♪ >> hello, everyone, and welcome to our new hour-long show, "amanpour & co." and here is what's coming up tonight. >> $3.2 trillion. >> as sources in the trump administration go public with their account of a presidency off the rails, i ask kellyanne conway, the most powerful woman in the trump administration, "is the white house under siege?" then, to one of the most powerful women on the world stage -- as head of the international monetary fund, christine lagarde is at the helm of the global economy and in the cross hairs of trump's war on trade. also ahead, the alvin ailey dance theater, born out of the civil rights movement, celebrating the african-american experience for 60 years now. our hari sreenivasan sits down with the artistic director, robert battle.

♪ >> uniworld is a proud sponsor of "amanpour & co." when bea tollman founded a collection of boutique hotels, she had bigger dreams, and those dreams were on the water -- a river, specifically -- multiple rivers that would one day be home to uniworld river cruises and their floating boutique hotels. today, that dream sets sail in europe, asia, india, egypt, and more. bookings available through your travel agent. for more information, visit uniworld.com. >> additional support has been provided by... and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. >> welcome to the program, everyone.

i'm christiane amanpour in washington at this hour, where crisis continues to disrupt the trump administration. and if democrats retake the house in november, buckle up for endless investigations and ever more bitter partisan fights. it is in this contentious atmosphere that i sat down with presidential counselor kellyanne conway. now, she's the most powerful woman in the white house, and she's one of the few senior advisers still standing some 600 days into an administration of revolving doors. conway is best known around the world for her combative defense of the president and for introducing the phrase "alternative facts" to the lexicon. but she has a major policy role overseeing critical initiatives, from the opioid epidemic to working with veterans and military spouses. now, i can be as combative as anybody, but instead of getting into the ring with conway, i really wanted to explore and probe her views on her job and, of course, the administration's relationship with the press.

we started by talking about the personal when we sat down in the eisenhower executive office building right next door to the white house. kellyanne conway, welcome to the program. >> thank you. >> let me start by just digging a little bit into what it means to be the most powerful woman in the white house -- that is who you are professionally. but, personally, you are a wife. you are a mother of four. how do you do it all? are you living the "i have a dream -- have it all" feminist ideal? >> i think i'm living the feminist ideal without calling myself a feminist and without being anti-male... >> 'cause that would be too radical. >> ...or pro-abortion, which seems to be what some people think is the entry fee, the definition of being a feminist. i consider myself, christiane, a product of my choices, not a victim of my circumstances. but, in some ways, as blessed as i am and as fortunate as i've been in my life, thank god, my life is a very common experience. it's a very pedestrian, everyday example of the

american dream come true in that i was raised by a single mom. >> mm-hmm. >> my father left when i was 3 years old. and we have a relationship now. he has a great relationship with me and my family, my children. but my mom figured it out in the 1970s with her high-school degree and never expecting to go back into the workforce. and she just figured it out as i think so many women have. i was raised in a house with my mom, her mom, and two of my mother's unmarried sisters, so these four catholic italian women raised me in a small house in south jersey between philadelphia and atlantic city. never had a single political conversation that i can remember. we had pictures of the last supper and the pope on the wall, not of john kennedy or ronald reagan. >> [ laughs ] i just want to ask you -- how did what you describe as your circumstances affect you and shape the way you are as a woman, as a professional woman? i mean, did you face obstacles climbing the proverbial professional ladder? you're a successful political consultant. you've done books. you're on television. you're now the senior counsel to the white house,

to the president. did you -- did you have to face your own misogyny moments, your own sexism, your obstacles and adversity? >> yes, actually, but i didn't let it define me, and i didn't let it stop me. i let it help me to shape me and to help me grow and know who i am. i'm self-deprecating. i'm self-aware. i know what all my weaknesses are. i didn't need men to point them out for me, although many tried [chuckling] along the way and failed. but, remember, too, i'm in -- i was in political polling. i was in polling corporate and political polling in the republican party. in some ways, at a microcosmatic level, that's like being in an elks club meeting in a locker room of a golf course, you know? >> mm-hmm. >> it's very, very male-dominated, male-centric. and there were many times, christiane, as you can imagine, even when i had my own company and i was a paid political analyst on cnn 22 years ago, when there were very few of them -- they gave me my first shot on tv. even then, it would be,

"let's let the girls do the focus groups. the men will do the polling," which, looking back, only meant, "let's put her on the airplane for three days away from home, and i'll sit here on my behind in washington and look over the numbers." but that's okay, because i got on the plane. when they said, "how's it playing in peoria? what's going on in lubbock?" i got on the plane, and i talked to the people in peoria and lubbock, and i worked, literally, physically, in all 50 states. so i've had such a privilege for decades now of literally going out and talking to americans, and that is -- that helps me. when donald trump on august 12th -- privately -- it was announced five days later -- asked me to be his campaign manager -- august 12, 2016 -- one of the things i had seen in his rise vanquishing 16 or 17 other qualified men and women -- a woman -- in the republican side is that he had a connective tissue with americans, and i had heard so much of that in focus groups and in open-ended questions over the years in the polling -- that he was connecting with them. they did feel invisible. they did feel left behind. they forgot --

they felt forgotten. >> kellyanne, obviously, you work for the president. you're a senior counselor. you're a true believer. i wonder how you've been affected, then, by the storm of new, you know, writings, books -- bob woodward, the op-ed in the new york times. do you feel under a sort of sense of siege at the white house? >> no. >> or do you feel sort of relief that maybe some of this is out in the open and you continue serving the president as these -- as these people seem to say, also try to, you know, put a brake on some of the "wins"? >> i feel neither of those, christiane. i'm glad you asked. i guess my first feeling would be disappointment, and disappointment in whomever has authored this op-ed. it's ironic because -- come forward, because i think it's pathetic, not patriotic, that you would hide behind anonymous. for what reason? the new york times said they granted anonymity to protect that person from losing his or her job. that's odd because... >> do you think that person

