this is "gps," the global public square. welcome to all of you in the united states and around the world. i'm fareed zakaria coming to you live from new york. on today's show the american election is just 16 days away. and one of the biggest divides between biden and trump is on foreign policy. and yet it has hardly been mentioned on the campaign trail. i'll ask tony blinken, longtime adviser to vice president biden, and former trump official k.t. mcfarland what their respective

candidates would do in the next four years. >> if biden wins, china wins, all these other countries win. we get ripped off by everybody. also, millions of americans have fallen below the poverty line in a matter of months. and there is no new stimulus in sight. > meanwhile, many big companies are booming. if you thought american inequality was bad before, you ain't seen nothing yet. i'll talk to the former treasury secretary larry somers about the problem and the solution. finally, what, if anything, did we really learn from the amy coney barrett hearings? noah feldman and emily basel are back with me to share their views. but first, here's my take.

pandemics should be the great equalizer. they affect everyone, rich or poor, black and white, urban, rural, after all, even the president of the united states contracted the virus. but covid-19 has actually had the opposite effect. early indications suggest the virus is ushering in the greatest rise in economic inequality in decades both globally and within the united states. despite all the concern about inequality within america, it's worth noting that global inequality, the gap between the richest and poorest around the world, had declined over the last few decades thanks to the rise of china, india and other countries. the share of people living in abject poverty, under $2 a day, is less than 1/4 of what it was in 1990. but an astonishing set of statistics compiled by "the economist" shows how years of progress are being undone in months. the world bank estimates that about 100 million people are

falling back into extreme poverty this year. sub-saharan africa, which had enjoyed positive economic growth every year for the last 25 years, will enter negative territory in 2020. the world food program recipient of this year's nobel peace prize estimates that the numbers facing acute hunger will double this year to 265 million people. the gates foundation warns that vaccination rates for children are as low as they were more than two decades ago. behind all these statistics are individual human beings who are starving or sick. their children waste agway. desperate and deprived of hope. the divide between rich and poor is stark, even in the united states. two new studies estimate that between 6 and 8 million people have been pushed into poverty over the last few months as federal relief has dried up.

millions of americans cannot pay their electric bills or are skipping meals to save cash. a recent survey found that almost 40% of those who have lost work due to covid don't have even a month's worth of savings. i put up some graphs a few weeks ago that i want to put up again because they really capture the economic hardship and divide. job losses in the previous three recessions were pretty even between the top 25% of income earners in green and the bottom 25% in pink. but in the country recession, the top 25% have bounced back completely while the bottom 25% have cratered. look at that line. we can see how this has happened. for those whose jobs can be done remotely, bankers, consultants, lawyers, executives, academics, life goes on with just a few hiccups. for many of those who worked in restaurants, hotels, cruise

ships, theme parks, shopping malls, work has simply disappeared. the tragedy is that we know what needs to be done. in march, congress and the administration acted swiftly and boldly to pass a massive relief and stimulus package which was so successful that it seems to have made many in washington complacent. it has now largely expired and the two parties are back to their partisan warfare. the democrats are right to want a much larger relief package than the administration is offering. cities and states should not be punished for the collapse in tax revenues that resulted from the pandemic. but surely the best path for the country is for the democrats to accept the concessions they have extracted from republicans and then push for more after election day. this week wolf blitzer pressed speaker pelosi on why she would not take the administration's offer of $1.8 trillion in spending. her response was defensive and

combative. she unfairly accused wolf of being an plapologist for the republican party and she said the fundamental problem is -- >> they do not share our values. >> well, of course they don't. that's why there are two parties and you have to make compromises. none of this added up to a coherent position in a time of national emergency. senate republicans, by the way, might well block what the trump administration itself has offered. they've signalled great displeasure with the sign of the package. why not pass the bill and put the pressure on mitch mcconnell and the republicans? i cannot help but wonder if the relative normalcy of life for elites has prevented us from understanding the true severity of the problem. look, for those of us using zoom, things have been a bit disruptive and strange, but for tens of millions of people in america and hundreds of millions acrowned t around the world, this is the

