Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.

Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.

The trade war between the US and China is on pause. Officials from both countries have lowered tariffs temporarily, and they've agreed to keep talking. Both countries hope they'll be able to draft a new trade deal by early August. Wall Street welcomed that news, but it is an ambitious timetable, and I wanted to get a better sense of how realistic it is that in ninety days the US and China could resolve their differences and the trade war between the world's two largest economies could end. So I called up Nicholas Burns, who was the US ambassador to China under President Biden. It's one of the toughest jobs in government.

The trade war between the US and China is on pause. Officials from both countries have lowered tariffs temporarily, and they've agreed to keep talking. Both countries hope they'll be able to draft a new trade deal by early August. Wall Street welcomed that news, but it is an ambitious timetable, and I wanted to get a better sense of how realistic it is that in ninety days the US and China could resolve their differences and the trade war between the world's two largest economies could end. So I called up Nicholas Burns, who was the US ambassador to China under President Biden. It's one of the toughest jobs in government.

You've got to both defend and push and resist on one hand, and then you've got to stretch out your hand to work with them and shake their hand on the other. But that makes for a very complicated relationship.

You've got to both defend and push and resist on one hand, and then you've got to stretch out your hand to work with them and shake their hand on the other. But that makes for a very complicated relationship.

Burns's job in Beijing was the capstone of a decade's long career diplomat. He's held senior jobs under Republican and Democratic presidents. Now, Burns is a professor of diplomacy and international relations at the Harvard Kennedy School, which is where I sat down with him this week to talk about what he says is the most important relationship that the United States has. I'm David Gura, and this is the big take from Bloomberg News Today. On the show, Nicholas Burns, the former US Ambassador to China, on the trade war, the challenges facing his successor, who was just confirmed by the US Senate, and what he's telling his students at Harvard. We're worried about the future of diplomacy. I want to start with the meetings that took place over the weekend in Geneva, and I'm curious how you look at the way they unfolded and the outcome of them.

Burns's job in Beijing was the capstone of a decade's long career diplomat. He's held senior jobs under Republican and Democratic presidents. Now, Burns is a professor of diplomacy and international relations at the Harvard Kennedy School, which is where I sat down with him this week to talk about what he says is the most important relationship that the United States has. I'm David Gura, and this is the big take from Bloomberg News Today. On the show, Nicholas Burns, the former US Ambassador to China, on the trade war, the challenges facing his successor, who was just confirmed by the US Senate, and what he's telling his students at Harvard. We're worried about the future of diplomacy. I want to start with the meetings that took place over the weekend in Geneva, and I'm curious how you look at the way they unfolded and the outcome of them.

Do you see it as a positive step?

Do you see it as a positive step?

Well, first of all, I started from a first principle, and that is that China's been the largest and most important disruptor in the global trade system for about three decades.

Well, first of all, I started from a first principle, and that is that China's been the largest and most important disruptor in the global trade system for about three decades.

Right now.

Right now.

There's a reason why the United States and many other countries around the world have placed terraces on China. China's manufactured exports, in particular, is because China has been dumping them around the world below the cost of production and it's been a killer for jobs both in the United States historically in the last several decades, but also around the world. So I have a degree of sympathy for the situation that President Trump and his team inherited, which was a situation that we left when I left in mid January as ambassador to China. The Chinese are trying to act now is that they're the innocent party, that they're the victim of this trade war by President Trump, and that they're the responsible party, when in fact the reality is quite different.

There's a reason why the United States and many other countries around the world have placed terraces on China. China's manufactured exports, in particular, is because China has been dumping them around the world below the cost of production and it's been a killer for jobs both in the United States historically in the last several decades, but also around the world. So I have a degree of sympathy for the situation that President Trump and his team inherited, which was a situation that we left when I left in mid January as ambassador to China. The Chinese are trying to act now is that they're the innocent party, that they're the victim of this trade war by President Trump, and that they're the responsible party, when in fact the reality is quite different.

Having said that, these are going.

Having said that, these are going.