is inside the white house? >> most of us don't think that. the president, just today, said he believes it's somebody in national security. but what i do believe is that who has said that ought to -- ought to come forward and say it or ought to resign because the loyalty is not to the president only or at all -- it's loyalty to the presidency. it's loyalty to the constitution. it's loyalty to serving in an administration that has views on issues, wants certain positions to fail and others to prevail. so, i didn't work in president obama's administration. i didn't work in president george w. bush's administration. people who did, i would think -- although they all didn't, anonymously or otherwise, believe in what was happening there at the time. and so the disappointment i really feel is for the 62 million americans who voted for president trump and the over 300 million whom he governs -- 330 million or so whom he governs as president.

>> so, what do you think, then, of president trump saying that the new york times should hand over this person to the government of senator rand paul, who's a big advocate of the president, saying there should be a lie-detector test inside the white house or inside the administration to try to ferret this writer out? is there -- you know, and others have said there's, you know, a hunt for the so-called culprit. is that happening in the white house or in the administration? >> i'd much rather see an investigation of all the high-ranking people at the fbi who were trying to fix an election for... >> but let's get back just to this one. >> i'm not interested in an investigation of this. i guess, those who are investigating, great. i really hope they find the person. i believe the person will suss himself or herself out, though, because that's usually what happens. people brag to the wrong person. they brag that they did this or they did that because they -- i assume part of this -- isn't the goal here not with the op-ed pretends the goal is, christiane? isn't the goal here really to try to sow chaos and get us all suspicious of each other and...

>> is that what's happening? are you all getting suspicious of each other? >> no, that isn't what happened. it never happens. what happened at the beginning of this week when bob woodward's book came out and then the anonymous op-ed came, and this happened and that happened, and if you go back and look on twitter, it's embarrassing, but what isn't for many? not all, not even most in the press corps -- so many people -- i screenshotted them for my own amusement, yes, 'cause i'm so happy. so many people -- "by the end of this week, there will be a massive purge. there will be an exodus. people will leave." how many times have we heard this? they don't -- what worries me is that people who have the privilege of being -- of being in the media industry -- or, really, just being in almost any industry, but covering the white house, don't still understand how donald trump got elected and why, and they're still not understanding who elected him and what they heard from his message and how they contrasted that to the loser's message and wanted what he ran on to prevail. >> so, let me ask you, because it's obviously clear

that we have to get to this point, and that is this -- i mean, i don't know what to call it -- distrustful, dysfunctional, really, you know, destructive relationship between the presidency and the press at the moment -- i wonder whether there's a way to get out of it. and i'm really interested in exploring it, because it is the pillar of democracy. i mean, the fourth estate... >> no question. >> ...is a vital pillar of our democracy in civil society. you yourself i don't believe thinks that we, the press, are the enemy of the people. do you believe that? >> i don't. i said that. no. >> you don't believe that? >> i don't. >> then, do you try to weigh in with the president on this issue? of course, he has his views, and he makes it clear all the time, but you know that a couple of -- or a month ago, there were some 300 u.s. newspapers that tried to, you know, gather the group to defend the press themselves against this "enemy of the people" slogan. and shortly afterwards,

there was the arrest of the man in california who had taken this to heart, who had threatened to shoot boston globe reporters in the head. i mean, at what point is there a red line for you, personally, in the rhetoric causing potential danger and having consequences? >> yeah, well, there's a lot in your extended statement, so let me just say this -- i don't think the press writ large is the enemy of the people. i do find the press often, in their coverage of this white house and this administration and this president, to be the enemy of the relevant, to be the enemy of what americans are telling the press in the press' own polling is relevant to them. they don't cover what's in their own polling, so a major outlet will do a poll, and they'll ask americans, "what's the most important issue to you?" and let's just say, in some fashion, the top three or four issues are the economy and jobs, healthcare, immigration, foreign policy, education. they don't cover those issues day after day. and they'll say, "yes, we do," and they don't. if you do a content analysis, they simply don't. they want to cover the

messenger, not the message. they want to cover palace intrigue and personnel and not principles and policies, which is what people around kitchen tables are talking about. >> to an extent. >> now, it's going to be a little tough for me, and i would think some of my colleagues here, who have been forced to have either secret service protection or security, and, really, just change some of our lifestyles at times -- it's gonna be a hard thing for me to swallow that the only people under threat or under assault are reporters at this newspaper or this person. if certain reporters feel that way, why do they go on late-night tv? why do they have agents they pay a percentage to? why do they write books? why do they give speeches for tons of money? probably two speeches -- what i'll make in the white house in a year. so, many people want themselves to be public figures. >> i'm not entirely sure of the logic, but... >> well, i'm thinking people watching will be -- not the press. >> right. but, no, no. i'm serious about trying to figure this out... >> no, but, christiane --