great depression. can we please help them? go to cnn.com/fareed for a link to my "washington post" column this week. you can also find a link to buy my new book, "ten lessons for a post-pandemic world, which i have drawn on for this kmaentary. let's get started. we'll start today with what the next years of america's foreign affairs would look like under a second term of president trump or the first term of president biden. let me bring in tony blinken. he has been a foreign policy adviser to joe biden for almost two decades. he's on the biden campaign team. tony served in the obama administration as deputy secretary of state and deputy national security adviser. welcome. let me ask you first, tony. we know what animates donald trump. he thinks that the world has screwed america. that it has gotten the short end of the stick from all these

alliances and trade deals. what animates joe biden? what is at the heart of his foreign policy world view? >> fareed, vice president biden starts from this proposition. whether we like it or not, the world simply doesn't organize itself, and until the trump administration the united states had played a lead role in doing a lot of that organizing, in helping to write the rules and shape the norms and animate the institutions that govern the way nations interact. we made our share of mistakes along the way, for sure, but we were better off for it. what's happened now is president trump has abdicated that responsibility. he's put us in full retreat from our allies and partners, from international organizations, from hard-won agreements. and here's the problem, when we're not engaged, wednesday we're not leading, one of two things. some other country tries to take our place but probably not in ways that advances our own interests or values. and maybe just as bad, no one does.

either way that's bad for us. so joe biden starts with the proposition that we need to reassert american engagement and american leadership. we would actually show up again day in day out leading with diplomacy and not to address the world as it was in 2009 or 2017 when we left office. but as it is and as we anticipate it will become with all sorts of rising powers and new actors, many of them super empowered by technology and information, that we have to bring along if we're going to make progress. two quick things here. they're flip sides of the same coin for joe biden. on the one hand, a dose of humility. most of the world's program are not about us, even though affect us. we can't just flip a switch and solve them. also confidence. because he believes that america acting at its best still has a greater ability than any other on earth to move countries in positive direction. >> areas where president biden might be a lot like president trump, and that's china. i know trump accuses biden of

being too pro-chinese, but vice president biden has made very tough statements about china. it sounds like he wants to follow a very similar policy, just with allies and pointing out that if you use allies, you'd be more successful. is there a -- is that fundamental divide you just described also true with what is likely to be the most foreign policy issue, which is u.s. policy toward china? >> fareed, there's a profound difference on their approach to china, but let's -- let's state this at the outset. china does pose a growing challenge and arguably it's the biggest channel we face from another nation state, but we've got to avoid simplistic labels and self-fulfilling prophesies. the relationship has adversarial aspects, competitive aspect, has cooperative ones, too. so the question is, how do we put ourselves in a position of strength from which to engage china so the relationship moves forward on our terms more than theirs? here's the key problem.

china's strategic position is stronger and ours is weaker as a result of president trump's leadership. and chinese leaders believe that four years of the trump administration has basically accelerated what they call our inevitable decline. they're dead wrong about inevitability but they're right about president trump. he's helped them advance key strategic goals, weakening american alliances, pulling back from the world and letting china fill the vacuum. and maybe worst of all, debasing our own democracy by attacking its institutions, its people, its values every day and so reducing its appeal to the world. so in many ways, as joe biden sees this, and the big difference is this, the china challenge is less about their strength, rising though it is, and more about our self-inflicted weaknesses. so what he would do that's so profoundly different from president trump is invest in ourselves, in our words. renew our over democracy. work with our allies and partners and actually assert our

values. that's how you engage china from a position of strength. the bottom line is this, fareed, america and liberal democracy remain the system of choice for people who can choose. and i think if anything what the last four years have shown is not their failure, but, rather, how important they are to the strength of our democracy and the vitality of our leadership is to our own country and to the world. that's what we have to recapture, and it starts with how we deal with china. >> vice president biden, you were probably his adviser at the time, opposed the surge of troops in afghanistan. if he was right then, isn't trump right now to say let's withdraw american troops and get out? what is wrong with -- with trump's argument that we have been there for 20 years, at some point afghanistan has to find a way to defend itself. >> well, you're right that vice president biden opposed the surge during our own administration and he supports the diplomatic effort to bring this conflict to an end, to forge some kind of durable,

