Gina Raimondo: Most Americans, when they hear AI, they get afraid. Right? The vast, vast majority of Americans AI equals anxiety. I'm going to lose my job. I get that, you know, people are scared. I think it would be a huge mistake to, like, retard our AI progress with overregulation. Just talked about China. I want to win the AI. Right? I want America to lead the AI world. And I think when we get to the fifth or sixth inning of this AI revolution, whatever you want to call it, I firmly believe there will be there will be more jobs. I do, I think there'll be new industries, new companies, new products and services. I'm an optimist. I am pretty worried about getting from the first inning to that inning.

Joe Weisenthal: Hello and welcome to a live episode of the Odd Lots Podcast. I'm Joe Weisenthal.

Tracy Alloway: And I'm Tracy Alloway. So for, I guess for listeners who are hearing guys here at CFR, I need to talk about truly do have the perfect guest with us. We're going to be speaking with CFR Distinguished Fellow Gina Raimondo. Previously the Commerce secretary, previously governor of Rhode Island. So, Gina, looking forward to chatting.

Gina Raimondo: Me too. Thank you for having me. There's so much. There's so much to talk about. By the way, what's the day today?

Joe Weisenthal: It's April 1st. We always make a note of that.

Gina Raimondo: These days, you better.

Tracy Alloway: Add in the time. Yet?

Joe Weisenthal: What time? 11:45. Because so much is liable to change by the time other people hear this episode. But I want to start. I saw a headline this morning. President Trump who said to give a speech tonight, related to the war in Iran. And according to a report, I think it was a Reuters report. He's going to criticize NATO heavily. They haven't gotten involved in the war, etc., maybe threatened to pull out of NATO yet again. And I'm curious, from your perspective, you know, how thick is the ice right now between the US and Europe and how, how much will how much more is there for it to thin?

Gina Raimondo: Yeah. So that makes the question.

Joe Weisenthal: It does.

Gina Raimondo: It does make sense. Hello, everybody. It's great to be here. It's great to be on the show. I don't think it's that thick. The last time I was in Europe was, I guess, a month and a half ago for the Munich Security Conference and spent a lot of time with European ministers, military leaders, CEOs. And I think their patience is wearing thin with us, as somewhat justifiably so. I don't think it's very thick. Listen, I understand the president's point. If he thinks European countries aren't pulling their weight or doing their fair share as it relates to investing in their military capacity and participating in NATO. That being said, I mean, it's not clear to me that before we invaded, we had a strategic plan with our European allies, to get involved. Right. And so, you know, it's, it's like a lot of things of this administration maybe not a terrible idea, but very poor execution.

Tracy Alloway: So I know when you were Commerce secretary, you obviously spent a lot of your time thinking about the US versus China technology situation. And I know you argued also that we actually need Europe when we think about that, because if we're going to have something like export controls in the US, it doesn't really work if us if Europe doesn't come along with us. When you think about economic security in the context of, let's just say, fraying U.S. European relations. Where are we headed?

Gina Raimondo: I think we're in a bad place, if you were to say to so I a few things, I don't think we can effectively compete with China economically, technologically, without allies. Right. They're just too big. They're too big. They're too determined. And so we need allies, including Europe, by the way, including Southeast Asia, including the global South. And so if you were to say to me, hey, what do you think is the biggest mistake about how this administration is handling China and their China strategy? I would say pissing off all our allies. Why? It's just not a good idea, by the way, it's not good for Europe. You know, when I was in Europe, in Munich, what I would say to the Europeans is, I know you're unhappy with us, but we're your closest ally, and it isn't good for you to cozy up to China. I mean, if you look at now what China is doing to Europe, it's a it's terrible for Europe. The Chinese imports to Europe have surged. I can't remember the exact number, but it's like 20, 30% more imports from China to Europe this year, year to date versus last year. The German industrial base is going to get crushed like this. Is China's play. They run the play over and over again. They subsidize. They just dump cheap products into the global market, in this case, Europe. Also, Africa distort the price and it makes it impossible to compete. So like that's bad for America. It weakens our allies in Europe. By the way, it's bad for Europe. So I just think and that's why the ice is thinning. But you know, my point to Europe is okay, your feelings are hurt, but China is not your friend. Yeah.

