welcome to "amanpour" on pbs. tonight, steely standoff. will america's new metals tariff trigger a trade war with the eu commissioner cecilia malmstrom on how europe will fire back. and from washington, grover norquist, the founder and president of americans for tax reform on the fallout for the american consumer. plus, why the poor are getting poorer under president trump. the u.n. special rapporteur on poverty and human rights revealing the truth about the

great american divide. good evening, everyone, and welcome to the program. i'm christiane amanpour in london. now, if you live here in europe it may soon be a lot more expensive to love and buy american motorcycles, blue jeans or bourbon whiskey. the eu is threatens those with import taxes in response to president trump's decision to tax steel and aluminum from its closest allies, here in the eu and also in canada and mexico. to get around congress, the administration had to make the legal argument that it was vital to america's national security interests to produce those metals at home. >> one of the reasons that we have to rely on canada or on britain, for example, for some of our metals. metals we use for the defense of this nation only come from england. while they're a great ally and good partner, wouldn't it be nice if we could make some of

that stuff here at home? that's what the president is trying to accomplish. >> it might be nice, but is it worth risking a trade war? the europeans aren't taking all of this lying down, as the trace trade commissioner cecilia malmstrom told me from brussels today. commissioner malmstrom, welcome to the program. >> thank you very much. good evening. >> good evening. >> can i just start with what you say to president trump citing national security reasons to slap these metal tariffs on his main allies. >> we think that is deeply unjustified. the motivation of national security should be used carefully and we cannot in europe see any way that our exports to the u.s. on steel and aluminum is in any way a threat to u.s. national security. we are friends and we are allies and we feel deeply offended by this. >> you are not the only ones. the canadians say they feel

insulted, and of course the mexicans feel the same way. but what is the response when president trump says the following. this is what he said about europe on friday when all of this was first mooted. >> at a minimum, i want fair trade. we'll have it for our workers and our companies. the other side understand it. to be honest, they cannot believe they've gotten away with this for so many decades. >> first and foremost, have you gotten away with this, and what is "this" for so many decades? >> i'm not really sure what the president means there, but he seems to consider that there is a trade deficit that the european union is taking

advantage of the united states, and it is true that there is a trade deficit when it comes to goods, but when you look at services. of course, trade deficits have a lot of explanations. it's about savings, about pensions, about tax systems, about consumption patents, about supply and demand. so you can't really cook that down to a -- a tariff issue either, and we have said to the administration that we are willing to engage in a positive trade agenda. looking at things of mutual interest for us. we could consider to have a smaller trade agreement focusing on goods and tariffs where we would look at car and car part tariffs, and take them away, and, of course, then the u.s. would have to take away their tariffs, because on certain issues such as clothes and some machinery and trucks and shoes, the american tariffs are much higher than the europeans. we could have done a deal and start talking about this but not with the threat hanging over our head. >> well, indeed, president macron has said we will not talk with a gun pointed at our head. so what is happening? if you're telling me you could have done this, you must have said this to the unid states, to their representates what? did they just say, no?

>> i did. i did say this to -- to secretary ross, and that was also backed by a unanimous statement by 28 heads of states from the european union. i had the whole european union backing me, we were willing to engage on this and talk about other issues such as wto reform and energy issues, certain issues where we could cooperate when it comes to regulatory. that would have been good for both of us. but they seemed that this was not -- enough, and that they would still impose those tariffs on us and then, of course, they, then the american administration for this has closed the door. >> let me put it to you this way. jean-claude juncker, the president of the european commission said look, back in march, when the u.s. first mooted these tariffs. said, well, you know if they do stupid, we can do stupid. we actually have to do stupid. you're going after motorcycles, harley-davidsons, made in

wisconsin. home state of the house speaker, and rice, oranges, blue jeans. you're basically just as mexico is doing going to go after the trump voters. right? going to go where it hurts them the most? >> we do this because we have to, and we have announced that very clearly. way in advance. that this is what we will do and the list of products will contain machinery, aluminum, steel, some agriculture, some drinks. you recited a few of them and we are just in the process now of preparing that list. it will be ready in a couple of weeks, and as far as i am aware, mexico and canada and others are doing the same, because we need to show if you're violating the rules of the global trading system it has consequences. >> so commissioner, would you say, even though the trump administration fired the first shot, would you say you are now in a trade war with the united states?