lasting peace that brings afghans together, and he would pursue a drawdown in that context. but he's also been clear that he would try to keep a small residual force in afghanistan to make sure we have a place from which we can operate if al qaeda or isis gain the capacity to strike us again. but, you know, there's a big difference between ending the forever wars, which he wants to do, responsibly, and what seems to be president trump's rather itchy twitter finger that typed an all out order by christmas to give himself a political boost before the election. that caught our own military by surprise. the general of the joint chiefs refused to endorse it. the folks who did endorse it were, of course, the taliban. one of them said that we hope president trump will win election and wind up the u.s. military presence in afghanistan. so that's the -- that's the difference. we have to do this responsibly. we have to do it effectively. >> tony blinken, always a pleasure to have you on. thank you. >> thanks, fareed. great to be with you. when we come back, a former

trump official on what happens if donald trump is re-elected. want to brain better?

unlike ordinary memory supplements- neuriva has clinically proven ingredients that fuel 5 indicators of brain performance. memory, focus, accuracy, learning, and concentration. try our new gummies for 30 days and see the difference.

some things are good to know. like where to find the cheapest gas in town and which supermarket gives you the most bang for your buck. something else that's good to know. if you have medicare you may be able to get more benefits without paying more through a medicare advantage plan. call now to request this free guide. learn about plans that could give you more benefits from humana. a company with nearly 60 years of experience in the healthcare industry. humana offers a wide range of all in one medicare advantage plans that include medical and prescription drug coverage. plus valuable extras that may include the silver sneakers fitness program and

mail order prescription coverage. with humana you'll have lots of doctors and specialist to choose from and peace of mind, knowing you're covered for doctor's visits and hospital stays. plus routine physicals and preventative care all for an affordable plan premium and in many areas no plan premium. you'll also get zero dollar co-pays on telehealth visits, unlimited inpatient hospital stays, plus an annual out of pocket limit for added peace of mind. humana even rewards you for making healthy choices like staying on top of preventative care. many plans also include, dental, vision and hearing coverage. and when it comes to prescriptions, in 2019 human's medicare advantage prescription drug plan members saved an estimated 7,800 dollars on average on their prescription costs. so if you want more from medicare, call now to learn about humana medicare options that are good for your health and your wallet. a licensed humana sales agent

will walk you through your options, answer any questions you have and help you enroll over the phone. plans with a zero dollar monthly plan premium are available in many areas. call now and we'll also send this free guide. humana, a more human way to healthcare. the trump administration has affirmed that a second term of foreign policy under trump would, like his term, be ruled by two words, america first. we invited president trump's national security adviser robert o'brien to appear on "gps" today, but the white house declined our offer. joining us now is k.t. mcfarland. she served as deputy national

security adviser at the start of donald trump's term in office. welcome. let me ask you a question about, you know, what to me is the kind of the biggest aftermargument t has always made for his foreign policy, which is that the world has been ripping off the united states, and the symbol of that -- of that failure, trump always argued during the campaign in 2016, was the trade deficit. well, the trade deficit in 2016 when donald trump took office was $735 billion. it has gone up not down every quarter of the trump administration's term in office. it is now $854 billion. so i guess my question is, either by his own key metric, donald trump has failed in his foreign policy or he doesn't understand how the international economy and how the world works. which is it? >> neither. look, i think it's important right now to correct a number of misconceptions.

you know, there -- donald trump and the people who work for him view the world in a very different way. it's really a tectonic change. and what you and from other people have said, there is -- the impression is there is no rationale to it, it's all just impulsive. no, i think that's actually wrong. there are three motivating points that drive donald trump's foreign policy, and the first one is you call it america first, but it's the notion that in the last -- since the post-war period and even the post-cold war period that the united states has underwritten the global order because of our superior economy and our superior military and that we should keep doing it. well, it's the understanding th that's no longer feasible. these agreements -- whether it's nato or with japan or with korea, the security agreements or even the trade agreements they were never meant to be permanent. they were never meant that the united states would pay for everybody forever, and now that these countries have succeeded