>> ...because i've put my life on the line most of my career to tell the truth... >> you have. you have. >> ...to tell the truth, and i just wonder whether, again, you feel that there's a potential consequence. i understand that there's some hate groups... >> it goes both ways. >> ...there's some hate groups directed toward some of you in the white house. however, there are also all sorts of despicable and undemocratic leaders all over the world... >> yes, been around forever. >> ...who are taking seriously president trump's permission to demonize their own press, not to mention us, but to demonize their own press, to put them in jail, to often do worse to them. >> christiane, that didn't happen in the last 20 months, as you full well know. >> no, but i do also know that, actually, it has exaggerated -- >> you're actually an award-winning journalist who's gone around the globe. >> but it has got worse in the last few months. >> well, i think... >> and people are using the "fake news" slogan to justify the unprecedented amount of imprisonment and violence directed towards journalists around the world. >> i see things every single day that are just not true. people will call -- i'm not even in the press and comm shop, and people will call me and ask a question. i'll say, "that's not true." people will actually do a story about my state

of mind, and i'll say, "but that's not true," and they'll write it, anyway. "well, we have two sources." two sources who aren't me about what i think? so... >> but do you accept what i just posited as a reality? >> well, what i want to tell you is, i truly feel for your generation and your elevation of journalists because the media writ large now does not include a lot of christiane amanpours. it includes a lot of people who call themselves reporters because they sit on twitter all day seeing who wrote what, and then they repeat it, even though they don't independently research it themselves. >> but the president accuses people from established, high-level media organizations, including the new york times, cnn -- it's not just the twitterati. >> but it's these things that aren't true. christiane, i assure you -- i work here, and i work here because i want to be one small molecule for change in the country i love so deeply that has given me and my family so much, including freedom and the ability for my three daughters to go to school where girls, in some places in the

world, can't. i can drive. i can go to college and law school as the first person in my family. a lot of women can't around the globe. you know that more than anybody. and so, for me, who's doing that kind of -- who's doing that kind of reporting? we see things every single day on tv and in print, that i promise you -- i swear to god -- are patently false. and nobody calls, or they don't believe when we tell them what the truth is. and my main grievance has always been simple. i said it during the campaign. i said it during the transition when i also said, "look. the president and the media are going to share joint custody of the country for the next four or eight years" -- i'll say eight years now. we have to figure out a way to responsibly "co-parent," as they say in modern language, and that goes both ways. but my -- what i've always said, christiane, and i'll continue to say, is it's not just the biased coverage -- that's easy to detect. if you want to find biased coverage on this or i want to find bias in coverage on that, you'll find it. it's incomplete coverage.

it's that the administration and the media have two independent but consequential platforms by which to inform the american people, if not the world -- to your point -- of what's actually happening here. the economic numbers are the story that -- the greatest story never told. what the president is making good on his promises -- with respect to trade and manufacturing, construction. if you're a coal miner, if you're in construction, if you're in manufacturing, if you want to be in a vocational trade, this is your president. that story's not getting out there because it's not as riveting. and you know what? a lot of policy is tough to figure out. >> a lot of policy is tough to figure out. >> there are some journalists who are liberal -- there are some who are just lazy, and they don't want to figure out... >> and there are some who are good at what they do. >> present company excepted -- that's right. that's why i said i feel for a certain generation elevation of journalists because people -- even the most virulently anti-trump editors will not allow certain things in their paper if they can't check them for veracity, right?

even if they'd like to, they won't do it. but the same reporters who can't get away with doing it there get away with it through their cable news comm projects. >> well, at our -- >> they get away with it on social media. >> as you know, at our cable news organization, if there is a mistake, we apologize, correct, and move on very rapidly and very transparently. >> sometimes. >> we do. what i want to know, though, is, do you think the president might take a stance of his own to pull back from this? because, remember what he told lesley stahl right after his inauguration -- i mean, sorry -- after his election, even before he was inaugurated -- he basically said, when she asked him about this, "you know, you know why i do it -- i do it to discredit you all and demean you all so that, when you write negative stories about me, no one will believe you." so, is this a long-lasting strategy, or can we see, potentially, some way to get out of this thing that doesn't seem to be good for you or for us? >> i'll respond in a few ways. first of all, i do agree that it's not healthy for the body politic on either side. there's no indication we have,

and we -- someone like i and others have tried -- the president has tried -- to turn down the temperature, to give more access. he just gave a few major interviews to print outlets. he gives interviews on television. but when you see story after story, when you hear all the good news not being covered -- i'm gonna give you a great example. we talked about the economic reports. i think the media will start covering the economy if it ever goes down. i think they'll start covering the regulation if it ever starts going up again. and i want to say, if this country doesn't know what fentanyl is, then the media are falling down on their jobs. >> okay, i want to ask you about that because it's -- >> 30,000 americans died from it last year, and if you're not talking about that -- if you're talking about anonymous -- fentanyl's not anonymous. my goal is to make sure the 30,000 americans who died from a fentanyl overdose last year aren't anonymous. >> and this is your big issue in the white house. >> one of, yeah. >> one of the big ones -- the opioid crisis. do you have personal experience that leads you, like so many americans

and so many politicians -- do you know people who have suffered from this? do you have anybody in your family? i mean, has it -- is it close to you? >> i do, but, again, i think that makes me like everybody else. >> mm-hmm. >> it gives me the connective tissue with the rest of the country. i do, and i think everyone does. the president went first here, christiane. he said, "my brother fred jr. died of alcoholism at the age of 42," and he will say -- he said it again recently. i think the pool spray was there -- press pool was there. he said, "my brother was so handsome. he was so smart. he was the oldest, and it just ruined -- you know, ruined his life and eventually took his life." so, he went first in sharing his story. here at the white house, we have a website, and it's share your story, crisisnextdoor.gov, because we want everybody to know the stigma and the silence that attends to addiction in any form, but, particularly, opioid and drug addiction, needs to be blown away, that people feel like they can come to somebody in their circle of life and share that story. i have experience with the me too movement. long before there was a me too movement, i was put upon, i was victimized, but nobody cares because i work for president trump.

