Trump Forfeits AI Race to China  ## Document Notes ## Highlights - **Forfeiting Compute Gives China A Fast Track** - Allowing NVIDIA to export H200 chips to China could shrink the U.S. compute advantage dramatically and accelerate Chinese AI progress. - Ben Rhodes warns this forfeits the U.S. edge in compute, letting China catch up and leverage talent and data to surpass the U.S. Transcript: Tommy Vietor So on Monday, Trump really shocked all the China hawks in his party and across DC when he announced that the US is going to let NVIDIA sell its H200 artificial intelligence chips to customers In China. That is, as long as NVIDIA agrees to give 25% of the profits to the United States government. I don't know how that's going to work, but that's the deal. So what makes this shocking though, is that the H200 chips are exponentially more powerful than the previous chips the US has allowed to be exported to China. And depending on how many of these the US allows exported to China, it could drastically narrow the US compute advantage over China. So there's this great think tank, the Institute for Progress, it's a nonpartisan think tank. They released a big report this week about exactly this issue, this sort of series of chips and what it would mean if they went to China. And they modeled out a bunch of scenarios about what the impact would be. And basically, depending on how many chips get sold, this decision could shrink the United States' advantage over China in terms of computing power from 50x to 1.2x. So we're just hobbling ourselves for no reason. Our compute advantage basically means our capacity to train more AI models and run more AI models here in the US. So the way to think about our advantage over China when it comes to compute is it's not just about the power of an individual chip, but it's about what you can do with them in aggregate. So just a nerd out for a second, Ben. The H200 chip, it's not NVIDIA's best chip. It's like the best of the last generation of chips, which are still really, really good. And so according to this Institute for Progress report, the H200 is about 70% as good as the Blackwell 300, which is their best top of the line chip. But the key point is you can get the same amount of computation performance by just stringing more of them together. So it just costs more money. That's because AI supercomputers are made out of hundreds of 1000s of chips strung together. And so if you have access to enough H200 chips, Chinese labs could build AI training supercomputers, they're just as good as the American ones built with the better chips, just at like 50% more cost, which I'm sure the Chinese Communist Party will happily subsidize. I was talking with a smart expert today who said just the way to think about this sort of relative US-China AI capabilities is four buckets. So one is efficiency of the algorithm. Two is having the data develop and train the models. Three is the supply of energy you need, like plug into the wall energy, to power the data centers. And then four is the compute power, i.e. The chips. And so China is basically at parity with us on one and two. They're probably beating us when it comes to access to energy. But compute power, our chip advantage, is the only reason we are winning. And if not for the export controls that were put in place in 2022, we might already be at ([Time 0:05:10](https://share.snipd.com/snip/674018c0-2efd-4af3-93d3-c8b56c2b34e3)) - **Quantity Can Substitute For Quality In AI Compute** - Lower-performance H200 chips can be aggregated to match top-tier chips, so access to many H200s gives near-parity at higher cost. - Tommy Vietor emphasizes China can build comparable supercomputers by stringing more H200s together and subsidizing the cost. Transcript: Tommy Vietor To train more AI models and run more AI models here in the US. So the way to think about our advantage over China when it comes to compute is it's not just about the power of an individual chip, but it's about what you can do with them in aggregate. So just a nerd out for a second, Ben. The H200 chip, it's not NVIDIA's best chip. It's like the best of the last generation of chips, which are still really, really good. And so according to this Institute for Progress report, the H200 is about 70% as good as the Blackwell 300, which is their best top of the line chip. But the key point is you can get the same amount of computation performance by just stringing more of them together. So it just costs more money. That's because AI supercomputers are made out of hundreds of 1000s of chips strung together. And so if you have access to enough H200 chips, Chinese labs could build AI training supercomputers, they're just as good as the American ones built with the better chips, just at like 50% more cost, which I'm sure the Chinese Communist Party will happily subsidize. ([Time 0:06:13](https://share.snipd.com/snip/099d4994-25e0-4159-a3cf-b7aaefc3f9da)) - **Export Controls Were The U.S. Linchpin** - Ben Rhodes argues export control rollbacks undermine U.S. strategy to win the AI race and risk strengthening China’s military and cyber capabilities. - He notes China already has talent, data, and energy, and chips were the last major bottleneck. Transcript: Tommy Vietor What was your reaction to reading this? Ben Rhodes First of all, I think this is one of the most consequential things that Trump has done, which is saying a lot. And I think we may look back on this era and 20 or 30 years, and Donald Trump will be the B story, to use a Hollywood terminology. Essentially, he's the analog, but the real story is what's happening in tech and the kind of concentration of power and the transformative nature of technologies like AI. And part of that is how do you regulate it, which we can talk about at a different time. But a big part of it is who's going to win this competition between the United States and China, both to develop the most effective models, but then also to kind of export its technologies To the rest of the world. And the entire basis under which the United States was trying to