beyond anyone's, you know, amazing beliefs that they might do, it's time for them to do their fair share. so that was the impression that the -- president trump took in his nato alliance negotiations and with the asian countries as well. that we would no longer subsidize or underwrite the security or trade agreements with our allies. >> so but then why is our trade deficit -- >> particularly in the middle east. >> why does our trade deficit keep growing? >> well -- >> i don't understand. he said the trade deficit was a symbol of these bad deals. it keeps going up under him. >> i don't think the trade deficit is the only metric by which you judge these things. i mean, we already have new trade agreements with japan, with korea, with canada, with mexico, we're negotiates -- >> right, and under those agreements the deficit keeps going up. >> well, i think you're, you know, you've got a scab that you're picking, and that's the

deficit. i'm trying to make a bigger point, which is that there are three motivating points to the trump foreign policy, and the first one is economic, and the first one is the idea that other countries would contribute. i mean, for example, in nato, our nato allies are now going to contribute $500 billion more to our common defense. for 20 years and even since the 1970s we've been in the middle of middle east ethnotribal conflicts because we needed access to oil and wanted -- >> tell me the third one. tell me the third one. >> china. >> i want to get to a few other things. china. so let's talk about china. >> china. >> what is donald trump's view on china? because he sometimes sounds very tough on it, but 25 times in the early part of this year he lavished praise on china, on president xi, in particular for his handling of the coronavirus, in particular for his transparency.

he said i thank you on behalf of the american people. what is going on? what is donald trump's view of china? >> you know, i think the important thing about donald trump is don't always listen to what he says. he tweets a lot of stuff. he says a lot of stuff. always watch what he does. and what he has done with regard to china and he's been the first american president to stand up to china in decades. you know, when joe biden was chairman of the senate foreign relations committee, we could have stood up to china, demanded a better trade relationship and investment opportunities but we never did. that would have been easy to do then. now it's hard to do. and president trump has stood up to them. and called them out for unfair trade practices, for intellectual property theft. he's negotiated hard for a first trade agreement, a phase one, presumably would be followed by a phase two after we're through the election and through the pandemic. but i think the other thing is that president trump has increased american defense spending. look what the chinese have done

in the south china sea. they've claimed it as an internal chinese lake. in their writings, they're quite open about it, they plan to replace the united states as the dominant communications power with a 5g network. >> can i -- can i -- >> and replace the united states as the dominant technology power. your turn. >> can i get one quick -- can i get one quick response from you on russia? >> sure. >> in 2016 during the transition, you wrote an email that said it's going to be tough to have a coherent russia policy because russia threw the election to donald trump. do you still believe that? >> i think you're quoting that a little out of context. i don't know what your sources are, but the email that i wrote was that it would be very difficult to improve relations with the russians if the country perceived that we had -- that they had thrown the election to donald trump. and i think that's been borne out. look, i don't know where you got

your quotes from. i've got the original email, the fbi has, so, you know, that is taken out of context. >> all right. >> and it's not -- you're making it sound like the opposite of what i intended it for and it was the opposite of how it was received by the trump transition officials. >> all right. well, people can look it up and draw their own conclusions, but i want to thank you for coming on. it's been a fascinating conversation. >> thank you. next on "gps," the former treasury secretary larry somers says covid could end up costing the united states $60 trillion. when we come back.

after nearly four years of rejecting climate science, gutting protections for our air and water, and putting us at risk, isn't it time to wipe things clean?

joe biden has led the way, with a bold plan that protects our environment while creating new jobs. and tougher rules for clean air and water. so all of us can live healthier lives. it's time to get back on track. lcv victory fund is responsible for the content of this advertising.

2020 has been a tough year economically. but not for amazon, which has seen its market capitalization increase by $750 billion to around $1.7 trillion. that has taken jeff bezos' network to around $200 billion. meanwhile, vast swaths of the american economic landscape has been devastated by the pandemic. how to make sense of it all and what to do about it. joining me now is larry summers. he was treasury sjt upped president clinton. later served as president of harvard university where he is still a professor. welcome, larry. let me ask you first about this new study you've put out in "the journal of the american medical association." where you estimate that the cost of this pandemic will be four times larger for america than the -- than the global financial

crisis in '08/'09 and the number you put is $16 trillion. that is staggering. >> it is and it's because the fatalities are part of it. the disturbed, almost destroyed in some sectors economy is part of it. the fact is that for a lot of people who get covid there are going to be serious follow-on consequences. and there's a tremendous amount of anxiety and depression. and if you put a dollar figure on all that, as best economists do, you get to a quite extraordinary sum. and it just points up the insane folly when this is costing us dozens of billions of dollars a week when we are investing so little in having a supply of ppe and having a competent testing regimen.