>> no, people care. >> oh, i don't know. i said it -- i said after the -- >> what happened to you? >> it doesn't matter to me. it doesn't matter to me now, but i just want to say -- i'm 51 years old, so you can imagine, when this was -- this was, i think, acceptable and much more commonplace behavior. >> what happened to you? >> nobody had cellphones. i want to say this -- that i said that, for the first time, after the debate in saint louis, which was two days after the "access hollywood" tape came out and president trump and hillary clinton debated. and afterwards, i said it on live tv. and they said, "oh, here's a list of people who thinks donald trump should get out of the race," and republican members of congress. i looked at the list, and i said, "fascinating." i hadn't thought about a few of them in a while, but when i see their names, i'm reminded that they were early, early disciples of the me too movement. it wasn't called the me too movement at the time. but that is -- i think what's changed for women and what i'm really proud of with president trump is i was -- i was in republican polling and politics,

and i had a successful business for decades, but it's he -- it's he who elevated a woman. i was hiding in plain sight -- to his campaign manager. it's he who has a female press secretary. president obama had four press secretaries, never a female. he had two or three campaign managers, never a female. >> but he had a top counsel and adviser who was a female. >> that's fine. and i have her office -- valerie jarrett. >> right, there you go. >> she's lovely, and she was great to me when we first got here in showing me the ropes, and i appreciate that. >> let me just ask you a bit more about the opioids, because, you know, congress has attributed something like $5 billion. some -- >> six. >> six now -- good. some are saying, though, it needs about 10 times that amount, and that a lot more emphasis needs to be on prevention and against harm... >> sure. >> ...and treatment, rather than law enforcement. do you agree with that? >> so, i agree that there is a three-front war on the opioid drug demand/drug supply crisis. and when the president gave his remarks in his policy rollout on march 19th in new hampshire, he said exactly that. we need to tackle these simultaneously, not sequentially, because they're all important -- treatment and recovery,

prevention and education, law enforcement and interdiction. you cannot arrest or punish your way out of a drug crisis. that is roiling every demographic and geographic group. it knows no boundaries. it discriminates against no one. and what the president has done -- i'll quickly run through them. what the president has done is he's secured $6 billion in new funding from congress. now, through -- $4 billion came through the spending bill, of which not a single democrat voted for. so i would ask those democrats who say, "we need 10 times $6 billion," why'd you vote against the first $6 billion? i am happy to tell you that h.r.6, the largest legislative package in our nation's history on any one drug crisis at any one time -- that passed the house, christiane, 396 to 14. nothing passes the house 396 to 14. so there's great bipartisanship in the effort to solve. it's now in the senate. we want it on the president's desk so he can sign it and tell the country what's in it. so, prevention also means and education also means

of prescribers, of drug companies, because we're now seeing 30 pills in a bottle go down to 5 or 7. and i want to make very clear to your audience that we're not talking about chronic pain survivors, of which -- excuse me -- chronic pain -- americans who suffer from chronic pain and need pain medication, like my own mother. we're talking about the collegiate or high-school sports injury. we're talking about the dental procedure, the surgery, where you go home with these bottles of pills, and that's when the trouble begins. opioids is tricky, so we're trying to -- we're trying to educate everyone. opioids is tricky because that tiny little bottle bears a label that says family doctor and local pharmacy, and it's been legally prescribed, so it's meant to help someone somehow. and you think just trying one won't hurt you, and it's becoming a gateway for other problems. and education's also prescriber education. these are addictive. they are mind-scrambling. nih is working on a non-addictive solution. also, the surgeon general put out the first advisory for a surgeon general in about a dozen years,

and it was about naloxone. this is the overdose-reversing drug. he wants more americans to be able to carry it around like you would an epipen. >> i just want to get back to -- from where i sit, usually reporting from europe and around the world, some of the stuff that's come out in the bob woodward book and in previous accounts of this white house and this presidency -- people are kind of concerned. they don't know how to adjust and adapt for the trump factor. they see him sometimes denigrating and pouring cold water over global alliances and the hard work of diplomacy and negotiations and tending to cozy up -- that's my word -- to more traditional adversaries. then, they also see, well, the president may say something and tweet something, but the government -- the administration, congress -- are actually taking traditional foreign-policy, you know, positions. do you buy that? i mean, is this administration doing traditional foreign policy while president trump, nonetheless, says what

he wants to say about things and responds to various allies and adversaries in that way? >> well, as secretary and general jim mattis said earlier this week in response to the book -- that the idea that he would disparage the -- and this is a key phrase -- elected commander or tolerate anybody else doing that -- that is the way many people view this president or any president. he is the elected commander in chief. he has a certain view of foreign policy. he thinks this country had been taken advantage for many, many years. he has said it many times. he said it many times on the campaign, so it helped him get elected, where he says, "we're getting taken advantage of." he's taken us out of the iran deal. he kept the promise of five presidents -- five presidents to move the u.s. embassy from tel aviv to jerusalem and to recognize jerusalem as the capital of israel, as israelis do. he pulled us out of the paris accords. and everybody said the same thing every single time, didn't they?