To be very very difficult negotiations over the next ninety days, I think in the end, self interest and logic will prevent both sides need an agreement. China's our third largest trade partner. About a million American jobs depend on trade with China. Manufacturing jobs in China depend on trade with the United States. So neither country can afford to sunder the economic ties and the millions of interactions that our private sector has had with the Chinese economy over the last forty years. And I think in the end there will be a trade agreement, but getting there, I think is going to be extraordinarily difficult.

To be very very difficult negotiations over the next ninety days, I think in the end, self interest and logic will prevent both sides need an agreement. China's our third largest trade partner. About a million American jobs depend on trade with China. Manufacturing jobs in China depend on trade with the United States. So neither country can afford to sunder the economic ties and the millions of interactions that our private sector has had with the Chinese economy over the last forty years. And I think in the end there will be a trade agreement, but getting there, I think is going to be extraordinarily difficult.

During your tenure, you were trying to, if I may, rehabilitate a relationship that had worsened during the first Trump administration, develop conduits for communication, re establish economic and security ties. When you left that post, could you've envision this turning out the way that it has in terms of how the rhetoric has been ratcheted up, the tariffs have been put in place. Is it the worst case that you envisioned or worse yet?

During your tenure, you were trying to, if I may, rehabilitate a relationship that had worsened during the first Trump administration, develop conduits for communication, re establish economic and security ties. When you left that post, could you've envision this turning out the way that it has in terms of how the rhetoric has been ratcheted up, the tariffs have been put in place. Is it the worst case that you envisioned or worse yet?

Still, I certainly did not anticipate one hundred and forty five percent American terrorists on China or one hundred and twenty five percent on Chinese tariffs on American goods, and the trade war that has resulted effectively led to a trade embargo as of the past week, when no ships were sailing with goods back and forth, when manufacturers couldn't export to each other's countries, and you see the significant shortage of goods that traditionally are important to both economies. So I didn't expect that to happen at all. We're the two largest global economies, so we have a profound impact on the health of global economy. But we also need the global economy to be functioning in a rational and stable way, and I think you know, we're not anywhere close to being out of the woods. If the levels now are set at thirty percent tariffs on the American side imposed on China and ten percent by China imposed on the United States, those are historically high levels, and a lot of trade will not be able to take place. It just simply won't be economical.

Still, I certainly did not anticipate one hundred and forty five percent American terrorists on China or one hundred and twenty five percent on Chinese tariffs on American goods, and the trade war that has resulted effectively led to a trade embargo as of the past week, when no ships were sailing with goods back and forth, when manufacturers couldn't export to each other's countries, and you see the significant shortage of goods that traditionally are important to both economies. So I didn't expect that to happen at all. We're the two largest global economies, so we have a profound impact on the health of global economy. But we also need the global economy to be functioning in a rational and stable way, and I think you know, we're not anywhere close to being out of the woods. If the levels now are set at thirty percent tariffs on the American side imposed on China and ten percent by China imposed on the United States, those are historically high levels, and a lot of trade will not be able to take place. It just simply won't be economical.

A minute ago, you spoke about how China is portraying not just the talks, but the way that this trade war is unfolded. How effective you think that is. Do they walk away from this feeling like they have the upper hand. Do you think the world views them as having the upper hand in these negotiations.

A minute ago, you spoke about how China is portraying not just the talks, but the way that this trade war is unfolded. How effective you think that is. Do they walk away from this feeling like they have the upper hand. Do you think the world views them as having the upper hand in these negotiations.

Well, the Chinese press, the nationalist press, and to an extent, the government of China have been saying that they held out, that they stood strong, and that they faced up to the American tariff threats and they did not blink. And they've been trumpeting that line in the global South. President she just hosted most of the major leaders from South America at a major summit he's been making. He made a trip in Southeast Asia to the Asian country. So they clearly are signaling to the United States. You're not going to bully us. We have other options. You've seen a big increase in Chinese manufactured exports to their neighbors. So yes, the government of China is trying to portray itself as the steady, solid country that stood up to the United States. I think that China needs a deal too. There's a reason why the Chinese met with Secretary of Vessant. The economy is slowing down. They're facing lower GDP growth for the next five to ten years. They have a property crisis that continues to linger. They have a consumption problem. The Chinese people are not consuming in a rational way, sitting on their money because of the uncertainty of the investment environment in China itself. They have strength in the Chinese economy, enormous strengths.

