What Trump Gets Wrong About China

And what else you need to know about one of America's fiercest competitors

Sarah and Beth dig into why China suddenly feels both harder to understand and more important to pay attention to — from Xi Jinping's latest purges of military leadership to what his consolidating power means for the U.S. They also sit down with veteran journalist Jane Perlez to discuss what Americans get wrong about China. Plus, they talk about where they would hypothetically set up Pantsuit Politics International.

Topics Discussed

• What We’re Missing On China

• Jane Perlez on Trade, President Xi, and the Future of China

• Outside of Politics: Pantsuit Politics International

Want more Pantsuit Politics? Subscribe to ensure you never miss an episode and get access to our premium shows and community.

Join Us in Minneapolis!

We’re excited to be coming to Minneapolis at the end of August for a live show and our first-ever Spice Conference. Tickets for the live show will go on sale at the beginning of March, but tickets to the Spice Conference go on sale next week. We’re releasing them to our premium members in two batches.

Premium members can learn more here and will get an email with a link to purchase on Tuesday morning, February 10:

Join Us in Minneapolis!

Episode Resources

• On Trump, China, and Romance (Jane Perlez on Pantsuit Politics - February 14, 2025)

• Face-Off: The U.S. vs. China | The Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs

Episode Transcript

Sarah [00:00:08] This is Sarah Stewart Holland.

Beth [00:00:10] This is Beth Silvers. You’re listening to Pantsuit Politics. Today we’re going to talk about China and we’re going to spend a few minutes talking about why we’re talking about China. Certainly the United States has a lot happening. We think there is a lot to learn from China right now. And we also feel like there was kind of a consensus about what we need to know about China as US citizens that is changing rapidly. And so we want to spend this episode talking about what’s different now and why it matters to us. And we are joined to do that by one of our favorite experts on China, Jane Perlez. She is a longtime China reporter. She hosts the podcast Face Off, which is excellent. It dives into the issues that are large and small affecting the U.S-China relationship. And Jane is just a real pleasure to spend time with. So we hope you’ll enjoy that conversation. Outside of Politics, we are answering a question from our beloved listener, Norma, about where we would relocate Pantsuit Politics if we had a headquarters. If we have to choose a different country, where would we go?

Sarah [00:01:09] Our team has been together this week for our annual retreat. We dreamed up lots of fun things for this community to do together. One thing that we’re particularly excited about is our weekend in Minneapolis at the end of August. We know Minneapolis St. Paul and the greater region there in Minnesota have really been through it this year. And we also know that at City, its small businesses and its people are going to need support and light as this year marches on. We have been trying to get to the Twin Cities for a show for years because it is the number one geographic location for Pantsuit Politics listeners. It’s the greatest concentration of all y’all out there listening. That’s why it holds such a special place in our heart. And I think it was the Holy Spirit at work that we picked this year as a good one to go. It feels very, very special to stand in support with that community. So the live show will be on Saturday, August 29th. Tickets for the live show itself will be on sale in early March. Next week, though, we will be selling the tickets to our first ever Spice Conference. This is going to be a day and a half of extra fun for our premium members, including special activity sessions and ways to support the Minneapolis community. Tickets for the Spice conference will go on sale to our premium members in two batches next Tuesday night and Wednesday morning. Make sure you check out the show notes or our website, Pantsuitpoliticsshow.com for full details and mark your calendars for Saturday, August 29. You won’t want to miss it.

Beth [00:02:46] Next up, let’s talk about China. Sarah, for a few years, we had in Washington DC what lots of people described as a bipartisan consensus about China. The idea was that China is our competitor and in many ways our enemy, that we needed to limit the technology that we send to China, that we need to try to cooperate with China where we could but recognize there are probably not a lot of spaces for that cooperation, that Xi Jinping was preserving power for himself, suppressing dissent within China, but wouldn’t be there forever and really represented an extension of the Chinese Communist Party. And that’s the organization that we have our national beef with. And I think that while some of that has held true, a lot of things have changed and they’ve changed in ways that are very relevant to some of the issues that we’re facing as a country now. And I know that you’ve been really tracking on the news brief, the dynamics shifting around Xi Jinping’s leadership. So I think it’s a great starting place for us to talk about how maybe holding on to power was like a little bit of an understatement about him.