"oh, my god. the whole world's gonna fall apart. our faces will melt off tomorrow." >> people are still saying that overseas, by the way. >> of course they're going to say it. >> but let's talk about vladimir putin, specifically. >> okay, but if i may say -- >> he praises him, and, yet, your administration and congress keep up with the fairly tough -- >> he sanctions him, though. no, no, but it's him, too. >> sanctions, yeah. >> he sanctions. it's not just the administration, and i'm sorry -- i have to push back on that. this president has called for the department of treasury, has called for congress and others in a position to look at the sanctioning. he has sanctioned and expelled russians from this country. he -- it's not that he's cozying up -- i'm actually offended by the term, the verb -- to vladimir putin. it's that the president is doing what he always said he'd do, which is, if he can join together with other major countries and leaders to work on the big issues on which we agree, he will do that. and so, in this case, it may be syria. it may be north korea. when he met with vladimir putin, they discussed the middle east. they discussed syria and north korea. when -- if -- just this week -- didn't get a lot of coverage, because kim jong-un, i guess,

is not anonymous, but it's a major thing that secretary pompeo is continuing these talks to follow up on the singapore meeting and that kim jong-un has said he wants to denuclearize and that they're taking steps that way. we're already ahead of the game that way, christiane, because the vice president went to hawaii and received the remains of our brave men and women in battle from north korea. the three detainees are back here on american soil with their families. so, this is a president who has said he is open, if the conditions are right and they continue to not put america last or even second, to meet with different leaders. but let's be fair about all the trips he's had, all the bilateral meetings he's hosted here at the white house, all of the multilateral meetings that he has attended. his first trip in may of 2017 was -- the very first stop was to the seat of the muslim world. he went to saudi arabia. then he went to the vatican. he went to israel the same trip.

and that just shows -- should show the entire world that he is serious about bringing peace, not war anywhere that he, as the commander in chief at a time such as this, the american president, can do so. but he also thinks that we're getting screwed on our trade deals, and he's very -- he's very honest about that. he's renegotiating nafta with mexico and then with canada. and he thinks that our trade policy is part of our security policy. you can't have national security without economic security, and vice versa. and nafta is 24 years old. he thinks it's very unfair to our workers. he thinks it's unfair to our interests and that it needs to be modernized and more reciprocal and equitable to americans. a lot of americans agree. >> and we will take that up with one of the leaders of the global financial community, christine lagarde. >> yes. >> kellyanne conway, thank you so much for joining us. >> thank you so much. appreciate it. thank you. >> revealing insights from a formidable washington insider. and, as i said, we're taking up some of the economics with another powerful washington player, christine lagarde. she is the managing director of

the international monetary fund, where she's trying to hold the line against new american trade moves and keep the global economy humming along. lagarde believes passionately that equality is an economic game-changer, as well. listen to what she said about the global financial crash of 2007, which was spurred, if you remember, by the collapse of lehman brothers. >> if lehman brothers had been a little bit more lehman sisters and brothers... you see? concession here. [ laughter ] ...we would not have had the degree of tragedy that we had as a result of what happened. >> and christine lagarde joins me now. welcome to the program. >> thank you. >> and let's just start with a little lehman sisters. i know it's ancient history, but, you know, you've often complained about posturing and too much testosterone around the negotiating table. >> well, i'm afraid this has not improved very much. [ chuckles ] we are just actually going to release a study on the financial sector

where it's very clear that there are not enough women in finance. only 2% of bank ceos are women, and if you look at the range of people in the banking and the financial sectors who are taking decisions, 20% at the most are women. so we seriously have a shortage. >> and you used to tell me and used to say publicly that this is not just a moral issue and just a vanity project, but it's actually a dollars-and-cents issue. >> absolutely. it's more than that, actually. it's a dollar issue because, generally, firms that have women on their board or on their executive teams are more profitable. >> mm-hmm. >> you look at the bottom line -- it's very clear. and there have been many studies on that front. but more to the point in finance, in banks that have more women or in supervisory authorities that have more women, it is more stable, it is safer, it is more secure, there are less risks taken, and, you know, we've had our lot of risks. >> well, in fact, we're just going to -- that takes me right into

the risky situation right now. you might have heard kellyanne conway. she just said that the united states is getting screwed... >> oh. >> ...by many other countries in unfair trade and unfair surpluses and all the rest of it. and, actually, steve mnuchin, the treasury secretary, told you yourself that you need to take a firmer hand dealing with some of these global players regarding their trade surpluses. are you going to take a firm hand, and do you buy into that? >> i think it's not because you have a leak in your bathtub that you're going to destroy the bathroom. and i know it's a silly analogy, but that's really where we are. we have international trade, and we have been... really fueling innovation, improved productivity, reduced cost of living because of international trade. you know, because of international trade, an american family is able to spend probably about

a third more than it would had it not been for trade, and that is particularly true for the low-income families. >> even the left-behind families. >> yes, absolutely, because they are the ones who buy more food. they are the ones who buy more clothes. they're the ones who are going to take advantage of the good deals that you have on some of those goods that are imported. so, it has been, in the main, extremely beneficial for the consumers and for the economies that have been opened -- more innovation, more productivity -- that has been really a good deal. but it is true, and i agree with steve mnuchin, that the system needs fixing, but you don't destroy it -- you fix it. >> so, how -- >> and i think we should collectively, because that's a collective adventure that we are on -- we should collectively fix the system and make sure that the trading terms and conditions that we're operating under are fair. that i completely agree with. >> so, that is what the president said, as well -- it must be fair, not just free trade. but the new book by bob woodward refers specifically to

some of his trade views, and they quote, you know, his staff secretary and even gary cohn, his chief former economic adviser -- you know, asking him about these views after they saw, scribbled on a speech, edited a speech by the president, "trade is bad." and gary cohn is quoted as saying to the president, "well, why do you think that?" and he says, "well, i don't know. i've thought it for 30 years." and cohn is reported to have said, "well, i thought i could be a professional baseball player for 15 years -- doesn't make it true." how do you get to a political environment where you can overcome this economic nationalism? >> i think you, first of all, have to demonstrate that it has been beneficial for nations. and when i tell you that innovation has been better in the u.s. as a result of trade, productivity has been improved as a result of trade, and consumers have had a better deal because of trade, it goes in that direction -- that's number one -- not to mention the fact that hundreds of millions of people

