♪ ♪ ♪ >> welcome to "amanpour on pbs." tonight we look at two key factors that could impact the outcome of this year's critical midterm elections. first, big money as billionaire conservative fund-raiser charles koch threat tonens to withhold support for president trump and his protectionist trade policies. i talk to tim phillips, with americans for prosperity. then social media. is the country ready for a new wave of hostile attacks aimed at pitting american voters against each other? i'll ask dana, the longtime social media scholar. what are we going to do about it? ♪ ♪

♪ welcome to the program, everyone. i'm christiane amanpour in london and we begin with what could be a civil war for the heart of the republican party, pitting a network of powerful donors against president donald trump, and at heart si trump trade policy with news today that the administration is raising the stakes in its trade war with china. now proposing 25% tariffs on billions of dollars of chinese products. charles koch, the 82-year-old billionaire strongly opposes such a move and threatened to stop donations to republican candidates who support president trump's tariffs. this is significant because on almost all other issues trump has been good for the kochs, rolling back regulations, slashing taxes, adding billions to their massive net worth, but they draw a red line at trump's

protectionism. listen to this morning by charles koch addressing his network of big money gop donors recently. >> when people act in protectionist ways, they erect barriers which makes everyone worse off. the urge to protect ourselves from change has doomed many countries throughout history and this protectionist mindset has destroyed countless businesses as well. >> president trump then hauled out the heavy tweets and fired back, saying i don't need their money or bad ideas. what about the republican? does it need their money and their influence? as president for americans of prosperity, the political arm of the koch network, tim phillips drives the approximately see bus for charles koch and his backers and he's joining me now from washington. mr. phillips, welcome to the program. have -- thank you for being with us. have i sort of summed it up right? is there now a battle for the

heart of the republican party between free traders and protectionists? >> we see it as a crucial policy. you made an interesting point in the open. a lot of the policies on the economic front of the administration are crucial in driving this economic recovery. we're seeing right now and you mentioned the tax cuts and the tax reform and a lot of being com knocking down of barriers that get the american economy moving again and that's a good thing for every american. this trade war and this protectionist policy can undermine the entire economic recovery and it especially hurts americans on fixed incomes that will be paying higher prices for consumer items they buy every day at the grocery store or walmart, target and another store. it hurts american businesses who are now the victims and are seeing the international markets closed off because of retaliatory measures and now we're seeing subsidies in the billions and billions of dollars

using taxpayer money to subsidize americans being hurt by these tariffs. so it can undermine the economy and we do have a strong disagreement with the administration here and we are urging republicans in congress to stand up on this crucial issue for the american people and really the world. >> you're talking about the subsidies and that's a depression-era subsidies that were $12 billion worth or so -- >> $12 billion. >> to farmers. what do you make now of a discussion and potentially a new raised tariff on chinese folks, $200 billion of them up from 10% by the trump administration to potentially 25%? what effect will that have? >> well, protectionism on both the left and the right always lets politicians feel like they're being tough, but they're really being tough on their own citizens which we're already seeing. this is a mistake to be attacking or harming international trade which has

raised up living standards across the world, but also so important to note in the united states of america as well, creating millions of good jobs and lowering consumer prices for every american. so it's been good for our country as well as the world, as well and we're making that point as a network. we're going to individual republicans in the house and the senate urging them to lead on this issue. you can disagree with the administration which we do and we're urging members of the house, but they still need to lead on this issue and the omnibus bill in march drove up federal spending and that's why deficits are up and revenues are up for the government because of the tax cut, but the deficit has increased because of the dramatic increase in spending that we saw in the march omni bus bill. >> so you obviously do seek to influence in conservative circles when the kochs talk,

people listen, and it appears that there's big news because you're not going to support the republican senate candidate from north dakota, kevin cramer. he's triing to unseat a democrat. so you're not going to support him and it doesn't mean you will support a democrat. >> ye are looking at individual campaigns on a case by case basis. so we announced this past weekend in a few states where we are being involved in the senate and gubernatorial level and what we're saying to republicans especially and to all candidates across the board. our network is raising the bar. we're going to demand that these elected officials stand up on crucial issues that are impacting the very prosperity of our nation and so we're urging them on trade, for example, which we've been discussing today to stand up and lead on immigration, on spending especially. across the board, we are, in fact, raising the bar. republicans in congress have done some good thing, but if

