[Crossroads LIVE 09/06/23] Sanctuary Cities Flipping on Mass Illegal Immigration The mass illegal immigration policies are beginning to implode. Sanctuary cities are saying they’ve reached their limit. Lawsuits are being discussed against states that send illegal immigrants elsewhere. And pressure is mounting on the Biden administration from within the same party. - Cartels Have Operational Control of the U.S. Border: Former Border Patrol Chief Rodney Scott "This isn't about the immigrant itself. And I think that's the thing that gets lost in the media a lot. That massive flow of humanity on the border gives the cartel…pretty much free distraction. But not only is it free, they're charging the illegal aliens. So now they're making money while the illegal aliens are providing a huge distraction." - Former U.S. border patrol chief Rodney Scott Dear Friends, As summer concludes, we're reminded of the backbone of this country: its diligent workers, its dream chasers—YOU. From all of us at EPOCHTV.COM, we extend our deepest gratitude. Dive into a one-year trial subscription with EpochTV for an exclusive rate, curated specially for the heroes of America—its workforce. [Special Feature] Border Deception: How the US and UN Are Quietly Running the Border Crisis America’s border crisis is not organic. Behind the nearly 4.9 million illegal immigrants who entered the United States since President Joe Biden took office are criminal cartels, orchestration from the United Nations, and financing from the U.S. government. And while taxpayers are being told that local law enforcement and the National Guard are working to resolve the crisis, in reality, they’re being used to funnel migrants to networks of non-governmental organizations, who then traffic them for resettlement throughout the country. In this investigative report, Crossroads host Joshua Philipp tours both sides of the U.S.–Mexico border to uncover what’s really behind the “Border Deception.” Official Trailer: - Gotaways: The Hidden Border Crisis | Documentary 2023 Beyond the groups of people crossing illegally into the United States and giving themselves up to Border Patrol are the lesser-known individuals known as the “gotaways.” This group of illegal immigrants evade Border Patrol and attempt to make their way past state and local law enforcement to get farther into the United States. There have been an estimated 1.7 million “gotaways” under the Biden administration. Who are they? Where are they going? What are their plans? The Epoch Original documentary “Gotaways: The Hidden Border Crisis” takes you to a small border county in Texas to show you the impact of the gotaways on local ranchers, law enforcement, and life in a small county. "Gotaways" is the first documentary of its kind, a high-energy, fast-paced, front-row seat inside the biggest border crisis in America’s history from the local perspective. Through exclusive footage and interviews with law enforcement and local ranchers, learn what it's really like to live on the southern border and how the crisis ultimately affects all of America. Official Trailer: On top of the 1.7 million known gotaways, border agents have apprehended more than 6.7 million illegal immigrants at our borders since the beginning of the Biden administration. Many are released into the United States and travel on to sanctuary cities such as New York and Chicago, creating ripple effects across the country. According to a new Gallup poll, 72 percent of Americans now believe that the border is either a crisis or a major problem. A two-year investigation, “Gotaways” was produced, directed, and written by Charlotte Cuthbertson, a senior border security correspondent for The Epoch Times. Charlotte moved to a small border county in Texas in 2021 and spent hundreds of hours with local law enforcement, as well as interviewing the sheriff, county attorney, EMS director, school superintendent, a former Border Patrol chief, and border ranchers to understand the impact and flow of the gotaways. This documentary gives you an insight into what's happening at the border and the everyday heroes who are working hard to keep their community safe and protect our border. Epoch Original Documentaries 2023 (Coming Soon):

Interview trailer: Watch the full interview: https://www.theepochtimes.com/epochtv/why-climate-change-policies-could-be-even-worse-than-the-covid-lockdowns-andrew-montford-5418575 To get notifications about new Kash's Corner and American Thought Leaders episodes, please sign up for our newsletter! Here 👉 Get Alerts - PRE-ORDER "The Shadow State" DVD: https://www.epochtv.shop/product-page/the-shadow-state-dvd The Real Story of January 6 | Documentary BUY Jan 6 DVD: https://www.epochtv.shop/product-page/dvd-the-real-story-of-january-6, Promo Code “Jan” for 20% off. - Follow American Thought Leaders on social media: Twitter: https://twitter.com/AmThoughtLeader Truth Social: https://truthsocial.com/@AmThoughtLeader Gettr: https://gettr.com/user/amthoughtleader Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AmericanThoughtLeaders Gab: https://gab.com/AmThoughtLeader Telegram: https://t.me/AmThoughtLeader

The Epoch Times was given access to tens of thousands of hours of U.S. Capitol Police security video of Jan. 6, 2021. Join Epoch TV host Joshua Philipp and senior investigative reporter Joe Hanneman for a special Aug. 11 report that will lay out their findings. The dramatic footage helps answer some of the many questions that remain two-and-a-half years after the events of Jan. 6. It's going to change narratives, no matter what your political perspective. Sometimes accepted narratives on the right are going to be debunked by it. Other long contended situations pushed by the left may also be debunked. But what we're after is the truth, no matter which side of the political spectrum it's on. We want to get a big picture, we want to understand how things developed, how violence developed in any trends that we might see. And, you know, clearly, this is worth digging into more, because we still only have a partial picture. This is going to be of great interest to people who are are still being prosecuted, and quite frankly ones who have had their cases adjudicated that they weren't presented a piece of evidence that could have changed the outcome. So those are all questions they're going to have to wrestle with as more of this footage gets out. What this does is it puts a lot of those things in context, things that the January 6 Committee didn't show. - A three-month investigation by The Epoch Times of 41,000 hours of U.S. Capitol Police surveillance video has uncovered dramatic footage that in many cases challenges longstanding narratives about what took place on Jan. 6, 2021. Since late April, the newspaper has analyzed hundreds of hours of video that was previously hidden from public view. The first results of this ongoing investigation are presented in an Epoch TV Special Report with host Joshua Philipp and senior investigative reporter Joe Hanneman. Watch the trailer: - We Are Being Censored. Help Spread This Special Report The Epoch Times has been censored and suppressed by Big Tech. In order to spread this investigative report, The Epoch Times relies on its own Epoch TV as well as other non-cancelable platforms to spread the truth. Stand up for free speech and oppose censorship by sharing this documentary with as many people as you can. - Watch the Full Report on EpochTV now: 🔴 Get unlimited access to EpochTV for just $1: https://ept.ms/1For2Months-Josh 🤗 Watch ALL Crossroads episodes 👉 https://bit.ly/46BJmxn ⭕ Subscribe to the Crossroads newsletter so you never miss an episode! 👉 https://ept.ms/CrossroadsExclusiveNewsletter

Beyond the groups of people crossing illegally into the United States and giving themselves up to Border Patrol are the lesser-known individuals known as the “gotaways.” This group of illegal immigrants evade Border Patrol and attempt to make their way past state and local law enforcement to get farther into the United States. There have been an estimated 1.7 million “gotaways” under the Biden administration. Who are they? Where are they going? What are their plans? The Epoch Original documentary “Gotaways: The Hidden Border Crisis” takes you to a small border county in Texas to show you the impact of the gotaways on local ranchers, law enforcement, and life in a small county. “Gotaways” is the first documentary of its kind, a high-energy, fast-paced, front-row seat inside the biggest border crisis in America’s history from the local perspective. Through exclusive footage and interviews with law enforcement and local ranchers, learn what it’s really like to live on the southern border and how the crisis ultimately affects all of America. On top of the 1.7 million known gotaways, border agents have apprehended more than 6.7 million illegal immigrants at our borders since the beginning of the Biden administration. Many are released into the United States and travel on to sanctuary cities such as New York and Chicago, creating ripple effects across the country. According to a new Gallup poll, 72 percent of Americans now believe that the border is either a crisis or a major problem. A two-year investigation, “Gotaways” was produced, directed, and written by Charlotte Cuthbertson, a senior border security correspondent for The Epoch Times. Charlotte moved to a small border county in Texas in 2021 and spent hundreds of hours with local law enforcement, as well as interviewing the sheriff, county attorney, EMS director, school superintendent, a former Border Patrol chief, and border ranchers to understand the impact and flow of the gotaways. This documentary gives you an insight into what’s happening at the border and the everyday heroes who are working hard to keep their community safe and protect our border. Watch the trailer : 🔴 Watch the Full Documentary HERE 👉 https://ept.ms/Gotaways23 - 🔴 Get unlimited access to EpochTV for just $1 👉 https://ept.ms/1For2Months_YT

SPECIAL INVITATION from FreedomFest Breakout Session: The Global War on Farmers, and the Push to 'Eat the Bugs' Epoch Original Documentary 'No Farmers No Food' Date: Thursday, July 13 Time: 3:10 pm - 4:00 pm Location: Room RF1/RF2 There are currently MAJOR schemes being hatched behind-the-scenes that will affect you and YOUR FAMILY’S lives. These "Green Policies" at the international level (the UN, the EU, the World Economic Forum) are billed as necessary to "save the planet"—and are now starting to GO INTO EFFECT around the world … including right here in AMERICA. These policies sound beautiful on paper: save the planet, end hunger, and have gender equality. But in practice, they undermine our food security and represent a true EXISTENTIAL risk to our liberties as FREE citizens. JOIN US on Thursday, July 13, at FreedomFest at 3:10 p.m. in Room RF1/RF2 where we’ll expose our findings from the past 12 months. We traveled the WORLD to figure out what’s behind the GLOBAL war on farmers, as well as the truth behind the push to get people to EAT THE BUGS. If you want to find out about the coming Global Food Crisis and what you can do about it, don’t miss this session—this event is a MUST ATTEND. The Epoch Times is the fastest-growing independent news media in America. We are nonpartisan and dedicated to truthful reporting. EpochTV is the streaming platform of The Epoch Times, featuring exclusive programming, which includes news, talk shows, award-winning documentaries, and lifestyle and entertainment programs. Visit booth 501S/501T to get a free gift. Speakers: Roman Balmakov Host, EpochTV's Facts Matter Roman Balmakov is the host of EpochTV’s "Facts Matter." He has traveled around the country as well as overseas covering protests, riots, food shortages, natural disasters, and elections. His latest documentary "No Farmers No Food" explores the globalist agenda behind the war on farmers. Margaret Byfield Executive Director, American Stewards of Liberty Margaret Byfield serves as the Executive Director of American Stewards of Liberty (ASL), and is a natural resource policy expert with over 30 years experience. Her education began on Pine Creek Ranch in Central Nevada where her family became one of the first Western landowners targeted by the radical environmental agenda resulting in the 27-year legal battle, Hage v. United States. Marc Morano Executive Editor/Chief Correspondent, ClimateDepot.com Climate Depot publisher Marc Morano has authored numerous books on climate, energy, and the environment. He serves as executive editor and chief correspondent for CFACT’s award-winning ClimateDepot.com, a news and information service he founded in 2009. In a 2019 study in the journal Nature, Morano was ranked the NUMBER ONE "climate contrarian" in the media! (#1 out of 386 skeptics). Alex Newman Award-winning International Journalist, Educator, Author, Speaker, Investor, and Consultant Alex Newman currently serves as President of Liberty Sentinel Media, Inc. He also serves as a contributor to The Epoch Times, a correspondent for the Law Enforcement Intelligence Brief, foreign correspondent and senior editor for The New American magazine, a writer for WND (World Net Daily), an education writer for FreedomProject Media, a columnist for the Illinois Family Institute, and much more. Official Trailer: From Nicole Kidman to Zac Efron, celebrities have been promoting eating insects for years. But why? Roman Balmakov investigates the rapidly changing landscape of our global food source - the farming industry. Will dinner tables of crickets and worms become our new reality? Our Goal Farmers are the backbone of our food system and they are being squeezed. Their personal experiences and perspectives matter. And we want to share their voices. The Global War on Farmers, and Push to ‘Eat the Bugs’ | Facts Matter

The Peruvian government declares a national health emergency due to a rise of a rare autoimmune disease. The Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is a known side effect of some vaccines, including the COVID-19 shots. Peru is one of the highest vaccinated countries in the world against COVID. So what are they doing about GBS? And what does the U.S. Centers for Disease Control have to say? ———– In other news, the World Health Organization (WHO) is pushing hard on installing a global health certificate. In fact, it will use the European vaccine passports as its foundation. Some politicians are not happy with this news and are sounding the alarm. And if that grinds your gears, we have a great solution for keeping that anger under control at the end of the video—because anger can really take a toll on your liver in the long term. Interview trailer: Watch the full interview: https://www.theepochtimes.com/epochtv/rare-disease-erupts-in-peru-who-to-authenticate-health-records-surprising-habits-that-damage-liver-5415511 Medical Disclaimer: Frontline Health (the “Show”), its guests, and contributors provide the latest news on health and medical discoveries and it is meant for informational purposes only. The Show does not provide medical advice, diagnosis, treatment, cures, mitigation, or prevention for any type of disease or medical condition. Similarly, it is not intended for self-diagnosis or self-treating of any health-related condition. The information on the Show is gathered from reputable sources; however, neither Frontline Health nor The Epoch Times Association Inc. are responsible for errors or omissions in reporting or explanation and will not be liable for any direct, indirect, consequential, special, exemplary, or other damages arising therefrom. Patients should always consult with a doctor or other health care professional for medical advice or information about diagnosis and treatment. To get notifications about new Kash's Corner and American Thought Leaders episodes, please sign up for our newsletter! Here 👉 Get Alerts - PRE-ORDER "The Shadow State" DVD: https://www.epochtv.shop/product-page/the-shadow-state-dvd The Real Story of January 6 | Documentary BUY Jan 6 DVD: https://www.epochtv.shop/product-page/dvd-the-real-story-of-january-6, Promo Code “Jan” for 20% off. - Follow American Thought Leaders on social media: Twitter: https://twitter.com/AmThoughtLeader Truth Social: https://truthsocial.com/@AmThoughtLeader Gettr: https://gettr.com/user/amthoughtleader Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AmericanThoughtLeaders Gab: https://gab.com/AmThoughtLeader Telegram: https://t.me/AmThoughtLeader