Joe Weisenthal: Let's talk about this a little bit more because this phenomenon is like all right. Germany has an incredible history of chemical giants and automotive giants, obviously, and so forth. And there's a lot to get talked about in the U.S. Europe relationship these days, primarily centered on defense and NATO spending, etc.. But it does feel to me like there is comparably less attention paid to just what is the what is industrial Europe even going to be in the future because they don't have our tech right, they don't have our meters, and Alphabet's and OpenAI is to the same degree.

Gina Raimondo: I could not agree more. Yeah. And you know, I was the Commerce secretary. So my focus is economic security, economic alliances, technology security. So again, I personally think a weak European economy and a weak European technology sector is definitely bad for them, but also bad for us. We want strong allies. And so when I was in Munich, while the talk was, of course around NATO and their military capacity, every speech I gave a person I spoke with, I talked about their supply chains, their industrial base, their the fact that it will be almost impossible for them to compete if China continues to, like I said, distort the global market and take advantage of them. And the particularly Germany. Talk about the chemical companies and the auto companies. The damage China is doing right now, their industrial base is significant. So I, I wish people would talk more about it. Of course, all the focus is on NATO is a shiny object. Everyone's focused on the military, which is very important. But, you know, it's it's just like supply chain in America. It's like the frogs boiled in, doesn't know it for decades, we allowed our supply chains to wither and atrophy. And then you wake up 20, 30 years later and you're massively reliant on China. So let's wake up today and do something about it. Yeah.

Tracy Alloway: The European situation, I mean, it does come up depending on what the talking point du jour is. So if it's AI, people are like, well, Europe is behind in AI. Then I was reading a note, just yesterday from credit sites talking about petrochemicals and saying, well, Europe is in a really bad place when it comes to petrochemicals, us a little bit more insulated. And China is basically almost like 100% self-reliant for some things, which is pretty amazing. If you think back to the situation just 20 or 30 years ago, when it comes to building up European strategic industry, let's say, or technology, what role do you see for the US in that? Because it feels like everyone is trying to do the same thing at the same time. The U.S. is trying to develop its own ecosystem of, you know, either industry or strategic technology. China is trying to do it. Europe maybe should be trying to do it, but how is everyone doing it at the same time? And what should the U.S. actually be advocating for here?

Gina Raimondo: We should be working with our allies to shore up all of these supply chains. Listen, I don't think America needs to be, can be, or should try to be mining everything, making everything you know, that we need. Japan is a juggernaut in chemicals. That's okay. There are one of our closest allies. Europe has had a long, successful industrial base. So as long as we have some diversification, that's a good thing. And as long as we're working with allies and have allies, that's a good thing. The scary things are when we are overly dependent on one country, especially if the country is China, and if Europe's the guy personally think it is bad for America and the world in Europe, that they have such an anemic technology ecosystem. And, you know, there's a lot of reasons they have that it's overregulated. They don't have a capital market. They there's you know, I thought the Draghi report kind of was excellent, laid it out and they need to act on it. But my point is, you know, why can't we work more closely with Europe to shore up our supply chain. Good for them. Good for us. By the way, the Philippines has nickel. Indonesia has critical minerals. You know, there's some things we do need to work with allies and China is all over those countries. I think the most frustrating thing I hear, and it's a political argument and I'm a politician or a former politician, and it drives me bananas when I have quiet meetings with very senior people in Europe, ministers, prime ministers, CEOs, I say to them. You're cozying up with China because you're mad with America, with the how Trump's behaving. Okay, I understand why you'd be mad. Cozying up with China is bad for you. Arguably, it's worse for you than us while you're doing that. And they would say, well, we feel like we have to, that you pushed us into that corner, which is things politicians say, like, okay, you can be self-destructive because it saves face, but I don't think it's a good idea.

Tracy Alloway: I feel like there's one thing I have to push back on there. As a former European capital markets correspondent, Europe does have capital markets. They're just not as robust as some of those for sure.