win that competition in recent years has been on so-called export controls. So limiting the flow of chips like this into China, limiting certain types of investments into China. If Trump was at all interested in winning the competition with China, he would not be systematically dismantling those export controls, particularly on high-end chips like this. And you had a good listener, Tommy. I'd add to it, the other variable for AI development is talent. And the Chinese have a tremendous amount of AI talent. Because frankly, they've invested a lot more in STEM technology and engineering than we have. So they have the people, they have the power, they have the money. The government's prioritized this for over a decade. And the one thing that they're lacking are the kinds of chips that can allow... And they obviously have the data. They have over a billion people and they have a surveillance state, right? So they have all those ingredients. And the one ingredient they were missing are these kind of high-end chips that can allow them to very rapidly close the gap with U.S. Frontier companies that are kind of leading the AI charge. And this just allows them to do it for like essentially nothing in return. Them dependent on U.S. Technology. That's not true. It's crazy. Because essentially, the Chinese are still pouring money into what they call indigenization, the ability for them to have indigenous capacity-manufactured chips. They're just a few years away from Huawei, their tech company, being able to do what TSMC, the Taiwanese semiconductor manufacturer, can do, what NVIDIA can do. And so what this is going to do is just allow them to bridge that gap. Exactly. Exactly. So they're going to allow them to kind of catch up with us in the short term and then pass us, you know, when they get their own Huawei chips online. You know, they've been very good at stealing intellectual property from the United States. They've been very good at reverse engineering models that are released. Deep Seek, the Chinese language model, clearly drew on the Facebook model llama. I know we're sounding nerdy, but the basic point here is that for basically nothing in return, Trump is giving away our advantage on computing power. And all I can make of this, Tommy, is that these guys, like the guy runs NVIDIA, like Saks, like all the people in the tech boom right now, are just so hungry for money, right? It's never enough. So now we got to sell chips to the Chinese. They're just looting the piggy bank here. ([Time 0:07:52](https://share.snipd.com/snip/a6ea6455-710c-44af-81f6-64b9fc9392c4)) - **New NSS Prioritizes The Western Hemisphere** - Trump's National Security Strategy rebrands a Monroe Doctrine corollary and emphasizes the Western Hemisphere over traditional great power competition. - Ben Rhodes says the document signals ideology and will guide agencies even if Trump didn't deeply read it. Transcript: Tommy Vietor Talk about Trump's national security strategy. So this is a 33-page document that was released last week that lays out, like, the America first vision for the world and tries to sell us on the idea that there is actually a method to the Madness that is the Trump foreign policy. So there's some big principles and there's a sections about like individual regions, right? Like Asia, Europe, Africa gets a three whole paragraphs, Ben. That was nice. So I'll walk through a couple of top line points about what's in the document and what's not in the document. And then Ben is going to make the case for why the NSS really matters because he's written them. And for fun, for the sake of argument, I'm going to make the case for why I don't actually give a shit. So it's a little overstated, but we're going to have some fun with it. So let's start with some takeaways. So the first is that Trump wants to revive and rebrand the Monroe Doctrine, which is a reference to a foreign policy statement by President James Monroe in 1823, basically told Europe, Like, look, if you stay the hell out of North and South America, that's our domain. We'll stay the hell out of Europe and not meddle in your affairs. Today, the audience for these kind of Monroe Doctrine arguments is really China, but the message is the same, like get off our lawn. Over the years, though, the Monroe Doctrine has been used to justify U.S. Interference in the affairs of countries all across Latin America. So it is not the most popular idea. Its inclusion, Ben, in this document makes it pretty incoherent at times because there's also a section about how Trump claims to have a, quote, predisposition to non-interventionism. Not really what I'm reading these days about his foreign policy, but OK. The Asia section is mostly about economic competition between the U.S. And China. It does specifically note, though, that the U.S. Policy towards Taiwan hasn't changed. So that's, I mean, shouldn't be notable, but it is given that Trump's flirting with changing that policy. One of the biggest departures in the document from past national security strategies is just the gratuitous bitch slapping of Europe, with kind of like a white nationalist tone, a Sort of like a Twitter reply guy tone. It worries about the, quote, stark prospect of civilizational erasure. In that quote, within a few decades, at the latest, certain NATO members will become majority non-European. It also questions whether European nations will quote, have economies and military strong enough to remain reliable allies. Again, it's like the tone is like, you know, an Elon Musk reply. Let's talk about what's not in there. Russia barely gets mentioned and is never condemned for invading Ukraine. North Korea isn't mentioned. Iran is barely mentioned. Cyber attacks from China don't really get a mention. You can't mention everything in these documents or else it's just a list. But those are some pretty big ticket items. ([Time 0:19:22](https://share.snipd.com/snip/ff25e2d8-318a-4634-8a2a-1fe8ff0e87f5)) - **Read The NSS As Policy and Messaging** - Treat the NSS as both messaging and a bureaucratic framework that influences