“This is the new technology of speech in America: You can dial people all the way up to ‘everybody sees it,’ and you can dial someone else down to ‘it’s almost impossible to see them.’ And that is extremely dangerous, and it’s especially dangerous if it’s done in secret and nobody knows exactly how it operates.” In this episode, Jan Jekielek sits down with investigative journalist Matt Taibbi. He was one of the key investigators of the Twitter Files, which exposed collusion between social media companies, the nonprofit sector, and the federal government to censor Americans on a mass scale. “In parallel to this censorship program, I think what they’re doing—with things like shadow banning and denylisting—is they’re trying to simplify controversies and reduce everybody’s intellectual field of view and, in doing so, kind-of drain our will to be curious, to stand up for ourselves, [and] to think about things in a complicated way,” says Mr. Taibbi. We discuss the current state of journalism, government information operations, internet culture and addiction, and the importance of free speech and free inquiry. “All of these agencies that were once involved with counterproliferation, counterterrorism, trying to counter messaging to disaffected young Muslim men in foreign countries … they are now turning all those techniques inward on our own populations and trying to get them to believe in a different kind of political consensus,” says Mr. Taibbi. “Instead of, ‘don’t join al-Qaeda,’ now they’re saying, ‘don’t vote for Donald Trump,’ or ‘don’t join the Canadian trucker protests,’ or ‘don’t join the Yellow Vest movement.’ It’s actually not a left or right thing—it’s just: stay in the safe place, stay with consensus.” Interview trailer: Watch the full interview: https://www.theepochtimes.com/epochtv/exclusive-matt-taibbi-how-hidden-actors-distort-reality-manipulate-the-public-and-enforce-consensus-5411724 To get notifications about new Kash's Corner and American Thought Leaders episodes, please sign up for our newsletter! Here 👉 Get Alerts - PRE-ORDER "The Shadow State" DVD: https://www.epochtv.shop/product-page/the-shadow-state-dvd The Real Story of January 6 | Documentary BUY Jan 6 DVD: https://www.epochtv.shop/product-page/dvd-the-real-story-of-january-6, Promo Code “Jan” for 20% off. - Follow American Thought Leaders on social media: Twitter: https://twitter.com/AmThoughtLeader Truth Social: https://truthsocial.com/@AmThoughtLeader Gettr: https://gettr.com/user/amthoughtleader Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AmericanThoughtLeaders Gab: https://gab.com/AmThoughtLeader Telegram: https://t.me/AmThoughtLeader

[FULL TRANSCRIPT BELOW] “I’ve communicated with some people inside of North Korea, and I heard from them that the recent famine is very similar to [the] 1990s famine. And, as we all know, almost 3 million people died of starvation during that time.” Hyun-Seung Lee, otherwise known as “Arthur” Lee, is a former member of the North Korean ruling party. He and his family were fiercely loyal to the communist regime. But being on the side of economic reform and having witnessed several brutal internal purges by Kim Jong Un—including that of Kim’s uncle—the family made the decision to defect. “Many people, especially top people, and even [the] general public in Pyongyang City, don’t know what’s happening outside Pyongyang because of the isolation of the information. The regime structure controls the information distribution,” says Mr. Lee. We discuss North Korea’s current food crisis, the regime’s nuclear weapons program, the value of free information, and what can be done to bring about change. “North Korea’s regime keeps saying that once we have nuclear weapons, we’ll live [a] better life … and we will be a strong country in terms of economy and the military side. Now, they have enough nuclear weapons—and the people are still suffering from starvation,” he says. Despite the political and cultural divisions in the United States, Mr. Lee believes that it is one of the world’s greatest nations in terms of its commitment to democracy and individual freedoms. “American people should respect this society, because many people in the world think that still, America is the best. The freedom they have cannot be compared to the other nations,” says Mr. Lee. Interview trailer: Watch the full interview: https://www.theepochtimes.com/epochtv/defecting-from-the-ultimate-propaganda-country-hyun-seung-lee-on-north-koreas-oppressive-regime-its-relationship-with-china-and-its-nuclear-bluster-5406471 FULL TRANSCRIPT Jan Jekielek: Arthur Lee, such a pleasure to have you on American Thought Leaders. Arthur Lee: Thank you for having me. Mr. Jekielek: Arthur, you are a defector from North Korea. We’ve known each other for a while now, and I’m very excited to finally have you on. There’s been a lot of incredibly troubling information coming out of North Korea recently. There’s this BBC documentary that talks about a famine so bad that it might be like it was in the 90s, which was absolutely terrible. North Korea is accusing the U.S. of trying to ignite a nuclear war. There are huge rallies being staged to that effect in the Korean capital. Basically, it’s a lot of nuclear bluster, which is never good. How do we make sense of all this? Mr. Lee: First of all, my name is Hyun-Seung, Arthur Lee, and I’m a North Korean escapee. I escaped North Korea when I was 29 years old. I saw that BBC documentary as well. I’ve communicated with some people inside of North Korea, and I heard that this recent famine is very similar to the 1990s famine. As we all know, almost 3 million people died of starvation during that time. But most people in Pyongyang, the capital city of North Korea, didn’t realize what happened in the rural areas. I would say it’s a very similar situation. The top people inside the city don’t realize what’s happening. But the people in the rural areas are suffering from starvation. The BBC documentary uses very reliable resources. It’s very sad for me and my fellow North Koreans that we are still suffering from starvation in the 21st century. As you mentioned earlier, the North Korean regime keeps immobilizing its people, and promoting everything against the United States inside of North Korea. That is one of their strategies, bonding people into one against the U.S. Mr. Jekielek: You’re saying that the nuclear buster is more for the internal population to say, “There’s our enemy, and we have to unite against them.” Is that what you’re saying? Mr. Lee: That analysis is accurate. For Kim Jong Un, the North Korean leader, it is a lifelong project. When we were in North Korea, the regime kept saying, “Once we have nuclear weapons, we’ll live a better life than before, and we will be a strong country in terms of the economy and the military side.” Now they have nuclear weapons, and the people are still suffering from starvation. People keep questioning, “What’s the difference?” But for the regime, it’s a narrative and tactic to keep developing nuclear weapons. The hostile policy against the United States is the core policy of the regime. It isolates the country, and keeps utilizing resources to develop nuclear weapons. Mr. Jekielek: It might not be obvious how different the people in Pyongyang are from the rural areas, and how they perceive each other differently. This is not an academic question for you, because you are from Pyongyan where the elites live. Please tell me your story, because it’s unusual that someone from the elite class ends up being a defector, given that you had a pretty good life compared to most people. Mr. Lee: In many aspects, my story is different from many North Korean escapees. Pyongyang has the most of everything, including resources and power. The people living in Pyongyang are the people who actually shine in North Korea, and they’re ruling North Korea. I was a core elite member in the society, since my dad served twice in higher ranking positions in the country. These positions were directly appointed by the former North Korean leader, Kim Jong Un’s father. Because of my father’s high ranking position, I went to top schools, and I was loyal to the regime. I served in the North Korean military for three years, and I was a member of the North Korean ruling party. I joined the party when I was 20 which is unprecedented. I was among the leading young personnel who could become the young leaders of North Korea. But I had an opportunity to study abroad in China, and that changed my whole point of view in life. Eventually, my family made a life decision to defect in October, 2014. The decision was not easy because that meant that we had to give up everything that we had achieved in the past. But in 2013, there was a big incident that the media publicized—Kim Jong Un’s uncle’s execution, along with his fellow associates and aides. It was not just Kim Jong Un’s uncle’s execution, it was related to his whole staff. We assume that hundreds of officials were executed, and their families were sent to the political prison camp. Many of my dad’s friends were executed and sent to the political prison camp, and I myself lost several friends. My close friend who started at the Chinese university with me, he and his entire family were imprisoned in the political prison camp. My sister was in China as well, and her roommate was arrested right in front of her and then sent to the political prison camp in North Korea from China. That whole incident was an unbelievable story and gave us an unbelievable impression about the regime. Before that we were thinking that we could still change society and make society better. But that whole belief collapsed, and then my family decided to defect. Mr. Jekielek: How did you discuss that in the family? Mr. Lee: It’s very unusual to discuss defection or criticize the leader of the society, even with your family members. We were outside of North Korea and in China at the time, but we were still very cautious. We didn’t discuss the defection at home. We went to the park in an open place, and we put all the electronic devices in our car. Then we had a free discussion for a long time. We concluded that was not the society we want to live in, and this was not the leader we want to serve. We should do something for these people, and for this country. My dad especially had very good intentions. When he served in his position in the country, he was trying to open up the country. He was trying to improve the economy and the living conditions of the people. He was very supportive of reform, plus opening up the economy and the country. But the execution of Jang Song Thaek, Kim Jong Un’s uncle, destroyed everything that North Korean elite group was envisioning for the society. Mr. Jekielek: Was that whole execution and removal of that whole faction of people because Kim Jong Un thought they were a threat? Why did it stop all that progress? Mr. Lee: Kim Jong Un’s uncle was in charge of North Korea’s economic development and making money for the regime. But Kim Jong Un felt threatened by his uncle, Jang Song Thaek, and he didn’t like what he was doing. Kim Jong Un’s uncle was making policies for opening up and reform. Kim Jong Un realized that opening up and reform could threaten him and undermine his authority. That makes sense, because when we have opening and reform, which means opening the society to the world, it would mean that every piece of information could impact Kim Jong Un’s authority, because he’s not a legitimate leader. He should not be the leader in the first place. That’s why he ordered the execution of his own brother in Malaysia. Mr. Jekielek: Okay, I understand. Your family might have been wondering, “Hey, maybe we’ll be next,” because you were involved in that same vision. Mr. Lee: Absolutely. Not just my family, but the whole group of North Korean elite members that were thinking that way. He even executed his own uncle. What’s he afraid of? He’s afraid of nothing, and he will execute anyone. Mr. Jekielek: Please tell me how the people in Pyongyang perceive the rural people, and how the rural people perceive the people in Pyongyang. Mr. Lee: I engaged with local people when I was in the military, and when I was doing business in the rural areas. The people in the rural areas very much respect Pyongyang. They want to be citizens of Pyongyang, and everything they do is trying to get to the capital city. But, on the other hand, they also have a hatred towards Pyongyang, because North Korean society is all about Pyongyang and the Kim family regime. Once the people realized they couldn’t make it to the city, and they just felt hatred, “Why is Pyongyang so special? Why doesn’t the regime care about us?” There are all those bad impressions of elite society all over the rural areas. I sensed that, and I felt that. In some areas, people are even throwing stones at the cars with Pyongyang license plates. There is a very harsh attitude in the rural areas toward the capital city. Mr. Jekielek: What about the residents of Pyongyang, the elites, how do they view the rest of the people? Mr. Lee: They don’t have any particular views, but they think they, themselves are different. They are a little arrogant and they think, “We are the chosen,” especially the core elite group in Pyongyang. Their grandparents were a very elite group, and from a very young age they were treated specially, so they think they are different. But the ordinary Pyongyang people are not that much different from the rural people. Inside of Pyongyang there is also a division between the general public and the core members of the elite society. Mr. Jekielek: Let’s go back to the famine now. Why do the people in Pyongyang not know what’s happening in the rest of the country? Mr. Lee: Many people, especially the top people and even the general public in Pyongyang city don’t know what’s happening outside of Pyongyang, because of the isolation of the information. The regime strictly controls the information distribution in Pyongyang city, even from person to person, especially information about the regime. If that information is negative about the society, then the regime thinks it shouldn’t be distributed. Somebody who wants to share or distribute this information with other people could be very severely punished. Mr. Jekielek: You have contacts both in the city and outside the city, and you’re getting different feedback. Is that the situation? Mr. Lee: Pretty much. People inside Pyongyang mostly don’t understand the famine. But the rural people reported to us last week that they lost five people to starvation, and that whole family died. Nobody checked on them, and they found them after their death several days later. Mr. Jekielek: This society functions differently than what most people are used to. I want to establish some of that as we’re talking here. For example, in that BBC documentary, they also talked about using some special methodologies to actually do the communication because of the potential risk. You said this information control is so strict, if people knew that anyone was communicating with the outside, especially you, that would be probably a death sentence. Mr. Lee: Yes, it’s a high risk. But still, some people want to deliver the truth to the outside world, and people want to share with their loved ones. In the end, information is the key to change society. We all know that. People are risking their life to share this information. Mr. Jekielek: One of the activists in that documentary mentions that since the Chinese border was sealed during Covid, even the very limited amount of information was reduced even further. He called it the blackest of the black holes, and that black hole has gotten even darker. Mr. Lee: Yes. Due to the pandemic, the amount of information is limited. But we have North Korean people outside North Korea, and those people keep contact with the people inside Korea. We have different people as sources. Mr. Jekielek: What is the most important piece of information you could share with us today? Mr. Lee: First of all, I can confirm some of the famine stories, and it’s very tragic. Several months ago, 19 people in the farming area were dead because of starvation. When we think about a farming area, they shouldn’t be in that situation. They’re producing rice, our food, but the regime took all the rice for the military side. The farmers reported this several times, but they couldn’t get a solution from the regime, and eventually they died. That was a very heartbreaking story. Secondly, people are executed because of information sharing. Two years ago, the North Korean regime established a law that someone who shared information with people inside North Korea could be executed. I heard that many people were punished just for sharing K-dramas and U.S. movies. Mr. Jekielek: Nevermind actually sharing on-the-ground reality. Mr. Lee: Yes. Regardless of the level of the information, they punish people. Mr. Jekielek: Let’s jump to the second point, which was about the nuclear war bluster. You explained that having these big rallies is a method of internal control by focusing on the enemy. Is there actually some increased threat right now? Mr. Lee: I would say there is no external threat to North Korea, but the regime created that. The regime keeps making up propaganda that the United States and South Korea are always trying to invade North Korea to take away their assets, and take away their life. The regime’s message is, “That’s why we have to be prepared, and we have to utilize our resources to prevent those invasions.” But in reality there’s no external threat, as we all know. But on the inside it’s isolated, so people can’t understand what’s happening on the outside. For many people there is no choice but to believe the regime’s narrative. That’s the reality. Mr. Jekielek: I definitely want to talk more about that. But do you think there’s any increased threat to South Korea and the U.S.? Mr. Lee: I don’t see any increased threat because the North Korean regime mainly accuses South Korea and the United States because of military exercises. But it’s general military training and a defense exercise, it’s not an attacking exercise. But the regime believes if the U.S. and South Korea conduct military drills, then it could lead to an attack on North Korea. They have always said that we need to be prepared. Once there was a big military exercise, and then they mobilized people, had rallies, and a signing campaign to be soldiers. On the other hand, North Korea has maintained its main policy; unifying the South Korean peninsula under Kim Jong Un’s regime. It’s actually stated in the constitution, and that’s the ultimate goal for the regime. Mr. Jekielek: On one side you have very strict deliberate messaging repeated again and again. On the other hand, you have a vacuum of external information. How many people do you think believe the