have been taken out of poverty because of trade in other corners of the world. but what's also really important is to pay attention to those people who have not had the benefit of all that because their jobs were gone, because their industry was moved out to mexico, to china, to vietnam -- to wherever, because the costs of producing there were lower than the cost of producing in the u.s. so, for those people, special deals need to be put in place -- special programs need to be implemented so that they are trained to do other things, they are supported during those transition periods, and that's where i think many of the systems in the world -- not just in the u.s. -- have actually failed them. >> can you make bespoke carveouts for the people who are losing out, as you suggest? i mean, is the global economy that flexible that you can -- and have this globalization and free trade and lifting millions, if not billions, of people out of poverty and, also, try to help those

who are, by technology or migrating jobs, losing out? >> yes. yeah, absolutely, because some people are, you know, net beneficiaries, and others are net losers. and you need to find a way to compensate them. but i don't think it's only trade and globalization related. we're going to have a far more difficult challenge to deal with with technologies and with the way in which technologies, automatization, robotization, artificial intelligence coupled with biotechs are ing to actually affect the way in which we work and significantly, and more so women than men. >> in what way? >> ah. that's a new study that we're going to publish soon, as well. what we did is we tried to measure the impact on work of robotization, artificial intelligence, biotech, and all of that. and work has been done by other institutions focusing on 30 countries of the oecd. and you realize that 28 million

women's jobs are going to disappear, which is roughly 11%. if you look at the male population, it's only 9%. you extrapolate that to the global economy -- it's 180 million women's jobs that will go. now, why are women more affected than men? i think that's really the issue. >> 'cause that's not the story we're hearing now around the world. >> ah. >> we're hearing that traditional male jobs are being lost -- therefore, this populist backlash. >> yeah. >> this nativist backlash. >> it's not the -- well, there is that, and, clearly, it's an issue, particularly in advanced economies, and particularly in this country. but if you, you know, fast-forward and you look at the impact that technologies will have, you very soon see that those who have repetitive tasks, those who do routine jobs, those whose, you know, tasks can actually be substituted, replaced by machines are more women than men.

so, we need to think about that now and make sure that women are equipped to actually deal with that and anticipate the risk that they are under. >> so, i mean, are you saying that this disruption that -- people call it disruption and chaos -- from the trump administration, upending the so-called, you know, post-war global, liberal, political, economic world order has its flaws, but, also, has concentrated your minds, the global sort of economic minders to actually deal with some of the stuff that he's talking about? >> well, he certainly has emphasized areas where we need to fix, but we don't need to destroy -- that's the point i was making about the bathtub leak and the bathroom that you don't want to destroy, because... >> baby and the bathwater, some people might say, too. >> ah, i know. i know. you don't want to throw that, yes. but...we live in an international world, where problems are often international in nature, whether you look at pandemics,

whether you look at terrorism, whether you look at the financial crisis, whether you look at climate change, all of those factors that will affect all of us greatly are global by nature. you can't stop any of that. you can't build a wall to stop that. so, we need to work on that collectively, all together, and it has to have the rules of law. it has to have order, discipline, and ways in which to implement those rules. so, in that vein, he has led many of us to concentrate on what exactly needs to be fixed, and how do we do it? >> what about this trade war? do you believe that we have been in a trade war -- we're still in a trade war? is there a trade-war truce? where are we? where are we right now -- with china, for instance, and the eu, vis-à-vis america and tariffs? >> you know, we have seen an escalation of the trade-war threats, and we have seen implementation

of some of the measures -- $50 billion worth of chinese goods are now subject to additional tariffs. there is a threat that another $200 billion will be under the same threat and more -- >> it's relatively little, right, compared to the trillions of dollars of the global economy? >> i wouldn't say that it's little. i wouldn't say that it's little because, if you look at the global package of total chinese goods exported to the united states, and if that was under additional tariffs, you're talking about a real impact on the -- on the economy, yes. >> and on american consumers? >> oh, yeah, absolutely. the american consumer is going to pay a higher price, because what do you do if you're... okay, i won't take the american consumer example, but i'm building airplanes. let's assume i'm boeing for a second. and, suddenly, the steel that i need, the aluminum that i need, the titan-- or whatever components i need -- suddenly, prices are higher because they have been subject to a tariff. what do i do? do i squeeze my margin to keep my price, to compete with airbus?

ah, maybe, but maybe not. maybe i increase my prices, because i want to keep my margins and keep my shareholders happy. so, this is what is likely to happen, particularly for products that cannot be easily substituted or that are not in an wide-open competition. >> a second ago, you said, you know, you can't roll back this internationalization of trade and all sorts of other, you know, relations between the world. >> yeah, climate change, pandemics, terrorism -- all of that. >> and yet, the president is trying to renegotiate nafta. we understand he's come to some kind of deal, a separate deal with mexico, but canada still has not come into the fold. and the president has tweeted that there's no political reason to want or to have to have canada involved in a nafta or a three-way deal. congress has a different view. >> mm. >> but is he right that he doesn't need canada to be part of any kind of, you know, north american trade deal? >> do you know any country that doesn't need its neighbor? we all need our neighbors, and we all need to have a good relationship with our neighbor.