budgets and agency priorities. - Ben Rhodes recommends taking the document seriously because it signals what the administration values and can shape policy execution. Transcript: Ben Rhodes One, it really signals like this is what we care about. And so in some ways it's a messaging document. And this is what they care about. They care about exalting Trump. And it has all this language calling him the peace president. They care about colonizing Latin America. They care about white nationalism in Europe like this. So it's a blueprint to their ideology that underpins what they do. But then second, in the system, it's technically actually supposed to guide what all the other agencies do, because there'll be a defense strategy and, you know, there'll be some State Department strategy or there'll be, and actually even budgeting. And ideally, a national security strategy is supposed to be this kind of framework that everybody consults before they make other decisions. To be fair, to be honest, that doesn't always happen. I didn't feel like the thing I wrote necessarily guided all the budget. But so I think it matters in that regard. And look, it matters. ([Time 0:25:19](https://share.snipd.com/snip/babae97d-21c7-482d-b6c8-eb8cfab04dee)) - **Peace Photo Ops Don’t End Wars** - Many high-profile 'peace deals' credited to Trump are ceremonial and have not halted fighting on the ground. - Ben Rhodes calls U.S.-hosted ceremonies a performative show that leaves wars unresolved and actors unaccountable. Transcript: Tommy Vietor So listeners have probably heard Trump repeatedly claim to have ended eight wars in less than a year. We have in past episodes walked through all the ways that is bullshit. We're not going to do it again comprehensively. But there are a couple of major developments that we just wanted to highlight. The first involves Thailand and Cambodia. Back in July, there was very intense fighting between the two sides on their shared border that killed dozens of people and displaced hundreds of thousands. Trump helped broker a ceasefire, which was codified at a signing ceremony in October, but that ceasefire appears to be collapsing. Thailand launched airstrikes against Cambodia on Monday. This was in retaliation. Yeah, very peaceful sounding. For what they claim were attacks by Cambodian troops, the Cambodians say the Thais started rinse repeat, right? Hundreds of thousands of people, though, have been evacuated from Thai provinces near the border. So hopefully this will calm down and no one will get killed. But this flare up, I think, speaks to the reality of the conflict, which is one that goes back decades, has roots in colonial era borders and nationalism, disputes over ancient temples And religious symbols. And you just can't paper over that kind of history with some fake economic agreement and claim you made peace. The second conflict we wanted to mention was fighting between the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda. So again, we won't get into all that history here. At a minimum, it starts back several decades in the 1994 Rwandan genocide. But in the past few years, this rebel group called the M23 has ramped back up its activities and has taken a lot of territory in the Congo. And not only does the Rwandan government support the M23, but there's reports of them fighting alongside their fighters. So remember back in June, Trump announced a peace deal between the DRC and Rwanda. Last week, he invited the presidents of Rwanda and the DRC to Washington for a signing ceremony at which he fell asleep. Just flagging that one for everybody. The event was at the recently renamed Donald J. Trump Institute of Peace, which used to be called the Institute of Peace. But then Elon Musk and the Doge guys doged it and gutted it. And then they renamed the empty building for some reason. But the thing you need to know about this peace agreement, again, is it's a total sham. Like the M23 is not a part of these talks. They are the primary actor here in problem. The agreement in June didn't stop the fighting. There was fighting hours after this big event last week. And Trump, again, he can to have like brokered some historic agreement, but it doesn't make any difference to the people on the ground who are getting killed or driven out of their homes. In fact, now we got troops from Burundi involved in the fighting because they are worried about the M23 reaching their border. So why does this matter, Ben? Is it just about you and me like, you know, shit talking Trump? No, like he's obsessed with credit. And that is why when Trump didn't get the Nobel peace prize, FIFA created its own fake participation trophy peace prize to fluff him. And I think the question becomes what happens when Trump is confronted with the reality that he didn't solve these wars and doesn't deserve the credit that he wants? Is he going to dig in and fix the problem? Or is he going to say like, you know what? I already did that. You know, like, I don't care. We're going to yada yada that one away. Like, I fear it's the latter. And like U.S. Engagement would actually really, really help here. Yeah. Ben Rhodes I mean, we are living through like one giant play being put on for Donald Trump's benefit where he's a peacemaker. ([Time 0:33:42](https://share.snipd.com/snip/8b69eef6-e230-4722-9344-d1430abdc1ca)) - **FIFA’s Rapid-Made Peace Prize For Trump** - FIFA invented a Trump Peace Prize and created propagandistic videos claiming he brokered many false deals. - Tommy Vietor recounts the prize was rushed into existence and surprised FIFA's own board. Transcript: Tommy Vietor But as part of it, FIFA, as we mentioned earlier, awarded Trump the first ever FIFA Peace Prize. Look at this absolutely ridiculous propaganda video that they created for him that was aired at this ceremony. Let's watch. Ben Rhodes His leadership has ensured that peace exists between the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda, Cambodia and Thailand, Kosovo and Serbia, India and Pakistan, Egypt and Ethiopia Tommy Vietor And Armenia and