propaganda? Mr. Lee: In the 1990s, most people believed what the regime said. But throughout the famine, people accessed a lot of information from outside. They have conducted market activity, and their reliance on the regime has decreased. Gradually, the regime’s control has been undermined. People have lost credibility in the regime. Now, it’s very hard to say. But I have to say, half of the people still believe the regime’s agenda and promises. Mr. Jekielek: What about the Pyongyang people? Will those believe more or believe less? Mr. Lee: When I interacted with people when I was in North Korea, it seemed like not many people believed what the regime said. But the entire society’s atmosphere is that if you don’t believe it, you can be punished. You may not believe it, but you cannot share that with other people. That’s the situation. The people who have access to more information, believe less in the regime’s narrative. Mr. Jekielek: When you were there with your family, did you believe it? Mr. Lee: Before I came to China to learn outside information, I totally believed what the regime said. I was an elite member, but I didn’t have any access to any outside information. I had to believe it, there was no choice. North Korea is the ultimate propaganda country. Mr. Jekielek: Let’s talk about the Korea/China relationship because there is a lot of cross border activity. There are refugees that have escaped and then get forcibly repatriated. We’ve heard about that. There’s the whole sex work industry which Yeonmi Park exposed. Then there’s 100,000 people officially working in China legitimately. This border closure kept them in China, even though they don’t have visas. There are all of these complications. On top of that, there are IT workers that the regime is cultivating to place in companies outside, partially for nefarious reasons of their own, as opposed to just making money outside the country. To summarize, not a lot of people go out of the country, but the ones that can go back and forth end up in China. Please break that down for us. Mr. Lee: Since the pandemic, the North Korean regime intentionally closed the border from January, 2020, until now. I would say that they intentionally closed the border because of some benefit. It’s not for the benefit of the people, it’s the benefit for Kim Jong Un himself. In the past, we conducted business with China with a lot of byproducts. People got the benefit from this business, even though most of the money was extracted by the regime. But the people involved in the industries are still making money from this business. But now, it is total closure, and Kim Jong Un only gets money from those people outside of North Korea, who we call slave workers. They are all officially dispatched from the North Korean regime. I would say 100,000 people are working in China. Because of their visa status, they are all illegally working in China. The UN Security Council resolution in 2017 told every country, “The UN members should send back all North Korean workers to North Korea,” because those monies exclusively contribute to North Korea’s nuclear and weapon programs. But China didn’t follow the rules and take responsibility, especially because China is a member of the National Security Council. But North Korea knows that if they close the border China cannot send North Korean workers back to North Korea. Therefore, let them stay in China and let them make millions of dollars every year, regardless of their willingness. So many of the workers sent information and even wrote handwritten letters to us and other people saying, “We want to go back because we want to see our families.” For three or four years, they haven’t been able to see their families. They worked so hard, up to 12 to 14 hours a day in harsh conditions. They couldn’t actually earn any money because the regime kept all the money. They said, “When you come back to North Korea, we will give it to you.” But none of them received the actual money they made, they only got a small portion of the money. Most of the North Korean workers inside China now are very frustrated, and they want to defect. It’s a very similar situation with the IT workers as well. They’re highly trained and skilled people. They make millions of dollars every year hacking cryptocurrency and hacking banks. They also outsource work. They’re making websites and making animations for different companies. Recently, I heard that most of their clients are from the U.S. Their clients in the U.S. didn’t even know they were North Korean IT workers because there are a number of different involvements and fake IDs. Mr. Jekielek: Shell companies and so forth. Mr. Lee: Shell companies in Hong Kong and outside. Mr. Jekielek: What about the refugees? There are actually people who have escaped North Korea and ended up in China. There are also sex workers, and that’s a whole dark human trafficking industry as well. Mr. Lee: I didn’t know about the sex workers, because of the information isolation. That information couldn’t reach us when I was in North Korea, and I learned about it after I defected. It’s very heartbreaking, especially Yeonmi Park’s story and all the suffering she went through. It’s unimaginable. I would say it’s not just Yeonmi, there are thousands of people who are in the same situation right now. During the famine, many, many North Korean escapees left North Korea and settled down in China. Of course, they didn’t have any identification. They couldn’t register their ID in China. They were living illegally with their Chinese families. Many of them were originally sold as a sex workers and then as slaves. Some women married Chinese people and they gave birth. Several months ago, Chinese authorities began rigorously looking for these people to arrest them and send them back to North Korea. Some Chinese police take bribes, put them on a list, and then two or three months later just arrest them again. The families are obviously frustrated with this situation. They have two or three children. What if the moms repatriated to North Korea and couldn’t see their families in the future? That’s what the two countries are doing to their own people. Also, there are two types of escapees in China, those people who escape North Korea because of the economic situation. There are also those people who are working for officials in China, and they were captured by the Chinese police when they tried to escape. Mr. Jekielek: Just to be clear, these are people in China already, and when they try to escape, they’re captured by the Chinese authorities? Mr. Lee: Yes. Recently, many North Korean workers tried to escape. Many almost succeeded in their escape, but the Chinese authorities arrested and interrogated them. They keep them in the detention center, and now they’re ready to send them back if the border is reopened. Mr. Jekielek: The workers are trying to escape to South Korea, is that right? Mr. Lee: Most of them were trying to escape to South Korea. Mr. Jekielek: The one line from this BBC documentary that really hit home is when the woman says, “I want to be in a society where we don’t have to spy on each other.” Mr. Lee: That’s actually a very sad thing. Totalitarian and authoritarian societies share similar features, like people spying on each other and reporting on each other, so that the regime gets the benefit and punishes people for their actions. For example, your neighbors can spy on your family. If your family expressed disagreement with the regime, that just one word could be delivered by your neighbor to the ruling party. Because of that word, and because of that action, your entire family could be thrown into the political prison camp. Mr. Jekielek: I still find this difficult to fathom, but with these prison camps, it’s not necessarily just the accused people sent there. It could be three generations of people. Mr. Lee: Yes, of course. That’s just the most notorious system in North Korea. It’s a guilt by association system, which means that all the generations have to be punished in that system. If your grandfather becomes a traitor to the nation, your grandson must live in the political prison camp. I heard that even babies who were born in the political prison camp have to spend their whole life in political prison camp. Actually in 2010, my neighbor and his entire family was imprisoned in the political prison camp. He was the political ambassador in Beijing, and the charge against him was just several meetings with Kim Jong Un’s brother. Later, we found out that the entire family vanished. Our neighbor told us that even their children and grandchildren were in the political prison camp. They have four children, and then they have grandchildren. The third son’s child is only two years old, and that two-year-old baby was also sent to the political prison camp. The only survivor of that family was a little five-year-old girl, the granddaughter, because she had a different last name. The regime forcefully divorced the daughter and the son-in-law, and then the daughter kept the son-in-law’s last name. That’s why that child is the lone survivor of the entire family. Other than that, the whole family was sent to the political prison camp. That happened a lot. We assume there are 200,000 people imprisoned in political prison camps, and 90 percent of them are from the elite class. The North Korean regime doesn’t put just the general public in the facility. They put elite members who used to be loyal to the country. Most of them are political victims of the regime. The regime thinks they are a threat to the regime. Mr. Jekielek: How does the North Korean economy work? Mr. Lee: The economy is already broken. It has already collapsed. But the people made their own life through market activity. At the domestic level, they achieve it through the market system. But when it comes to the top level, the regime can procure money from resources like labor workers, IT workers, and gold smuggling. We can’t call that an economy. It’s more like one gang leader making his money and distributing the money with his own clan. Mr. Jekielek: The rest is people effectively functioning on a black market. When analysts say that the regime is highly dependent on money from China, are they talking about IT workers and all these other different workers, or is there some other source of money as well? Mr. Lee: Before the pandemic, almost 90 percent of trade was with China. Analysts say the reliance on China is through imports and exports. The North Korean regime sells the natural resources to China, and then they get the goods from China, so that is the import and export exchange. China is a bigger market than Russia, but Kim Jong Un didn’t like China. Many years ago he actually gave all business people an order, “We want to utilize the Russian market more than the Chinese market.” We thought that Kim Jong Un was crazy. There’s nothing we can trade with Russia at the moment. When we do business between North Korea and China, it mostly involves front money. Chinese investors and business people put up the money first so that they can get the resources from North Korea. The Chinese region obviously supports the North Korean regime. They provide them with refined oil every year. They let the North Korean regime conduct smuggling and anything else for the survival of the regime. They don’t want the North Korean regime to collapse. Generally, Chinese business people think they can make money and they do a lot of business with the regime. North Korea has natural resources, so they can get the natural resources from North Korea at a very low price. This price gap helps them make a lot of money. Mr. Jekielek: Here in DC, where you’ve decided to live, what do you see as the future for North Koreans and yourself? Mr. Lee: I’m currently working as a fellow at a nonprofit, and I consult with government agencies on North Korea policy. The reason I became involved in that is because I think that policy is important. In 2016, I found out that not many people have an accurate view of North Korea. I want to share accurate views and share more information, so that they can create the right policy. Soon, I’ll be studying Public Administration at Columbia University. I am pursuing this career because I want to be a more effective policymaker and policy influencer. Hopefully, one day U.S. policy and international policy can make a change in North Korea. Mr. Jekielek: In very broad strokes, what would be the right policy for the U.S.? Mr. Lee: The right policy would be focusing on changing the society, because previously the U.S. international community couldn’t reach the goal of democratization and improving human rights. The top problem is the system and the leader. We are afraid to say changing the regime. But we should encourage the people inside to change their lives, and give more truth and objective information to the people, so that they can decide what they want. Now, the people inside North Korea can’t make their own decisions. It’s all drafted by the regime. It’s the only voice of the regime, not the voice of the people. I lived in North Korea 29 years, and I also experienced China. I can guarantee that an authoritarian regime is a totally different system and a totally different ideology. Mr. Jekielek: I often talk to people about the Chinese Communist Party’s policy of comprehensive national power. The summary is that they don’t believe in win-win relationships. It can only be, “I win, you lose.” If they are losing, it’s not acceptable. Mr. Lee: It’s the same policy with China as well. You lose, I win. Mr. Jekielek: People in America are concerned about the U.S. attempting to intervene in other places. They point to some failed policies. In some cases, it looks like it was much more self-interested than actually helping people. They worry about calling for America to try to intervene in other places. What do you say to people that are thinking that way? Mr. Lee: To a degree, I agree with them. America should focus on its own policy and focus on its own people. But the Korea issue, and some other issues around the world, directly impact U.S. National Security and U.S. policy. The Korean Peninsula issue was a long, unresolved issue for America since the 1950s. Actually, I don’t see any hope if there is no U.S. involvement. I’m not saying direct involvement, but I want U.S. policymakers and the U.S. people to give the North Korean people a chance to change their society. I have lived in four different countries; North Korea, China, South Korea, and the United States. I learned that the U.S. is the best among the four. I know many people criticize the United States, and they even don’t believe in their society, because of the different policies and divisions. But still, it’s the best country I’ve experienced. The core values of this society are individual freedom and democracy. Even though they may argue and debate, this country has the best system so far. I have hope for North Korea, and this will eventually help their society. Mr. Jekielek: I was listening in a Twitter space where Elon Musk was interviewing Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Actually, for some of it, Robert F. Kennedy Jr was interviewing Elon Musk. Elon Musk said, “After World War II, what other nation would have rebuilt Germany and Japan, and these other countries who were the prime aggressors in the war?” They put in billions and billions and billions of dollars, along with goodwill. It was a very interesting answer, and it’s why he believes America is a good nation even with all its flaws. When I talk about communist China, I’ll talk about certain policies and realities over there, like encroachments on freedom in Hong Kong, and how that society has totally changed. People say, “We do the same thing here in America.” I always say, “No, it’s not the same, even though there might be some surface similarities.” But sometimes, I find it difficult to explain that to people. Mr. Lee: It would be sad if that were the same situation in America. From my observations, there are many differences. For example, if I criticized the leader of North Korea in North Korean society, I could be destroyed. My entire family could be destroyed because of that one comment. But in the United States, there is still some protection built into the system. There are platforms where you can share, and people who you can trust and who support you. It’s the same thing in China as in North Korea. In the Chinese system, if you’re against the Chinese leaders’ policy, you could be immediately removed from the society. You could face a lot of punishment by the authorities. But in the United States, the foundation of the system is a lot different. I believe that the U.S. shouldn’t go in that direction. Ultimately, freedom of expression is what allows people to be liberated in their mindset. Mr. Jekielek: This has been such a remarkable conversation. I’ve learned a lot. Any final thoughts as we finish up? Mr. Lee: I hope that American people will respect their society because many people in the world still think that America is the best. The freedom America has cannot be compared to the other nations. The American people should keep their freedom, and keep their national pride. Mr. Jekielek: Arthur Lee, it’s such a pleasure to have you on the show. Mr. Lee: Thank you very much. It’s my privilege to talk with you, and share my thoughts. Mr. Jekielek: Thank you all for joining Arthur Lee and me on this episode of American Thought Leaders. I’m your host, Jan Jekielek. To get notifications about new Kash's Corner and American Thought Leaders episodes, please sign up for our newsletter! Here 👉 Get Alerts - PRE-ORDER "The Shadow State" DVD: https://www.epochtv.shop/product-page/the-shadow-state-dvd The Real Story of January 6 | Documentary BUY Jan 6 DVD: https://www.epochtv.shop/product-page/dvd-the-real-story-of-january-6, Promo Code “Jan” for 20% off. - Follow American Thought Leaders on social media: Twitter: https://twitter.com/AmThoughtLeader Truth Social: https://truthsocial.com/@AmThoughtLeader Gettr: https://gettr.com/user/amthoughtleader Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AmericanThoughtLeaders Gab: https://gab.com/AmThoughtLeader Telegram: https://t.me/AmThoughtLeader