we're ever going to put our nation on the proper trajectory to the prosperity we need, we have to do more. we have to eventually get to entitlement spending and big underlying problems that threaten our nation's long-term prosperity and so we're saying let's do that, let's raise the bar and do that and we're determined to have a higher standard. we are going to. >> you just said raise the bar, but what does it actually mean? so you withdraw support and money from this candidate, maybe other candidates, but what does that mean? does it mean that you support democrats? does it mean that just by the force of withdrawing your at do you envision from unlikely raising the bar? what are you trying to shape? what we're trying to do is to show elected leaders, our candidates that if they are bold and standing for the policies that we're talking about that there's an organization like ours with grassroots infrastructure and their states, genuine volunteers and staff and

activists and support from an advertising side that there's a group like ours and others that will have their back if they become genuine policy champions and we're saying to candidates and some republicans especially who frankly, don't lead and you've mentioned the campaign in north dakota and that's one of them in our view where there hasn't been leadership. we're saying that we will stay out of this. we're only going to be involved in states where there genuinely are policy changes and we listed those in florida and missouri and other state, but that's what we're saying. we're looking for individual policy champions who will lead and not just react to events and try to focus on getting themselves elected or re-elected, but actually lead on the issues that are facing our nation. >> in a way, this has been described as the continuing and increasing war between the populist wing of the republican party and the establishment wing of the republican party. you just talked about the necessity for bold leadership so

i'd like to play you two clips from the congressional leadership, senate and house and see what you make of what they said about this issue, particularly. >> i don't think anything good will come out of a trade war, and i hope we pull back from the brink here because these tariffs will not be good for the economy, and i worry that it will slow, if not impede significantly the progress we are making economically. >> i've made it pretty clear. i don't think tariffs are the right answer. i don't support tariffs. i think tariffs are taxes. >> they're essentially saying what you're saying, but they're not doing anything about it in congress and it just looks to be that people in congress are concerned those who attach themselves to president trump's coattails feel that that's a winning strategy and the leadership does not take him on. i mean, where do you look for bold leadership?

>> we think that the davidson or the lead davidson legislation that would actually insist on congress having a role in trade approximately see which is tpol is the constitutional prerogative here that house members have signed on to that senator mike lee from utah leading that. we're urging leadership to allow votes. there was a non-binding resolution in the senate which had broad, bipartisan support on the trade front, but let's have some binding votes and put individual members on the spot to actually vote because congress constitutionally speaking, it is supposed to have a role in trade approximatepoli that's very important to note. to the question about the republican party, we want to be really clear, we're not an appendage of any party, any political party. we're a policy organization that focuses on removing barriers to prosperity for american citizens and hopefully creating more

prosperous nation in and we're in the process of that. we're not involved in some civil war and we're focusing on policies like spending and we're praising them when they do the right thing. you mentioned the tax cuts in the opening and that was good approximately see and the partial rollback of dodd frank and the financial regulatory front and that was good policy that will bring much-needed capital to small businesses especially in this country so they've done some good things and we're going to get the sustained prosperity that we're beginning to see. they've got to do more and that's what we're calling on them to do. >> of course, the other side of the political spectrum would say that it's not necessarily good policy and it just helps the wealthy get wealthier and that is the political argument, but i want to ask you where you think the bigger republican party is headed and whether you think that yourself, charles koch, the network will be trump tweeted. people do get worried about it

and he reacted to charles koch by tweet saying the globalist koch brothers who have become a total joke in real republican circles are against strong borders and powerful trade and i never sought their support because i don't need their money or bad ideas. they like my tax cuts and i made them richer and the network is highly overrated, et cetera, et cetera. you get the drift. that kind of talk has influence on his base. so you know, are there other ways of encouraging the kind of bold leadership they think you want to see or the diversions of trump on trade, at least? >> well, certainly we're focusing on the policies and not getting involved in the personal attacks that others may choose to involve themselves in. our point is this on trade and other issues. we take a genuinely long-term approach. we were out there in the field talking to american citizens and working on these issues well before the current

administration and most current members of congress and we'll be there well after the next administration in years and decades to come. so we have a long-term approach to these issues. at this point, however, it is an important inflexion point because trade, the very prosperity that international trade his brought to the world, but especially to americans is at stake and the left and the right is guilty here. i look at elizabeth and it's ironic that elizabeth warren and bernie sanders and the president fight a lot, but on this issue, sadly, they're united for protectionism and tariffs and that's not a good thing. we'll stay long term and we're urging republicans and democrats too, to join us in this. people's prosperity and livelihoods and jobs and retirements are at stake on this trade issue. >> i hear you keep reaching out and you keep saying we're urging democrats, as well. so i want to ask you again, do you believe then that your strategy of raising the bar as