Well, the Chinese press, the nationalist press, and to an extent, the government of China have been saying that they held out, that they stood strong, and that they faced up to the American tariff threats and they did not blink. And they've been trumpeting that line in the global South. President she just hosted most of the major leaders from South America at a major summit he's been making. He made a trip in Southeast Asia to the Asian country. So they clearly are signaling to the United States. You're not going to bully us. We have other options. You've seen a big increase in Chinese manufactured exports to their neighbors. So yes, the government of China is trying to portray itself as the steady, solid country that stood up to the United States. I think that China needs a deal too. There's a reason why the Chinese met with Secretary of Vessant. The economy is slowing down. They're facing lower GDP growth for the next five to ten years. They have a property crisis that continues to linger. They have a consumption problem. The Chinese people are not consuming in a rational way, sitting on their money because of the uncertainty of the investment environment in China itself. They have strength in the Chinese economy, enormous strengths.

But they also have these weaknesses.

But they also have these weaknesses.

China could not afford a sustained trade war with the United States. That's why they were at the table, and that's why they've agreed to a deal in ninety days.

China could not afford a sustained trade war with the United States. That's why they were at the table, and that's why they've agreed to a deal in ninety days.

What did you learn being there about that country's capacity to whether something like this. So you're saying they couldn't sustain it long term, but give us some insight into how they had been preparing for a moment like this one where there would be this kind of geopolitical test.

What did you learn being there about that country's capacity to whether something like this. So you're saying they couldn't sustain it long term, but give us some insight into how they had been preparing for a moment like this one where there would be this kind of geopolitical test.

I was in China, of course, during the presidential election, our presidential election of November twenty twenty four, and as soon as President Trump was declared the winner in that election and prepared to office, the Chinese began to prepare for a trade war. They saw it coming. They had listened to Canadate Trump. They've did a lot of remobilization of their supply chain to try to stock up on minerals and on technologies that were important to them, and they expected this. They also have an authoritarian system of government, and so it's a one man rule, and President Hijinping whatever he says goes. He prepared the Chinese people for a long struggle with the United States. And you know, China is like the United States. People are patriotic about their country. I would say there's a highly nationalist element in Chinese social media, and there are hundreds of millions of Chinese involved in Chinese social media. So this was a moment where the leadership said, we have to stand strong and defend our country.

I was in China, of course, during the presidential election, our presidential election of November twenty twenty four, and as soon as President Trump was declared the winner in that election and prepared to office, the Chinese began to prepare for a trade war. They saw it coming. They had listened to Canadate Trump. They've did a lot of remobilization of their supply chain to try to stock up on minerals and on technologies that were important to them, and they expected this. They also have an authoritarian system of government, and so it's a one man rule, and President Hijinping whatever he says goes. He prepared the Chinese people for a long struggle with the United States. And you know, China is like the United States. People are patriotic about their country. I would say there's a highly nationalist element in Chinese social media, and there are hundreds of millions of Chinese involved in Chinese social media. So this was a moment where the leadership said, we have to stand strong and defend our country.

And they think they've done that.

And they think they've done that.

After the break Nick Burns weighs in on the job, facing his successor and the effects of the Trump administrations cuts to the federal government. The US is going to have a new ambassador in Beijing soon, David Perdue has been confirmed.

After the break Nick Burns weighs in on the job, facing his successor and the effects of the Trump administrations cuts to the federal government. The US is going to have a new ambassador in Beijing soon, David Perdue has been confirmed.

I wonder if.

I wonder if.

You've spoken with him, exchanged messages with him, and what counsel you would give him about the role itself and the ways in which you've found you could be the most successful.