Sarah [00:04:04] Look, I think if you feel whiplash from trying to understand China, much less our relationship with China, same. Not last year I was like I’ll never go to China, it’s not safe. And now I’m like I think I got to China to understand anything about the future and our world. Like within a couple of months span, I’m ping ponging back and forth because so much of it is about understanding Xi. And when you think you understand him, the fact that he is installed like a childhood friend, someone he’s been close to his whole life, the head of the Chinese military, and then all of a sudden that guy’s gone. So you think you understand how he’s structuring the Chinese military, and then, all of the sudden, you get these stories that even national security advisors are like holler what? Because he purged General Shang Youxia from the military ranks. And again, this was not just like the top general. It was seen as like one of Xi’s closest advisors. And as it always is in China under the guise of purging corruption. Now, I’m sure there was some corruption in a structure like the Chinese Communist Party. It would be hard to avoid. We’re not avoiding it here in a democratic system. So you can just imagine what an authoritarian government would be facing. But he really like hollowed out this central military commission, which is like China’s supreme military body. So you don’t even have people with like combat experience. Now you have just yes men, people that maybe could have discussed with their American counterparts a path forward. You just have Xi continuing to purge and solidify his power and not power in the understanding of like power under him and his advisors. Power only under him. I mean, he was supposed to be limited. He got rid of that. He is just in pursuit of Chinese dominance. And I don’t think that necessarily means military might immediately. I don’t think Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin are the same in the understatement of the year. I think that he does have long-term goals to take Taiwan. But it’s just to see the ways in which he will take sort of risky moves in pursuit of his own authority and solidifying that. I don’t know if it’s scary. It’s clarifying for sure.

Beth [00:06:48] I was thinking about our episode on Tuesday where we talked so much about greed and how we have this small group of people that the US government seems determined to enrich at everyone else’s expense and how there is a level at which greed is insatiable. You can never have enough. Once you have enough, then you just set your goal a lot higher. I think power is the same way and that’s what you see with Xi. He had an iron grip on Chinese business, on Chinese society, on Chinese politics, and it has not been enough. And he has to turn even against his friends now to show that it’s never enough for him. And that feels clarifying to me in this moment. I know that there will be people who are like why are you talking about China? Why are you talking about China right now? We got our own problems here in the United States that I can barely keep up with, and us too. And at the same time, I think our president has overtly said that he admires Xi. And so that’s instructive. He’s heading there for a visit. So much of our economy is wrapped up in the relationship with China that is always worth paying attention to. And where our imaginations fail us about how governments can morph over time, here we have across the globe an example of a government that has shifted significantly in a pretty short period of time.

Sarah [00:08:16] I think that with regards to like the impact on Americans, Xi Jinping won this trade war as it was. Like they navigated it. They called his bluff. I was listening to an expert on the Ezra Klein say they were trying desperately under their public policy think tanks to track Trump and track Trump’s strategy and ideas and they gave up. And now they just have these blunt tools of understanding his basic psychology, and they used those to successfully navigate the trade negotiations as they were, which was they didn’t back down. They said, no, we’re not going to do it. And I think Trump thinks he’s going to get in front of Xi Jinping in these meetings and procure some sort of magical deal, and it’s not going to happen. And sometimes that unexpected approach doesn’t just enforce our own easy narratives about Xi and his power. I mean, he didn’t come to Venezuela’s aid. I think we say that all this investment-- and make no mistake under this administration, the Belt and Road investments have like quadrupled. So they are dropping an enormous amount of money around the world, but they’re not necessarily militarily coming to those countries’ aids. So it’s a little bit different. I think we just want to put China in a box that helps us understand it. Like, oh, it is a new Cold War or they’re just like Russia or whatever it is. And that’s just not true. And I think it’s hard. That’s why I’ve like got to this point where I’m like I just got to go there. I can’t wrap my hands or my head around exactly what’s happening in China, much less between us and China. Because I think there are so many unknowns and so many areas that you just have to have like experience. That is why I value Jane so much. And that’s why I’m so glad we have her on here to share her experience and understanding of the region.

Beth [00:10:12] So next up, our conversation with Jane Perlez. Jane, welcome back to Pantsuit Politics. We’re so thrilled to have you here.

Jane Perlez [00:10:29] Well, it’s great to be here and it’s a great honor to be back, thanks.

Beth [00:10:34] We would love to pick up where we left off in our last conversation with you. There are so many things to update since we last spoke about the United States relationship with China. Can you first just orient us around these two world leaders, Trump and Xi, and where you see that relationship right now, and what dynamics are really driving the bus for both of them?