Gina Raimondo: For sure they're not deep. They're not dynamic.

Tracy Alloway: I just don't want to get angry emails from my former contacts going. Mad at me, not you. But like how much of it is sort of classic politics, like the people who you're talking to, like they have to get reelected. And there's one guy on their TVs who continues to insult them and frequently and instigate and etc. and that's Trump. And there someone else who or as I know, never publicly says anything negative about your open that XI Jinping like, yeah, they have to get elected. Right. And so you could say logically, look it doesn't long term maybe the US Europe relationship will change and so forth. But like they were politicians like you once were.

Gina Raimondo: Yeah, yeah, yeah. So I hear that. I do hear that. And that's why I said, I think probably the biggest mistake of the current administration's China strategy. Yeah. Is, hurting our relationship with allies. I don't I don't see a path to pushing back on China effectively unless we work with our allies. So I, I hear I do I hear you, I guess, now everyone can laugh at me. I guess I still hold, you know, politicians to a higher standard. I mean, their job isn't actually to get reelected. Their job is to do the job right, serve the people that elected them. And when I even, you know, when I was, secretary, I would frequently talk to members of Congress who would say, I know you might be right, but I can't be with you. I'll lose a primary. And having been on the ballot and stood for election, many times and had brutal primaries, my reply is always, isn't that a badge of honor? Go down doing the right thing. Be a public servant, not a quote unquote politician. But I hear it's a lot of traditional what politics is.

Joe Weisenthal: Setting politics aside for a second, because I imagine it's going to recur in this conversation when you talk to businesses. So executives, I mean, a lot of them still see China as the second biggest economy in the world, which it is, and this huge destination market. And even now, when it comes to maybe more sensitive technologies like I am, we are seeing people. For instance, a lot of big businesses in the U.S. ought to use something like when the Chinese open source model, how do you talk to executives who are maybe worried about their share price, worried about the bottom line, and tell them, like, oh, wait, a second, maybe there are other reasons not to engage with China in this way.

Gina Raimondo: Yeah. Oh, look, I actually I mean, again, I think trade with China is a good thing. I think trade is is a good thing. It creates jobs in America. It allows our companies to compete. I think our trading relationship with China is, you know, it's is hundreds of billions of dollars. The vast majority of that is in products that have nothing to do with national security. In fact, when I was secretary, I create AI to make this point that trade is a good thing. I started an export export promotion initiative for health and beauty products. Like my theory was no one could say lipstick, perfume, blush, eyeliner is a national security issue. If we sell more of our stuff to China, it makes great jobs in America. So and also I do think engagement, commercial engagement, diplomatic engagement does, reduce the probability of conflict. So, for all that the, the challenge is in like selling our most sophisticated leading edge chips to China, or, you know, certain AI or hypersonics like when you get into that. Well, then then that's a very different thing. But by the way, that is a tiny far as I'm concerned, the more stuff American companies can sell to China, that doesn't hurt. Our national security interest is a good thing. I want American companies to be, you know, profitable and successful. Right.

Tracy Alloway: But if you have large corporations in the US who are using an open source model developed in China, like when is that something that would concern you?

Gina Raimondo: I mean, it's open source. It is, as you say, it's open source. It's hard to put that genie back in the bottle. And I so I, I'm not sure exactly. I think that's less concerning. As long as there are other controls, you know, these companies have to have their own data controls, privacy controls, cyber controls, etc..

Tracy Alloway: Let's talk about AI a little bit more because you've been writing about it. You've been talking to people about it. What are you working on? What have you been working on? You know, what have you been up to?