You've spoken with him, exchanged messages with him, and what counsel you would give him about the role itself and the ways in which you've found you could be the most successful.

Well.

Well.

I have spoken with him, and I wish him the best of success, because we have so much writing on this policy with China that we've got to be successful. I think he's very well placed to be ambassador. He worked in business in Hong Kong and Singapore. He's been to China. As a member of the Senate, he was on Foreign Relations and Armed Services Committees, which are the two relevant committees, two of them for China, and has a clear sense of what he wants to do.

I have spoken with him, and I wish him the best of success, because we have so much writing on this policy with China that we've got to be successful. I think he's very well placed to be ambassador. He worked in business in Hong Kong and Singapore. He's been to China. As a member of the Senate, he was on Foreign Relations and Armed Services Committees, which are the two relevant committees, two of them for China, and has a clear sense of what he wants to do.

It's a tough job.

It's a tough job.

I found out, it's not for the feint of heart. We have with China the most competitive relationship of any country in the world. China is our leading competitor for military influence and military power in the Indo Pacific, our leading competitor on the major technologies AI, biotech, quantum computing that will form the basis of the future of the global economy. Our third largest trade partner with which we have a very problematic trade and teriff relationship. And obviously, and maybe this is the most important part of it, we believe in human freedom and human rights, and the Chinese government does not practice that. There are major violators of the human rights of their own people. But at the same time, and this makes it so complicated, David, is that China's our largest and strongest competitor, but there are certain issues where China is one of our most important partners. We're the two stewards of the global economy. We're seeing that play out right now in the teriff issue. On climate change. We're the two leading emitters of carbon and so President Biden felt very important to work with China. If we want to do anything about fen, we've got to work with China to make that happen. So I always thought it was it wasn't a fifty to fifty balance. I actually thought I spent about eighty percent of my time on the competitive edge with China, about twenty percent on cooperative matters.

I found out, it's not for the feint of heart. We have with China the most competitive relationship of any country in the world. China is our leading competitor for military influence and military power in the Indo Pacific, our leading competitor on the major technologies AI, biotech, quantum computing that will form the basis of the future of the global economy. Our third largest trade partner with which we have a very problematic trade and teriff relationship. And obviously, and maybe this is the most important part of it, we believe in human freedom and human rights, and the Chinese government does not practice that. There are major violators of the human rights of their own people. But at the same time, and this makes it so complicated, David, is that China's our largest and strongest competitor, but there are certain issues where China is one of our most important partners. We're the two stewards of the global economy. We're seeing that play out right now in the teriff issue. On climate change. We're the two leading emitters of carbon and so President Biden felt very important to work with China. If we want to do anything about fen, we've got to work with China to make that happen. So I always thought it was it wasn't a fifty to fifty balance. I actually thought I spent about eighty percent of my time on the competitive edge with China, about twenty percent on cooperative matters.

And that I thought was the right ratio.

And that I thought was the right ratio.

But that makes for a very complicated relationship where you've got to both defend and push and resist on one hand, and then you've got to stretch out your hand to work with them and shake their hand on the other. That's the reality of being the American ambassador to China.

But that makes for a very complicated relationship where you've got to both defend and push and resist on one hand, and then you've got to stretch out your hand to work with them and shake their hand on the other. That's the reality of being the American ambassador to China.

Before I kind of pull back and ask you some broader questions, I wonder how you felt about the relationship between the US and China when you left.

Before I kind of pull back and ask you some broader questions, I wonder how you felt about the relationship between the US and China when you left.

Well, I arrived in China, was sworn in in twenty twenty one, and arrived a couple months later hawkish about the relationship on national security grounds, because China is this very serious competitor impinging on a lot of American interests in the end opisis And I think I left China more hawkish.

Well, I arrived in China, was sworn in in twenty twenty one, and arrived a couple months later hawkish about the relationship on national security grounds, because China is this very serious competitor impinging on a lot of American interests in the end opisis And I think I left China more hawkish.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I saw the reality of the relationship and the cynical nature of the government of China, and of the duplicity on some issues of the government of China, the fact that we would make an agreement and then it wasn't honored. So I think this is a long term structural rivalry. We're competing for global power.