and, of course, there is a threat, a further threat, that the u.s. may impose tariffs on -- on the auto industry in europe, which would be a much more serious thing than on the metals. >> i wouldn't say that we are in a trade war. what we are in is a very difficult situation that could escalate and why the countermeasures will be proportionate and we will not try to escalate the situation. if the president were to impose tariffs on car, car imports, yes that would be serious and we would be in a very, very worrying situation. we do not think trade wars are good nor easy to win and the car industry in europe, in the u.s. in japan and many other countries would suffer a great lot from this, but it would also affect jobs in the u.s., because we have many european companies who produce cars in the u.s.

they employ american people who then pay taxes, and ey would lose out of this, and so there are no winners in th. so we definitely hope that this is not something that will materialize. >> so let's talk about leverage. you know, you have said, you yourself have said, when they say make america great again, we say, europe united. but isn't that the very problem? is europe united? you have 28 members. they don't all believe in the robust rhetoric that you're employing right now. of course, the eu and the u.s. economy in general is about the same size, but the united states is a more powerful country. the u.s. economy has grown and rebounded faster and better than the european economy, and you obviously are concerned about any measures that could cause further stagnation in europe. so do you have the leverage of a unified europe when you talk about these countermeasures? >> on this, yes, we do. we are 28 countries, and we have discussed it on all levels, at the highest possible level, and

all 28 countries are behind this. we have -- we have our difference, but on this, we are united and we are determined to do what has to be done, and we are also working with many other countries, because this is not only eu against the u.s. this is something that is considered by the rest of the world as not -- not legitimate. so we are reaching out to other countries in mexico, and japan. and canada, of course. we are doing trade agreements with a whole lot of countries creating a circle of friends who believe in good, fair, sustainable trade agreements that are in compliance with international rules, and the european economy had the last two years actually recovered considerably since the crisis and now have decreasing unemployment in all countries. so europe is doing good. the u.s. is doing good as well, and that's why we shouldn't jeopardize this by entering into a trade war and i really hope that this situation now will

calm down and that we cannot escalate it, because it would have affects on jobs and growth on both sides of the atlantic. >> can i ask you tactically. many europeans obviously were surprised and worried about trump's victory, but many europeans decided that they needed, obviously, to work with the president of the united states, the most powerful leader in the whole world. and many over the last 18 months have done as much as they can to accommodate the president's policies, to put on a charm offensive. i think of prime minister trudeau, i think of president macron and many others who have done that, but it seems that it doesn't matter. the president will nonetheless roll over allies, not to mention adversaries, but certainly allies, and it's been stated you and europe actually have to engage in this battle now in case the international rules of the road are simply replaced by raw power.

do you ascribe to that? >> yes. we do. and it is obvious that we want to engage with the u.s. it is what the american people, for them to choose their president and we have full respect of that, and whoever sits in the white house is a person who we want to work with. eu -- the european union, europe as a whole and the united states we are friends. we are allies. we can achieve fantastic things if we work together. we have created the international framework and international organizations, and we want to work with the u.s. there. but now if the u.s. is breaking international rules and as i said, it's not only eu who thinks that, we have to take action. and i'm not doing this way happy smile, but this has to be the consequences. you cannot act like this and to hide pure protectionism behind an article referring to national security and accuse europe for being a threat to national security. it does not make sense.

we have to is have consequences. >> certainly you were allies for many, many, many decades. cecilia malmstrom, european trade commissioner, thank you so much for joining us. and, of course, now we're going to turn to the view from america. and we're going to talk to the conservative's conservative, who thinks these tariffs are a disaster. grover norquist says that this move is like trying to perform a kidney transplant with a baseball bat. why? perhaps this clip from the cult hit movie "ferris bueller's day off" might help explain a little. >> anyone? anyone? a tariff bill? the hawley/smoot tariff act which -- anyone? raised or lowered -- raised tariffs in an effort to collect more revenue for the federal government. did it work? anyone? anyone know the effects? it did not work and the united states sank deeper into the great depression. >> grover norquist who supports

trump in most issues of policy joins me now from washington. you yourself tweeted over the weekend. >> yes. >> is it possible to increase american economic success using a tariff? hasn't worked in the past. you've said that not all tools are the correct tools. so what is your view of this trade war that frankly the trump administration has fired the first shot in? >> they would argue they didn't fire the first shot, but i -- i derstand your point. i am concerned that when you use the tools of tariffs, you damage movement towards more open trade. the administration's position is, we think we'll get their attention and then they'll sit down and we'll get better negotiations. there was some reasonably that may have happened with south korea, but it is a very dangerous game. you end up, perhaps, with the hatfields and the mccoys fighting and they can't quite remember who shot the first shot, who hit who first, but they keep hitting each other in a way that's unhelpful.