Gina Raimondo: I was remarkably busy for someone who, you know, that doesn't have a single job. Well, since Mike Froman, who runs the council, is there, I'll say I spend a lot of time helping the Council on Foreign Relations. Actually, in all seriousness, we put out a report that I'm proud of as it relates to economic security. And it really it had to do with AI and the whole point of it, I strongly believe trying to slow China down is a fool's errand. Let's invest and beat them by innovating faster in core technologies like AI, quantum and biotech. The thing I'm spending the most time on is the issue of how do we get through the transition to an AI economy? And I want to talk for just a second on this. I appreciate you asking. So here's how I see it. And maybe your listeners will push back or like it. Right now, most Americans, when they hear AI, they get afraid, right? The vast, vast majority of Americans AI equals anxiety. I'm going to lose my job. I get that, you know, people are scared. I think it would be a huge mistake to, like, retard our AI progress with overregulation. I just talked about China. I want to win the AI. I want America to lead the AI world. And I think when we get to the fifth or sixth inning of this AI revolution, whatever you want to call it, I firmly believe there will be there will be more jobs, I do. I think there'll be new industries, new companies, new products and services. I'm an optimist. I am pretty worried about getting from the first inning to that inning. And so what I am spending my time on is how do we create support systems, transition systems, incentives for companies not to just do these big riffs? Because here's my my view. Yes, we want to win the AI race. Yes, we want to be the leader in the world on AI. We will not do that even if we have if all we have is the best models, the best chips, the biggest data centers. But sky high unemployment and no transition system that's not winning, that's automating America's decline. So as much effort as we're putting into winning the chip, AI and data center race, we better putting that same amount of urgency, effort and innovation into coming up with systems to cushion us through the transition. Otherwise, we won't win. We won't win civil unrest, political violence, 15% unemployment rate. That's not winning the AI race. And, so let's get practical. What are the new policies and new systems and new training and new incentives for companies to get us there so we can win?

Joe Weisenthal: I know you're thinking about this now, but do you have any idea of what that could actually look like? Because I think I don't often sympathize that much with large tech companies. But, you know, if I'm. Neither do I. Right? If I'm like a meta or a Google or whoever, and I'm being told that, like, not only am I in an existential race with every other tech company out there to win on AI, but I am also in an existential tech race with China on behalf of the US. And also, I now have to think about the social implications of what I'm doing. And maybe I have to think about ways to either, you know, slow it down or manage it in a better way for society. That's a lot to put on a private company.

Gina Raimondo: Yeah. By the way, I don't think it should just be put on them. No way am I saying, by the way. I mean, I'm not sure why we would blame them. I mean, if they create a new technology and every company in America adopts it, what do you do? You quote unquote blame? I wouldn't put it in terms of blame. Like, I love it that American companies are are winning the race, are leading. We have that. We do, we do we we design the best chips. We have the best models. That's a great thing. I just think this is a all hands on deck moment for the government of the state, federal and local level, for every company in America, for policymakers, for AI companies to say, what does it really mean to win the AI race? Because I don't mean winning isn't just innovating the technology at breakneck speed. If you create, you know, incredible social, political and economic unrest, you know, like agents don't buy things, right? Every company needs human beings with money in their pocket to buy things. This is in their interest, too. So I think we just have to come together and create a different set of incentives. I don't even right now, you may not agree with me if you're the CEO of an American company and you fire however many thousand people, it's a little hard to blame them, because every incentive in our system says your job is to maximize short term share price. So I think it's time to experiment with some new policies that align incentives to win. I also think this, and this is my view, I think China, you know, with climate, change, with a lot of things with, with, say, putting, pulling hundreds of millions of people out of poverty, trying to said industrialize, create the pollution. We'll clean up the mess later. They could be doing that with AI. That doesn't work in America, in a democratic society, putting tens of millions of Americans out of work precipitously, will will create the end of democracy. We will not win the AI race. And so we just got to get to work and be innovative.

Joe Weisenthal: You know, these comments that you make about potential civil unrest, 15% unemployment, end of democracy. It strikes me that the, the only people I other people that I hear really talking about this seriously, are the head of the major AI labs themselves who seem very attuned to this risk. So like I said, European civic AI said politicians like just domestic American politicians. Do you think they're sufficiently homed in on the risks that you're thinking about right now, about the potential for domestic destabilization as a result of AI in a fairly short period of time?

Gina Raimondo: I do, but I think there overcome with and caused by anxiety and fear and not the efficiently seized by okay, what are we going to do about it?