you call it, withholiding suppot might lead to a change in power in congress and might lead to the democrats winning and would that be a good thing in your view? are you really prepared to hold out that much? >> well, we have been very clear that we're only going to be involved in states where there they're a policy champion and we're clear about that. we've said north dakota is not a state that we'll get involved in and other states, as well. we'll leave the political analysis to the politicians and the pundit, but we're taking stands based on principle and more than principle on the understanding that the prosperity of this nation and the individual americans are at stake and we've reached out to democrats. we've actually thanked individual members of the senate and heidi heitkamp and others and the senator from north dakota for making good votes. she and other democrats

supported the gorsuch nomination and three, to be exact, we thanked them for that. we thanked them when they stood and did the right thing on the dodd-frank vote. we thanked them when they do the right things on issues and we want to be consistent on that. >> all right. tim phillips, president for americans for prosperity. thank you so much for joining us. >> sure. now we turn to social media which continues to add uncertainty to elections as bad actors use facebook to manipulate public opinion. facebook just announced that they have purged more than 30 accounts accusing them of coordinated, inauthentic behavior aimed at misleading facebook users and swaying the midterm elections. this comes after facebook had the worst day in stock market history as share price plunged almost 20% losing $120 billion in value and then on tuesday, the trump administration finally admitted that russian interference through facebook

and other means did play a role in 2016. here's vice president pence speaking at a cybersecurity conference in new york. >> while other nations certainly possess the capability, the fact is russia meddled in our 2016 elections. that is the unambiguous judgment of our intelligence community and as the president said we accept the intelligence community's conclusion. >> putting a dot on that then. my guest zaneb is an academic and expert in the social impacts of technology and she join us now from north carolina. welcome back to the program, zaneb. >> thank you for inviting me. >> you studied this very closely and we talked many times before and you've written a lot about it. facebook is saying that this is the first of these coordinated attempts at influencing the midterms that have been detected. how significant is this moment

rate now? >> there's a bunch of things going on here. i think it's a positive thing that they've identified some small number of accounts and have purged them. they've also identified, i think, $11,000 worth of ad spending that they have identified as coordinated and inauthentic and they are suggesting that it's the same set of actors as the russian meddling that took place in 2016. so that's the positive part, but if you look at the number of accounts and the amount of money involved there's actually a very small number and the question that remains for all of us isn't just whether what happened before with the russian meddling happens again, but how all of facebook itself, its business model is to tell advertisers and politicians that you can use our platform to influence people. so it's clearly illegitimate when a foreign government

creates fake accounts and creates fake activists and fake rallies and all of that, but what facebook doesn't generally have that kind of access. my question still remains, so what if somebody who is not the russian government and wants to pay facebook for its influence operation at facebook calls it and how do we draw that line when they're trying to sort of pump polarization and making all sorts of claims? recently, we've had a lot of controversy. >> right. >> the example over info wars which also makes such false claims that are outrageous. >> yeah. >> sometimes enciting people against other people. it crosses the line and not just focus on russia. >> okay. so facebook and certainly mark zuckerberg appears to be saying and he has said it this is an arms race and he beasically sai we face sophisticated nation states that are always evolving and trying new attacks and we're

learning and improving quickly, too, and we're investing heavily to keep people safe, but it does appear that, you know, they are very sophisticated these people who keep morphing their identities and keep, i guess, i'm asking you, are they outwitting the -- the tech platforms? are they outwitting the technicians at facebook, for instance? >> well, if, for example, you go on facebook and use an unauthorized beyonce track or put up a stream of the world cup, your account gets suspended pretty quickly. so clearly, facebook can and does chalamp down on all sorts things and they're putting more resources to finding state actors, but once again, it goes back to how easy they've made this, right? if i can't put on an unare unauthorized beyonce track, but