what helps the united states is we're now in a position with rather strong growth. we used to be at 35% business tax. europe was at 25% and under. we're now at 21%. we are tremendously advantaged compared to europe because we're no longer hurting ourselves with the very high corporate income tax. that covers a multitude of sins like this fight over trade. the stock market would be in much worse shape if we weren't buttressed by strong economic growth coming from tax cuts, but i would rather have the tax cut benefit and more movement towards free trade. i worry that this spins out of control in the wrong direction. you quoted earlier that 1,028 economists in the united states who back in 1930 wrote a letter to hoover saying, don't do this tariff thing. don't do this tariff thing and it did, in fact, move in very damaging directions. >> why is it the president doesn't listen to allies such as yourself and republicans such as

those who supported him all along, and who are giving him the math and who are referring to exactly, you know, what you just referred to in the 1930s. and i mean, you are known for your opposition to taxes. you support the president's tax law. just explain for the american people what tariffs could do to them and where it could hit them in the pocketbook. >> well, tariffs are taxes on americans. american tariffs are not taxes on foreigners. they're paid by americans when you buy steel or aluminum or a product from overseas, and we attach, the united states government, attaches a tariff to it. tariff is a tax. again, our tariffs areaid by us. in a shooting war, you shoot somebody in the other country. and in a trade war, you damage your own consumers. americans damage american consumers. french people retaliate and damage french consumers. i mean, the retaliation that the

french are talking about and the europeans are talking about, well, we'll tax bourbon. great. and that hurts consumers of bourbon in europe. and when we tax aluminum or steel, with a tariff, that raises the cost of inputs in the united states. >> it really is quite troubling, all of this. again, a republican senator says make america great again shouldn't mean make america 1929 again. i know we keep beating this dead horse, but it seems to have revived itself in the mind of the trump administration. and now people are saying president trump sort of prided himself on this great deal maker for the american people, but it looks like he's going to be, on this occasion, anyway, a deal break they're will hurt the american people. so what would you all say to him as he potentially considers tariffs on car imports? you just heard what the commissioner said.

those support american jobs. >> all tariffs, if imposed, are damaging. a tariff that's threatened that actually gets you more open trade that would be good. how do you tell the difference? between the tariff that is going to start a trade war and the tariff that is going to reduce trade barriers? it is a very dangerous game when it's played. i understand the president's argument on this. that he's trying to get past protectionist policies and some present ones the europeans and the chinese employ against us. i am worried as a model, as a weapon, as a tool that tariffs are the wrong tool to reduce tariffs. >> hmm. yes. >> that's right where we are now. the president has walked up to the brink and stepped back, what wen it looked like we having progress perhaps with china. i hope as the guy who does deals in his previous life recognizes that sometimes you take 90% and call it a deal.

>> well, let's hope. china, of course, has stopped negotiations for the moment on all of this. in any event, grover norquist, thank you so much for joining us. >> good to be with you. and as this trade battle threatens to make life more hard for ordinary americans considered this from united nations highlighting extraordinary contradictions. for instance, while america can boast more billionaires than any other country, it also has more than 40 million people living in poverty. 18.5 million in extreme poverty. what do we mean by that? we mean like in the developing world. for example, some americans living with open sewage flowing into their homes. the international legal scholar philip alston spent 12 days touring the united states he is the u.n. rapporteur

investigating thon human rights and joins me now from geneva. welcome to the program. >> thank you. >> can i ask you to just react to the conversation we've just been living to about what could happen to further exacerbate you know, financial worries for the average american, if, indeed, these measures in the trade debacle heat up? >> i think what's interesting to me is there's a certain consistency in the policy approach. what the president seems to be trying to do is to reward allies in the coal, cars, steel, aluminum, very other industries who will benefit immediately and greatly from these tariffs. the people who will lose the great bulk of consumers. those who rely on cheap goods from overseas, but that doesn't seem to be a problem. it's more a question of rewarding the wealthy and the supporters than of improving the lot of the average person. >> so let's talk about the