Tracy Alloway: Yeah. I mean, look, I talked to a lot. I know, you know, most of the governors, having been a governor and on both sides of the aisle, what do they hear from their constituents. Fear anti data center. It manifests itself in the anti data center stuff. And that obviously has taken off. And there's but but but what you're even talking about is like that's not going to cut it. Like in terms of like yeah. So what what like what should they be doing.

Gina Raimondo: I think they should be saying, how do we look? Okay. The question everyone says is, okay, what are the new jobs? Right. Yeah. The only people who know the answers to that, to the extent anyone does, are companies that are using the AI to grow an AI company, you know, regular company and AI companies that are developing the new stuff. So the number one thing is how do we incentivize them to really lean in to start investing some of the gains that they make from AI and efficiency into new job creation? Right now, and my view for a long time has been post-high school education in America mostly doesn't work. It mostly doesn't work. We can argue with me about it. That's my long held view. I was a governor who oversaw colleges. A lot of people who start college don't finish. They wind up with a degree, a bundle of loans and then become a barista or something like that.

Joe Weisenthal: I became a podcaster.

Gina Raimondo: You get well, you know, you couldn't get a job. And people think, I'm joking. I dropped out of Columbia. I don't think I've ever said that.

Tracy Alloway: Oh, really?

Gina Raimondo: Yeah. After two weeks, I was like, I can't believe I'm spending this much money. And that was. Why I. Left.

Joe Weisenthal: You see, you're smart. That seems you're smart.

Gina Raimondo: But anyway, so we met with my point, like.

Tracy Alloway: Let's go Columbia Journalism School. You got your undergrad?

Gina Raimondo: Yeah, I did undergrad. Yeah, that's what I'm saying.

Tracy Alloway: You did. You're completed, I just don't this was a moment. What?

Joe Weisenthal: You're creating some big myth of, like, under. No.

Tracy Alloway: Okay. You, like, have a regular degree. And thank you for the fact she's a great. Yeah, yeah.

Gina Raimondo: But by the way, who cares if she didn't. No, no, no. It's great, it's great. I just want to, you know, job. So I think, you know, we have we have so many systems in this country that were just created for a different time. Like, truthfully, I'm excited about the potential of AI and how productive and healthy we could be using it. The thing that scares the expletive out of me is the systems in America that our unemployment insurance doesn't really help. White collar worker. If you make, you know, six figures a year, unemployment insurance is not that helpful. We have really no what I would call transition insurance to get from one subsidy or something. Wage subsidy to get from one job to another, adult education is essentially either non-existent, poor quality, or stigmatized. And companies have precious little incentive to redeploy people instead of just laying them off. So I'm highly interested to work at the state and local level where things can happen with employers who I would argue have the most to gain. And, and governments to get to the business of trying new things. And by the way, we can America rises to the challenge in times of crisis. Why do we have unemployment insurance? Because we have the Great Depression. Why do we have the GI Bill? Because we had a Second World War and we wanted to shove everybody to college, and it worked ten times as many people go to college today than they did then. Let's get ahead of this crisis and do the change that's necessary now so we can thrive in an AI economy.

Tracy Alloway: When you talk to, businesses or particularly local businesses or small businesses, when you're doing your work at the state level, etc.. We know the polls about AI, and there are, as you mentioned, they're very dismal. But like do other entrepreneurs or the people who are not at AI companies who are like right now, today, very excited about what I can do for them. At the. At the non AI labs, like just the companies that are like using AI tools when you go around. Yeah, big or small. Do you encounter a fair number of managers, CEOs, small business owners who are excited about what they're able to do now with the technology?

