hello, i'm christian fraser, here with sumi somaskanda. this is the context, live from washington dc, on bbc news. if the price came down, the russia—ukraine wari would end immediately. right now, the price is high enough thatl that war will continue. you gotta bring down the oil. price, you gotta end that war. it price, you gotta end that war. was a really strong r and it was a really strong message and strong signal. we need to increase pressure on russia, and forced russia to negotiate. when an election is stolen by the american people by an illegitimate regime, drastic times— illegitimate regime, drastic times call for drastic measures. joining us on the panel tonight

— former speech writer for president obama, david litt — and former us federal prosecutor, joe moreno. hello, welcome to our special edition of the context, live from washington. a reminder that at this hour — and every day at this time — we will be focusing on donald trump's second term. and today, the president was in bullish mood. speaking remotely to the world economic forum in davos, he warned that, unless companies produce their goods here in america, they will face trillions of dollars in tarrifs. and that would seem to point towards the much—feared universal tariff, which trump had been promising during the campaign. in fact, there was very little cheer for the europeans. the president criticised the eu for its perceived unfair practices. he took aim at european tariffs on american exports, he compained about the regulations, which he said was slowing down investment. and once again, he said he would press his european partners within nato to increase their defence spending to 5% — many of them are nowhere near that mark. i'm also going to ask all nato

nations to increase defence l spending to 5% of gdp — which is what it should l have been years ago. it was only at 2%, - and most nations didn't pay until i came along. i insisted that they pay, and they did, because l the united states was really| paying the difference at that time, and it was unfair to the united states. i meredith crowley is professor of economics at the university of cambridge. she has advised banks, companies, and governments in the us, uk, and europe. very good to see you, thanks for being on the programme. so he talked openly about tariffs today, by now we know what he means that he means it — what we don't know is whether he singing of a universal baseline for tariffs, singing of a universal baseline fortariffs, or singing of a universal baseline for tariffs, or whether it'll vacillate depending on which country you're in. do you think it's a negotiating tactic, or does he not really know? i think it's a negotiating

tactic, i think he's running the universal tariff because he wants particular things from particular countries. he's long said he wants european union nato members to increase their spending on defence. i think the threat is a high tariff on european imports, you know, and he'll back down from that. in the 2018 era, he did threaten canada and mexico with high tariffs — he got some concessions from them in the revised trade agreement with canada and mexico called the us mca, so he backed down on the threats of higher tariffs there. with china, he put the tariffs on, the chinese retaliated, and we've been basically in that same position since 2018 — we still have very high tariffs on the china —— on china from the us — but there is still more to put on because some goods coming in are at low tariffs. ., , ., tariffs. there was an interesting - tariffs. there was an interesting line - tariffs. there was an i interesting line energy, tariffs. there was an - interesting line energy, he said, "absolute, we will make an energy deal with europe and

see it through," talking specifically about lng gas. the european union said in davos this week that it is open to this week that it is open to this idea of buying more energy from the us. is that they can eliminate tariffs?— eliminate tariffs? this is one where the — eliminate tariffs? this is one where the european - eliminate tariffs? this is one where the european union . eliminate tariffs? this is one l where the european union and eliminate tariffs? this is one - where the european union and us would like more liquefied gas stations in europe. one of the issues was in the us, historically... weren't available for the new liquefied gas decompression facilities, so if you put gas in a boat in the us, you ship it somewhere to europe, you need a facility to europe, you need a facility to decompress that gas out of the ship and into a pipeline, and those are expensive to build, and some regulation on the us side was restricting the funding for that. so he could