Azerbaijan. Donald j trump's actions have also ensured that peace exists between israel and hamas by brokering the gaza peace plan news to me and he is making a continued effort to bring a lasting Ben Rhodes Peace between russia and ukraine like it's just it might as well have been a speech quite literally none of those things are true. It's just propaganda. Maybe Armenian Azerbaijan because Armenia lost. Yes. But like every one of those other things is bullshit. It is like, this is 1984 level stuff. It is. The final dictate of the party is to not believe what's in front of your eyes. We are living through an experiment of what it's like to live through a world in which truth just is totally incidental to like some weird corrupt agenda that fifa has with donald trump Tommy Vietor And his family yeah and there was a report in the times that like that fifa created this prize it took it was basically like a month from idea to inception like trump didn't get the nobel Peace prize so gianni infantino just like made this thing up and it was like, he announced it without telling anybody, like literally caught his own board of directors off guard. Ben Rhodes But Trump- Who gets it next year? MBS, Wyckoff, Putin? I don't know. Yeah, exactly. Tommy Vietor And it's like Trump, like they know what they wanted to stroke his ego so bad that it was a trophy, a medal and a certificate to give him all this hardware. And so the Guardian reported that the process for choosing future winners of this bullshit prize will be shaped by a dude named Zaza, who is the head of the Myanmar Football Federation, Who has been sanctioned by the US and the EU and has been described by the State Department as a crony of the junta. So. Great. Ben Rhodes A military junta that is massacring in some people. Perfect. That's a peace prize for you. It's appropriate. ([Time 0:39:59](https://share.snipd.com/snip/3af5bcdb-7ebc-42ab-91bd-018b8582ffca)) - **U.S. Signals Undermine Ukraine’s Position** - Trump’s pressure on Zelensky and talk of elections risks weakening Ukraine and emboldening Putin. - Ben Rhodes urges Europe to present a strong, unified counterproposal rather than cede leverage to Trump. Transcript: Tommy Vietor Betterhelp.com/crooked world. That's betterobile.com. Okay, so the one place where Trump has failed catastrophically to make peace is Ukraine. On Monday, President Zelensky, Vladimir Zelensky, was in the UK. He met with German, French, and British leaders at 10 Downing Street. I'm sure they appreciated having that conversation kind of framed by this new national security strategy. Ukrainian officials say Trump is pressing Zelensky to take this Russia-Ukraine peace deal. But after the meeting, Zelensky said, quote, under our laws, under international law and under moral law, we have no right to give anything away. And he said that is what we're fighting for. Zelensky is also reportedly working on a counterproposal. At the Doha Forum on Saturday, Donald Trump Jr. Once again attacked Zelensky and suggested his dad might abandon Ukraine. So I'm glad that little prick had the chance to weigh in and that we have a couple unelected Trump family members kind of setting foreign policy. That's a good way to run a railroad. There's also an intra-European fight over whether to use these frozen Russian assets to help Ukraine. The issue is oddly Belgium. The Belgians, the assets are being held at a Belgian financial company, and the Belgian prime minister is worried that Belgium could be on the hook and forced to repay them if sanctions Are lifted on Russia and the Russians try to get their assets back. And apparently this view is like very popular within Belgium. Who knew? The US is also lobbying against using these assets for Ukraine because they want to kind of dangle it as a carrot to get Putin into the talks. So, Ben, here is some of what Trump had to say about Ukraine and Europe in an interview he did with Politico that was recorded on Monday and released on Tuesday. Ben Rhodes Is Zelensky responsible for the stalled progress or what's going on there? Well, he's got to read the proposal. He hadn't written, really, he hasn't read it yet. The most recent draft. That's as of yesterday. Maybe he's read it over the night. It would be nice if he would read it. Is it time for Ukraine to hold an election, do you think? Yeah, I think so. On Sunday, your son, Donald Trump Jr., responded to a reporter's question about whether you will, quote, walk away from Ukraine. And your son said, I think he may. Is that correct? No, it's not correct, but it's not exactly wrong. Europe is I'm friendly with all of them. I mean, I like all of them. I have no real enemy. I've had a couple that I didn't like over the years. I actually like the current crew. Annika Wells I like them a lot, but they're not doing a good job. Ben Rhodes Europe is not doing a good job in many ways. They're not doing a good job. I think they're weak, but I also think that they want to be so politically correct. I think they don't know what to do. Europe doesn't know what to do. Tommy Vietor So that's pretty ominous for Ukraine there. Ben Rhodes Yeah, yeah, hard-hitting interview. Tommy Vietor I mean, I— Do you know the Politico pulled a FIFA and they named Trump the most powerful person in Europe to get access? They listed the 28 most powerful people in Europe, and they made Trump number one, which is like, why? Ben Rhodes Yeah, which is not true, actually. I mean, look, the things I take away from that are, first of all, it does kind of confirm what we were saying earlier, but the national security strategy is basically repeating that worldview. The election thing, how casual he is, like this guy, they are just cutting the legs out from under Zelensky, you know. And Zelensky had to respond to that and say, well, I'll hold an election if you can secure it. And actually he said like the US and Europe can come in and secure it, right? But this is a Russian talking point that Zelensky hasn't had an election. It's not really a democracy. But the idea that we're on the precipice of