I saw the reality of the relationship and the cynical nature of the government of China, and of the duplicity on some issues of the government of China, the fact that we would make an agreement and then it wasn't honored. So I think this is a long term structural rivalry. We're competing for global power.

I don't think that will change.

I don't think that will change.

No, matter who's president, and so we've got to steal ourselves for the next decade or two to a historic competition with China, and China right now is stronger than any adversary the United States has ever faced in the history of the United States, going back to the Revolutionary War, including the First and Second World Wars, including.

No, matter who's president, and so we've got to steal ourselves for the next decade or two to a historic competition with China, and China right now is stronger than any adversary the United States has ever faced in the history of the United States, going back to the Revolutionary War, including the First and Second World Wars, including.

The Cold War.

The Cold War.

The Soviet Union and its heyday was not as strong as China is today. And so we've got to face that competition. But here's the catch. We've got to do it in such a way that we don't end up in a war, because a war would be catastrophic. But to be engaged with the Chinese leadership, to talk to them, as Secretary Vescent did this past week on the terariff issue, but on a thousand other fronts, be engaging them and talking to them so you can compete. We can cooperate where we can, but we avoid a conflict, which in the future would be an absolute catastrophe. That makes for a very difficult and complex job.

The Soviet Union and its heyday was not as strong as China is today. And so we've got to face that competition. But here's the catch. We've got to do it in such a way that we don't end up in a war, because a war would be catastrophic. But to be engaged with the Chinese leadership, to talk to them, as Secretary Vescent did this past week on the terariff issue, but on a thousand other fronts, be engaging them and talking to them so you can compete. We can cooperate where we can, but we avoid a conflict, which in the future would be an absolute catastrophe. That makes for a very difficult and complex job.

There seems to be a message from this administration Washington that there can be bombasted and heated rhetoric, radically increased tariffs, but then you can flip the switchback and things can go back to normal. And drawing on your experience as a diplomat for many decades, do you think that that's folly or that that's accurate.

There seems to be a message from this administration Washington that there can be bombasted and heated rhetoric, radically increased tariffs, but then you can flip the switchback and things can go back to normal. And drawing on your experience as a diplomat for many decades, do you think that that's folly or that that's accurate.

I think we're at a moment of great transformation in the global power picture, with alliance is shifting very rapidly. You see that China and Russia, in Iran and North Korea and Venezuela and Nicaragua are kind of all working together, the authoritarian dictatorships, and they're working together to try to cut down the power of the United States, reduce it in the world, and of our democratic allies. And I always felt, working for President Biden, that one of our strongest suits is that we have reinforced our alliances despite the fact that we are still the strongest power in the world. You do need friends and allies in the world, and I do think that's the greatest mistake that President Trump has made in his first four months in office. If Donald Trump had faced China down, but had not placed high tariffs on Japan, South Korea, the European Union, Canada, and Mexico, all those countries would have been on our side of the table. Have the same trade and tariff problems with China that we do, but they weren't interested in doing that once they were placed under the same tariff regime that China was placed under. And so I fear that the administration really has a blind spot. They think the United States can go it alone in the world.

I think we're at a moment of great transformation in the global power picture, with alliance is shifting very rapidly. You see that China and Russia, in Iran and North Korea and Venezuela and Nicaragua are kind of all working together, the authoritarian dictatorships, and they're working together to try to cut down the power of the United States, reduce it in the world, and of our democratic allies. And I always felt, working for President Biden, that one of our strongest suits is that we have reinforced our alliances despite the fact that we are still the strongest power in the world. You do need friends and allies in the world, and I do think that's the greatest mistake that President Trump has made in his first four months in office. If Donald Trump had faced China down, but had not placed high tariffs on Japan, South Korea, the European Union, Canada, and Mexico, all those countries would have been on our side of the table. Have the same trade and tariff problems with China that we do, but they weren't interested in doing that once they were placed under the same tariff regime that China was placed under. And so I fear that the administration really has a blind spot. They think the United States can go it alone in the world.