probably do something like that, that might be one solution. it sets back the climate mitigation goals that people might have in europe, but at the same time that also may be like less reliance on russian gas.— russian gas. just looking at oil futures _ russian gas. just looking at oil futures down _ russian gas. just looking at oil futures down this - russian gas. just looking at. oil futures down this afternoon because he's trying to put pressure on opec — he thinks the oil price is supporting the russian war in ukraine. how open do you think opec would be to cutting prices?— to cutting prices? that's a tou~h to cutting prices? that's a tough one. _ to cutting prices? that's a tough one, i'm _ to cutting prices? that's a tough one, i'm not - to cutting prices? that's a tough one, i'm not really| to cutting prices? that's a l tough one, i'm not really an expert on opec. i think again, trump likes to do these one—for—one deals — if something he can offer the big opec members, maybe they'll be willing to increase supply to that price down. he's a negotiator, i don't specifically know what he's offering different countries in opec though. offering different countries in opecthough-_ opec though. clearly the overall message - opec though. clearly the overall message was - opec though. clearly the i overall message was "come opec though. clearly the - overall message was "come and do business in the us, and if you come, you'll benefit from a

very low corporate tax rate," he's talking about slashing it to 15% - he's talking about slashing it to 15% — but at the same time he's saying "we will obliterate debt." the debt is pretty high in the us in the last time he cut taxes in the us, it went up by another $2 trillion. can you cut taxes to the extent he wants to do and also reduce? i think his tax policy is, he's throwing out a lot of numbers that don't make sense. he keeps telling americans that we will raise a lot of money from tariff revenue, and this tariff revenue, money will raise will come from china. we 100% in no that's not the case, we know the taxes he's raising are just those on the american consumer, lots of studies have proven that. you lower taxes, you can and do some investment to shift into the united states — but getting into a tax competition war is not a great position for the us to be in. and if you cut

taxes, it's pretty hard to pay back the debt — but there's a trade—off, if you cut taxes, maybe you get a short sugar rush of economic growth and there could be some tax benefit there. ~ ., ., ., there could be some tax benefit there. ~ ., ., ~ there. meredith, good to talk to ou there. meredith, good to talk to you tonight, _ there. meredith, good to talk to you tonight, thank- there. meredith, good to talk to you tonight, thank you - there. meredith, good to talk| to you tonight, thank you very much for that. a p pa re ntly apparently there were gasps of horror in thejoe when he said that canada could become a state of the united states, he said it's a good way of eradicating the us trade deficit with canada. is that a negotiating tactic?— deficit with canada. is that a negotiating tactic? when donald trump points — negotiating tactic? when donald trump points to _ negotiating tactic? when donald trump points to traditional- trump points to traditional republicans, _ trump points to traditional republicans, like - trump points to traditional republicans, like a - trump points to traditional republicans, like a george trump points to traditional. republicans, like a george w. bush — republicans, like a george w. bush or— republicans, like a george w. bush or mitt_ republicans, like a george w. bush or mitt romney, - republicans, like a george w. bush or mitt romney, he - republicans, like a george w. bush or mitt romney, he willi bush or mitt romney, he will say those _ bush or mitt romney, he will say those were _ bush or mitt romney, he will say those were globalists. i bush or mitt romney, he will. say those were globalists. he's a nationalist, _ say those were globalists. he's a nationalist, and _ say those were globalists. he's a nationalist, and he's - say those were globalists. he's a nationalist, and he's touched| a nationalist, and he's touched on the — a nationalist, and he's touched on the nerve _ a nationalist, and he's touched on the nerve amongst - a nationalist, and he's touched on the nerve amongst his- a nationalist, and he's touched. on the nerve amongst his voting base _ on the nerve amongst his voting base that — on the nerve amongst his voting base that it's _ on the nerve amongst his voting base that it's america _ on the nerve amongst his voting base that it's america first, - base that it's america first, first, — base that it's america first, first, first, _ base that it's america first, first, first, and _ base that it's america first, first, first, and the - base that it's america first, first, first, and the bad - base that it's america first, | first, first, and the bad guys are europe, _ first, first, and the bad guys are europe, china, - first, first, and the bad guys are europe, china, and- first, first, and the bad guys i are europe, china, and mexico. and _ are europe, china, and mexico. and that — are europe, china, and mexico. and that if_ are europe, china, and mexico. and that if he _ are europe, china, and mexico. and that if he could _ are europe, china, and mexico. and that if he could enact- and that if he could enact tariffs _ and that if he could enact tariffs or— and that if he could enact tariffs or trade _ and that if he could enact tariffs or trade shields, . and that if he could enact| tariffs or trade shields, or undo _ tariffs or trade shields, or undo nafta _ tariffs or trade shields, or undo nafta in _ tariffs or trade shields, or undo nafta in trade - tariffs or trade shields, or undo nafta in trade dealsl tariffs or trade shields, or- undo nafta in trade deals from the 19905. _ undo nafta in trade deals from the 19-905. he _ undo nafta in trade deals from the 19905, he could _ undo nafta in trade deals from the 19905, he could somehowl undo nafta in trade deals from i the 19905, he could somehow fix this problem _