Jane Perlez [00:10:57] Well, of course, there are world dynamics, but I think one of the really interesting aspects of this is the backgrounds of these two guys, if you like. Sometimes I think of it as Capo el Capo, they’re both very, very strong personalities, but they both come from very different backgrounds when you think about it. They both come privileged backgrounds in a way. Xi is the son of a very famous Communist Party high, high official. But he was disgraced, the father was disgraced, and Xi Jinping paid for that as a teenager. So he was sent to the rural countryside to work during the Cultural Revolution back in the 60s. And that was pretty rough. And about the same time, and as he was emerging from that terrible time, Donald Trump, the son of another privileged guy, a very rich real estate guy in Queens, New York, Donald Trump was swanning around New York dating beautiful women, being compared to the looks of Robert Redford in the New York Times, and was starting his ascent in the real estate world in New York City. So he had a gilded upbringing, if you like, a gilded background, little different to Xi Jinping. And I just sometimes wonder how it’s interesting to think of these two very, very powerful guys with these two very different backgrounds. That’s one point I would make.

Sarah [00:12:23] How do you think they see power the same and how do they see the exercise of power differently?

Jane Perlez [00:12:31] Well, Trump may not like it, but he does have some limitations on his power. There is something called Congress. There is public opinion. Xi Jinping has absolute ultimate unfettered power and was able, for example, in 2018 to say I’m done with the constitution of China. I am going to go beyond the regulated two terms and I’m going to be emperor forever. He just declared that the two terms limitation was over and he was it forever. So he has total control. The standing committee, which is seven guys, he’s one of the seven, are supposed to be his advisors and they’re the senior most people in the country. But I think that Xi Jinping has got an iron grip not only on public opinion, but on the military, for example. He’s head of military. Just recently he’s fired a lot of corrupt generals, or he says they were corrupt. Who knows how corrupt they were?

Sarah [00:13:36] Yeah, that’s what I was going to say.

Jane Perlez [00:13:37] Maybe they were rivals.

Sarah [00:13:37] Interesting that one pardons people as like an undercutting of corruption and the other uses corruption to tighten his hold on power or accusations of corruption.

Jane Perlez [00:13:47] Exactly. But it’s interesting from an American point of view to look at these firings in the Chinese military by Xi Jinping because you have to wonder how much of a fighting at force it is if he feels that corruption is prevalent at the senior levels or whether it could also be factional in fighting.

Sarah [00:14:06] Right, just disloyalty.

Jane Perlez [00:14:07] It’s so opaque. People don’t really know. But people do know that Xi Jinping’s got ultimate absolute power over the military, which is very important. And he has absolute power of the economy, which by the way is not doing so well. And we all think that China’s economy is roaring ahead, but internally, domestically, it’s not doing so well. And he is sort of sticking to a more socialist agenda, if you like, a more controlled economic agenda than allowing free enterprise to flourish. So we’ll see where that goes.

Beth [00:14:40] On this question of the extent of his power, I recently read that he was feeling some pressure with regard to Taiwan. And I wanted to ask you; do you see it that way and where would that pressure come from if he were to feel it?

Jane Perlez [00:14:55] I’m not so sure that he feels that much pressure, Beth. I think maybe his own pressure. So, for example, there’s a lot of speculation now that Venezuela, Trump’s actions in Venezuela, gave Xi Jinping a sort of a carte blanche to go for Taiwan, to invade and take it over. I think it’s not so clear. I think that what’s most important to him is to have Taiwan, but he wants to make sure that he gets it. So he’s not going to go immediately. He said that the Chinese military should be ready by 2027. So that’s two years off. He hasn’t said they’re going to take it in 2027, but we have to be ready. And you have to remember the Chinese Military has not fought a war since 1979. And that was a fairly little spat over the Vietnam War, which lasted for three weeks, and basically the Chinese got creamed and they retreated. So, I mean, it’s a huge difference between then and now. They’re now a very powerful military with huge numbers of sophisticated weapons. But maybe there is a nationalist quarter in China that’s putting some pressure on him, but that’s not the overwhelming impression that one gets. I think more is that he wants it, he’s going to take it. But he’s going to do it on his own agenda. And they are showing that they’re getting closer and closer to doing so because they’re doing these practice runs, if you like. And they seem to want to do a blockade to decapitate Taiwan rather than do an invasion. If they can do it with a blockade and cripple Taiwan and take everything down, that would be far superior to having to do complicated cross the 100-mile Taiwan Strait stretch and occupy the island.