We can't.

We can't.

And so that's an own goal by the Trump administration. It's one that they've got to reverse if they hope to be effective.

And so that's an own goal by the Trump administration. It's one that they've got to reverse if they hope to be effective.

Can you recognize the State Department today?

Can you recognize the State Department today?

You can spend forty five years in government service, given the cuts that have taken place, the priorities of it, How different is it from the place that you first went to forty five years ago.

You can spend forty five years in government service, given the cuts that have taken place, the priorities of it, How different is it from the place that you first went to forty five years ago.

David, I answer it this way.

David, I answer it this way.

I spent a lifetime in government at the State Department in White House, serving in Washington and overseas. Every government agency can be subject and should be subject to reform. But taking a sledgehammer to USAID and firing eight thousand people in one week, without a thought, without a plan, without actually knowing what you're tearing down, that was a huge mistake. Treating nonpartisan civil servants, military officers, foreign service officers as if they are disloyal because they work for President Biden. Well, they also work for President Bush. They've worked people like me work for both parties. We take an oath to the Constitution to be nonpartisan, but the Trump administration has not appointed a single foreign service professional ambassador since it took office. They've appointed lots of political appointees, but nobody from the ranks of our serving career diplomats. Seventeen of our deputy chiefs of mission are number two officials in embassies who were assigned to these jobs and getting ready to go have been told they're not going. And many of them, if not all, of that group, are women and people of color. And so there is a crisis in our civil service right now. And if these cuts continue the way they are, and if the denigration of our civil servants continue, you're losing a great group of people who just want to serve the country and want to do it in a non partisan way, and they will be nonpartisan, that is the Foreign Service and US government way. And I think the Trump administration and has been extraordinarily destructive of this tradition we've had in this country now for about one hundred and thirty years of a professional civil service, not a political spoils system what we had in the nineteenth century, but professional civil service that would serve the country and serve any president at the American people elected. That's what's at stake, And I think when the pendulum does swing back at some point, we're going to have to recreate USAID, recreate the Voice of America, recreate Radio Free Asia. These are journalists who we employ to tell the story of the United States, in the case of China, to several hundred million Chinese listeners of VOA and Radio Free Asia. So enormous damage has been done by this very cynical effort. Doge to tear down all these institutions and not replace them with anything of value.

I spent a lifetime in government at the State Department in White House, serving in Washington and overseas. Every government agency can be subject and should be subject to reform. But taking a sledgehammer to USAID and firing eight thousand people in one week, without a thought, without a plan, without actually knowing what you're tearing down, that was a huge mistake. Treating nonpartisan civil servants, military officers, foreign service officers as if they are disloyal because they work for President Biden. Well, they also work for President Bush. They've worked people like me work for both parties. We take an oath to the Constitution to be nonpartisan, but the Trump administration has not appointed a single foreign service professional ambassador since it took office. They've appointed lots of political appointees, but nobody from the ranks of our serving career diplomats. Seventeen of our deputy chiefs of mission are number two officials in embassies who were assigned to these jobs and getting ready to go have been told they're not going. And many of them, if not all, of that group, are women and people of color. And so there is a crisis in our civil service right now. And if these cuts continue the way they are, and if the denigration of our civil servants continue, you're losing a great group of people who just want to serve the country and want to do it in a non partisan way, and they will be nonpartisan, that is the Foreign Service and US government way. And I think the Trump administration and has been extraordinarily destructive of this tradition we've had in this country now for about one hundred and thirty years of a professional civil service, not a political spoils system what we had in the nineteenth century, but professional civil service that would serve the country and serve any president at the American people elected. That's what's at stake, And I think when the pendulum does swing back at some point, we're going to have to recreate USAID, recreate the Voice of America, recreate Radio Free Asia. These are journalists who we employ to tell the story of the United States, in the case of China, to several hundred million Chinese listeners of VOA and Radio Free Asia. So enormous damage has been done by this very cynical effort. Doge to tear down all these institutions and not replace them with anything of value.