Gina Raimondo: Yes, yes, I do. I do I'm spending some time working with, former governor of Indiana, Eric Holcomb. On this issue. And he, he and I work together when we were governor. So anyway, last week we spent some time in Indiana talking to people. He organized a couple of roundtables to talk to people. It was amazing to me. They were mostly small business owners. Okay. It was incredible to me how here, how optimistic they were. You know, I'm using AI and I've doubled my business. I'm able to be so much more productive. A health care, a woman providing health care consulting services said, I'm able to serve a lot more customers and I haven't raised the price. Big company CEOs who I also talk to. Interestingly, big company CEOs are not as convinced as the AI company CEOs that they're going to be laying off huge portions of their workforce. Yeah. They think it takes time, right? Big enterprises don't move on a dime. And when, you know, a lot of CEOs I talked to say, yeah, we're going to cut we're going to cut over here because we want to grow over here. And that's that. I think it could happen. We're going to cut here to grow here. So it's a mix. It's a mix. It's a no one knows. I think anyone who tells you they know is either delusional or lying. Or something in the middle. Yeah. And nor do I know. Okay. But what I do know is we're not going to solve the problem by admiring it and being afraid we're not going to solve the problem by stopping AI innovation. We're sure as hell not going to stop the problem by paying every American to stay home and not work. We're not going to solve the problem by giving business a free ride. Like get in the boat and let's go and fix it.

Joe Weisenthal: Yeah, we have been asking everyone on the show who says that new jobs are going to be created as a result of AI, what those jobs would actually look like. And you're absolutely right. No one seems to know at the moment. So I won't ask you that question because you already said that you.

Gina Raimondo: I have one little theory. Okay. Go on.

Gina Raimondo: I do have one theory. Which again, I'll also say, I don't know, but I have a theory. I think you could see an explosion of new small company. And I'm hearing that from a lot of people. It's much easier to start your own business, because of AI tools. Yeah. So, like, now, lots and lots of people make a living with a restaurant or a coffee shop or whatever. I think it's possible we see a real explosion of online, like new services, new online products, because people can start a business with AI. So let's say I'm right. Like, let's say we do the work and it turns out to be a decent theory. Okay, so then what do we do about it? How about we have some incent? How about we create an initiative at a state or local level where we say, hey, if you're a call center worker or you're an accountant, you're going to get laid off. Here's a new initiative. We're going to allow you to collect unemployment insurance while you start your new business. Plus, we're going to give you a subsidy to help start that business. Plus, the company you just got laid off from is going to kick in. I don't know what a little bit more of a severance help you to start your job. Like. We have to get from here to there and we have to start experimenting with some new stuff.

Joe Weisenthal: Since we're on the topic of AI and since you are the former commerce secretary and you instituted a lot of the, chips controls that Joe and I spent many years talking about. Trying to understand. Yeah, I'm really curious. But when you were instituting those controls, did you have AI coming down the line? Like so quickly in your mind, or were you thinking about AGI or what? You know, with the benefit of hindsight, no. Where are you? Right.

Gina Raimondo: Oh, yeah. Yeah, yeah. I mean, define right. Like, I think we were, like, more right than wrong in the world of non perfection, I did now you can choose to believe that or not, but I don't know if any of my former team is here. A lot of people would say a lot of people would say to me, hey, Secretary, you're shoveling tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer money into the chip industry. The chip industry is famously cyclical. Are you worried that right when you put this money in, there's going to be, you know, a down cycle in the chip industry? And I would say then I don't think so because of AI. Now, I would say years ago, I would say at that time, different now, I'd say, you know, only about a third of American businesses at that time were even in the cloud, you know. Yeah, they're still like using Excel and on prem storage thing. So we need a lot of chips for traditional data centers. And I say, and then on top of that, I know I always felt that the bottom wasn't going to fall out of the chip industry because of I am, on the controls. Yeah. I had a thought that the AI race would be the race and I wanted to win it. So, like I say, throwing sand in the years of China's operation felt like a good thing to me.

Joe Weisenthal: Is pretty incredible. On the, cloud thing you mentioned, we did an episode recently and we were talking to an executive, and you mentioned something about, the length of time of a recent cloud migration project they were doing. And in my head I was like, it's 2026. And large companies still have like, we just sort of taken for granted that everything is going to be in some cloud. That was Marco Argenti. Yeah. Right. Right. Goldman. Yeah. And so to this day, there's still a huge cloud migration projects that are happening, which is pretty extraordinary. Yeah I'm not certain we're going to see this. 50 million people laid off tomorrow. Like yeah that's a good indicator of how slow these things can move. Take your big favorite big company. Turning those company is like a little bit like government. You can't turn on a dime if you have companies that are moving from Excel and all these different databases to a fully a genetic system, it takes years, not months, which means we have a minute to figure it out. Now, did you know what are you most worried about?