the cost of incompetence here dwarves the human cost of the vietnam war in terms of fatalities that could have been avoided, in terms of financial costs. if we had run this as well as the average country has run it, heck, if we had run it as well as pakistan ran the response, we would have saved in the neighborhood of $10 trillion. >> and do you think at this point it is still important to try to get that testing and tracing system in place? even if it involves spending a lot of money. it feels like, you know, there is still this follow-on cost that we are facing as these waves of covid continue to go through the country. >> the sums of money in testing, fareed, are trivial compared to the sums -- compared to the cost of premature fatalities by the tens of thousands. it should be a matter of the

utmost urgency. you should in america be able to walk in, get a test and get an answer the next day that's reliable. no matter who you are. no matter where you are. the cost of that is not 1% of the $16 trillion that this whole thing cost us. not close to 1%. our failure is almost unimaginable. as a country. >> now, describe what we should do in terms of the relief. it feels like what you're describing is something that will need a -- the expenditure, not just right now but over the next year or two of trillions and trillions of dollars more. are you comfortable with that kind of expenditure? >> look, fareed, to be an exist

for a second, the fact that we've got an interest rate that's essentially zero is telling us that the funds are available and they're not going to crowd out anything important. instead, they're going to push the economy forward. all of the dangers are on the side of spending too little right now rather than spending too much. what we should do right now is beyond any question. we should be starting a process of renewing our infrastructure with maintenance projects that can operate quickly. we should be supporting state and local governments. so they can do things like health and education and protecting security on the streets. and, yes, we should be helping the unemployed and we should be helping lower income families. it cannot be that the highest priority in the united states

today is lending money to credit-worthy corporations. >> explain why you think that we have this leeway because of low interest rates. because people look at it and say, yeah, but still, when the interest rates change and we'll end up with a huge debt to gdp ratio. there are still lots of people who worry about, you know, can we really add $5 trillion to our -- to our debt? >> fareed, it's always right to worry. but think about the situation of a person buying a house. you can buy a much bigger house on your income when the mortgage rate is 3% than you can when the mortgage rate is 13%. as it was when i bought my first house. and the same logic applies to the government. the government can afford to borrow more when the debt service is going to be so much cheaper.

>> do you worry that this will cause the dollar to collapse? now, again, giving you all the arguments against the -- against big spending that people are making. this will -- this will plummet the dollar. >> fareed, you worry about everything if you're an economic policymaker. but for the dollar to collapse, it has to collapse against something, and i heard a wise guy say that europe was a museum, japan was a nursing home, china was a jail, and bitcoin was an experiment. that may not be exactly fair, but it captures a real truth, which is for all our problems and all its problems, the dollar is the world's safe haven. it's the place that money moves into. when people get nervous about the state of the world. and as long as we don't screw up our political system even worse, and there have certainly been some people trying in the last -- including the president of

the united states -- in the last few months. as long as we don't screw it up worse, the dollar's going to be okay. >> larry summers, always a pleasure. coming up in a moment on "gps," the nomination of amy coney barrett to be the next associate justice of the supreme court. after four long days of hearings this week, the senate judiciary committee will vote on thursday. noah feldman and emily basel will tell me what they heard from the hearings when we come back. really make my dry skin healthier in one day? it's true jen. really?! this prebiotic oat formula moisturizes to help prevent dry skin. impressive! aveeno® healthy. it's our nature. what about here? here? here? daddy, is that where we're from? well, actually... we're from a lot of places. you see we're from here and there and here...

turn questions you've always had into stories you can't wait to share; with ancestry.

