could come
Speaker 2: back to harm America in the future.
Speaker 1: After the break, former National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and
Speaker 1: I talk about the relationship between the US and China
Speaker 1: and what issue he thinks isn't getting enough attention today
Speaker 1: from policymakers and politicians. During his first term as President,
Speaker 1: Donald Trump and Poe a twenty five percent tariff on
Speaker 1: Chinese exports, and President Biden kept that policy in place.
Speaker 1: When Jake Sullivan started as National Security Advisor, tensions were
Speaker 1: high between the US and China and communication between the
Speaker 1: two countries had broken down. I asked him where he
Speaker 1: thinks that relationship stands today, some six months into President
Speaker 1: Trump's second term. So much of what the Biden administration
Speaker 1: did Visa VI China had to do with just re
Speaker 1: opening lines of communication between these two countries after the
Speaker 1: first Trump term. I remember talking with Secretary Jenny Yellen
Speaker 1: about that, the work that she did, the trip she
Speaker 1: took to China to again re establish that conduit of communication.
Speaker 1: What do you make of the current level of dialogue
Speaker 1: between these countries. Of course, against the backdrop of the
Speaker 1: trade war what you've seen, particularly when it comes to
Speaker 1: what levers both sides have here in that relationship, principally
Speaker 1: when it comes to rare earth minerals.
Speaker 2: Yes, So just on the diplomacy piece, I mean, the
Speaker 2: core element of the Biden administration strategy was we were
Speaker 2: going to compete intensively, investment in the sources of our
Speaker 2: own strength, build up our relations and common strategy with
Speaker 2: our allies, impose export controls so China couldn't use our
Speaker 2: most advanced technologies against us. And we took all of
Speaker 2: those steps, and I think when we left office we
Speaker 2: had dramatically strengthened our competitive position visa ba China. But
Speaker 2: alongside that intense competition, we practiced intense diplomacy because our
Speaker 2: view was you had out to have to manage the
Speaker 2: competition so it doesn't tip over into conflict, and in
Speaker 2: particular that requires not just transactional conversations, but deep strategic
Speaker 2: discussions about our respective perspectives and priorities. And I carried
Speaker 2: on more than fifty hours of those discussions with my
Speaker 2: counterpart one Yee, the Foreign minister and their polyp Buro
Speaker 2: member in charge of foreign affairs. I don't see that
Speaker 2: happening right now, and I think that that is to
Speaker 2: the detriment of both the United States and China. And
Speaker 2: there's nothing inconsistent with pursuing that diplomacy while also pursuing competition.
Speaker 2: On the other hand, there is an active and ongoing
Speaker 2: channel on the trade issues that occasionally produces flare ups
Speaker 2: and escalations and then de escalations and so forth, but
Speaker 2: it's clearly an open channel. And then, finally, one of
Speaker 2: the things I'm proud of is that we got military
Speaker 2: to military communications re established at a high and sustained
Speaker 2: level and basically got that to hold through thick and thin,
Speaker 2: and it's continuing to hold even despite all of the
Speaker 2: trade tensions between the two countries. That is a good thing.
Speaker 2: That is how you avoid unintended escalation into conflict, and
Speaker 2: I think that's to the benefit of the American people.
Speaker 1: I've asked you about the Middle East, Ukraine, China. I
Speaker 1: would often marvel as I looked at my inbox and
Speaker 1: got readouts of the calls that you had of how
Speaker 1: wide your remit was. When you were National Security Advisor
Speaker 1: how many conversations you were having, how much you had
Speaker 1: to focus on is there a conflict or an issue?
Speaker 1: Certainly we haven't talked about, but people generally don't talk
Speaker 1: about that you think bears more attention.
Speaker 2: Look, I think AI is getting more attention, But I
Speaker 2: still think in the national security community and particularly on
Speaker 2: Capitol Hill, is not at the level it needs to
Speaker 2: be at, given how fast this technology is moving and
Speaker 2: how rapidly we need a common sense of both managing
Speaker 2: the risks and seizing the opportunities of it, and I
Speaker 2: just don't see that reflected in the policy conversation in DC.
Speaker 2: I think that is a real challenge. Then in terms
Speaker 2: of conflicts, you know, I used to say India Pakistan.
Speaker 2: Then of course it flared up and we had a
Speaker 2: real escalation between two nuclear armed superpowers that then de escalated.
Speaker 2: But that challenge is not going away, and I think
Speaker 2: will require careful attention in the years ahead.
Speaker 1: You had this job as National Security Advisor. Your successor
Speaker 1: now has that job and three other ones, including being
Speaker 1: Secretary of State. Can you fathom doing your job the
Speaker 1: job you had plus these other ones. Does it make
Speaker 1: sense to you to operate that way in this current environment.
Speaker 2: Well, look, I like to joke that when I was
Speaker 2: National Security Advisor, I never once for a moment, thought, man,
Speaker 2: I have enough spare time to be Secretary of State.
Speaker 2: No way. Being national security advisor is more than a
Speaker 2: full time job, so as being Secretary of State. So also,
Speaker 2: frankly is having a bench with enough people who you
Speaker 2: can throw at these challenges. And I think if you
Speaker 2: shrink that bench too much, that comes at a cost.
Speaker 2: But almost by definition, there's going to have to be
Speaker 2: a trade off. A Secretary of State who's supposed to
Speaker 2: be engaging the world, a national security advisor who's supposed
Speaker 2: to be coordinating the government and the policy process. Something's
Speaker 2: got to give. On the other hand, you know, each
Speaker 2: president sets up their national security decision making apparatus as
Speaker 2: they choose to do so, and this is what this
Speaker 2: president has chosen to do. At the end of the day,
Speaker 2: what matters is how does this play out over time,
Speaker 2: less than who's particularly occupying what role. So let's see.
Speaker 1: This is the big take from Bloomberg News. I'm David Gerra.
Speaker 1: The show is hosted by me, Sarah Holder, juanha and
Speaker 1: Seleiah Mosen. Aaron Edwards, David Fox, Eleanor, Harrison Dengate, Patty
Speaker 1: hirsh Rachel Lewis, Krisky, Naomi Julia Press, Tracy Samuelson, Naomi Shavin,
Speaker 1: Alex Agura, Julia Weaver, Young Young, and take Yasuzawa make
Speaker 1: the show. To get more from the Big Take and
Speaker 1: unlimited access to all of bloomberg dot com, subscribe today
Speaker 1: at Bloomberg dot com Slash podcast offer. Thanks for listening.
Speaker 1: We'll be back on Monday,