Jake Sullivan

And I believe that there is the possibility for a deal to be done and that when Ukraine is ready to sign on the dotted line of that deal, we can hold our heads held high that we did not impose a dictated outcome on a sovereign and free people.

And I believe that there is the possibility for a deal to be done and that when Ukraine is ready to sign on the dotted line of that deal, we can hold our heads held high that we did not impose a dictated outcome on a sovereign and free people.

Well, I think the consensus really was rooted in the idea that international economic integration, the free flow of capital across borders, the bringing in of every country in the world to a single international economic system would lead to greater efficiency, greater responsibility of action by all of those players, and that everyone would ultimately benefit from that.

Well, I think the consensus really was rooted in the idea that international economic integration, the free flow of capital across borders, the bringing in of every country in the world to a single international economic system would lead to greater efficiency, greater responsibility of action by all of those players, and that everyone would ultimately benefit from that.

This was essentially the thesis of globalization through the 90s and the 2000s, that markets efficiently allocate capital at all times. Fundamentally, all growth is good growth. It's all the same. It doesn't matter what type of growth it is, whether it's the growth of the financial sector or the growth of the industrial sector.

This was essentially the thesis of globalization through the 90s and the 2000s, that markets efficiently allocate capital at all times. Fundamentally, all growth is good growth. It's all the same. It doesn't matter what type of growth it is, whether it's the growth of the financial sector or the growth of the industrial sector.

And that bringing in China or bringing in Russia to the World Trade Organization would make those countries play by the rules.

And that bringing in China or bringing in Russia to the World Trade Organization would make those countries play by the rules.

At its core, a lot of the elements of the international financial and economic system were sound and helped deliver robust top-line growth and technological progress in the United States, but also created these huge vulnerabilities, supply chain vulnerabilities, a lack of allocation of capital to the great crises of our time, like the climate crisis, a greater inequality and the hollowing out of our industrial base in the United States.

At its core, a lot of the elements of the international financial and economic system were sound and helped deliver robust top-line growth and technological progress in the United States, but also created these huge vulnerabilities, supply chain vulnerabilities, a lack of allocation of capital to the great crises of our time, like the climate crisis, a greater inequality and the hollowing out of our industrial base in the United States.

And those were the kinds of things that we needed an updated international economic policy to try to address.

And those were the kinds of things that we needed an updated international economic policy to try to address.

Well, the Nippon Steel deal is really a very specific national security question. And in fact, the Committee on Foreign Investment that looks at this, these questions of foreign acquisition of major strategic domestic industries, actually was unanimous in saying it does pose national security risks. Because if a foreign entity, even an allied entity,

Well, the Nippon Steel deal is really a very specific national security question. And in fact, the Committee on Foreign Investment that looks at this, these questions of foreign acquisition of major strategic domestic industries, actually was unanimous in saying it does pose national security risks. Because if a foreign entity, even an allied entity,

is not as invested as the United States is in making sure that we maintain the level of steel production in the United States that we feel is necessary for our national security, that's a risk. The real debate within the committee was over whether there was sufficient steps that could be taken to mitigate that risk.

is not as invested as the United States is in making sure that we maintain the level of steel production in the United States that we feel is necessary for our national security, that's a risk. The real debate within the committee was over whether there was sufficient steps that could be taken to mitigate that risk.

President Biden ultimately decided that fundamentally there has to be some percentage, some element of the American steel industry that is American-owned, American-operated, and driven by American workers. And that was a judgment he made.

President Biden ultimately decided that fundamentally there has to be some percentage, some element of the American steel industry that is American-owned, American-operated, and driven by American workers. And that was a judgment he made.

I do not think one should look at that deal and say, okay, that means President Biden isn't going to work with allies and partners because the record is replete with instances where we're working with Japan on critical minerals, on semiconductors, and so many other things, but rather a unique case that was looked at hard on the merits and the president reached a judgment.

I do not think one should look at that deal and say, okay, that means President Biden isn't going to work with allies and partners because the record is replete with instances where we're working with Japan on critical minerals, on semiconductors, and so many other things, but rather a unique case that was looked at hard on the merits and the president reached a judgment.