[FULL TRANSCRIPT BELOW] “The economic growth of China is largely a wealth transfer from the United States,” says Robert Lighthizer. “You’re transferring the wealth of our children and grandchildren and their children overseas.” Mr. Lighthizer served as the U.S. Trade Representative in the Trump administration and also served as deputy trade representative in the Reagan administration. In this episode, we do a deep dive into his new book “No Trade Is Free: Changing Course, Taking on China, and Helping America’s Workers.” “Nobody practices free trade. And for sure, if you look at the great countries that run the big surpluses, they don’t have free trade. China doesn’t have it, not remotely. It’s not even capitalism. And Germany doesn’t have free trade. Europe doesn’t have free trade…It’s all just a false god. It just literally doesn’t exist,” Lighthizer says. Is the free trade ideal actually a myth? What should the U.S. do to tackle its massive trade deficits? Why should the U.S. strategically decouple from China and what would that actually like? Interview trailer: Watch the full interview: https://www.theepochtimes.com/whats-behind-the-push-to-stop-eating-beef-texas-slim_5399281.html FULL TRANSCRIPT Jan Jekielek: Ambassador Robert Lighthizer, such a pleasure to have you on American Thought Leaders. Robert Lighthizer: Thank you very much for having me. Mr. Jekielek: Congratulations on your book, No Trade Is Free. I just finished reading the book and it’s one of the more important books I’ve read over the last few years. There’s a monumental change that has happened in American foreign policy over the last few years, and you document that to a significant extent in the book, and I felt like I got transported into the midst of it. There’s a moment where you as the U.S. Trade Representative are invited at the last moment to sit in front of Xi Jinping and basically tell him your thoughts about what the US-China trade relationship looks like. Please tell me about this moment, because it’s of profound historic significance. Mr. Lighthizer: Yes, thank you. As I say, it’s a great pleasure to be here. That was a significant moment. It’s November of 2017, and I was on the President’s trip. There was a small pre-meeting that General Kelly was going to go to, but then he decided to have me go in his place. Then, we had the big meeting, which was in the Great Hall of the People, which I describe in the book. There are basically 12 people on one side of the table and 12 on the other side. These things are always done this way. You have the heads of state sitting in the middle, and people go by rank on either side of them. It is usually heavily scripted. Usually, the host reads, and then the other side, and they go back and forth. At one point, both presidents and their foreign secretaries spoke, and then President Trump said, “Ambassador Lighthizer, tell them our position on trade.” I had been doing this for 40 years, so I had thought about it a lot. I spoke directly, but respectfully for several minutes and said, “Here’s how Americans see this unbalanced relationship. This is what we think it’s costing us and how bad it is for us.” Of course, the reaction to candor in a context like that was, “Hold on. Time out. Who invited this guy?” But the meeting went on. Afterwards, the President asked, “Can I see your remarks?” I told him I didn’t have any remarks, and I’d been thinking about this for a long time. I just said what I usually say in the order that I usually say it, and once again, respectfully. I viewed my role as to always be respectful to the other country, and these were obviously very important people. But the relationship has become terribly unbalanced to the point that it’s just a transfer of wealth from the United States to China, and to some other countries too, but nothing on the scale that it is with China. That was a dramatic moment. I never got any feedback on what their reaction was, but I can imagine they got together and said, “It’s not going to be business as usual going forward.” Mr. Jekielek: And it wasn’t. That’s also fascinating to read about in the book. One theme is that a lot of different folks, not just communist China, had gotten used to dialogues and business-as-usual discussions, with not a lot of teeth to enact any of the decisions that had been made, or checking to see if they were actually being enacted. You brought a different way of working, which people were repeatedly surprised at. Is that how you would view it? Mr. Lighthizer: Yes, that certainly is one of the themes. It certainly was a theme in our negotiations with the Chinese, but it was also a theme in our negotiations with a lot of people. These things tend to fall into patterns, and you can see them. I’m a trade guy and an economic guy, so I don’t get involved in the other areas. But by all accounts, it’s similar there too; you fall into a pattern, you say certain things, and people make vague commitments. They all have ambiguity running through them. They get up and don’t do anything and come back to the next meeting six months later and start the whole process over again. At the end of four years, or less than that in many cases, there’s a turnover of personnel in the United States and the person they’re dealing with now realizes that they have someone who doesn’t have a clue. Then they start the whole process all over again, not even where it left off, but back at first base. That was never my view. In the first place, President Trump would not have tolerated it. He would have said, “What? Are you crazy? We’re not going to do this and have these meaningless dialogues over and over again, accomplishing literally nothing.” We tried to act and then have talks about the things we did when we were acting. We put tariffs in place, and we threatened to pull out of the US-Korean agreement and NAFTA [North American Free Trade Agreement]. In other words, our alternative usually was just as good for the United States as an agreement. I tried to get it to where if there was no agreement, the United States was going to be in a much better place than before we started the process. That was always my mode of negotiating. I was never interested in one of these things where the status quo favors the other side by definition, and as long as they can kick the can down the road, they’ll maintain that benefit and that transfer of wealth. It’s in their interest to just keep going and going and going, and hope that eventually they will get somebody else in there that won’t know what’s going on. They will do that for another two or three years and then their term’s up. There’s been an awful lot of that in U.S. history. Mr. Jekielek: In the realm of trade there are various slurs that are lobbed at people. I suppose one of the worst would be protectionist. Mr. Lighthizer: What is a protectionist? Sometimes, I call myself a productionist. I’m for production in the United States. That word became a bad word in the ’70s or ’80s. If you asked the first 12 Republican presidents before Eisenhower, “Are you a protectionist?” They would have said, “Yes. We’re trying to protect American industry and build up American industry and jobs.” If you asked Teddy Roosevelt, he would have said, “Of course.” I have a quote in there about how free trade destroys the moral fiber of the country. If you asked Abraham Lincoln, he would have said, “Of course.” You can go through whatever heroes you have in that group and they all had that view. Somehow, in the ’70s and ’80s, people didn’t want to say that anymore, but their policies were still pretty significant. You can look at what Nixon did when we had a real trade problem and basically a run on gold in 1971, he used laws. People said he didn’t have the authority, but he did it. He was challenged and ended up winning the lawsuits to put tariffs on the whole world until we could change the dollar value of gold. That was very significant. Otherwise, what would we have done? You can look at Ronald Reagan and see the same thing. Ronald Reagan took action across the board to save American industry and American jobs, and yet he said he was a free trader. But his critics all thought he was a protectionist. It’s one of those words that’s probably irredeemable. But it never really bothered me to say that I’m trying to protect American jobs. That’s like a badge of honor, and not so much of a pejorative. Mr. Jekielek: You mentioned that the biggest imbalance by a large margin is with China under the Chinese Communist Party. Based on a great many American Thought Leaders interviews, I contend that America paid its way into it. Can you chart the course of how that relationship changed, all the way from MFN [Most Favored Nation] or PNTR [Permanent Normal Trade Relations] status? Mr. Lighthizer: I was in the Reagan administration and I had negotiations on a bilateral investment treaty with China, which they wanted. I sat down and looked at it and we had a few negotiating sessions. I told my team, “This is the end of this. This doesn’t make any sense for America at all.” We never did get a treaty, and still don’t have one. But China was insignificant then and their economy was tiny. In the early years you had the Chinese philosophy really destroying their own economy. They were trying to figure out how to do it. Part of what they wanted was to be state-owned and state-planned, particularly under Mao. They were experimenting with various things, and some things worked and some things didn’t. The ones that worked they tried to bring to scale. When they brought them to scale, they had a lot of problems, including The Great Leap Forward and some of the greatest catastrophes in world history. Then Mao dies and Deng Xiaoping comes in and his philosophy was no different than Mao’s, but his analysis was that they had to be a little more stealthy about it. The principles were the same, and you all know the term, “Hide your strength and bide your time.” During that period they built up their economy, but even then it was relatively small. Getting into the ’90s, depending on where you are, they’ve got a trillion dollar economy. That’s a fairly good-sized economy, but by no means one of the biggest. It was probably a fifth the size of Japan, for example, and not particularly export-oriented. In the ’90s they locked into this notion of getting U.S. investment in there and having U.S. plants move from the United States to China to take advantage of a variety of things. Some people would say lower wages, and there was an element of that, but it was much more than that. It was subsidies and laxer environmental rules and the like. They locked on this as a strategy, and the biggest hurdle they had was that in U.S. law at that time, they had the favorable MFN tariffs. They had low tariffs. But the way the law worked, they could be taken away in a year if you had a vote in Congress. There was a lack of certainty on behalf of businesses moving to China. Will you still have access to the biggest market in the world? If you’re an American brand and you want to go to China so that you can pick up a little savings on your manufacturing costs, could you build a $300 million plant next year and lose that advantage and be out of business? You wouldn’t want to do it. They worked with some Republicans in the Clinton administration, and I wrote about this in the New York Times in 1997. It was my view that was their number one strategy; to get into the WTO, and to get most favored nation treatment and permanent low tariffs in the United States. That was obviously their biggest target market and the biggest market in the world. They worked very hard on that. On his way out the door, President Clinton got that through Congress, with a lot of help from both Democrats and Republicans. A lot of Democrats opposed it, and some Republicans did. It was probably the biggest single mistake the United States had ever made in economic policy. Maybe an economist could come up with something else, but I certainly can’t. Once that happened, you had this certainty. Granted, they changed the name. They thought it would be easier to sell—Permanent Normal Trade Relations, instead of MFN, Most Favored Nation. It was just a sales thing. They changed that name. Before granting that, the deficit was in the $20 billion range, which in and of itself was unacceptable. Because they were really a developing country, and we shouldn’t be running a big deficit with a developing country like that. Mr. Jekielek: Why would you say that? Mr. Lighthizer: With a developing country relationship we should be buying primary material from them, and selling them manufacturing goods. We should then have a trade surplus, which should be used to invest there and develop that country. We should be exporting savings to a developing country, not the other way around. That is how it would normally be. It was how it was in the United States when we were developing with Great Britain. They had a surplus with us, and that would be the normal way you would look at it. The models would say there would be a slight decrease in our trade deficit. In fact, it exploded because the models just didn’t take into account the real world. Very soon, we were running a $120 billion trade deficit with China. Initially, a lot of it was U.S. companies shifting their manufacturing there. The Chinese state planners then created an ecosystem, drew in other manufacturing, and began to do all the things you would expect them to do with technology, including forcing technology transfers and stealing technology. Pretty soon that number grew and grew and grew and grew to the point where last year it was at $380 billion, which is unsustainable. It’s a horribly large deficit, but in our years it was quite large too. We put tariffs in place and it began to come down, and then Covid hit. When Covid hit, there was all this money pumped into the system, this trillion dollars to try to keep the economy going. You had the pumping in of consumer demand and a shutdown of manufacturing, and the result was to get the trade deficit back up again. Then the Biden people spent a couple of trillion dollars just for stimulus and the trade deficit exploded. When we talk about the trade deficit, we actually don’t know what that number is. There are some technicalities that I won’t get into, but there’s a huge amount of what is sold by China to the United States that’s unaccounted for. It’s because of the way we keep our statistics. Individual packages shipped here don’t count at all, and those packages can contain up to $800 worth of products. That was something stupid passed in 2015, but no one had any idea what would happen. Now, two million packages a day come from China and we don’t know what’s in them or what their real value is. Instead of $380 billion, the number might be $480 or $580 billion. It’s a huge number. On top of that, if you add whatever value you assign to technology transfer and technology theft, which is in the hundreds-of-billions of dollars, you can see pretty quickly the economic growth of China is largely a wealth transfer from the United States. When people look at the challenge between the United States and China, people have their own categories of what they look at. For a lot of people it’s national security, but for some people it’s human rights. There’s a whole variety of things people look at in this challenge, but they’ll conclude that this is a problem. Then I’ll come in and say, “Then we shouldn’t transfer $600, $700, or $800 billion to them every year.” They say, “What do you mean? What’s wrong with that?” I say, “Are you listening to yourself talk?” If you know you have a problem, and if you are basically fueling the problem, then you need a policy change. That is basically what I talk about. Mr. Jekielek: I want to talk about this de minimis loophole, because it’s amazing how a well-intentioned policy, if it’s not checked periodically, could turn into a massive problem. Can you explain briefly what that is? You have started already. Mr. Lighthizer: The notion is that you have to bring things through customs, and do you want to have a customs form filled out for a dollar’s worth of stuff, or $20 worth of stuff? At some point, it’s more expensive and more difficult to do it. That’s the notion of de minimis. Most countries have it. In the case of Canada, it’s $100, which is not much. In the case of Mexico, it’s less than that. We worked on this during the USMCA [United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement]. In the case of China, it’s tiny, tiny, tiny. In the United States, we have increased it from time to time, and we had it at $200 for many years. Then in 2015, they changed it to $800, which now is an enormous number. At the same time, technology was changing. The notion wasn’t just you coming from a trip to Poland and bringing in $200 or $800 duty-free at Dulles Airport. It wasn’t just that. Now, you could get on the computer, make two clicks, and buy a $800 or $900 item from Shein in China, or Temu in China. Two clicks, and these items are not covered by customs. In