and, you know, when you're doing a lot of trade with your neighbor, you want to do it at the best possible terms -- fair, reciprocated, but it has to be accepted on both sides. >> and for europe, we've heard now from the european trade ministers and others that they are quite happy to try to deal, as trump said -- let's just get rid of all tariffs, all barriers, on cars and all the rest of it. we're -- i mean, i'm sort of lumping it all in, but is that a reality -- that there might be just a tariffless trade? >> you know, and that's an interesting proposition. it's one that should be explored. first of all, i would observe that tariffs are already very low... so going one step further and trying to remove tariffs is to be explored. why not? >> i mean, you have a huge and vastly responsible, burdensome portfolio, i think -- i mean, dealing with the global economy and trying to keep it healthy and humming along with all these political and cultural currents

that are buffeting us. how do you stay fit, healthy, motivated, upbeat? i know you used to be a synchronized swimmer for your country, for france. >> yep. that's right. >> do you still do that? >> i don't do the synchronized part. i do the swimming part on a regular basis, yes. >> what did it bring you -- the synchronized part, and the swimming part now? >> the -- well, swimming develops physical strength, resistance, resilience, and the synchronized part of it is the most interesting one, because it teaches you teamwork, discipline, coordination of music, athletic skills, and flexibility, and you have to hold your breath. [ both laugh ] >> think before you speak and do. >> that's right. >> christine lagarde, thank you so much for joining me. >> thank you. >> with due deference to lagarde's mother tongue, we will now jeté, if you will, from the boardroom to the greenroom. the alvin ailey

american dance theater, an american cultural treasure, was born out of the civil rights struggle of the 1950s. its founder, alvin ailey, used the language of dance to grapple with racial discrimination, america's original sin. 60 years later, the ailey company is still going strong with director robert battle at the helm. battle grew up in one of miami's toughest neighborhoods, using the security bars on his window as his ballet barre. now, as ailey's artistic director, can he still lift up audiences at this time of discord and division? our hari sreenivasan sat down to find out when he spoke with robert battle in new york. >> robert, thank you for joining us. >> thank you. >> you know, survival for an arts institution is not a given. >> no. >> the fact that it survived 60 years, when you've seen other institutions rise and fall in that time. >> yeah. i think because the mission is very clear. i mean, alvin ailey said it best -- dance comes from the people and should always be

delivered back to the people. always remembering why we're on that stage, always remembering that it's the act of communicating that is the most important in what we do, and so the audiences that come to see us -- they don't just see an ailey performance, but they feel it, they take it with them, and they want that feeling again because it leaves them uplifted. that accessibility that alvin had in his own person is the same blood that flows through the organization. >> and this is a company that tours pretty aggressively. you're in dozens of cities. >> yeah. >> you're even overseas. >> yeah. >> why? >> yeah, because that's part of the mission -- to bring dance to as wide of an audience as possible, to understand that the arts sort of -- that's our passport to the world, that dance communicates where language falters. and so the notion that we can tell our story all over the world i think was very important, especially for a company that was majority black, right... >> mm-hmm. >> ...to tell that story, so that we don't just entertain, but we educate.

and part of that is the traveling, the touring, reaching different, you know, countries and audiences. so no matter if we're across the street or across the ocean, the truth is what we're getting at. >> well, how does dance cut through that rural versus urban, that "red state versus blue state" line? because you're not discriminating where you go. >> no. no. i think that dance, in a way, is wonderfully ambiguous [chuckles] so that, you know, where language sort of says what side you stand, in a way, dance has this way, before you even know what it's about, you find yourself caught up in it. >> mm-hmm. >> you know? that it's able to deliver a hard truth, but with a sense of spirituality, i think, that is universal. when i think about that, i think of one of the most important dances ever created, which was created by alvin ailey in 1960, and that's "revelations," that we do. we close pretty much every

performance with "revelations." [ all singing ] and that work, no matter where we are -- when i first took over the company, we were in russia. >> mm-hmm. >> and, you know, "revelations" is a suite of spirituals that expresses the experiences of african-americans in this country and how we overcame through faith. and here i was, about to take over the company. we happened to be in russia. and to see people in the aisles as if they were in a black church somewhere, you know, sort of celebrating this dance, i think speaks to his ability to break through and communicate to whomever, wherever, whenever. >> does "revelations" take on a different meaning, given the current climate that we're in today, where we are seemingly questioning some of the basic things that we thought we sorted out in the '60s and '70s? >> yeah. i think that the arts, certainly dance, is always important because it's the artifacts of human survival, you know, that it celebrates

our common humanity. and in times where we can be fooled into thinking that we don't need each other... >> mm-hmm. >> ...i think it's so important that the arts speak loudly, you know? and so i think it's even more important now that we come and we see this company, that we come and see this rich legacy that's celebrating 60 years. there's a reason why -- it's because alvin ailey told the truth in his work, right? and you don't have to question the truth -- it just is. and so i think this is where the company means the most in times like these. >> mm-hmm. is there a better pipeline today for american dance? obviously, alvin ailey created this as a space to start highlighting the fact that african-american dancers could exist and choreographers could exist, right? where are we now, versus where he started 60 years ago? >> because he started 60 years ago, we have so many dancers that have come through the company as dancers or through the ailey school, you know, that are teaching now

or whatever it is they're doing, or just patrons of the arts. when i think of the arts and education programs that we have, one of them is called "aileycamp" that alvin ailey started 30 years ago. this was one of the last programs he implemented before he died. he started it in kansas city, and now it's in about 10 or 11 cities for young people who are, you know, sort of underserved in their communities to have access to the arts. it's life-altering. so we can't always measure the impact by numbers, but we know that it is there. we know that people have benefited and continue to carry that legacy forward. >> you're not the born dancer. >> mm-hmm. >> if you come out with bowlegs, nobody says, "this is the guy who's gonna run the 100-meter hurdles," or go to dance. >> right. yeah. >> how did this happen? >> well, you know, i think that that's -- sometimes the very thing, you know, that you are up against is the thing that becomes your best self. you know, i was also very shy, didn't like to talk a lot. i know it's hard to tell now.