a peace deal that will require the Europeans to do a lot of things, right? To pick up all the slack for any credible security guarantee to the Ukrainians. To be punking them and humiliating them and calling them weak. Like to echo something we said earlier, well, why not show some strength, Macron and Starmer and Mertz and everybody else? Like stand up to this guy. Like he respects strength. He just chews away at weakness, you know. And that's what we're seeing again and again. Putin is sitting pretty. He's not changing his plan at all. Trump is just taking shots over here at the Ukrainians and the Europeans. And meanwhile, they're just kind of furiously meeting. It's like, come out strong with your own counterproposal and like stick to it and stand behind it, you know. Because right now, it's just with every passing day, it feels like Zelensky's position gets weaker and the U.S. Is just kind of cutting him out from underneath, you know. ([Time 0:46:31](https://share.snipd.com/snip/c1cccc99-eb86-488d-9fb4-e5c25558f553)) - **Norms Against Coups Are Collapsing** - Coups and fake coups in West Africa show erosion of norms and regional institutions' limited capacity to deter them. - Ben Rhodes notes ECOWAS and AU are weakened and coups are becoming normalized in the region. Transcript: Tommy Vietor In fact, there's a whole part of the continent that's called the coup belt, unfortunately. But this week we're going to cover reports about a fake coup and then a failed coup. So the first is in Guinea-Bissau. It's a small country. It's about 2 million people in Western Africa, which unfortunately is extremely well known these days for being a transit zone for cocaine en route to Europe. Guinea-Bissau has had four successful coups since 1974. But in this case, a day before the results of Guinea-Bissau's latest presidential election, right as the results were about to be released, shots were heard across the Capitol. And then the president was arrested and the military gave a televised speech saying they'd uncovered a conspiracy to manipulate the election results masterminded by, quote, some National politicians with the participation of a well-known drug lord and domestic and foreign nationals. So this all seemed like a coup, sounded like a coup, but the coup was conducted by President Mbalo's allies. And the new guy in charge is a close confidant and advisor to the president. Also, during the coup, the president was allowed to speak to journalists, and then he was quickly put on a plane to Senegal, which is not like your typical treatment of someone who gets Deposed, like usually end up jail or worse. So it was very strange and kind of fishy. And what seems to have happened here is President Ibala knew he was going to lose. So he orchestrated a fake coup to keep his people in charge of the country while he leaves and calls the shots from abroad. Or it could be that the military stepped in because both candidates were claiming victory and they were worried it was going to get ugly. But we'll never know because a bunch of armed men raided the election headquarters and destroyed the election results. And since then, the Army Chief of Staff has been sworn in as president for a one-year, quote, transition period. We'll see if that's an accurate duration. So coup number two was in Benin, which is a larger and generally more stable country. It's about 12 million people. It has been more relatively stable since the early 90s. On Sunday morning, a group of soldiers calling themselves the Military Committee for a Refoundation showed up on state TV to announce they were deposing President Patrice Ptallon In dissolving the parliament, but their attempt was thwarted by Sunday afternoon when Benin's army with air and ground support from Nigeria stepped in. So as of right now, the country is still on track for presidential elections next spring. Ineka Was, the economic community of West African states, has deployed troops there to help stabilize the situation. Ben, was there anything about preventing coups in those three paragraphs in the NSS about Africa that you can recall that might address this situation? Ben Rhodes I don't think so. In fact, if anything, I would expect that by year four of the Trump administration, Eric Prince will be running coups or something. Yeah, just picking. I mean, part of what's sad about this is we've seen this kind of norm against coups, like just collapse in particularly West Africa. And we've seen the organizations like ECOWAS, that's the regional organization in West Africa or the African Union, just kind of be either passive or delegitimized or incapable. Now, Benin, they did step up. And so, I mean, the tip of the hat on the tactic of the fake coup to stay in power. Clever. Hopefully J.D. Vance wasn't taking any notes on that one. Yeah, good point. Shit. Like Trump flies down to Mar-a and suddenly J.D. Vance is in there. But that's the problem. Like people wonder about norms and do they matter? ([Time 0:52:43](https://share.snipd.com/snip/28b10b56-92a2-45d7-ac68-9d93441e9af1)) - **Guinea-Bissau’s Strange 'Fake Coup'** - In Guinea-Bissau a president allegedly staged a fake coup to retain influence after losing an election. - Tommy Vietor describes armed men destroying results while the president was allowed to leave for Senegal. Transcript: Tommy Vietor So the first is in Guinea-Bissau. It's a small country. It's about 2 million people in Western Africa, which unfortunately is extremely well known these days for being a transit zone for cocaine en route to Europe. Guinea-Bissau has had four successful coups since 1974. But in this case, a day before the results of Guinea-Bissau's latest presidential election, right as the results were about to be released, shots were heard across the Capitol. And then the president was arrested and the military gave a televised speech saying they'd uncovered a conspiracy to manipulate the election results masterminded by, quote, some National politicians with the participation of a well-known drug lord and domestic and foreign nationals. So this all