Sarah [00:16:53] I’m really interested in what you just referenced about domestically. I think it’s so easy to get into a very like one-dimensional view of China in particular because in America there’s such a narrative that they’re going to kick our butts in energy and research and med tech and higher levels of academia. And I’m not saying there’s not truth to some of that, that they are really trying and exceeding a lot of goals when it comes to those different areas.

Jane Perlez [00:17:29] But there is today, for example, really amazing news about how Chinese universities are leading.

Sarah [00:17:35] So that’s what I’m saying, there’s always that information there about the artificial intelligence and the technology. But I just think that becomes like really, like I said, one dimensional. And so we’re seeing what they want us to see, what they their citizens to see. They want to point out that, I was reading this article about how they have this idea of a kill line, that America is the kill line, the point where the condition of a like video game opposing player has so deteriorated that you can be killed by one shot. But that often that’s not just about us, that’s about distracting from their own domestic problems be it the weak economy, be it the way in which she in particular has manipulated the economy so you don’t have these like... It’d be one thing if we were talking about the universities 10, 20 years ago in China when they really did have like a different approach to the economy that was more free market and now he has, like you said, such absolute control. It all strikes me as a little bit fragile, brittle especially whatever reporting we do get domestically. So how do you put those pieces together where they are notching successes, but domestically there are problems as well.

Jane Perlez [00:18:52] Yeah, I think one of the big problems, which I would love to understand more about, and which we’ve dealt with in our podcast, but there’s still more to go back on it, is the question of Gen Z in China. Like the United States, Gen Z is not going to have the life that their parents had. I mean, it’s incredible to me, for example, to think of New York Times News Bureau in Beijing, and when I was in charge as Bureau Chief, we had about a dozen young Chinese Journalists working with us and they were in their 20s. And it was so interesting to me because their parents were doing so well. Their parents had been allowed to buy their apartments, state-owned apartments in the late 90s, then they gathered enough money to buy another apartment and another apartment, and you found that half of these families were very successful landlords. Well that’s not happening these days and Gen Z they basically don’t even have an apartment to live in. I’m exaggerating a bit, but it’s very much, much grimmer. There’s 20% unemployment among Gen Z. So I’ve asked friends, what does this do for the stability of Xi Jinping? I’ve asked friends in China. And some say, oh, the kindling is getting drier. Well, others say, forget it. Everybody’s very loyal. So I think it’s hard to tell, but that I think obviously the economy is not doing well. People can’t buy what they used to be able to buy. The consumer market is down. The housing market is in the shambles. They’ve got all these uncompleted apartment towers all over the country. People have lost a lot of money investing in apartments. On the other hand, what can you say? They just announced a huge export surplus, huge trade surplus. They’ve flooded the world with cheap goods and not only cheap goods. Look at this BYD is outselling Tesla around the world, doing much, much better. So we’ll see. I think the big fight’s going to be on AI. I think this is where the powers that be in both countries are concentrating a lot of energy.

Beth [00:21:10] We’re in a really different place with regards to AI than the last time we talked with you. We had a pretty clear bipartisan consensus that we were not going to allow our most sensitive technology into China, and the Trump administration has just blown that open. I wonder how you’re viewing those developments.

Jane Perlez [00:21:32] Well, I think when you think of AI in the United States, for better or worse, the mind immediately goes to Jensen Huang and NVIDIA, the $4.55 trillion worth company, and Jensen Huang has been courting Trump like crazy and has succeeded, you could say. It’s very interesting. He was the only tech bro who was not at the inauguration back in January 2025. It seems so long ago.

Sarah [00:22:11] It does. It’s the truth.

Jane Perlez [00:22:12] But he wasn’t there, and I think he really suddenly realized, whoops, and he was in China. He sort of made a mistake. So he’s courted Trump like crazy, and Trump has come around and now Nvidia is allowed to sell one of its most potent chips to China. But the interesting thing is, will the Chinese allow their companies to buy the Nvidia the most advanced Nvidia chip that’s available in China? There’s a lot of pride in the Chinese government that they don’t want American chips to be sold at the most powerful American chips, and they want to counter the argument of David Sachs, who’s the czar in the White House, who says we have to get China hooked and addicted to American chips and so therefore we have sell them all. Well, wait a minute. Maybe the Chinese don’t want to buy them. Maybe they want to develop their own. So I think the jury is out on that. But one thing for sure, the Chinese have a lot of tech engineers, a lot of brilliant tech minds, many more than the United States does. And while the United States may have a lead for the moment, not clear that that’s going to stay, given the talent and money and expertise is going down that track inside China.