average person, not only the trump voters. those actually living in much reduced circumstances. what shocked you the most about your 12 days touring the united states for this report? >> in some ways it was encapsulated when i was on skid row. that's a pretty obvious image to present, but you've got people living in shocking conditions. you've got a handful of toilets for close to 2,000 people who are living in tents and on the street, and just a few yards away you've got the central business district of l.a. thriving, humming along, the technology industry. the entertainment industry, all doing extremely well. the policies that are being pursued, though, are essentially the criminalization of homelessness, rather than trying to work out how to help these people, rather than biting the bullet and spending more money on low-cost housing, the

assumption is that policing is the way out. and of course, it's not. >> why did you choose the united states to study? i mean, it's not the obvious place one would go to discover extreme poverty, and even you talk about absolute poverty, which is even worse than extreme poverty, and you've noted that nearly 5.5 million americans live in absolute poverty. >> well, first of all, in my role as a u.n. special rapporteur, i go to a range of different countries. i've recently been to saudi arabia, i've been to china and the next mission i undertake will be to the united kingdom. so this is not just singling out the united states. it's in furtherance of the agreed u.n. policy that all countries will be accountable in terms of the impact of their policies on human rights. but leaving that aside, the united states is a world leader

on a lot of policy issues, and i think the sort of approach that the u.n. -- that the u.s., rather, is now promoting, which is to -- try to reduce to the greatest extent possible the welfare budget, the sort of social protection that is provided, while at the same time increasing the wealth of the wealthiest is actually sending a message to many other countries. so i think it's very important for both americans and others to see the realities. to see the two americas that are really emerging in stark opposition to one another when we look at the extent of extreme poverty in the country. >> of course, america conduct a very famous war on poverty, and it was, you know -- they really went to town to try to eradicate this, but you talk about neglectful politics or policies in this regard by administrations dating all the way back to lbj.

what specifically is the sort of trend of the policies that you see leading to this place right now? >> well, i think -- i mean american history is certain very relevant, because we can't say the united states has always had one single approach to poverty. you have fdr's new deal. you've got lbj's war on poverty, and even nixon was actually very sympathetic to a range of welfare initiatives. but since, say, 1980 or whatever, what we've seen is a very consistent trend where the notion of solidarity, the notion of judging a society by how it treats the worst off has been systematically discarded, and now i think american policy is characterized primarily by efforts to stigmatize the poor,

to make them feel and make others feel that it is their fault that they're poor, to characterize them often in racial terms, to pretend this is a problem that is predominantly african american and not for the white community, which of course is completely wrong, and to end up at the point that the society owes nothing to the poorest and the most vulnerable in the society. so i think there's a radical change from the earlier efforts to ensure that poverty is eliminated, to the pretty callous policies pursued today. >> you, your report actually takes figures that go up to 2016, and, you know, there's no sort of comparative pro or rather before and after trump. so why do you say especially today? your figures are taken from before the trump election, before the trump presidency.

>> absolutely. my figures, those of the united states census bureau, i don't create my own figures. the u.n. doesn't make up its own figures. we take the official statistics. the statistics that will cover the first year of the trump presidency, that's 2017, will be available in september of this year. until that time, we base ourselves on the latest available statistics, which are, indeed, up to 2016. now, what's happened since 2016 is characterized by two particular trends. one is the tax cut. the tax cut has clearly, according to the great majority of economists, made the wealthy much wealthier. made the large corporations much better off. at the same time, the administration is pursuing but on a lower sort of level on the

radar screen a welfare policy which keeps emphasizing the need for people who are currently receiving benefits to get off of those benefits and to start working. that's a great idea. we're all in favor of work. the problem is that most of the people who are receiving benefits are, in fact, working, and to simply cut benefits which is being done with medicaid, food stamps, housing subsidies and so on, is going to have a much greater impact on the poor and increase the number of people living in poverty in the u.s. >> philip alston, thank you so much with that important report. and that is it for our program tonight. thanks for watching "amanpour" on pbs, and join us again tomorrow night. ♪

katty: you are watching "beyond 100 days" on pbs. american football fans gather at the white house today to honor their store. christian: but this year's super bowl champions, the philadelphia eagles, will not be there because donald trump has uninvited them. katty: after some eagles players said they didn't want to go to the event anyway, the president accuses them of lack of patriotism. has anyone seen john bolton? a week before the singapore nuclear summit, the controversial national security adviser is excluded from key meetings. and the white house press secretary, accused of lying to the public from the podium. but was she just not told the truth by her boss? christian: also on the program,