some cases, they try to have a form, but in most cases it doesn’t work and it’s inaccurate. If you go through the mail, you are less likely to need a form. If you go through one of the couriers, there’s at least some information, and people thought it was to facilitate for customs officials. It’s also probably driven by these courier companies, who thought they could make some money on it. Whatever it was, it went from a handful of packages a day seven or eight years ago, to two million a day now. The CPA [Coalition for a Prosperous America] has an estimate of $180 billion, and almost all of that $180 billion is going to China. Since we don’t have any data, they did their estimates by going back to the companies and looking at how they reported their own profits and backed out to how much the value was. Their estimate is $180 billion, but we don’t even know what the actual number is. In many cases there are counterfeits. In some cases it’s fentanyl, so there’s also a security element to it. But just on the straight economic money side, it’s probably another $150 to $180 billion a year that we’re shifting almost entirely to China. It’s a totally self-inflicted wound. There is literally no upside to it at all. When you think about it, there’s another bad side to it. You want to buy a sweater. You walk into a store, and they sell you the sweater. They paid the duty on that sweater when they brought it in. You pay for the sweater and it includes the duty. If you buy it directly online, there’s no duty. Depending on the duty, it might be 10, 15, 20, 30 percent cheaper to buy it directly. It’s made even more appalling by the fact that we subsidize our mail too. Taxpayers are paying to run our manufacturers and our brick and mortar stores out of business. It is just idiocy. Mr. Jekielek: To even add to that, and your administration tried to handle this as well, the Universal Postal Union rules made it so that the U.S. would pay for most of the postage from China. Mr. Lighthizer: We took action against that. We had a taskforce that was working on that, but we never got total satisfaction. With the de minimis thing, I tell members of Congress there ought to be a vote tomorrow morning at nine o’clock, and just see if anyone votes on the other side of it, because it’s so clearly a serious, self-inflicted wound. Mr. Jekielek: I found it astounding how sizable a portion of the actual trade deficit that de minimis actually causes. Mr. Lighthizer: Yes. Mr. Jekielek: It’s a considerable part of something that’s already so massive. Mr. Lighthizer: Yes. If our overall goods deficit last year was $1.2 trillion and probably closer to $1.4 trillion, if you want to get economic growth, you need to cut the trade deficit in half. The GDP [Gross Domestic Product] is one of the last things you add. You add consumption and investment, and then the last thing you add is the net trade. You can pick up a couple of percent of GDP growth in a heartbeat by just cutting the trade deficit in half. Mr. Jekielek: Just prior to Covid, for the first time, the trade deficit started to go down. But then fast-forward with a couple of years of Covid, and it has ballooned. Why is that? Mr. Lighthizer: First of all, production was shut down with Covid. Secondly, they pumped out $3 trillion or more and just gave it to people. The Biden administration pumped out $2 billion as an economic stimulus when we already knew we didn’t need it. They ended up stimulating countries around the world. People spent the money overseas, because they had the money, and the technology was there to buy it overseas. We shut down production and irrationally pumped out money to create demand. When you do that, what do you think is going to happen? You will end up with the trade deficit going up, and we certainly saw that it did. Mr. Jekielek: You describe your philosophy of trade as being worker-centered. I forget the exact term you used, but it focuses on the American worker and their wellbeing and flourishing. Please tell me what that means. What does that look like? Mr. Lighthizer: Free traders think the most important thing is consumption and they say, “We want to optimize prices. The cheapest television is better. We want to optimize prices.” That’s kind of a side benefit to optimize corporate profits. In my view that’s totally wrong. First of all, we don’t have a lack of consumption problem in America. If anything, we have too much consumption. Let’s just be honest. Price optimization doesn’t do much to lure me, number one. Number two, I view Americans first as producers and not as consumers. When I say producers, there is a dignity inherent in the individual that comes from work and supporting your family and making a contribution to society. That has actual value, and we’ve lost some of that. Pope Leo the 13th talked about this in his encyclical, “Rerum Novarum.” OAnother example I like to give is St. Benedict who said, “Pray and work.” Work is an important part of what it means to have self-confidence and to have a good opinion of yourself and to have your children have a good opinion of you. We’ve kind of lost that. My view is that we have to think of ourselves as producers first. We need good jobs, more jobs, and higher pay. I’m all in favor of trade, and we have to have trade. One of the things I say in the book that’s been quoted in some reviews is, “Trade is good, more trade is better.” It’s essential that it be fair, but it absolutely has to be balanced. You just cannot transfer wealth overseas. You run up these high trade deficits by focusing on consumption. The result is that you’re transferring the wealth of our children and grandchildren overseas. It’s a foolish, foolish policy. We lose both our jobs and our wealth, and it’s not good for us. Mr. Jekielek: What does trade balance really mean? Is it just as simple as on average there’s no surplus or no deficit between the countries? What does that mean? Mr. Lighthizer: If you talk about trade deficits, for years people said, “They don’t matter. It’s just the other side of the capital account.” We can talk about that. First of all, bilateral trade deficits largely don’t matter, it’s the multilateral ones that matter. The only reason most don’t matter is because a bilateral trade deficit between the United States and China that favors China is transferring technology. That’s a component of it, but as a general matter, you can say bilateral deficits really don’t matter. You can say having a deficit one year and a surplus the next doesn’t matter. Who cares? But what we have seen in the United States is decades of trade deficits of hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars. Had you asked them, the classical economists would all have said, “It’s not possible, so don’t worry about it. It can’t happen.” But yet it has happened. For whatever reason, our currency hasn’t adjusted and other things have happened so that the United States has basically become the end consumer for all products all over the world. Interestingly, the United States is the biggest one by far, but it’s also the UK, Canada, and Australia. These four make up the vast majority of all the deficits. In our case, which is what I focus on, the United States has these enormous deficits, and once again, bilateral. For one year, it’s okay. But if you’re transferring trillions and trillions of dollars over the course of decades, that is not acceptable. You have to get back to where you sell about what you get in. There’s 3 ways to do that. I wrote an article in The Economist a couple of years ago that really expanded on a piece that Warren Buffet, who I greatly admire, wrote in 2003, because he saw the same problem that I see. His approach would be to get export certificates and import certificates. Do you want to import sweaters from China? Good. Give me an export certificate of someone who exported something, and that way you’ll get a balanced rate. Another is to put in a capital access charge, where if the money’s coming back into the United States, charge them a fee so that they can’t buy 100 cents worth of stuff when the dollar comes back, and that will get you to balance. The third way is tariffs. I would accept all of them tomorrow morning at nine o’clock, and I’d be happy. Tariffs are easier for people to understand. You can adjust tariffs and get to the point where you have balanced trade. Mr. Jekielek: Is the purpose of tariffs simply to achieve balance? In other words, it’s just a tool. Mr. Lighthizer: Yes. Tariffs are like any other economic tool. They could be good or they could be bad. If you have this imbalance, then you have to do something about it. You can’t correct the imbalance in other ways, because if we could, we presumably would. By definition, we’re being taken advantage of because we have run deficits for decades. By definition, countries that run surpluses like China, Germany, and Japan to some extent, are doing something protectionist. They are the protectionists. They have a system that is designed to get them to surplus. Essentially, you could think of it as taking assets away from their consumers and giving them to their producing class, and then taking that excess production and selling it to us in order to get wealth for their own purposes. It’s not just China, it’s also Germany and Japan. Those are the significant ones. Tariffs are just a tool, like anything else. You raise tariffs on certain things imported from other places, or you make them at home. Making them at home is the best option. Importing them, for example, from Mexico, would be the second-best option. Mexico is another friendly country where we have an economic stake in their success. You can adjust tariffs, and you can move them around. They’re just a tool. You can put them on some things and not on other things. You can drive production where you want to drive it, and at least drive the wealth transfer away from where it’s going. Mr. Jekielek: By definition, if we’re running this massive deficit over decades, we’re being taken advantage of. The response to that is simply, “Hey, we’re getting all this great stuff.” In a sense, we’re taking advantage of people. Mr. Lighthizer: Let’s analyze that. This is what’s in that article. What happens to these trade deficits and these surpluses for the other countries? Ultimately, that money comes back to the United States. This is why the economists say, “It’s the other side of the capital account. It comes back to the United States in the form of purchasing equities, debt, or real estate. It’s all going to come back here”. We are getting these T-shirts and our third and fourth televisions cheaper, but we’re paying for it by transferring assets of our country overseas. That’s a bad deal, that’s not a good deal. In many cases it’s current consumption for a long term loss of value. You ask, “How big a problem is it?” When Mr. Buffet wrote his article, the net investment position of the country, which means how much all Americans own all over the world versus how much everywhere in the world owns here, for most of our history, that was a very large positive number. When he wrote his article almost 20 years ago, that number was a negative $2 trillion. It’s now a negative $17 trillion. To give you an idea, with $17 trillion you could buy most of the 100 biggest companies in America. That’s how much other people own versus what we own. That is a net transfer of wealth that no one had ever thought even possible in the history of the world. What we get in return is cheaper T-shirts, and it’s a fool’s bargain. Mr. Jekielek: You talk about the ideology of free trade. You describe it almost like a faith. It’s almost like a quasi-religion. Indeed, when I think about tariffs, I have a negative visceral response. I’ve been watching how I’ve been trained to believe certain things. I’ve been trained to believe that free trade is structurally good and correct. You’re arguing that this kind of deep belief has played a significant role in all this. Mr. Lighthizer: That’s right, and I think it’s a false religion. But the first way to think about free trade is that it really doesn’t exist anywhere in the world. There’s literally no place where it exists in the world today. People say, “Here’s something that I believe will happen in a Petri dish somewhere in a lab and doesn’t happen in the real world, and I think it’s good.” My first reaction is we’ll never know, because it’s just a theoretical principle that doesn’t really exist anywhere. Clearly, using tariffs could be bad or it could be good. If you’re using them to get great surpluses like any other economic policy, that’s probably a mistake, at least certainly in terms of the general good. But free trade doesn’t exist anywhere. Nobody practices free trade. For sure, if you look at the great countries that run big surpluses, they don’t have free trade. In China it’s not remotely close. It’s not even capitalism. Germany doesn’t have free trade. Europe doesn’t have free trade. It’s all just a false God, and it literally doesn’t exist. But as I say, it’s like anything else. You have to be wise about how you do it. Tariffs can be good, and tariffs can be bad. That’s just like subsidies could be good, and subsidies could be bad. With all these things, it depends on how they’re used. Mr. Jekielek: This is the perfect opportunity to ask how the Chinese economy works, and how it is different from our economy. People will say, “In the U.S. there’s a lot of corporate welfare.” There are subsidies for certain kinds of industries that are being promoted, and there’s farm subsidies. All this kind of stuff is happening, but we have capitalism here. Some people would say that China is actually similar to that. It was communist once, but these days it’s very different. It’s capitalism with Chinese characteristics. You said it’s not even capitalism. How does the Chinese economy work today? Mr. Lighthizer: In the first place, they say they’re socialists with Chinese characteristics. No one would say capitalist with Chinese characteristics unless it was someone who was heavily invested there and making lots of money and wanted to be a shill. How does their economy work? Their economy is as close as you can get to a planned economy. One of the great things about China is that they tell you what they’re doing upfront. It’s not like there’s a mystery. The only mystery is people aren’t willing to look. They have a plan, they have state-owned enterprises, and they gear production to them. I call them state-controlled enterprises. Some people say, “That’s the private sector.” There is no private sector in China. That’s a complete myth. There is no private sector at all. They directly or indirectly control all the production and most of the consumption in China. They have a plan and they tell you what the plan is. Years ago it was, Made In China 2025. They said, “Here are the things and we’re going to put more assets there, and this is the future. We’re going to have indigenous innovation before that. We want things to be made in China. We don’t want to depend on other people for our technology or any of our inputs except for what is available here.” They have a plan. They gear their assets to maximize production. They do an awful lot to limit consumption. They close their markets. They allow companies to come and be there when they decide it is in China’s interest to have them. When they don’t think it’s in China’s interest, then they get rid of them one way or another, either by taking the customers away or taking the permission away. You have a lot of U.S. and other businessmen who say, “I’m making lots of money in China.” Then you’ll find out five years later that not only were they not making money in China, but they have a Chinese competitor who has their technology and now has the benefits of the state infusion of asset subsidies and can compete around the world against them. China has a system which is designed to help China. When you say it like that, it doesn’t sound so crazy. They’ll say whatever they’re going to say. A lot of other countries have done this mercantilist approach. But the one difference with China is there’s an overlay of stealing technology. There is this sinister overlay in the economic sphere where they go too far. But for sure it’s not a capitalist system in any way at all. Even U.S. companies who go there and operate are very much influenced by what the Chinese want. The Chinese are not going to let them be there and be successful when they don’t think it’s in China’s interest. Mr. Jekielek: The Segway company comes to mind. A Chinese company basically took their IP, built a competing company, and eventually bought the original Segway company after its value had gone down. Mr. Lighthizer: That’s indicative. Look, there are scores of examples like that. They’re the biggest auto producing country in the world and now becoming the biggest auto exporting country in the world. They don’t have any particular economic advantage in automobile production. They had the U.S. and German companies come in there, transfer technology, and transfer business know-how. They created competitors, and they made them all do joint ventures. It was classic. The steel industry. They don’t have the advantages in steel. Through subsidies and having a closed market and shifting value around, they make whatever they make, like a billion tons of steel, where we make 80 million. Right down the line, they go in there, take technology, build up their companies, and then they no longer need the U.S. company who cut their profits down. Then some of them leave, and some of them don’t. There are lots of examples of this. Mr. Jekielek: There are