the senate judiciary committee held some 30 hours of hearings this week regarding the nomination of amy coney barrett to the supreme court. what did we learn from them? back with us are know was feldman and emily basel. noah is a professor at harvard law school where he teaches constitutional law. emily is a staff writer at "the new york times" magazine where she also focuses on legal issues. noah, my question to you is, what is the point of these hearings where the -- the judge

or to be justice never answers any questions? essentially says i can't -- i can't opine on anything that might potentially come up before the court. tries to be as bland as possible. do -- what is the point of it all? >> not much. it's a kind of kabuki theatre. and it evolved slowly with the key points being when judge robert bork in 1987 actually answered the question honestly and directly and kind of conservatively that he was rejected by the senate overwhelmingly. the confirmation of justice ruth bader ginsburg, not only would she not answer questions, but give hints or previews. and that sort of enabled her not to answer about how she felt about certain kinds of cases. since then there is no upside for the nominee in answering the questions. the senate hasn't had the guts to say, well, if you don't

answer these questions, we won't confirm you. so we're in a kind of standoff and no one learns very much. >> emily, in listening to these vague non-answered were there tea leaves that you were able to read or that you drew from those 30 hours of hearings? >> well, i think noah's right, and we're at the point where i feel like i learned more from what judge barrett refused to answer than what she did answer. so, for example, she was asked whether there is a federal law that bars voter intimidation and she said she couldn't answer that. well, there is clearly such a statute. she was also asked whether the president has the power to unilaterally delay the election and again she refused to say that the answer is clearly that he does not have that power. based on the constitution and on acts of congress. and the second answer in particular troubled me in terms of just making me wonder if she is truly independent from president trump. because obviously before this election, this particular question about the president's power to delay the election just

would have been completely uncontroversial. >> noah, do -- have we gone down the right path? trying to think about ruth bader ginsburg and scalia were both confirmed by the senate roughly 95-2 or 3 or something like that. in other words, the old model was if you're a distinguished jurist and the president nominates you, whatever your views, you get on the court. that has not always been true but over, you know, the last data decades, but that changed, as you say, roughly around bork and the ten years after. what's a better system, to have the senate vote on the basis of partisanship as it is now or to simply have the, you know, distinguished scholars of all kinds on the court? >> my own view is that we're much better served in a circumstance where one party in any case can't block a nomination by something other than a gotcha game.

i don't think that's reflected in the points that emily was making. you know, the reason that judge barrett didn't answer those questions is that she is genuinely concerned that a case will come to the court about whether voters have been intimidated in this election or whether donald trump can or can't try to delay the election and she doesn't want anybody saying, you can't vote on that case, you must recuse yourself because you expressed an opinion. so the ebbs assess of caution that she was engaged in is not a product of her not knowing the answer to those questions or somehow having a radically conservative view, in this game she can't answer any questions at all. and we're definitely not served by that. to my bind, the bork precedent, though it kept a very, very conservative justice off the court and got us justice anthony kennedy who turned out to be pretty liberal in some questions. in that sense it answered the question of liberalism and the republic and people benefitted from his liberal judgement, it

didn't serve the system well. it didn't give us a situation who which we get justices confirmed who are going to do the best job. >> emily, talk about the new court. because it does appear -- we know from her writings where she stands and we know from some of gorsuch and alito's writing these are pretty conservative people. for example, who have questioned the very idea that the president has the power to administer something like the epa, the environmental protection agency, arguing, you know, a very originalist argument that says this is -- you're stealing powers from congress. how radical is this new court going to be? >> i mean, we're going to find out. i think you're right about the strikingly conservative strength of the composition of this new majority. you know, in the past in american history, when the supreme court goes completely out of step with the american public, there is a lot of trouble. it really strains our constitutional system.

so in the 1860s you saw congress strip jurisdiction from the supreme court to hear cases about reconstruction and changed the number of justices on the supreme court. and then, of course, when fdr was president and the court was refusing to affirm parts of the new deal, you saw fdr threaten to change the number of justices and then the court itself, the conservative majority pulled itself back from the brink. and so the question will be, does this conservative court really take free rein to radically change american law or do they see that if they're really out of step with where the country is going because the country demographically looks like it's becoming more liberal, does the court pull itself back? because if it doesn't then the elected branches will step in and we'll see, you know, a real change to the way the court functions and its role potentially in our democracy. >> noah, i've got 30 seconds left, so i just want to quickly ask you. you know that famous line, the supreme court follows the