the19905, he could somehow fix this problem. that— the 19905, he could somehow fix this problem. that may- the 19905, he could somehow fix this problem. that may have - this problem. that may have gotten — this problem. that may have gotten the _ this problem. that may have gotten the votes, _ this problem. that may have gotten the votes, but - this problem. that may have gotten the votes, but now. this problem. that may have| gotten the votes, but now he asked — gotten the votes, but now he asked ashley _ gotten the votes, but now he asked a5hley come _ gotten the votes, but now he asked a5hley come through i gotten the votes, but now hej a5ked a5hley come through — gotten the votes, but now he - a5ked a5hley come through — and his vernacular— a5ked a5hley come through — and his vernacular will— a5ked a5hley come through — and his vernacular will be _ a5ked a5hley come through — and his vernacular will be a _ a5ked a5hley come through — and his vernacular will be a lot - hi5 vernacular will be a lot harder— hi5 vernacular will be a lot harder to _ hi5 vernacular will be a lot harder to actually- hi5 vernacular will be a lot harder to actually get - hi5 vernacular will be a lot i harder to actually get results then— harder to actually get results then simply— harder to actually get results then simply plea5e _ harder to actually get results then simply please a - harder to actually get results then simply please a voting i then simply please a voting based — then simply please a voting based on _ then 5imply please a voting based on bill— then simply please a voting based on bill it's— then simply please a voting based on bill it's a - then 5imply please a voting based on bill it's a bit- then simply please a voting based on bill it's a bit of a i ba5ed on bill it's a bit of a carrot— based on bill it's a bit of a carrot and _ based on bill it's a bit of a carrot and a _ based on bill it's a bit of a carrot and a lot _ based on bill it's a bit of a carrot and a lot of - based on bill it's a bit of a carrot and a lot of a - based on bill it's a bit of a carrot and a lot of a 5tick,j carrot and a lot of a stick, david, because he's essentially saying, "come do business in the us, but if you don't, you will face tariffs." the us, but if you don't, you will face tariffs. "— will face tariffs." the thing about trump _ will face tariffs." the thing | about trump fundamentally will face tariffs." the thing - about trump fundamentally as a about trump fundamentally a5 a person. — about trump fundamentally a5 a person, he'5 about trump fundamentally a5 a person, he's a bully, and he's person, he'5 a bully, and he's always— person, he's a bully, and he's always enjoyed bullying people, and now— always enjoyed bullying people, and now he gets to bully nations, _ and now he gets to bully nations, and i imagine for him that's— nations, and i imagine for him that's even— nations, and i imagine for him that's even more fun. but i that'5 even more fun. but i think— that's even more fun. but i think part _ that's even more fun. but i think part of that is in the short— think part of that is in the short term, he might get some results — short term, he might get some results from that because it's scary — results from that because it's scary in _ results from that because it's scary. in the long term, it'5 5cary. in the long term, it's very— 5cary. in the long term, it's very difficult and unpredictable, and i5 very difficult and unpredictable, and is not tru5tworthy. i think you'll see a iot— tru5tworthy. i think you'll see a lot of— tru5tworthy. i think you'll see a lot of countries both try to with— a lot of countries both try to with frankly the same way that americans and states are trying to deal— americans and states are trying to deal with this — there is this— to deal with this — there is this biitz— to deal with this — there is this blitz of things he's doing thi5 blitz of things he's doing at his— thi5 blitz of things he's doing at his political honeymoon, but there's— at his political honeymoon, but there's also this question of there'5 also this question of longer— there's also this question of longer term, there's also this question of longerterm, he'll there's also this question of longer term, he'll never be satisfied, _ longer term, he'll never be satisfied, so how do you ride 5ati5fied, so how do you ride that— 5ati5fied, so how do you ride that out— 5ati5fied, so how do you ride that out and figure out a different type of structure to push — different type of structure to push back on some of that? so