Gina Raimondo: I'm most worried that we do what we've often done, which is wait for the crisis before we have some solution. Wait for mass unemployment before we get serious about preparing. And, well, you know what? I think if that happens, I think there will be regulation to stop AI. And I think it'll be bad.

Tracy Alloway: Let's actually talk a little bit more about the chips act. Since we have you here. And one of the concerns, it's like, okay, people would say this is, you know, this is a type of industrial policy that we haven't done in a while in the United States. And one of the questions is whether our political system allows for that, because we had an election and the incumbent party lost, and then new people came in, etc., we're do sort of like looking back now, those chips investments that were made, can we say they survived the transition? And how did the transition affect the trajectory of this broader, endeavor to have more domestic, semiconductor manufacturing?

Gina Raimondo: Yeah. My biggest lesson from the chips program is when you do something like that, make sure it's bipartisan. It has mostly survived, actually. Now TSMC is making leading edge chips in Arizona the same way they are in Taipei, Taiwan. And they are going to expand. And this administration is like helping not hurting that the same thing with, you know, Intel and all these other companies. So it is surviving. And I think it's because it was bipartisan. There were a lot of leading Republican senators who really wanted to happen. And in contrast to say, like the Inflation Reduction Act, which you could argue was also a little bit of industrial policy, and so far as it was meant to accelerate our path to a, you know, cleaner economy that was immediately undone because it was passed on Partizan lines. Meanwhile, we couldn't have gotten it done otherwise. So in no way am I criticizing. I'm just know I learned the reality that if we have any hope of having continuity, that it better be bipartisan, popular, beginning, middle and end. And my team to whom I give great credit, pushed me to spend a lot of time on Capitol Hill, even after we got the money to constantly update, Republican members of the Congress to maintain its popularity. And I think that I learned a big lesson with that.

Tracy Alloway: How should we evaluate the success of the Chips act? Because, you know, the headlines nowadays are all about Iran and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. And, everyone's minds are currently very focused on choke points in the world. And one of those major choke points would be if anything were to happen between China and Taiwan. And so I'm very curious if we had a situation like that, would the US be self-sufficient? I'm not sure that's the right word, but self-sufficient in its supply of chips. What should we be aiming for here if we're thinking about global choke choke points for strategic tech?

Gina Raimondo: This is the question why? When you say did you get it right? I'm like it directionally. Yes. Perfectly. No. The answer is no. If I this is not going to happen. But if theoretically possibly next year China has Taiwan and they cut off supply of our chips, I don't think either of those things would happen. But theoretically it would be like apocalyptically bad, right? Like that would be very bad. We're producing some chips in the US. Our goal was to get from 0% of leading edge chips in the US to, I think, 20%, of global capacity by 2030. We're on a path to hit that goal. But again, 20%. So that's way number one. I think we need to de-escalate, have stability in a floor under our relationship with China. It's good for them. It's good for us. But also we have to work with our allies. We can it is not possible. One of the arguments I used to get into with my old boss, President Biden, oh my God, he's like, gov, why can't we make everything in America like the president and not don't have enough people? That's inflationary. We don't have enough. Not a good goal. We don't have enough land or enough energy. We should make the most critical things and work with our allies. And I had that argument with them maybe ten times. I lost every time. No, because he he's like, I don't like that. I want to make everything in America. But this gets to my point, like not to alarm you further, but okay, let's say we did great with the chips that we're on our path. We're making memory chips here. Everything here, we still don't really do what's called advanced packaging. Yeah, they leave right. We make the chips and then they hand out. Yeah. Not to be too much of a nerd here, but. Now this is important. Packages that you know. And by the way, packaging isn't put the chips in a box. Packaging is how they layer the chips, which is incredibly sophisticated to get enough compute on a chip. Even though we're making them in Arizona, they go back to Taiwan for packaging problem. You got to get that in America. I think it's 30% of printed circuit boards we import from China. Almost all of the chemicals, substrates, inputs that go into making chips come from China or Asia. If you did, like a supply chain breakdown of an AI data center, you know, the cables, the wires, the chemicals, the this that I think you'd be not happy with. How much of that still comes from China. So. Okay. So what do you do about it? Diversify sufficiently, diversify sufficiently here and with allies so that China doesn't have so much leverage over us. That is the thing.