But you're confident that that force of gravity will swing the pendulum back that we will be able to do that.

But you're confident that that force of gravity will swing the pendulum back that we will be able to do that.

I don't recreate them.

I don't recreate them.

I don't think anybody can predict when reason will prevail again and logic will prevail and sanity. But it has to because I think future administrations, future presidents will look around at their government and say, where are my AID workers? How do we run vaccine programs, global health programs, literacy programs that we ought to be doing around the world Because if Americans are generous people.

I don't think anybody can predict when reason will prevail again and logic will prevail and sanity. But it has to because I think future administrations, future presidents will look around at their government and say, where are my AID workers? How do we run vaccine programs, global health programs, literacy programs that we ought to be doing around the world Because if Americans are generous people.

Where are my diplomats?

Where are my diplomats?

Why do I not have any diplomats with thirty or forty years of experience? Well, they were all fired, summarily kicked out in the first couple of weeks and months of the Trump administration. It's a true national crisis.

Why do I not have any diplomats with thirty or forty years of experience? Well, they were all fired, summarily kicked out in the first couple of weeks and months of the Trump administration. It's a true national crisis.

I'd like to close by asking you what you're telling students here who are here at the Kennedy School here at Harvard to learn from your experience, to learn an art of diplomacy that has been practiced and perfected for many decades.

I'd like to close by asking you what you're telling students here who are here at the Kennedy School here at Harvard to learn from your experience, to learn an art of diplomacy that has been practiced and perfected for many decades.

What do you tell them? Hang on, hang on to your ideals.

What do you tell them? Hang on, hang on to your ideals.

It's a good thing to want to spend your life survey the United States of America, your country.

It's a good thing to want to spend your life survey the United States of America, your country.

It's a good thing.

It's a good thing.

You want to be in the public square what Teddy Roosevelt called the arena of public service. Study hard, and don't leave that dream behind of public service. Because what a tragedy would be for our country if young people in this country felt, well, I can't serve in the federal government because I'm not welcome as a career official in the federal government. We need non partisan americans out there representing us without any regard to party allegiance. That's an enormous asset, and if we let it wither away, and this administration is doing that, it's going to do enormous damage to our country.

You want to be in the public square what Teddy Roosevelt called the arena of public service. Study hard, and don't leave that dream behind of public service. Because what a tragedy would be for our country if young people in this country felt, well, I can't serve in the federal government because I'm not welcome as a career official in the federal government. We need non partisan americans out there representing us without any regard to party allegiance. That's an enormous asset, and if we let it wither away, and this administration is doing that, it's going to do enormous damage to our country.

This is The Big Take from Bloomberg News.

This is The Big Take from Bloomberg News.

I'm David Goura.

I'm David Goura.

This episode is produced by our senior producer Naomi Shaven, with help from Amber A.

This episode is produced by our senior producer Naomi Shaven, with help from Amber A.

Lee.

Lee.

It was edited by Patty Hirsh, Tracy Samuelson, Molly Smith, John Low, and Ramsey Alraccabe. It was fact checked by Rachel Lewis Chrisky and mixed and sound designed by Segura. Our senior editor is Elizabeth Ponso, Our deputy executive producer is Julia Weaver. Our executive producer is Nicole Beamster. Board Sage Bauman is Bloomberg's head of Podcasts. If you liked this episode, make sure to subscribe and review The Big Take wherever you listen to podcasts. It helps people find the show. Thanks for listening. We'll be back on Monday.

It was edited by Patty Hirsh, Tracy Samuelson, Molly Smith, John Low, and Ramsey Alraccabe. It was fact checked by Rachel Lewis Chrisky and mixed and sound designed by Segura. Our senior editor is Elizabeth Ponso, Our deputy executive producer is Julia Weaver. Our executive producer is Nicole Beamster. Board Sage Bauman is Bloomberg's head of Podcasts. If you liked this episode, make sure to subscribe and review The Big Take wherever you listen to podcasts. It helps people find the show. Thanks for listening. We'll be back on Monday.