donald push back on some of that? sr donald trump would say he's not a bully but a businessman who knows how to make a good deal — but a 15% corporate tax rate, is that possible? if but a 15% corporate tax rate, is that possible?— is that possible? if you could solve the _ is that possible? if you could solve the deficit _ is that possible? if you could solve the deficit crisis - is that possible? if you could solve the deficit crisis by - 5olve the deficit crisis by simply— solve the deficit crisis by simply reducing - solve the deficit crisis by simply reducing taxe5, l solve the deficit crisis by. simply reducing taxe5, we 5imply reducing taxe5, we would've _ 5imply reducing taxe5, we would've done _ 5imply reducing taxe5, we would've done that - 5imply reducing taxe5, we would've done that long . 5imply reducing taxe5, we i would've done that long time ago — would've done that long time ago so— would've done that long time ago so no, _ would've done that long time ago so no, you _ would've done that long time ago. so no, you can- would've done that long time ago. so no, you can 5pur- would've done that long time i ago. so no, you can 5pur some additional— ago. so no, you can 5pur some additional investment- ago. so no, you can 5pur some additional investment and - additional investment and create _ additional investment and create some _ additional investment and create some jobs, - additional inve5tment and create some jobs, but- additional investment and . create some jobs, but you'll cut into _ create 5ome jobs, but you'll cut into revenues— create some jobs, but you'll cut into revenues ultimately and drive _ cut into revenues ultimately and drive up _ cut into revenues ultimately and drive up the _ cut into revenues ultimately and drive up the deficit- cut into revenues ultimately and drive up the deficit in. cut into revenues ultimately. and drive up the deficit in the national— and drive up the deficit in the national debt. _ and drive up the deficit in the national debt. you _ and drive up the deficit in the national debt. you can't - and drive up the deficit in the national debt. you can't do . national debt. you can't do both — national debt. you can't do both. notice _ national debt. you can't do both. notice how— national debt. you can't doi both. notice how originally, national debt. you can't do i both. notice how originally, it was very— both. notice how originally, it was very blu5tery _ both. notice how originally, it was very blu5tery that - both. notice how originally, it was very blu5tery that he - both. notice how originally, iti was very blu5tery that he said, "we _ was very blu5tery that he said, "we wiii— was very blu5tery that he said, "we will cut _ was very blu5tery that he said, "we will cut $2 _ was very blu5tery that he said, "we will cut $2 trillion - was very blu5tery that he said, "we will cut $2 trillion from . "we will cut $2 trillion from the budget." _ "we will cut $2 trillion from the budget," and _ "we will cut $2 trillion from the budget," and that - "we will cut $2 trillion from the budget," and that was. the budget," and that was quickly— the budget," and that was quickly backed _ the budget," and that was quickly backed off. - the budget," and that was quickly backed off. when. the budget," and that was i quickly backed off. when you put aside _ quickly backed off. when you put aside defence _ quickly backed off. when you put aside defence spending. quickly backed off. when you i put aside defence spending and entitlements, _ put aside defence spending and entitlements, and _ put aside defence spending and entitlements, and debt - put aside defence 5pending andj entitlements, and debt service, and you — entitlements, and debt service, and you look— entitlements, and debt service, and you took at _ entitlements, and debt service, and you look at discretionary. and you look at discretionary spending. _ and you look at discretionary spending, there's— and you look at discretionary spending, there's not- and you look at discretionary spending, there's not a - and you look at discretionary spending, there's not a lot l and you look at discretionary. spending, there's not a lot you 5pending, there's not a lot you can do— 5pending, there's not a lot you can do with _ 5pending, there's not a lot you can do with that _ 5pending, there's not a lot you can do with that without - 5pending, there's not a lot you can do with that without really| can do with that without really getting — can do with that without really getting to _ can do with that without really getting to american _ can do with that without really getting to american public. i can do with that without really getting to american public. so cutting — getting to american public. so cutting taxes _ getting to american public. so cutting taxes and _ getting to american public. so cutting taxes and spending - cutting taxes and spending sounds _ cutting taxes and spending sounds great, _ cutting taxes and spending sounds great, but - cutting taxes and spending sounds great, but again, . cutting taxes and spending. sounds great, but again, it'll be 5ound5 great, but again, it'll he really— sounds great, but again, it'll be really difficult _ sounds great, but again, it'll be really difficult to - sounds great, but again, it'll be really difficult to actuallyl be really difficult to actually -et be really difficult to actually get some _ be really difficult to actually get some results _ be really difficult to actually get some results based - be really difficult to actually get some results based on. be really difficult to actually. get some results based on this sort get 5ome results based on this sort of— get 5ome results based on this sort of political— get some results based on this sort of political rhetoric - get some results based on this sort of political rhetoric that i sort of political rhetoric that sounds _ sort of political rhetoric that sounds great _ sort of political rhetoric that sounds great during - sort of political rhetoric that sounds great during a - sort of political rhetoric that - sounds great during a campaign, but when — sounds great during a campaign, but when you _ 5ound5 great during a campaign, but when you actually— sounds great during a campaign, but when you actually do - sounds great during a campaign, but when you actually do the - but when you actually do the maths, — but when you actually do the maths, it _ but when you actually do the maths, it doesn't _ but when you actually do the maths, it doesn't add - but when you actually do the maths, it doesn't add up. i but when you actually do the l math5, it doesn't add up. but maths, it doesn't add up. but 'ust in maths, it doesn't add up. but just in terms _ maths, it doesn't add up. but