seemed like a coup, sounded like a coup, but the coup was conducted by President Mbalo's allies. And the new guy in charge is a close confidant and advisor to the president. Also, during the coup, the president was allowed to speak to journalists, and then he was quickly put on a plane to Senegal, which is not like your typical treatment of someone who gets Deposed, like usually end up jail or worse. So it was very strange and kind of fishy. And what seems to have happened here is President Ibala knew he was going to lose. So he orchestrated a fake coup to keep his people in charge of the country while he leaves and calls the shots from abroad. Or it could be that the military stepped in because both candidates were claiming victory and they were worried it was going to get ugly. But we'll never know because a bunch of armed men raided the election headquarters and destroyed the election results. And since then, the Army Chief of Staff has been sworn in as president for a one-year, quote, transition period. We'll see if that's an accurate duration. ([Time 0:52:51](https://share.snipd.com/snip/dfd75f77-4510-4b98-8507-33fbd772c5a1)) - **Gulf Rift Could Reignite Conflicts** - Splits between Saudi Arabia and the UAE risk reigniting proxy wars like Yemen and complicate regional stability. - Ben Rhodes flags UAE-backed groups and recent deadly strikes as worrying signs of renewed conflict. Transcript: Tommy Vietor There's a group called the Southern Transitional Council. They are backed by the United Arab Emirates. They've taken control of most of Hadramut, which is a resource-rich province in eastern Yemen that borders Saudi Arabia. I think the question now, Ben, is whether the Saudis aggressively moved to counter the STC. So previously, listeners might remember that Saudi Arabia and the UAE had fought together against the Houthi rebels in Yemen. That led to a civil war that was just a humanitarian catastrophe. Now, the Saudis and the UAE are increasingly on different sides of proxy wars around the world, including in places like Sudan. So a very, very bad situation if this civil war kind of kicks back off again. Ben Rhodes Yeah. And we can come back to this. I mean, the two things I point out, though, we've talked about the Emirati backing for the RSF in Sudan. That included, by the way, I think, did you see this week, Tommy, the strike that killed like dozens of kids at a kindergarten from the RSF, a drone strike? Horrific. And then now this in Yemen. I mean, the Emirati, you know, who are, you know, darlings of Trump and huge recipients of US military assistance or acquisitions, I should say, you know, this proxy fighting, you know, Without regard to humanity is, you know, whether it's in Yemen or Sudan, like this is a problem and it's not talked about enough. ([Time 0:56:36](https://share.snipd.com/snip/30bbd3ea-e6ba-4662-8736-1da0a9c27571)) - **Make Platforms Enforce Age Rules, Not Parents** - Require platforms to deactivate under-16 accounts and hold them accountable with reporting and fines to enforce compliance. - Annika Wells explains placing the onus on platforms and using the eSafety regulator to monitor monthly trends. Transcript: Tommy Vietor It is a momentous week in Australia where the Labour Party is officially instituting a ban on children under 16 from having social media accounts. With me today is Annika Wells. She is Australia's Minister for Communications. She is spearheading this rollout and through the magic of time traveling and time zones. I think we're actually talking on Wednesday. The day goes into effect, although it's Tuesday here in Los Angeles. This is going to break my brain. Minister Wells, thank you for joining the show. Annika Wells Greetings from the future. How are you? I'm good. Tommy Vietor I'm great. I mean, honestly, this is a really interesting experiment, a law you're putting into place. So let's just start with the basics. Can you just talk about how this ban works and how you will enforce it? Yeah. Annika Wells So the ban came about because we had 120,000 Australian parents run a campaign called 36 Months, Let Kids Be Kids. They asked because the official policy of these platforms, as you know, is that they start users from 13, even though we all know in real life that is not at all policed and there's people Much younger than they're on there. But given the premise is people will be on there from 13, let's give 36 months back to teens. Let's delay the start of their social media account usage till 16 and give them 36 more months to build real-world connection and to build resilience and awareness and digital literacy About what awaits them online. So the Australian law comes into effect today, which is Wednesday here, the 10th of December, which means all social media accounts belonging to under-16s must be deactivated by that Social media platform. And the onus here is on the platforms, not on the parents or on the teens. The onus is on the platforms to find these accounts, deactivate these accounts, stop people from getting around these accounts, and also have some kind of complaint reporting process. So if someone accidentally gets caught up in it, there's a way out for them. Tommy Vietor Tell me a little more about how you guys arrived at 16 as the cutoff. I can imagine an argument for 18 or 21 is the drinking age in the US, right? There's a lot of different places we could go. And then also, can you give us a sense of the criteria for which platforms you decided were subject to the law? Yes. Annika Wells So it's 36 months is the campaign. So we arrived at under 16 because 13 to 16 is 36 months. Yes, you're right. Lots of other countries and jurisdictions are looking at slightly different ages. All of the data and evidence that we now have in as public policymakers to analyse this suggest there is probably greater utility, but the particular development that you go through Between 13 and 16, that emotional stage in your life, you would have known Jonathan Haidt in his book The Anxious Generation. That propelled the parents, the hundreds of thousands