Sarah [00:23:35] I just wonder, what does that mean? Sometimes I’m like, okay, well, they dominated us in manufacturing, clearly, over the course of the 90s and the 2000s. Everybody in both countries still continued to get rich. And there’s lots of room to argue about the fallout of the loss of manufacturing in America. I just wonder what it means as far as the economy, but also what it mean for national security if they continue to dominate in all these areas. We’re beholden to them in so many ways. There’s a part of me that’s like, oh my God, not this last way. And then there’s a of me that’s like what’s one more? You know what I mean? Like, they own our debt. They crushed us in manufacturing. If they dominate us in medical research or artificial intelligence or tech, I think it will slow perhaps our economic growth or perhaps not. Perhaps it will just change it. Perhaps it’ll just expand inequality. I don’t know. I’m trying not to assume because we all assume that the expansion of manufacturing would mean certain things for America and definitely certain things like for China, like the expansion of democratic norms and that sure as heck didn’t happen. So I’m trying not to make assumptions about what it could mean if they dominate us in these other areas.

Jane Perlez [00:25:11] Well, I think if they dominate in AI, I hate to use the word scary, but I think it could be scary because I think AI can make a huge difference everywhere, of course. But since this is a competitive strategic relationship, I think the big worry is that if they get ahead on AI, then their military becomes it’s so much faster, more precise, more sophisticated. Now, that’s hard to imagine given how the United States military streaks ahead of the--

Sarah [00:25:46] I’ve seen those drone swarms. It’s not that hard to imagine. Those are scary.

Jane Perlez [00:25:51] And the Chinese are doing a lot to help the Russians on drones in Ukraine, a lot. They argue we’re just sending engine parts to the drones in Russia, but those engine parts make the drones fly, so excuse me, it’s pretty... But the drones are very important and warfare is changing. One of the things that’s interesting, we were talking a little earlier about the alliance between Australia and the United States, and that’s fixated a lot on a new deal on submarines. But these submarines to Australia are not going to be delivered until 10 years, or six years, and then 10 years. And by then submarines may be so archaic we won’t have them. We’ll have new kinds of warfare. So I think if the Chinese get ahead on AI, it’s very worrisome on the military front. Of course, on many other aspects as well. But that’s what I’d focus on. But there’s one piece of good news on AI, I have to say, between China and the United States.

Sarah [00:26:54] We’ll take it.

Jane Perlez [00:26:57] And it’s this, at the close of the Biden administration, there were negotiations between the Chinese and the Americans, I believe it was in Geneva. And the Americans finally persuaded the Chinese to agree to this, that AI would not be allowed in the command and control of nuclear weapons. Now that’s really important. Having AI rather than humans in charge of nuclear weapons is one of the scariest things I can think of. And I think it’s quite to be the Biden people should be congratulated for getting that agreement. Now, of course, whether they’re following up and whether they are actually doing the detailed work on it, that’s another question. But at least the basis is there and that’s really, really important.

Beth [00:27:50] This conversation really challenges me to think about what I believe fundamentally makes a nation strong. Because I feel like in the United States we are really being force-fed the narrative that we must embrace AI because of China. We have to go all in with AI on our economy. We must build all these data centers. It’s an arms race. And if we don’t like it, well, that’s tough because from a national security perspective, we must do this. I juxtapose that with our discussion about Gen Z in China. The last time you were with us, we talked about lying flat, the trend of just staying in bed. And I was reading today about the Are You Dead app where people are checking in every day so that their emergency contact will be notified if they miss their streak. And I don’t really know how to take in stories like that in America. How big of a trend is that relative to the scope of the population? You can write a lot of stories about loneliness in America too, and about our crises and Gen Z. It’s hard to know apples to apples kind of culturally how strong these nations are. I just don’t know how to have perspective on whether we ought in America to be worried about this AI arms race, or we ought to be more worried about the relationships and the character and the culture that can get lost if we don’t tend to it, at least alongside our technology.