also situations where they have a national security purpose. I like to mention this doctrine of military-civil fusion that Xi Jinping imposed. There’s a reason beyond economics why Huawei is subsidized so heavily and has penetrated hundreds of countries where it has become almost the sole cell phone provider. There are national security reasons and not purely economic reasons. For some strange reason, a lot of people have found this difficult to grasp. Mr. Lighthizer: They are tightening up this policy. Every company is subservient to their intelligence and national security apparatus—every company, including all the U.S. companies. They all are, just by Chinese law. They have increased those laws recently just in the last several months. Mr. Jekielek: There was a profound change during the Trump administration in trade policy and adding tools to assess whether benchmarks were being met, whether agreements were actually being implemented, and also shifting the perception around this whole issue. Do you see any of that today? Mr. Lighthizer: I absolutely see it. You can see it on the Hill. You can see it in the business community, and with both Republicans and Democrats. With some people in this administration, you can see it. With others, you start to wonder, but for sure there was a shift. It’s a shift in the public perception of what’s going on. We’ll see who’s elected and what happens in the coming year. But for sure, there has been a change. That was a huge part of Donald Trump’s legacy, and it has generally continued in our direction throughout this current administration. Mr. Jekielek: What would you say was the most significant change, if you could narrow it down to one thing? Mr. Lighthizer: It depends on what level you’re operating at. If it’s a physical thing, without question it’s the tariffs. If you believe, as I do, that we need some kind of strategic decoupling, not total decoupling, but some kind of strategic decoupling very much like the Chinese have towards us—if you think we need a policy like that, then you would say the most important single thing was putting the tariffs in place, because no one had ever done that. It does change the economic relationship between the two. It affects how American businesses and other businesses around the world view the certainty of access to the U.S. market. That was the most significant, concrete thing that we did. But historians in the way they write would say it’s just changing the perception that people have. Mr. Jekielek: Please explain what you know about the Chinese regime’s strategic decoupling policy or approach. Mr. Lighthizer: What is strategic decoupling? It’s really four things. The first thing is we need to get back to a trade balance. I would propose tariffs on that. You say, “What’s the Chinese equivalent?” The Chinese have a big surplus with us. They do it through a whole lot of different ways, from their labor policy, to their banking policy, to their import licensing policy, to just the general direction of the economy. The first thing is to get to balanced trade. The second thing is we need to disentangle our technology. President Xi Jinping has been quite clear that is what their objective is—Made In China 2025. It has been true for a decade or more this was their direction. They are quite explicit about it now. The second thing is to get to the point where you can disentangle your technology. The third thing is to do a better job of managing inbound investment from China. Right now we have the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States [CFIUS], which lets you take action in certain cases where there are national security implications. We need to get far broader about that. You say, “What is the Chinese equivalent?” You can’t invest in China unless China determines it’s in their interest. That’s just a matter of fact. Mr. Jekielek: Unless you agree to give your technology over. Mr. Lighthizer: China has to say, “This is in our interest for you to do this,” for whatever reason. There could be a variety of reasons. They may think, “One, it could give us technology. Two, it could give us business know-how. Three, in the long run it may help us build up our own industry.” But whatever it is, they’ve made that decision. The last component is outgoing investment. Do you think a Chinese company invests a billion dollars in the United States if it doesn’t get approval, and the Chinese view that as strategically in their interest? Of course not. What I’m saying is we need a policy like that. We need a policy of strategic decoupling. If we do that, we’ll still have trade. Who knows what the amount will be. Maybe it’s $150 billion a year, which is about what we sell them. But whatever it is, it’s balanced, so we’re not transferring wealth. We understand that we have our own technology and regular investment coming and going. Mr. Jekielek: This idea of de-risking, which is one of the terms brandished about as another way of decoupling, is still viewed as an anathema by many people. It’s being talked about a lot more, but it’s seen as a very negative thing by many people. Mr. Lighthizer: In the first place, de-risking is kind of like strategic decoupling-lite. Who knows what it means? I guess what they mean is that we don’t mind shifting $700 billion to China, but we want to be able to make our own F-35s. Is that better than where we are now? Of course it is. But it doesn’t get the job done. It’s a way of trying to do what is right, but still make all the very rich American companies who import from China happy. It’s kind of like they’re trying to have it both ways. In terms of it being thought of as a negative, anyone who says that de-risking is a negative is probably someone who has a direct financial interest in China. I don’t know anyone who actually says that. De-risking is such a small step. It’s like a tiny step in the right direction. Anyone who’s against that is for us losing this great competition. Mr. Jekielek: There is still an incredible amount of investment going in, even automatically through the indices that list Chinese companies, some of them state-owned, and some of them Chinese military companies. There’s still a huge amount of money that a small number of Americans are making out of China. Are you saying that’s the main barrier? Mr. Lighthizer: For sure there are Americans who are in this business, and who know who they are, who get rich. It’s China deciding, “I’m going to make you rich because it’s going to help me.” Those people then become advocates for China. That’s more or less the trade-off. You’re always going to have that situation. There were people from Great Britain who wanted trade with Germany in the 1930s. Neville Chamberlain, before he was Prime Minister, famously approved of the sale of 180 Rolls Royce aircraft engines to a rearming Germany. His response was, “Trade, like religion, shouldn’t have any borders.” There were people making money on that, and those people would influence him. But no objective person could sit back and say that that was anything other than a catastrophe. Those engines were put in planes that initially killed Poles, then the French, and then the British. Mr. Jekielek: There were significant economic ties, but nothing like today with the U.S. and China. Many large U.S. companies had significant interests in pre-war Germany. Mr. Lighthizer: A lot of British companies did as well, that’s absolutely true. They had their advocates. The German American Bund was a huge group in the United States, funded by the German government, to drum up support for Germany. This is apropos of nothing that we’re talking about here, but the biggest single ethnic group in America at that time were Germans, unless you put the Scotch, the Irish and the English all together. The biggest single group was Germans. They had this group, and its purpose was to drum up support for things that helped Germany. They had meetings in Yankee Stadium with 20,000 people and Charles Lindbergh famously was one of the people who spoke. There was also Father Cloughlin who went out and spewed this stuff all the time. The notion of using Americans to help a foreign power and having individuals make money is certainly not a new thing. It’s certainly not something that the Chinese have invented. Mr. Jekielek: It’s also an example that strategic decoupling is something that has been done. Mr. Lighthizer: Absolutely, for sure. You don’t want to do it on five minute’s notice. You want to phase it in. You want to do it over time. You want to have a clear objective. But for sure, it can be done. Mr. Jekielek: Having the U.S. dollar as the global reserve currency is a great advantage to the U.S. How does that fit into these trade discussions? The question is, “How can the U.S. pursue protectionist policies when it has this huge advantage of being the global reserve currency?” Mr. Lighthizer: We need more debate on that. I’m not a believer that having the global reserve currency is a particularly big advantage to the United States. It allows you to sanction people. But in the final analysis, how important is that? It costs you millions of jobs because your currency is too high and it won’t adjust. It costs wages for individual workers. If you think about it as a prestige thing and ask, “Is it important to bankers in New York City?” For sure. Those very rich people are much richer than they would otherwise be if it wasn’t. But I’m not one who’s convinced. The other side of it is if you were the consumer of last resort of all products in the world. I’m not at all convinced that it’s a huge advantage to the United States, other than in the cases that I just said; some individual sanctions, to the extent you think sanctions are an effective tool. But for the everyday American, it’s of no advantage at all and probably a large disadvantage. Mr. Jekielek: You don’t feel this de-dollarization push with BRICS [Brazil, Russia, India, China] is a big deal. Mr. Lighthizer: No, I don’t. The notion that somehow China would be the reserve currency is literally laughable. It’s just people who don’t understand how these things work. The fact is that in order to be the reserve currency, China would have to be willing to be the consumer of last resort. Do you think that’s going to happen? Do you think the Chinese Communist Party is going to let that happen? There’s just not a chance in the world. China is not going to transfer its wealth overseas so that the yuan can be used when Brazil trades with Australia. They’re just not going to do it. Mr. Jekielek: Because they want to be able to control it, quite simply. Mr. Lighthizer: You can’t have a reserve currency that’s controlled in the way they do. No one’s going to trust it. Just put me down for being highly skeptical of this notion that the price is worth the candle. Mr. Jekielek: You had one administration to work through a whole series of policies. What are the steps that could be taken to continue strengthening the U.S. in the trade sense? Mr. Lighthizer: First of all, we have to do the sensible things that you would expect economic policy to do. We have to reduce taxes on business so that you’re competitive globally. We need to get rid of regulation that’s unnecessary or inefficient, and we have lots of that. Not all regulation, obviously. Regulation is just like tariffs or taxes; it can be good or it can be bad depending on how you use it. But we need to deregulate more. We need to get taxes down. We need to be smart, but subsidize things that are essential. A number of those things we can agree on like semiconductors, but there are a lot of other things including technology. We need to do all that. In addition, we need to have balanced trade and stop transferring our wealth overseas. If you do those things, then the United States will become stronger. When people say we should do this or that for our allies, the best thing we can do for our allies is have the strongest army and navy, the best technology, and the strongest economy. If we do all those things, then we’ll have lots of allies and they’ll like us. Mr. Jekielek: Ambassador, this has been an absolutely fascinating discussion. A final thought as we finish up? Mr. Lighthizer: My final thought is that the next election is really important. It’s an important election for just about all the things that we talked about. We should be optimistic in the United States that we will sort these things out. Mr. Jekielek: Ambassador Robert Lighthizer, it’s such a pleasure to have you on the show. Mr. Lighthizer: Thank you for having me. Mr. Jekielek: Thank you all for joining Ambassador Robert Lighthizer and me on this episode of American Thought Leaders. I’m your host, Jan Jekielek. To get notifications about new Kash's Corner and American Thought Leaders episodes, please sign up for our newsletter! Here 👉 Get Alerts - PRE-ORDER "The Shadow State" DVD: https://www.epochtv.shop/product-page/the-shadow-state-dvd The Real Story of January 6 | Documentary BUY Jan 6 DVD: https://www.epochtv.shop/product-page/dvd-the-real-story-of-january-6, Promo Code “Jan” for 20% off. - Follow American Thought Leaders on social media: Twitter: https://twitter.com/AmThoughtLeader Truth Social: https://truthsocial.com/@AmThoughtLeader Gettr: https://gettr.com/user/amthoughtleader Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AmericanThoughtLeaders Gab: https://gab.com/AmThoughtLeader Telegram: https://t.me/AmThoughtLeader

We used to believe that mental disorders were rooted in moral failings. Then we discovered that even bacteria can cause mental health problems. Some argue that it’s rooted in childhood trauma. Then how about genetics? Those must play a role as well. ———– But most recently, we discovered that there’s an even deeper connection between a healthy mind and your gut. So can diet fundamentally change mental health? And if it can, then how about mental disorders that some people have had for years? Is it possible to reverse them? Today on Frontline Health, we will dive into what some scientists are calling a “revolutionary breakthrough” in mental health. Interview trailer: Watch the full interview: https://www.theepochtimes.com/early-signs-of-parkinsons-can-be-hiding-in-your-dreams_5392814.html Medical Disclaimer: Frontline Health (the “Show”), its guests, and contributors provide the latest news on health and medical discoveries and it is meant for informational purposes only. The Show does not provide medical advice, diagnosis, treatment, cures, mitigation, or prevention for any type of disease or medical condition. Similarly, it is not intended for self-diagnosis or self-treating of any health-related condition. The information on the Show is gathered from reputable sources; however, neither Frontline Health nor The Epoch Times Association Inc. are responsible for errors or omissions in reporting or explanation and will not be liable for any direct, indirect, consequential, special, exemplary, or other damages arising therefrom. Patients should always consult with a doctor or other health care professional for medical advice or information about diagnosis and treatment. To get notifications about new Kash's Corner and American Thought Leaders episodes, please sign up for our newsletter! Here 👉 Get Alerts - PRE-ORDER "The Shadow State" DVD: https://www.epochtv.shop/product-page/the-shadow-state-dvd The Real Story of January 6 | Documentary BUY Jan 6 DVD: https://www.epochtv.shop/product-page/dvd-the-real-story-of-january-6, Promo Code “Jan” for 20% off. - Follow American Thought Leaders on social media: Twitter: https://twitter.com/AmThoughtLeader Truth Social: https://truthsocial.com/@AmThoughtLeader Gettr: https://gettr.com/user/amthoughtleader Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AmericanThoughtLeaders Gab: https://gab.com/AmThoughtLeader Telegram: https://t.me/AmThoughtLeader

Across the Western world, we’re hearing growing calls to stop eating meat—and especially beef—to combat climate change. But is this really about saving the planet? “They’re trying to take the animal and the soil out of our consumption model, and turn it into basically something that’s grown and produced in the labs,” argues Texas Slim, founder of The Beef Initiative. The campaign against beef is just one part of a radical transformation that both our food and our health have been subjected to over the last half-century, says Texas Slim. A study in 2018 showed that 88 percent of American adults are metabolically unhealthy. What are the root causes? And how do we turn this situation around? Interview trailer: Watch the full interview: https://www.theepochtimes.com/whats-behind-the-push-to-stop-eating-beef-texas-slim_5399281.html To get notifications about new Kash's Corner and American Thought Leaders episodes, please sign up for our newsletter! Here 👉 Get Alerts - PRE-ORDER "The Shadow State" DVD: https://www.epochtv.shop/product-page/the-shadow-state-dvd The Real Story of January 6 | Documentary BUY Jan 6 DVD: https://www.epochtv.shop/product-page/dvd-the-real-story-of-january-6, Promo Code “Jan” for 20% off. - Follow American Thought Leaders on social media: Twitter: https://twitter.com/AmThoughtLeader Truth Social: https://truthsocial.com/@AmThoughtLeader Gettr: https://gettr.com/user/amthoughtleader Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AmericanThoughtLeaders Gab: https://gab.com/AmThoughtLeader Telegram: https://t.me/AmThoughtLeader