a state actor can buy fake ads as easily as they've done since 2016 and it's good that some portion has been caught and it's good that there's some disclosure and this keeps going back to what this is what facebook does to make money. it goes to advertisers and it goes to politicians and it goes to its own pages that promoted politicians. what it's saying is use us and pay us and we'll be a conduit of influence. >> right. so -- >> that core problem remains even if, and i hope they do, and they seem to be doing a better job cutting off the illegitimate foreign government meddling. >> the money thing you identified is a big deal because they've had a massive shock with this huge collapse of stock prices and the worst day in history, and vox, an expert from vox wrote after the losses. so the idea of them, facebook abandoning the move fast and the

mentality that they've embraced for years even in the slightest makes wall street nervous. investors have embraced the tech giants for that specific mentality and this week offered a lesson we don't who is we here? investors and wall street have been encouraging these companies to be reckless, to be honest. have a low cost investor, don't invest in security and don't invest in safety and just grow, grow, grow and your stock price goes up and if you're a little company or a start-up you get venture capital money and that reckless model of funding and the reckless model of the wall street oriented growth has not been good for any of us. so in a way, facebook's stock dropped is partly because they have 2 billion people.

how much can they grow? they're dominant in the most lucrative markets, but it's also a recognition. you know what? what facebook's been doing is a little bit like a factory that's dumping all of its collisions to the nearby river and sea and just kind of turning its back and investors are, like, great. you have no clean-up cost, but we as a society face those costs and facebook finally seems to be at least in statements saying, you know what? we'll pay attention to the pollution that our business model generates and wall street is, like, oh, we don't like that. so that's really unhealthy. so in some ways, facebook which is a perfectly profitable company with 2 billion users, move fast, move fast, big, big, big thing examines how its business model is part of the creation of the influence for the money situation. i think we'll all be better off and i think, to be honest, facek boo will quite likely still be

profitable even if it's not making so much money for wall street. >> so it's really interesting because the states are raised by government actors and the head of the department of homeland security said this a little bit like what mark zuckerberg said and she put it in a much bigger, broader and more dangerous context. listen to what she said. >> we are facing an urgent evolving space, and we're simply outpacing the stove pipe defenses. in fact, i believe that cyber threat collectively now exceed the danger of physical attacks against us. so, i mean, that's big. cyber attacks are going to be outpacing physical attacks and which begs the question, does there then become a need to regulate by government? >> so there are a couple of things here. i think that the kind of attacks we've seen could probably send it off with more effort and that might require some industry

government cooperation, but i have to sort of repeat right now info wars which is the sort of important big fight has facebook pages that have in the past and sometimes -- some of it currently have had these giant videos that went viral that claim that parents lost children who are actually actors. so that's not foreign middling, right? that's part of how facebook amplifies some of the worst things in our society and you can also go to facebook if you're sort of not a foreign agent and you can push that kind of message as both organically and paid for and this is a bigger question than will russia try to do something again? >> right. >> is russia able to do something? it's because the ground is ripe. i'm not denying at all. it's a problem and the russian meddling is a problem. >> let me put this issue to you

because we're running out of time. i want to put this issue to you that you're talking about. the internal actors and it doesn't have to be state actors and so some of the reading i've done over this latest issue with the inauthentic accounts and all of the ret st of it, they say their efforts to stoke violence inside the united states in washington at a planned demonstration this month to mark the anniversary of that neo-nazi charlottesville rally and that they were going to pit the white supremacists against the leftist activists and it's creating the civil war within the community. >> that's exactly the way that the russian meddling rose, and that's what we have to focus on. it's become increasingly easy to fan the flames of polarization and the outrage to go viral with it and to sort of increase -- tear society apart and that's a question bigger than facebook. i absolutely love facebook. what russia did in 2016 was come

and ride that wave and they'll probably be beyond their wildest dreams and we have to examine each one of those and i understand why government officials are very much concerned with the external meddling, but we as a society have to think about what is the polarization that's going on and how is our digital connectivity feeding into that and how are the business models amplified. >> they're huge questions with massive consequences. this rally that we've been talking about had 2,600 facebook users look into it with 600 clicking to attend. zaneb, thanks for joining us. that is it for us tonight. thanks for watching "amanpour on pbs" and please join us tomorrow night.

♪ >> national presentation of "beyond 100 days" is made possible by contributions to your pbs station by viewers like you. thank you. matt: very warmbbc news, broadcasting to our welcome to viewers in north america. my name is mike embley. our top stories. deadly gunfire from soldiers in zimbabwe. protests that monday's elections were rigged. >> it has changed dramatically, the atmosphere in the last 24 hours. volatile now. tear gas