Jane Perlez [00:29:25] Well, I think it’s both. I would say it’s Both. I don’t think you can ignore the AI arms race, and I hate to call it an arms race. But I think if one extremely powerful country is concentrating on that, as China is, and as it has such a foundation of growing scientific excellence, and they have so many people focused on it, I’d think it would be delinquent of American leadership, no matter what it is, to tamp down the discovery and the invention and the work on AI. I agree with you. I find it very scary that this should be our dominant theme, our dominant raison d’etre for being Americans, for working so hard to try and keep the country stable. But I think it can be tamped down a little bit, but I think we really also have to focus on it because I think it would be very. Disillusioning to the best brains in our country-- not the best brain, but some of the very clever scientific brains if all of a sudden it was said, oh, well, we’ll just let the Chinese go ahead on this. I think the AI is a very important subject.

Beth [00:30:40] Well, Jane, if there’s one thing that you could tell us over the next year, you’re going to be paying special attention to and that you think we ought to be in America as well, what would you focus us on?

Jane Perlez [00:30:52] I would focus on de-hystericalizing the politics, but that’s another subject from China.

Sarah [00:31:00] I don’t know. I think it’s related.

Jane Perlez [00:31:04] I mean, it’s very hard to tell because the fear and the surveillance in China on the population is so intense. I think it’s hard to say how much distrust, how much disagreement there is, but I certainly think there is much more than we know about, and of course it would be fascinating to that unleashed. But on our part, on the American side, we know what’s going on, and it’s all out in the public. And I think that in order to compete well in the world, United States has to calm down, be slightly less hysterical in all aspects of its politics. I mean, what would you both say?

Sarah [00:32:01] Building off what you said, I don’t want to be China. I don’t want to be an oppressive country that has an iron absolute rule on its economy and its people. I think that is fundamentally-- like I said, I think it’s brittle. And I think that’s why you have such a mismatch between some of their successes and their economy right now. And I would rather have a dynamic, competitive democracy and economy, and maybe we won’t ‘win’ every race, but we also won’t live in fear that if we hold up a blank sheet of paper we’ll get arrested. I think about those protests, the blank paper protests all the time. So I don’t think that leads to dynamism. I don’t think that that leads to actual competition. I just think you can squeeze people only so hard. I encountered a group of Gen Z Chinese young people when I was traveling in Yellowstone and they were not hopeful

Jane Perlez [00:33:10] They’re not hopeful about their future?

Sarah [00:33:13] No, they were very discouraged and particularly the women. And just it was hard for us to get over here. We get no vacation. It’s not a safe place for Americans to be. The women were unhappy there.

Jane Perlez [00:33:28] Women are in a terrible place because for many years they were told only one child. Now they’re told three children, and if you don’t have three children you’re in trouble. And three children and you get lots of support, and just one child and you don t get very much support. I mean, it is a very, very brutal society in that way. Very brutal.

Sarah [00:33:49] And so I just don’t think those types of societies produce, like I said, the sort of dynamism. And even if they do, it’s on the backs of the people. It’s in the backs of people who don’t get a choice, whether they be researchers or like-- I mean, you saw it so much when Xi sort of expanded his power. So many people in China would had gotten very, very rich. And thought that they were gone. They’re out, they didn’t have any freedom.

Jane Perlez [00:34:22] They’ve left and gone to Singapore and gone to other places. Yeah. Same in Hong Kong. Hong Kong has become...

Sarah [00:34:23] And same in Saudi Arabia. I would hope that the rich in our country understand that that transactional approach to government favor is not dependable. It is not dependable. It doesn’t matter how rich you are, they can turn on you like that. And I just try to remember that our only value, no matter what it seems like, sometimes shouldn’t just be greed. It shouldn’t be just growth and expansion for growth and expansions sake, you know? I don’t want that. I don’t think that produces a long-term successful nation or society.

Jane Perlez [00:35:06] I should say one thing, I do think that it would be better for both sides if there was more exchange, more interaction between the two societies. I mean, now Chinese students are dropping off at American universities. There are very few American university students in China. And there are very few American journalists in China basically because the Trump regime cut down on American journalists and they retaliate and tossed out a lot of American journalists from China. So our knowledge of the real society in China is getting less and less. And that’s also a dangerous situation, I think. It’s great if the two sides can have lots of people at each other’s universities, particularly now since the Chinese universities are coming, forging ahead, well subsidized. Great science. I mean, it would be fantastic if American scientists could be in China. I think that’s a dream, but...