[FULL TRANSCRIPT BELOW] “In the fall of 2019, we were told that a member of the men’s team was going to be transitioning to the women’s team … And that’s when I started to dig deeper on what the NCAA actually allowed. And they did allow for men to become women only after a year of deciding that they wanted to switch.” In this episode, we sit down with Paula Scanlan, a former University of Pennsylvania swimmer and teammate of transgender swimmer Lia Thomas. “They brought in psychological counseling, advising us to make an appointment with them if we were uncomfortable with the situation. And they did say very clearly, Lia swimming is a non-negotiable. … Psychological counseling was scary because, in my mind, that’s almost equivalent to reeducation. That really showed me that they wanted us to think differently, not just help us be comfortable with the situation that we were in,” Ms. Scanlan says. Now, Ms. Scanlan is an outspoken advocate for banning biological men from women’s sports. Interview trailer: Watch the full interview: https://www.theepochtimes.com/paula-scanlan-former-upenn-swimmer-how-were-being-conditioned-to-think-its-normal-for-biological-men-to-compete-in-womens-sports_5390631.html FULL TRANSCRIPT Jan Jekielek: Paula Scanlan, such a pleasure to have you on American Thought Leaders. Paula Scanlan: Thanks for having me. Mr. Jekielek: Paula, just a few weeks ago, a lot fewer people knew who you were. You were interviewed for the film, “What is a Woman,” by Matt Walsh. Recently, you decided to come out and say who you are and make a statement. Please chart this course to me. How did all this happen? Ms. Scanlan: I was approached to be on the, “What is a Woman,” documentary when I was still in college. I was actually still competing on the UPenn swim team. There was this opportunity to be part of a documentary, and they pitched it to me, because there’s going to be people from all sides talking about this gender ideology as an issue. They needed representation from the athletic side. I thought about being revealed in it, but the documentary was originally supposed to come out when I was still in college. That definitely seemed a little bit scary to speak about my experience at UPenn while I was still a student. So then, I decided to go anonymous. For the past year, I’ve sat on it and wished I had done the right thing. The biggest thing for me was just feeling like I wasn’t courageous enough at the time to do it, and that I really needed to get out there this past year. That’s something that eventually came true in about May, 2023. We started doing these interviews. Now, it’s July and here I am. Mr. Jekielek: Tell me about doing the right thing. You said you should have done the right thing. What would have been the right thing to do? Ms. Scanlan: The right thing would have been to speak about it when I was going through it, and not hide behind a cloak of anonymity. It’s very easy to talk about something when you don’t have to worry about putting your face behind it, and you don’t have to worry about the consequences. Obviously, I understand people who still do that. I was in that position a year ago. But the right thing would be to speak the truth and be comfortable putting your name behind the truth. Mr. Jekielek: Let’s start a little bit earlier. You became a competitive swimmer. This is how you got into the documentary in the first place. But give me a sense of how you got there and what was your acumen in swimming. Ms. Scanlan: I started swimming competitively when I was eight years old. Our town had built a really nice, new pool, and my parents thought it would be a good afterschool activity for me. I didn’t take it very seriously until I was in sixth grade, when my brother went to college and I really wanted to have my own thing. My brother is a very strong academic student, and I was not as strong in school. I needed to have an outlet that was mine, and that’s where swimming came in. From the sixth grade through my senior year of high school, it was 20 hours a week, with morning practices starting at 5:00 in the morning, and then, right after school. It was a huge time commitment. Once I got to that level, I knew I needed to continue in college. I ended up at the University of Pennsylvania, where I continued to swim there. Mr. Jekielek: When did you notice that something weird was happening? Ms. Scanlan: In the fall of 2019, we were told that a member of the men’s team was going to be transitioning to the women’s team, but this wasn’t going to happen until the next season. Then, the next season was canceled because of Covid. It was actually two seasons later that a member of the men’s team was on the women’s team in the women’s locker room. At that point, I realized it was actually happening. Up until then, I had hoped or thought maybe it wouldn’t come true, or maybe somebody will change the rules, and this wouldn’t actually happen. In the fall of 2021 I realized it was happening and there wasn’t much I could do about it. Mr. Jekielek: In 2019, when this came up as an idea, had anything been changing? Had there been any hints of some kind of new policy? Because obviously, this is a pretty radical new policy. Ms. Scanlan: I hadn’t heard anything about it. Actually, after we were told this, I looked up the rules and I did see that the rules required a year of hormone replacement therapy. But I wasn’t quite sure what that even entailed. At this point, I was wondering who came up with these rules, where they came from, and how long these rules had been in place. I was thinking, “Oh, any man could become a woman on any sports team.” At that point, I started to see that the NCAA [National Collegiate Athletic Association] had these policies that were deeply flawed, and that didn’t take into account skeletal structure, muscle mass, lung capacity, heart size, and other factors that differentiate men and women. Mr. Jekielek: You were seeing this even before you were competing with men. Ms. Scanlan: I just looked it up when we were told this because I thought to myself, “How is this allowed?” I wanted to know what the policy was for allowing it. That’s when I started to dig deeper on what the NCAA actually allowed. They did allow for men to become women after only a year from deciding that they wanted to switch. Mr. Jekielek: It seems obvious that men would have a biological advantage over women. Phenotypic advantage is another way to put it. This became contentious at some point. Do you remember when? Ms. Scanlan: When we started talking about what the policy was and how it wasn’t fair, people started throwing out the word transphobic. That’s when I started hearing that. I never thought that pointing out that men and women are different was something that would classify as hate speech. But that was something I found happening as I questioned more. It was actually more about questioning authority by saying, “Maybe the NCAA is wrong,” or, “The university is wrong,” or, “The system is wrong.” When you start to raise those questions, that’s when they start labeling you as a hater or a transphobe or all those other insults that they like to throw. Mr. Jekielek: I definitely want to talk about that more. You mentioned something about the locker rooms. This is something that has been prominent in Riley Gaines’ testimony to Congress and other places. Please explain that whole situation to me. Ms. Scanlan: Funny enough, at the beginning, when this member of the men’s team, formerly Will Thomas, announced the transition, we weren’t sure if Will was actually going to be in the locker room with us. In his one year of hormone replacement therapy, Will, still Will at the time, was still competing for the men’s team and changing in the men’s locker room. But to start getting Will more acquainted with the women’s team, some people would invite Will into the women’s locker room. They would give us a warning and would say, “Hey, guys. Will’s coming in. Is everyone decent?” At that point in time, in fall 2019, a warning was justified. But for some reason, two years later, there was no warning, and it was every single day that we changed in the same locker room. I was asking, “Just because you’ve declared you’re a woman two years ago, that’s somehow okay, when everything about you is still the same, and you just say that you identify differently? That’s something I found very, very confusing, that just because you declare something is true, in a short amount of time, it is suddenly true. Mr. Jekielek: What was the reaction of the women in the room? Ms. Scanlan: Some girls were definitely very uncomfortable. A lot of girls would go and change in the bathroom stalls so they would be completely covered and confined to their own space. People brought it up to the coaches. But unfortunately, we were told that if someone’s part of the team, they should deserve the same privileges as everyone else on the team. In their defense, that does actually make a lot of sense. If we’re going to say Lia is part of the women’s team and is a woman, why would Lia not have the same rights as the rest of us? In that sense, it’s consistent, but definitely not the right thing for women. It was definitely very challenging to be in a situation that we didn’t really discuss. We didn’t discuss it. We didn’t say, “Maybe there’s an alternative on how we can set up this locker room,” or, “Maybe there’s another family stall that we could use,” or whatever the solution might be. There was just never a discussion about it. Mr. Jekielek: Right. The idea was you wanted to do nothing to stigmatize. That was the approach. Ms. Scanlan: Yes, that’s what we were told. We have to be inclusive in every single part for someone to feel comfortable with their new gender identity. It’s all about being inclusive in every single part of women’s spaces and women’s rights that they now need to be included in. Mr. Jekielek: What about the competitions themselves? How did things change? Ms. Scanlan: At the beginning of the season, we actually weren’t really sure how fast everyone was going to be swimming. Again, the Ivy League canceled all competition for the 2020 to 2021 school year, so there was not a single sports competition for swimming at all. A lot of people didn’t swim at all in that year off. In general, we weren’t really sure who was going to be fast and who was going to be slow, because a year off is a lot of time. We weren’t sure. But the first meet we swam against Columbia, it was very obvious that Lia was going to be a very dominant swimmer for the season, who just destroyed the competition in these events. It was definitely obvious. But at that point, I didn’t know if Lia was going to win an NCAA title. I knew it was going to be a possibility, but I did not know if it was going to come true. Obviously, it ended up coming true, which was the most dramatic outcome of the entire situation, in my opinion. Mr. Jekielek: How were people on the team dealing with this situation? Ms. Scanlan: At the beginning, you could talk to people. You could have one-on-one conversations with anyone on the team, and people had different opinions. Some people said, “I don’t really care that much about the locker room, but I don’t like losing my spot on the relay.” Someone else would say, “I don’t like that the record board is now going to have Lia’s name.” Someone else would say, “I don’t like that Lia is able to score points against other teams.” Everyone had their own varying comfort level with the situation. But in general, Most people you would have a one-on-one conversation with would be uncomfortable with it, and that varied, obviously. But everyone had at least some level of discomfort with it. That was something I found very interesting, but the season went on. The university started coming in and telling us to stop speaking about it and not to go to the media, and that Lia swimming was a non-negotiable. We couldn’t even talk among ourselves. There were people who were scared to even voice their opinions in their own head. There were people that changed their opinion in their own minds. There was a girl who was very upset by it, and she suddenly changed her opinion after meeting with the school. I think her parents also told her, “There’s nothing you can do about it, so you might as well be supportive.” Mr. Jekielek: There has been a transformation of schools in general around these many issues, this being one of them. Please tell me about how the university treated this whole situation. Ms. Scanlan: UPenn likes to ignore issues as much as they can. Obviously they don’t want to get involved with something controversial. They never met with us directly until it started to become a big media story. After a meet in December when Leah broke a bunch of records, it started becoming a huge national headlining story. That’s when the university finally came in and had their first meeting with us as a team, which was way too late, in my opinion. They should have had conversations earlier on, listened to the people on the team and what they thought about it, and given us warning that this was going to be a controversial situation. But they never did that. It was only after the media started knocking on people’s doors and wanting quotes and wanting to write stories about this that they told us not to speak to the media, saying, “The media is not our friend,” and that we would regret speaking out if we did. It was this meeting that just put us in shock, because they brought a bunch of specialists to this meeting. They said, “This is a special panel.” It was a member from the LGBT center that said we were going to start having mandatory team meetings with the LGBT center. They brought in psychological counseling, advising us to make an appointment with them if we were uncomfortable with the situation. They did say very clearly that Lia swimming is non-negotiable. They said, “We’re here to help you provide services to make that okay.” They wanted us to be okay with it. Bringing in psychological services was a crazy step. I understand bringing in the athletic department. I understand even bringing in the head of the athletic department. I understand even bringing in the LGBT center, because this is an LGBT issue that they wanted us to figure out. But psychological counseling was scary, because in my mind, that’s almost equivalent to re-education. That really showed me that they wanted us to think differently, and not just help us be comfortable with the situation that we were in. Mr. Jekielek: Please tell me more about this. Typically, with counseling, you have some kind of issue, you go to the counselor, and then, you figure something out that you need to do. How is this different? Did you actually go to one of these sessions? Ms. Scanlan: I did not go to one with the school, but I actually worked on my own with an outside-of-school therapist. It’s very challenging because therapists in most states could lose their license for “misgendering” a child. They can lose their license for not affirming someone’s gender. With a lot of these therapists, when people go in with gender dysphoria, the therapist has to say, “Yes, you are valid in how you are feeling. Yes, you are a woman, if you say you’re a woman.” A lot of these therapists are conditioned to believe this, because if they don’t, they’ll lose their job. When you go to talk to these therapists about this issue, they will also tell you, “Oh. They need to become a woman or they’re going to kill themselves.” They tell you that. If you go in and say, “I’m uncomfortable with a man being in my locker room,” they say, “It’s your own bias that thinks that they’re a harm to women. They are women, so you have to believe that they are”. That is very challenging. Obviously, there are therapists that don’t do this, and there’s therapists that are more understanding of why people might be uncomfortable. But generally speaking, a lot of them are threatened with losing their license if they don’t treat patients with gender dysphoria this way. Mr. Jekielek: From the sound of it, they validate that viewpoint as being the one correct way that everyone has to think. That’s the sense I’m getting here. Ms. Scanlan: Yes, of course. They want one belief. They want everyone to agree on one single thing. Mr. Jekielek: It’s actually a completely different approach to therapy. It’s very interesting that you describe it as thought reform. Ms. Scanlan: Yes, thought reform and re-education. I would say those are accurate descriptions. Mr. Jekielek: I hadn’t really thought of it that way until now. You said you had your own therapist. Was this outside, but also in the same vein? Ms. Scanlan: No. I just had someone I worked with just to talk about school and life and things in general. But it was very interesting because they always speak about it from the perspective of having transgender clients themselves and saying, “They need to transition, and they can’t stand their own body and they’re going to commit suicide if they don’t get to be a woman in every sense.” I’ve met a few of the therapists that were on the “What is a Woman” documentary. There was a reunion, and I got to meet with them. They were saying that they are going to be threatened with losing their license if they don’t affirm these people’s genders. There are also situations where there’s a husband and a wife, and one parent wants to transition the child and the other one doesn’t, and the court always rules with the parent that wants to affirm. This has been accepted as what we have to do, and as the right thing to do. There hasn’t been an instance, at least that I know of, where they side with the parent that doesn’t want to change this kid’s gender. Someone, somewhere, has decided that the right thing to do is to affirm. I don’t know where that came from. I don’t know who came up with that, but it is very interesting. Mr. Jekielek: How did things change in the school overall, other than the swim