Joe Weisenthal: So mindful of the time and have a few minutes left. We did an episode, I think, late last year. Wake Froman. Who who's in the audience? We chatted with him and I don't think he expected us to, like, turn the tide. He he had one sentence that then we like you to clickbait, and turned it into the title. But he had described, the The emerging a polyamorous global trading order. And I thought that was a very compelling word to describe all sorts of, you know, on the fly, different arrangement when you think about where we should be going in the future, like should assuming this administration will continue to antagonize allies, should the goal really be to just like build some clean blocks again, build some clear blocks, not polyamorous trading, but re rebuild sort of, unambiguous partnerships with clear lines and clear borders.

Gina Raimondo: And I don't want to disagree with Mike, but. He didn't he I'm not saying he was advocating that. I think he was describing the direction that things seem to be going. Would the opposite of poly him? Well, in other words, yeah. No, I'm not except in marriage. I'm not for that in this example. But I just in case my husband's listening. I'm strongly for monogamy in other parts of life, I think it's more like we need to be more practical and get along insofar as we can keep commerce going, avoid kinetic conflict, and have a measure of, you know, national security. So, for instance, as secretary, I frequently advocated within our team a closer relationship with Indonesia and the Philippines or Nicole. Or other countries with Cobalt and Cetera and was frequently pushed back on that. You know, those countries don't hew to our labor standards. They don't hew to our environmental standards. They're in China's backyard. You but we don't live like the world of love is different. Rationality can maybe go out the window. This is the real world here. I would rather have a relationship like it's it's you have to balance. You have to balance this question of balance and practicality. Fine. You don't want to work with Indonesia because you don't like that I hear that, I hear that is it better to buy everything from China? I don't think so.

Tracy Alloway: So true.

Gina Raimondo: I think we have to kiss and make up with Europe. It's in our interest. Yes, we we have stronger relationships with countries that share our values, that are democracies, that have a rule of law. I don't think in my lifetime we're ever going to have a close relationship with China, Russia and North Korea, and we should call it as it is. I think we have to work a hell of a lot harder to increase our economic ties with Southeast Asia, with, countries in Africa, with countries in Latin America, and be, you know, maybe not. We don't have to love them. We got to work with them because it's in our interest and it's in the world's interest to de-escalate.

Joe Weisenthal: Gina Raimondo, thank you so much. That was fantastic.

Gina Raimondo: Thank you.

Joe Weisenthal: All right. Shall we leave it there?

Tracy Alloway: Let's leave it there. This has been another episode of the Odd Lots podcast. I'm Tracy Alloway. You can follow me @TracyAlloway and

Joe Weisenthal: I'm Joe Weisenthal. You can follow me @thestalwart. Follow our guest Gina Raimondo @GinaRaimondo, follow our producer Carmen Rodriguez @Carmenarmen Daishel Bennet @dashbot and Cale Brooks @calebrooks. And a big thank you to CFR. And for more Odd Lots content, go to bloomberg.com/oddlots with a daily newsletter and all of our episodes. You can chat about all of these topics 24/7 in our discord, discord.gg/oddlots And if you enjoy Odd Lots, if you like it when we do live events, then please leave us a positive review on your favorite podcast platform. And remember, if you are a Bloomberg subscriber, you can listen to all of our episodes absolutely ad free. All you need to do is find the Bloomberg Channel on Apple Podcasts and follow the instructions there. Thanks for watching.