Sarah [00:36:12] That’s the thing, I don’t want China to become the United States. We’re different countries. And I don’t think that the United State wants to-- I don’t Donald Trump to become Xi Jinping. I don’t want this like socialist iron fist on our economy so that we do whatever we want, but we get a cut. I don’t want that either. There’s things to be learned from the strengths of both sides. And I do think it was better when it was a dynamic flow between the two countries, as opposed to this jilted relationship we have now.

Jane Perlez [00:36:42] Yeah, it’s interesting that you talk about you don’t want to cut from this. I mean, Jensen Huang did manage to persuade Trump to sell his later series of chips to China by saying, okay, you can get 25% of the proceeds.

Sarah [00:36:58] I don’t know what that.

Jane Perlez [00:37:00] Let’s see if there are any proceeds because the Chinese may not allow their companies to buy them.

Sarah [00:37:04] Yeah, seriously.

Beth [00:37:05] I think that relates to what my answer might be. Jane, I am with you on de-hystericalizing American politics for sure. I’m not sure we would agree on what that looks like in our country right now and that’s the rub. I agree with much of what Sarah said. I think what I am fundamentally concerned about is that it is less about the United States and China now and more about a handful of very powerful companies and the people who control those companies.

Jane Perlez [00:37:34] Definitely. I agree with you. I think that Silicon Valley and the tech companies control and they’re the new Wall Street basically. And how can that be healthy? And how can they just have the ride that they want? Now they’re leaving California because, oh, poor things are going to get taxed. I think that tells a lot.

Beth [00:38:01] And it feels bigger than the new Wall Street to me when in a conversation about a relationship between two nations, we essentially end up talking so much about Jensen Wong. This one man and this one company, that’s not diplomacy. That’s very different than an exchange of scientists and artists and athletes. I think about what we can accomplish through things like the Olympics when it’s really about two nations. But I don’t think it’s about two nations anymore.

Sarah [00:38:29] It’s not even a market, which is what Wall Street is supposed to be. It’s not even a market when we’re just talking about one guy in one company. That’s not a competitive economic market.

Jane Perlez [00:38:37] It’s interesting you mention about diplomacy. I mean, there’s basically seems to be very little diplomacy between Washington and Beijing. Okay, we have an American ambassador and actually quite a good one in Beijing at the moment. But it’s all capo v capo. And it’s interesting that Trump has his guy Witkoff go to the Middle East and go to Russia. He doesn’t have a similar person or Witkoff going to China. He just relies on himself. And so we’re back to Trump and Xi Jinping. So what’s going to happen in April when they meet in Beijing is going to be Trump going in, deciding what he’s going do the night before, basically, because there’s been no groundwork. And you need that on all aspects of the relationship. And basically, there’s a freeze in the whole tariff and trade situation with China because Trump’s waiting to basically be seduced by the Chinese in April when he goes there, and where Xi Jinping was going to...

Sarah [00:39:37] I think he’s going to keep waiting.

Jane Perlez [00:39:42] And he’s going to be shown around the Forbidden City and all the gold, and then Xi Jinping’s going to say, and by the way, we’re going to take Taiwan in X number, in X timetable. And Trump may say go ahead.

Beth [00:39:55] That’ll be beautiful for everyone. I just think that’s how Trump sells it. That’ll wonderful for everyone. I’m so hopeful that our Congress will remember that it exists, and that the next time we talk we’ll be talking about checks and balances.

Sarah [00:40:10] That’s a wish. That’s like a wish more than a prediction.

Beth [00:40:13] Put that in the universe.

Sarah [00:40:14] Yeah, we’re just manifesting. We’re not prophesying.

Beth [00:40:16] That’s right.

Jane Perlez [00:40:16] A real congress.

Beth [00:40:19] Yes. A real congress.

Jane Perlez [00:40:20] Not a congress that’s become like the Chinese congress, a rubber stamp.

Sarah [00:40:24] Exactly.

Beth [00:40:25] That’s right. Well, Jane, thank you so much as always for sharing your expertise with us. We look forward to talking with you again very soon.

Jane Perlez [00:40:30] Thank you so much and always great to see you both.

Beth [00:40:44] Sarah, Outside of Politics, we have a question submitted by Norma who is a long time listener, supporter, executive producer, friend.

Sarah [00:40:54] I just dropped her last name from the EP. I just called her Norma [inaudible] like just Norma. That’s it.

Beth [00:41:03] So Norma has asked, if our headquarters as a small business was going to move to another country, what country would it be? And I would like to start out by pointing out that we do not really have headquarters now. We are rarely in the same room together. That’s why this week we had a retreat in person because the four of us almost never breathe the same air. So it’s kind of hard to conceptualize just a Pantsuit Politics headquarters in general.