election returns. it was a cartoon. do you believe that? do you believe emily's point that they might rein themselves in because of the political climate they see? >> i think if they were faced, for example, with a democratic president, a democratic senate and house, they would think long and hard before issuing a decision that, for example, flatly overturned roe v. wade because they would know that that would be enough to put huge pressure on the system to pack the court. that would not only flip the ruling they had made, it would rob the court of any power and legitimacy. so to that extent, yes, they are going to be clearly aware of the way the election comes out and i think you'll see that framing their judgement in the caution rather than the content of their decision. >> terrific conversation. i should point out noah feldman has a great podcast. talks about the federalist society and all these judges. please listen to that. emily basel and noah feldman, thank you so much. when we come back, israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu finds himself in a new

political pickle since the signing of those abraham accords. we'll explain. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ .. ..

we made usaa insurance for this season. and the veterans that never quit on their team. when being a fan gets tough, and stretching your budget gets even tougher... ...our agents put in the time and legwork for you, ...so saving on auto insurance is easy. because saving a little extra goes a long way. usaa. what you're made of, we're made for. who's sujoe biden.rop 15? biden says, "every kid deserves a quality education and every family deserves to live in a safe, healthy community. that's why i support prop. 15." vote yes. schools and communities first is responsible for the contents of this ad.

who'sgovernor gavin newsom. the governor says prop 15 is, "fair, phased-in, and long overdue reform", that "will exempt small businesses and residential property owners." join governor newsom. vote yes on 15.

now for "the last look." this week parliament approved the peace deal with the united arab emirates formalizing that part of the accord signed in a september ceremony in the white house. it was called a coup for israel. benjamin netanyahu can tout his expansion of diplomatic relations, plus the deal is expected to create economic opportunities in technology and tourism, fossil fuels and fighter jets. but the deal has created complications for netanyahu. after all, over the past eight months, he halted the promise to annexation of the west bank, an appeasing gesture to two arab nations that longed for a past

to -- but netanyahu promised his supporter that same west bank annexation. leader begatt to call him a liar, saying he betrayed them to reach a peace deal. neddenia hue hog -- he needed to keep them on his side. to netanyahu has insisted he's innocent. weekly street protests call for resignation over these cases, his mismanagement of the pandemic, and high unemployment. while the treaty was moving through parliament, israel moved forward with plans for nearly 5,000 new units in the west bank according to the settlement

watch group peace now. the palestinian leadership had already opposed the deal, worried that any conciliation would -- every one of the nays in the 18-13 vote came from -- that group 'leader -- historic arms deal, and one that accepts the palestinian status quo. only time will tell whether israel's new partners in the gulf will have sway on this thorny issue, but those new settlements do suggest the past that bibi netanyahu at least intends to take. i want to remind you about my new book, you can find a link to order it at cnn.com/fareed. thanks to all of you for being part of my program this week, and i will see you next week.

- fellas. - brothers. - we've heard our sisters. - our mothers, our wives, and daughters cry out for equality. - equality. - equality. - all across this country and now it's our turn. - our responsibility. - to take our power back. - black women vote more than black men. - and it's time we changed that. - don't give your power away. - every single vote counts in this election. - show up. - show out. - [group] and vote. - [both] for joe biden. - [both] and kamala harris. - [joe biden] i'm joe biden and i approve this message. wow, i wish i could get a deal on a smartphone, but i'm not a new customer. well, actually now, new and existing customers can get our best smartphone deal.

it's historic. that is historic. which means... i'm making history, right? yea, i don't know if i'd exactly sa- wow. me, dave brown. existing customer who got the greatest deal in history. just like every other customer gets... oh that's cool too. it's not complicated. at&t is making history. everyone gets our best smartphone deals, including the lates pre-orders.

you ready for this? 'cause we're all set. so let's woah. ready. set. woah. universal orlando resort. buy two days and get three days free at the parks. restrictions apply.

>> announcer: this is cnn breaking news. hello, everyone. thank you so much for joining me. i'm fredricka whitfield. 16 days before election day, and it is candidates are stumping this weekend. democratic nominee joe biden right now in durham, north carolina. let's listen in. >> i tell you why. it's about wiping obamacare off the books. that's what it's about, because their nominee has said in the past the law should be struck down if they get