team? Because that’s something that you saw happening as well. Ms. Scanlan: Yes, I mentioned this when I talked to Matt in one of my interviews. I always thought universities were a place of higher education. In my mind, at age 16 and 17 when I was looking at colleges, I thought it was about discussion and debate. I anticipated I would go to college and I would meet people from all walks of life, all different backgrounds, and everyone would have different opinions. I always thought that about college. I thought college was a place where you go to debate things. I arrived at college, and I found that that wasn’t the case. We had Candace Owens come talk on campus my freshman year, and I thought, “Wow, that’s really cool. We have a conservative speaker and we have plenty of liberal ones.” But as I went through college, I saw that that was happening less and less. In fact, they would protest if anyone would try to bring someone even remotely right-leaning on campus. I started thinking that this is not what college was supposed to be, and that there was just a lack of debate. I always had this idea in the back of my mind through my junior year. My senior year was when this situation happened to me. I tried to write an opinion piece for the school newspaper. They were publishing several different opinion pieces that were pro-Lia swimming, and they couldn’t find a single person to write one that was in opposition. When I went to do that, it was retracted because they said it was too offensive. I saw that there was no debate. They wanted everyone to think the same thing, and there was no room for dissenting viewpoints. That’s something I never expected when I went to college. I knew that colleges were more Left-leaning, but I always thought there was room for the opposite opinion. By the end of college, I found that wasn’t the case. Mr. Jekielek: Let’s touch on this op-ed for a moment. It was actually published. Ms. Scanlan: Yes, for about two hours. I don’t know the exact timestamp. Mr. Jekielek: What was in there? Ms. Scanlan: It didn’t really talk about Lia, to be honest. It was dissecting the policy the NCAA had put into place, and why men are still stronger than women. It was analyzing the finishing times at the Olympics of what percentage the men beat the women by. It was analyzing track and field and how men on average jump this much further. It was just a lot of statistics, and a lot of analysis on the policy. In an original draft, and I think this got cut, I did use the fact that if you transition from a woman to a man, you don’t have to sit out any time at all, which at the very least shows that they acknowledge that women are weaker on average than men. Because if you transition from a woman to a man, you don’t have to sit out at all. But if you transition from a man to a woman, you have to wait a year. That at the very least acknowledges that there is a difference. But that’s all that they acknowledged. There are a lot of studies that have shown that taking cross-sex hormones do not change your skeletal structure. They don’t change your muscle mass. They can’t change the size of your lungs or your heart. They only really discuss testosterone, and there are many hormones in the human body that are not mentioned. They’ve chosen this one hormone to be the only tell of athletic performance, which is completely false. You can’t have one singular hormone in the human body that’s related to all athletic performance. They just chose one thing to focus on and everything else didn’t matter. Mr. Jekielek: You’re saying there isn’t a shift in muscle mass with this replacement therapy? Ms. Scanlan: There is, and you do become weaker. But if you continue to work out during the wait time, you can still maintain some level of muscle mass. Your muscle mass is not dependent on the hormone. If you continue to work out muscles, your muscles will get stronger. The baseline at which men have muscles is higher than the baseline that women have. Of course, cross-sex hormones do make men weaker in some way, and I’m not denying that. That’s obviously true. But if you continue to work out, you can still build muscle mass at a rate that’s higher than an average woman could. Mr. Jekielek: I hadn’t quite thought about the nuance of this. But again, if you’re in competition, you’re incentivized to win. Ms. Scanlan: Yes. Mr. Jekielek: This is the whole point. You’re obviously going to try to minimize becoming weaker as much as possible. Ms. Scanlan: Yes. Mr. Jekielek: I feel like it’s ignoring a lot of the incentive structures that exist, the incentives that people have that are obvious. Ms. Scanlan: Yes. I also think that Lia was not nefarious in any of this. But these policies are allowing for people that are dishonest. You could have somebody who can just say that they’re going to be transitioning, and they only have to wait a year. If they continue to work out at a very aggressive rate during that time, they can train past some of these disadvantages they might be getting from taking cross-sex hormones. If you continue to work out your muscles, to some extent you can maintain the muscle mass that you had prior to taking cross-sex hormones. I’m not saying that any transgender athlete that’s currently competing is doing it for bad reasons, but it opens the door for people that might be. That’s something that is very scary. Again, in a perfect world, I would love for us to just say every single person competing in the opposite sex category is doing it just because they’re going to kill themselves if they don’t, or they’re going to be depressed if they don’t. But based on these policies, we can’t ensure that. We have to make rules for the people that are going to break them for bad reasons, not the people that are more common to switch over or more common to want to participate in the opposite sex. That’s something we need to consider. No one really talks about that because we want to assume that people are going to do the right thing, but we can’t. As a society, there’s always going to be people who break rules for the wrong reasons. Mr. Jekielek: Those people cause a disproportionate amount of harm. You can see that actually in all sorts of statistics that I’ve been looking at. Looking at a bit of Epoch Times history, we were founded by Chinese Americans back in the day. It was very interesting for me to discover that you’re actually Taiwanese American. Ms. Scanlan: Yes. Mr. Jekielek: Your grandparents were actually quite active in Taiwan in diplomacy, and in the political scene. Some of what you’ve learned from them is operative here, which is a very interesting connection. Please tell me about that. Ms. Scanlan: Yes, that is part of my family history. My grandfather worked for the government in many different ways. He was a journalist and a diplomat. He was born in Tokyo, actually. He worked to get the Japanese media to cover what was going on in Taiwan in terms of reunification, and about the people who were against reunification. A big part of my family history is him encouraging all viewpoints. Something he worked on very hard was the idea of freedom of press to then encourage freedom of speech. When this happened to me, it was a freedom of speech issue because I wrote an article that was pulled. That was something that really turned on my gears and I said, “This is like my family history. I got to go do what my grandfather did.” It was very interesting to have that perspective of knowing what countries can look like without freedom of speech. That’s something that is very scary, like the February 28th incident in Taiwan, where they were killing a bunch of people that had viewpoints that dissented what the government wanted. Obviously, we’re not there yet in America, but I see that restricting freedom of press and freedom of speech gets you there. We’re not there yet in America, but if we don’t continue to fight back, we could end up in a situation where people who even think differently are not allowed to live in that country, or they get banished. Or worse, they get killed. Mr. Jekielek: For the benefit of our audience, I think a lot of people might not be familiar with the February 28th incident. Please briefly explain that for us. Ms. Scanlan: It happened in Taiwan, where basically all educated people were killed off because they were worried that they would just change views and encourage people to think differently and be against the government. That was a big thing. It was an attempt to suppress the people, because they didn’t want an uprising. That was very, very scary. My grandfather’s family members were almost killed during that. A lot of them actually ended up getting banished instead, and they had to move to other countries. It was very real. When governments don’t like what the people think, they will come in and do something crazy like that. Mr. Jekielek: There’s a lot of people in our society today that are afraid to voice their perspective for very good reasons . It’s all the way from, “It would be very inconvenient,” to, “I could lose my career,” to, “I’ll be ostracized.” There’s a whole spectrum of very legitimate concerns that people have. Tell me about your process. It took you a while to decide to come out. What were you thinking originally, and how did it evolve? Ms. Scanlan: Part of human nature is to want to be liked. It’s very difficult to say something that you know people don’t agree with. That was something that was very challenging for me. I voiced these opinions during the season when I was on the team, and I lost a lot of friends. A lot of teammates sent me messages that weren’t so nice, and people told me never to talk to them again. Part of me said, “If the season ends and I never speak about this ever again, everyone who didn’t like me last year will come back to me. We’ll all be friends again and everything will be nice.” In the last year, none of those people ever came back to me and said, “Let’s be friends again. I know the season is over and you’re not speaking about this anymore, so it doesn’t matter.” But no. None of those people did that, because I had already upset them. Part of me hoped that they would come back. As a person you want to be liked and you don’t want to feel ostracized from anyone. But unfortunately, once you speak about these things, there are going to be people who don’t like you. But there’s also going to be plenty of people that do like you and do support you. I’ve gotten a lot of support from people in my life that I haven’t talked to in years. Girls from high school have reached out. A kid I went to middle school with that I haven’t talked to in 10 years told me he supported me. It’s just part of the journey. It’s really scary to think that people might never want to talk to you again or you could lose your friends or your family. But unfortunately, we’re getting to a point where if we don’t speak the truth, then we can’t count on somebody else to do it. Mr. Jekielek: After all this transpired and now that you’ve decided to be public, have there been costs? Ms. Scanlan: Yes, definitely. I’ve had people who generally disagree because they think that this is a more conservative Right-wing issue. There have definitely been people saying, “I support that men should not be in women’s sports, but you’re allowing yourself to get looped into Right-wing media and all the other Right-wing ideas.” That’s very interesting to me because you can talk to somebody at any point and you can disagree with them on something, and you can agree with them on something else. You’re allowed to talk about the thing you agree on, and you’re not going to be tied to that person just because you agree with them. That’s something people are losing track of in this country. This is on both sides. They say, “If you sympathize with this person on one issue, then you are signing up for every other thing that they believe.” I don’t agree with that. I can talk to anyone who’s willing to talk to me about this, and I can disagree with them on every other issue. But if this is the one issue we agree on, why can’t we have a conversation? That’s been something that’s been hard for a lot of people in my life in particular where they’re saying, “Yes, I agree with you doing this, but you can’t sign up for being a part of all these other Right-wing ideas or these conservative ideas,” when I haven’t talked about any of them. Mr. Jekielek: Do you view yourself as a conservative? Ms. Scanlan: I think that I am. I definitely feel like I’m on that side of ideology aside from this issue. But what I’m saying is that I don’t think you have to have a conversation with someone and agree with every single one of those issues. I can have liberal friends that agree with me on this particular point, but they can also disagree with me on everything else, and that shouldn’t change our friendship. Mr. Jekielek: That you’re saying just sounds way too logical to me. Jokes aside, it’s such a weird kind of assumption. Ms. Scanlan: Yes. For example, Martina Navratilova, the champion tennis player, is with us on this issue. I’ve met her a few times now to work on stuff related to getting biological men out of women’s sports. Mr. Jekielek: That’s amazing, she’s a total legend. I loved watching her play. Ms. Scanlan: Yes. I can tell you a bunch of stories about her. But Martina is incredibly liberal and a lifelong Democrat, and will always vote Democrat. But she’s against this issue. I follow her on Twitter, and she’s reposting all these Democratic issues and supporting all her Democratic candidates. Great. That’s her opinion. Wonderful. But on this issue, she reposts things that I’m featured in. I’m on the Daily Wire, which is known as a Right-wing organization. She is still posting a video The Daily Wire helped me produce. Then, she gets these hate comments accusing her of disrespecting her LGBT family, and saying that she’s selling out to the Right-wing and that she’s trying to become a Right-wing media star. But every single other thing she posts is Left-wing. That’s so crazy that every single issue needs to be on party lines. It’s just something I never expected would have happened. There’s always one conservative thing that a liberal can think, or one liberal thing a conservative can think. Not every single person matches with every single opinion that the party that they generally vote for goes. I’ve started to see that it’s turning into this crazy madness, even with this affirmative action. I never even heard people on the Left talking about it so much. It was overruled, and suddenly it’s the biggest issue that they’ve ever faced. I said, “Am I naive for thinking that I didn’t think that many Democrats were that passionate about this, and now suddenly they are?” It’s interesting that as soon as your party takes a stance on it, you’ll have to suddenly become an expert and an activist on that subject. That’s something we need to do away with as Americans. You can generally vote a certain way, but you can have things on the party you vote for that you disagree with. You should be allowed to voice that opinion without being accused of going for the other side. Mr. Jekielek: What’s next for you? Ms. Scanlan: A lot. I really want to bridge the gap on this issue. There are a lot of Left-leaning and Right-leaning individuals that are very against it. For us to come to a consensus on this, we do need support from all sides. I do want to focus on talking to Democratic leaders that might be for banning biological men from women’s sports. We can find a way to appeal to them and make them see our side. It will be very important in helping protect women in women’s spaces. Mr. Jekielek: You said this is much bigger than just this one issue. What about the broader picture? Ms. Scanlan: Sports is the most obvious, where you see the outcomes directly with times or points or however the game is scored. But there are more invisible situations where this is happening. For example, in women’s prisons, there’s a lot of biological men that identify as women and are sex offenders that want to go into these women’s spaces and harm the prisoners. People who are in prison are there to serve for something that they did wrong, but they don’t deserve even more harm and pain from that situation by being put in there with a predatory man. Prisoners don’t have voices the way that I do, the way that Riley does, and the way that the rest of us who are speaking about this do. Part of our platform should be to help protect people who don’t have voices, and also younger girls. We don’t know if their sports are going to be affected by this yet. We should also speak for them. That’s the biggest thing, giving a voice to people who don’t have a voice. Mr. Jekielek: Paula Scanlan, it’s such a pleasure to have you on the show. Ms. Scanlan: Thank you for having me. Mr. Jekielek: Thank you all for joining Paula Scanlan and me on this episode of American Thought Leaders. I’m your host, Jan Jekielek. To get notifications about new Kash's Corner and American Thought Leaders episodes, please sign up for our newsletter! Here 👉 Get Alerts - PRE-ORDER "The Shadow State" DVD: https://www.epochtv.shop/product-page/the-shadow-state-dvd The Real Story of January 6 | Documentary BUY Jan 6 DVD: https://www.epochtv.shop/product-page/dvd-the-real-story-of-january-6, Promo Code “Jan” for 20% off. - Follow American Thought Leaders on social media: Twitter: https://twitter.com/AmThoughtLeader Truth Social: https://truthsocial.com/@AmThoughtLeader Gettr: https://gettr.com/user/amthoughtleader Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AmericanThoughtLeaders Gab: https://gab.com/AmThoughtLeader Telegram: https://t.me/AmThoughtLeader