>> [ chuckles ] >> you know? and so, luckily, my great-aunt and uncle, who took me in when i was, you know, an infant, got me to the hospital to get braces for my legs that they have -- they had to put on every night to get those legs straightened. but, you know, the artistic part really came, i think, from who i call my mother, who was really my cousin, because she played piano for the church we went to. you know, she had a group called the afro-americans. it was a group of her friends who did poetry and song relating to the black experience, so i was already sort of hearing all of that stuff, all of those poems, all of those stories -- it was a part of my growing up, you know? >> that was your norm. >> that was my norm, in a way. so, i didn't understand, you know, this whole thing about performing arts. it was just what we did -- it was part. and so, when i first saw "revelations," growing up there in liberty city, a tough town -- in fact, i studied martial arts 'cause i had a soprano singing voice and i played

classical music, you know? and so... >> those are combinations for being bullied? >> oh, yeah. oh, yeah. i had it all. i had the t-shirt -- "bully me," you know? and so, to protect myself, i studied martial arts with a friend's father, who was a retired third-degree black belt. and so, here comes the alvin ailey american dance theater, coming to perform in miami, as they do, as we tour, as you know. and we were bused in as young people from different schools to see a mini performance, which is, you know, a performance just for young people. and seeing "revelations," hearing those spirituals that i heard, you know, as a kid, seeing people who look like me on the stage -- the effect that that had on me -- the curtain went down, but i went up, you know? and i remember thinking, "i want to be like that." i didn't think some day i'd be in new york city, the third director [chuckling] of that company, but it happened.

and so i think that, for young people, i always say, "start where you are -- that your imagination holds the keys to your success, and nobody can take that away from you. you don't have to pay for it." and so, seeing "revelations" reminded me of that, and here i am today. >> so, you're in a neighborhood where you've got security bars on the window. >> mm-hmm. >> and you're using those as your -- what? >> ballet barres, yeah. >> all right. who did you have on your walls growing up? >> gosh. you know, i had this wonderful piece of wood, you know, that the termites got to [chuckles] eventually. but i used to -- in dance magazine, i would just sort of cut out pictures -- judith jamison, mikhail baryshnikov, you know, alvin ailey, arthur mitchell -- whatever it was, i would cut it out, and i would sort of paste it on that board. and then, at night, i'd take a flashlight, and i'd just look, like i was watching a moving -- you know, a movie or something.

but those images were important, you know? because, eventually, you walk into those images. so, yeah, it was -- it was wonderful to have that to look to. >> how much of that factored into, when you actually get onstage, do you remember? is there a performance, whether it's in high school or -- when you started to realize, like, "i like to choreograph things. i like to put things in perspective, as well"? >> well, you know [chuckles] what i do remember is i like to tell people what to do. >> [ laughs ] >> that -- my mother had to tell me, you know, "your friends are not, you know, your sort of servants, and they're not your subjects," and, you know? so, she told me. she's like, "listen, they don't like this." but, you know, this sort of notion, though, of wanting to lead, wanting to be in front, wanting to inspire -- i wanted to be a preacher when i was a kid because the preacher so moved the crowd. i wanted to move the crowd. so, all of that has always been in my dna. >> and you still want to move the crowd.

>> i still want to move the crowd, and i still, in my own way, am preaching the gospel. >> just a larger, different type of church. >> yes. >> it's an audience. >> it's a different church, and gospel is dance that can move people and that can change people's hearts. >> help me understand dance, because i haven't been exposed to it, and perhaps there's other members of our audience, too. so, how does a dancer use their entire body as an instrument? >> mm. >> how do you learn to do that? >> yeah. part of that, really, i mean, is the training. >> yeah? >> you know, it's the training. i mean, in the ailey school, i mean, we're one of the best schools in terms of that hard-core training that you need to be able to articulate all of those parts of your body to make a statement. often, though, for me, i think about the audition process. i think of my 32 fabulous dancers. let me -- let me geek out for a minute and say how wonderful they are because they're able to communicate all kinds of feelings through movement, whether it be anger,

whether it be fear, whether it be joy, or whatever it is. and i heard maya angelou say something one time -- to think of your whole body as an ear. >> as an ear? >> yeah. so, that sense of receiving and then being able to sort of speak it as you hear it -- i think you find those dancers who are able to communicate in that way, who are able to go beyond the steps, beyond the movement, and touch your heart. i mean, and that is unique, and you can't really teach that. >> robert battle, thanks so much for your time. >> thank you. >> and that is it for our program tonight. thanks for watching "amanpour & co." on pbs, and join us again tomorrow night. ♪ >> uniworld is a proud sponsor of "amanpour & co." when bea tollman founded a collection of boutique hotels, she had bigger dreams,

and those dreams were on the water -- a river, specifically -- multiple rivers that would one day be home to uniworld river cruises and their floating boutique hotels. today, that dream sets sail in europe, asia, india, egypt, and more. bookings available through your travel agent. for more information, visit uniworld.com. >> additional support has been provided by... and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. ♪ >> you're watching pbs. ♪

[ bebells play tune ] [ theme music plays ] ♪ -i think i'm home, i think i'm home ♪ ♪ how nice to look at you again ♪ ♪ along the road, along the road ♪ ♪ anytime you want me ♪ you can find me living right between your eyes, yeah ♪ ♪ oh, i think i'm home ♪ oh, i think i'm home -today on "cook's country," bryan tries to crack the secrets of a beloved north carolina dipped fried chicken recipe. jack challenges bridget to a tasting of chocolate ice cream. and ashley makes bridget a classic version of