of parents, to ask us for 36 more months. So that's how we got to 16. With respect to the social media platforms, basically all social media platforms could be considered an age-restricted social media platform if they fall under three particular Criteria, which is, are they primarily a place for social interaction? Can you interact and link with other users? And can you upload content? So, for example, YouTube would make the argument that they are like Netflix and that they are a video streaming platform. However, we feel the difference is that YouTube uploads 500 hours of content every 60 seconds and Netflix obviously does not. Netflix is subject to the national classification scheme here in Australia that is regulated by independent arbiters about the quality and content and appropriateness of that content. Obviously, YouTube is the wild, wild west, 500 hours of content every 60 seconds. So we have an eSafety Commissioner. She's the independent regulator. ESafety here in Australia is 10 years old. It was a world-leading, essentially a shop front for digital safety. They are the regulators in this space. So they have been working with the platforms for them to identify themselves as a social media platform, I guess, assess them as a social media platform where arguments have been made That they should be accepted and now come D-Day today, regulate them and make sure they comply. ([Time 1:07:11](https://share.snipd.com/snip/6cde0b3b-86dd-41f7-a157-75c510227833)) - **Target Social Platforms, Exempt Messaging** - Exempt messaging apps and focus the ban on platforms that enable uploading and wide social interaction. - Annika Wells says YouTube and Roblox were treated by criteria and some platforms received targeted safety measures. Transcript: Tommy Vietor Getting at the complexity of this, right? Because there's a lot of, there's wildly popular platforms like Roblox, which are games, but they're also social networks and places where kids hang out. And then there's chat platforms. And there've been really awful cases of adults chatting with and grooming minors on Roblox and then meeting them into like Discord and offline communities. I mean, figuring out how to draw that line must have been really tough. Annika Wells Yes, and I do get a lot of parents asking me to add Roblox in to the list. Roblox isn't in at the moment for that first primary criteria, which is kids would still be on Roblox if it didn't have a place to interact socially, didn't have a place to connect with Other users, didn't have a place to upload your own thoughts and comments, because it is primarily a gaming platform. So on that basis, it experiences an exemption as a gaming platform. But we do have our eyes on Roblox. We have in recent weeks and months, targeted Roblox and they have now put in place additional safety measures to stop exactly what you're talking about, predators who are of an adult Age targeting under 18s on that platform. This isn't obviously a cure, this ban is a treatment plan. We aren't banning the internet and something I like to say is we can't control the ocean, but we can police the sharks. And this is a really important step in policing the sharks, given the harm that we have documented that Australian kids suffer online. Yeah. Tommy Vietor And I mean, Roblox in particular waited way too long to put in some of this age gating. And boy, there was an interview with the CEO on the Hard Fork podcast, the New York Times podcast, where he crashed out really hard and really embarrassed himself. That's worth listening to if you want to understand the mentality of these CEOs. So there's an organization in Australia estimated that 96% of Australian teenagers under 16 have social media accounts. Let's say I'm one of them. I'm a 15 yearyear-old. Does my account just disappear? Can I get it back when I'm 18? And are you worried about a marauding band of teens and tweens visiting your house sometime in the next 48 hours and kind of taking matters into their own hands? Annika Wells I went to Humpy Bong State School, and I say that just because I presume your global and American audience appreciates Australian names, Humpy Bong State School yesterday to talk to The teens that are being impacted today. And yet certainly there was in some cases a hostile reception, but I don't mind. I don't mind being the bad cop. This is so important. And if it gives parents another tool in their arsenal in this fight that they're having in their households every single day. I'm pleased to do it. We have, it's 9.30 in Australia on D-Day, on band day at the moment, we've already heard that 200,000 TikTok accounts have deactivated overnight. That's 200,000 lives that we've already impacted. ([Time 1:11:33](https://share.snipd.com/snip/553ea31a-e244-4324-b148-e272ae6b38fd)) - **Law As Cultural Signal And Global Model** - Australia’s law aims to shift cultural norms and expects other countries to follow; success measures include user declines and two-year mental-health studies. - Wells compares the reform to seatbelt laws and expects global adoption over time. Transcript: Tommy Vietor So jokes aside, I mean, one thing critics of this law say is that social media can be a really important way for kids who feel lonely or marginalized to find their own community. In particular, you know, I see LGBT advocacy groups raise concerns about what it might be like to be a gay or lesbian kid in a rural area and lose this sense of community. What's your response to those arguments? Annika Wells We exempted messaging platforms. So Facebook Messenger, Messenger Kids, for example, WhatsApp group chats are still available to people who use online social media for connection. And you're right, there are different groups, particularly vulnerable people who use this for connection. We have in Australia, mental health organisations like Reach Out or like Headspace or like Butterfly Foundation. Butterfly Foundation looks at disordered eating, people who are impacted by disordered eating. We have in the budget running up to this reform bolstered those organisations