Sarah [00:41:28] But where would it me? I want to hear your answer first.

Beth [00:41:31] I think the thing that I want to say most clearly is that I don’t daydream about leaving the United States. I never make plans to leave the United States no matter how bad it gets. My family has been in Kentucky since they came here from Europe. So this is my home and my place and I feel very loyal to it no matter what. If I just am like having to choose because I love Norma and I want to engage with her thought exercise, I’m going to Canada.

Sarah [00:42:00] I knew you were going to say Canada.

Beth [00:42:04] I love Canada. I feel such an affinity with the Canadians. Even the most caricatured version of the Canadians I feel an affinity with. And the land feels good to me.

Sarah [00:42:14] You don’t like the cold.

Beth [00:42:16] I don’t want the cold, but still the warmth of the people is going to take me through.

Sarah [00:42:21] Okay, I don’t think Alise is coming because Alise really doesn’t like the cold either. Maggie lives in Florida. She’s not adaptable to Canada at all.

Beth [00:42:31] Look, I also just think we don’t get to pick places on weather anymore because anything goes just about everywhere.

Sarah [00:42:36] Well, that’s true. I think I’m going to pick France, although I’m struggling because if I’m just picking I have to go live somewhere else, I’m going to live in France. I got on the Substack-- follow me here on the side quest-- where this woman was waxing romantically about sending her daughter to school in France and how it’s perfect. And finally someone chimed in was like France has all kinds of trouble right now. Like a massive financial crisis. It’s like basically swapped places with Greece and Italy from the Eurozone crisis several years ago. Like it’s got a debt problem it doesn’t want to face much like many Western nations, including the United States. Has rising populism. I was like thank God. Stop painting France as this paradise. Like be honest about the struggles they’re facing. I’m of two minds. So I’m like, oh, but they have all these struggles, but I’m like perfect. We can talk about those too. We can live in France and unpack some of the struggles. Because I do think Europe and what is facing Europe as far as like rearmament and all of that is endlessly important and interesting to me. So I think would vote for France. I’m also much more temperate, even though I know that everybody has extremes. French is a much more temperate place. Also Chad speaks French. We’re set.

Beth [00:43:57] Chad does speak French, which he could speak in Canada. I am psychologically comforted by these big oceans that surround North America. It feels safe to me. Canada has a lot of water, just like a lot natural resources. I think would feel a little bit of anxiety in Europe. I have felt anxiety for and with and about Europe since the war in Ukraine began. So it wouldn’t be high on my list, but I’m not at all surprised that France is your choice and I wouldn’t complain about the food there for sure. The art, the fashion. I wouldn’t want to live in France, but I see the appeal.

Sarah [00:44:38] I would also pick London. I would live in England, probably Ireland, maybe not Scotland. Japan. Listen, I’m open. I’m open and amenable to any other Pantsuit Politics headquarter locations.

Beth [00:44:54] I think if I ask Chad Silvers is where he would be willing to relocate for Pantsuit Politics, Scotland would be at the very top of his list. This is the problem. We wouldn’t be able to pick a place. There’s just not a place that works for us all around except for Kentucky and different parts of Kentucky at that.

Sarah [00:45:09] Good point. So we did it. That’s all that matters.

Beth [00:45:13] Well, thank you to Norma for the question. Thank you to Jane Perlez for joining us. Thank you to all of you for listening. We’ll be back with you on Tuesday with another new episode. Until then, we hope you have the best weekend available to you.

Show Credits

Pantsuit Politics is hosted by Sarah Stewart Holland and Beth Silvers. The show is produced by Studio D Podcast Production. Alise Napp is our Managing Director and Maggie Penton is our Director of Community Engagement.

Our theme music was composed by Xander Singh with inspiration from original work by Dante Lima.

Our show is listener-supported. The community of paid subscribers here on Substack makes everything we do possible. Special thanks to our Executive Producers, some of whose names you hear at the end of each show. To join our community of supporters, become a paid subscriber here on Substack.

To search past episodes of the main show or our premium content, check out our content archive.

This podcast and every episode of it are wholly owned by Pantsuit Politics LLC and are protected by US and international copyright, trademark, and other intellectual property laws. We hope you'll listen to it, love it, and share it with other people, but not with large language models or machines and not for commercial purposes. Thanks for keeping it nuanced with us.