just in terms of— math5, it doesn't add up. just in terms of american interest and security, i think jamie diamond was saying today, the question about whether this is all inflationary, if you put taxes on goods coming into the us, he says, look, it may be, but if it gets europeans to move on regulation, if it gets countries to shift in the direction the white house wants countries to go in, then what's wrong with that? i countries to go in, then what's wrong with that?— wrong with that? i think what he was essentially _ wrong with that? i think what he was essentially saying - wrong with that? i think what. he was essentially saying was, "please — he was essentially saying was, "please don't get mad at me, jamie — "please don't get mad at me, jamie diamond." he said the same — jamie diamond." he said the same thing regardle55 jamie diamond." he said the same thing regardless of who's in charge, _ same thing regardless of who's in charge, and he's good at that — in charge, and he's good at that. again, tariff5 a5 a general— that. again, tariff5 a5 a general rule are not something that's— general rule are not something that's off— general rule are not something that's off limits or the that'5 off limits or the present has a lot of power over~ _ present has a lot of power over~ the _ present has a lot of power over. the biggest issue trump faces— over. the biggest issue trump face5 right now — and this is part— face5 right now — and this is part of— face5 right now — and this is part of the turning rhetoric into — part of the turning rhetoric into action — i5 part of the turning rhetoric into action — is most voters who— into action — is most voters who put— into action — is most voters who put trump over the edge did so because of the economy. they didn't— so because of the economy. they didn't really like a lot of the other— didn't really like a lot of the other stuff you talk about but hope — other stuff you talk about but hope you wouldn't do it, or at least — hope you wouldn't do it, or at least hoped the economic 5tuff lea5t hoped the economic stuff would — lea5t hoped the economic stuff would cancel each other out. tariffs — would cancel each other out. tariff5 will not be good for

1506 00:1