and they in the weeks leading up to, in months I guess leading up to this reform, I've been working with those Organisations alongside my counterparts to make sure that they are ready to support teams from today. All of their websites, landing pages have places you can go and we've been asking people in the run-up to the reform. It's a funny thing, I don't know about you but back in my day we had one landline it was in the lounge room you know you had one phone number and when you called your friend you kind of took Your chances on who was going to answer at the other end of the line kids these days don't even have each other's mobile numbers they just interact on social media so part of this has been That national debate around we use our time online and how this is going to look in each family's household and simple things like your child getting the mobile numbers or the landlines Or a way of connecting with their friends that isn't on these platforms so that they continue to do that from today. Tommy Vietor Yeah, we had one landline, we memorized each other's numbers. When I started using dial up AOL, my mom would pick up the phone, I'd scream at her, she'd screw up my chat room or whatever the hell was going on. I feel very old now. Annika Wells I mean, we're millennials, I think. And we had the one landline, we had the one computer that was maybe in the living room, the one phone, the one television, and, you know, you fought with your siblings over what you put On television on the one screen. One landline, you took your chances. One computer, you had to dial in, you know, limited time. If you had a mobile, you probably only had $30 credit a month to send text messages. So there was a scarcity to everything that you did. Whereas these days, tweens have in their pocket that phone, mobile, computer, and they have an unlimited supply. And they are on platforms where the design feature has been to get them addicted. So this is a law that steps in to help. Yeah. Tommy Vietor So the law requires the platforms to take what are called reasonable steps to enforce the age ban. If they don't, they're subject to fines of around 33 million US dollars. Is that per violation? Is that total? And then how do you assess like what is a reasonable step? Annika Wells That's for a systemic breach. So that is if a platform was found to have been systemically breaching the law. And there has been a run into the law where we have asked them for a compliance plan. We have asked them to self-assess. Like I said, tomorrow we're writing to the platforms to say, what were your user numbers on the 9th of December? What are your user numbers today on the 11th of December? We will do that monthly for six months in order to track downward trend if they are not and I would say it's been it's been a huge turnaround from the initial reaction and recalcitrance I guess Tommy to as of yesterday morning the big 10 platforms who are impacted by this law had all indicated to us that they would comply they might disagree and that is their right in a Democracy to completely disagree with our law but as of yesterday morning I mean when I was when I was first made Minister for Communications what I was dealing with was the the hope I Guess that from these platforms from big tech that we just wouldn't pursue the law in the second term of our government and then when I made very clear that we would be continuing with The law, the threat that they would leave our shorts, the threat that big tech would leave Australian shorts as a result of this. So to go from that six months ago to the day before the delay kicking in, all 10 platforms indicating to us that they would comply has been a huge turnaround from where we were, huge progress In this space, and hopefully it gives hope to other jurisdictions who are attempting things like this out there. Tommy Vietor Yeah, I mean, it's surprising too, right? Because look, $33 million is a lot of money to any normal person, but Mark Zuckerberg could flush it down the toilet and not notice the difference the next day and do it every other day Until he dies, right? So I mean, I guess I'm a little surprised that there's been so much compliance and willingness to work with you, given that there are probably pretty high financial stakes involved For them from the ban that might outweigh the aggregate fine. Absolutely. Annika Wells And that has been put to us as well. I mean, that fine is commensurate with other fines in that sort of portfolio space in Australia. You're right. We absolutely worried about the risk that platforms would decide to just pay the fine and continue to flout the law. The response to that has been that ultimately these are big corporate citizens, big global citizens. They want to be seen as good citizens. They feel that a number of them have made huge improvements in safety features over the years and that that isn't acknowledged in this kind of blunt force ban. However, I honestly think that whilst Australia is the first to do it, I think in a couple of years' time, five years' time, this will be right across the world. This will sweep right across the world. And all of the arguments and all of the ways that this has been criticised in the past 12 months isn't dissimilar to putting seatbelts in cars. You know, it wasn't that long ago that auto manufacturers said that making seatbelts compulsory would bankrupt their business model wasn't possible. These days, car manufacturers compete to be the most safe car manufacturer. You would put your family in the safest car you can. There's no reason that big tech couldn't be like that too and that families choose to allow their children on the safest platforms and that platforms compete to be the safest platforms With the best records. That's a future that seems a long way away, but that's a future that starts with laws like we're putting in place today. Tommy Vietor Yeah, well, so let's talk about that future. Let's say you and I hop on another Zoom a ([Time 1:15:13](https://share.snipd.com/snip/4dfbccb3-d388-418a-bbcf-1495ed75039d))