the p.r.c. is the only nation with will and increasingly the wherewithal to remake the international order by combining its economic, diplomatic, technological, and military capabilities to challenge the stable, open, international system that has done so much for so many for so long. that is why ensuring the united states provides our service members with everything they need to defend the nation, our allies, and our interests has been my highest priority since taking office nearly four years ago. i did so in direct support of secretary austen, who shares my concern over this most consequential competition. of course, competition does not mean conflict because no one should desire the global devastation such a war would bring. instead, we want p.r.c. leadership to wake up each day, consider the risks of aggression, and think to themselves, today is not the day and for them to think that today and every day between now and 2027, 2035, 2049, and beyond. deterrence is how we seek to prevent confli

now, p.r.c. leaders have in recent years bemoaned those so-called fighting capables -- that is how some pla officers and commanders can't judge situations, understand higher authorities' intentions, make operational decisions, deploy forces, or manage unexpected situations. the u.s. military doesn't have these issues. our officers and senior enlisted leaders not only are capable of all that, they are exceptional. and because we use principles of mission command, we don't need to centralize decision-making or micromanage operations like the pla does. we can trust that even if our forces get cut off from higher headquarters, they will use their knowledge of commanders' intent, rules of engagement, and the law of armed conflict, and they will innovate on the fly to achieve their mission objectives. it's not blind trust. we know they can because they've proven they can for decades in the heat of battle. last but not least is my fourth insight, attend to your actions and your words. they matter more t

we know that the p.r.c. has a voracious an title g its hands on as muchnfmation about america as possible and the.r. could demand that bite dance submits to any request for that information. >> suppose that tikt had no connection whats with any foreign government? immensely, immenselyich,an multinational corporation and congress concluded that this multinational corporation really has it in for the qui is going to use this extreme think popular platform to do everything it can to undermine e united states in all the ways in which you think that tiktok may pursue at the direction of p.r.c. wo that be the same case? >> ihi there would be a first order question of whether the multinational corporation itself has first andnt rights. >> aht, it's an american corporation. >> if itere an american corporatiocongress disagreed with theonnt obviously that's a violation of free speech an would mean strict scrutiny. >> so your argen depends on the fact that what ist bottom here is theeople's republic of china using tikt

we know that the p.r.c. has a voracis an title to get its has as much information about americas possible and the p.r.c. could demand that bite dance submits to any request for that information. >> suppose that tiktok had no coecon whatsoever with any foreign government? it was owned instead by an immensely, immense rich, multinational corporationnd congress concluded that this multinational corporation really has it in for the quiet and is going to use this extreme think popular platform to do everything it can to undermine the united states in all the ways in which y tnk that tiktok may pursue at the direction of p.r.c. wouldbe the same case? >> i think there would be first order eson of whether the multinational corporation self has first amendment rights. >> all right, it's an amerin corporation. >> if it were an american corporation and congress disagreedthe content obviously that's aiolation of free speech and would mean strict scrutiny. >> so your argument depends on the fact athat is at bottom here i

the biden administration has focused a lot on supply chains from competitors such as the p.r.c. and we know about the chips act and many other ways in which the biden administration has created a smart industrial policy to make sure that american workers and companies get a fair advantage when the supply chain traces back to the p.r.c. and others, back to the exploitative business and others. we see that some products in the world can be sourced back to slave labor in the p.r.c., where uighur populations that are often detained and held against their will are forced to produce some of these products for these companies that end up in the international supply chain. with dhs we are trying to implement the new act that senator rubio passed a couple of years ago which says if there was forced labor by uighurs in the supply chain, that product cannot be imported into the united states. we are big importers. we have a big market of consumers. the goal is to send a signal to international business and companies that we will not allow for this sourcing of labor. it has been really prod

directly at very high levels we have laid out what would unfold from there in ways that i do think the p.r.c: millie's negotiators are trying for a cease-fire in gaza which would pause -- middle east negotiators are trying for a cease-fire in gaza. president trump has threatened all -- breaking out. >> if we get a deal, everyone and their mother can take credit for it. i would be happy. we are close but not there yet. reporter: president biden will give a speech about his foreign-policy legacy. i want to start in afghanistan. do you sit back today and think about how afghanistan broke down and think you could have done something about that? >> is the united states better off because we are no longer at war in afghanistan? the answer is an emphatic yes. this war would be entering its 25th year and we are much better off that is not happening. of course i think there are things we could have done differently at the time in the execution. when we decided to actually execute the drawdown of the embassy -- at the time we did not want to accelerate the drawdown of the embassy because we did not wa

hard to engage iter speech when you don't know what someone is doing behind the scenes and what the p.r.c. has the capability to do >> could we silence a newspaper owned by a foreign paper in a foreign government? you wouldn't know how it's exercising judgment or how so mae we just need to shut down the oxforprs in america or you pick it? any other foreign -- politico i was told today is owned by germ nip. that would be ok in your been? >> we're foot asking to court to arctic late bright-lining rules -- >> i ateing your argument. >> y, sometimes the court has recognized that a speaker-based preferceight reflect a content based preference. in part because a newspaper is a one-way channel of communication and is genal understood to represent its public's view, maybe court would view that a regulation toward that is attacking content. i not talking about interests or any -- i'm talking about the tailoring and you're saying we he no alternative but to sp this speech all together. we can't rely on disclosure but you're saying that wouldn't appltoolitico or oxford university press because? >> w