We’ve Been Looking at Trade All Wrong

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6me2-OurCw 

I wanna make him an offer he can’t refuse. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3xVj6sQmUQ 

I’ll trade ya. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w--Wkq30qLQ 

Lesson number one, don’t underestimate the other guy’s greed! 

Lately, trade has been a huge topic of discussion, propelling it from a board room, on the hill, in the weeds issue—

https://youtu.be/QbbW8SO08XQ?si=S5_1t16vQU3zxhrn&t=25 

{Wall Street Stock Trading)

...to a hot button front page debate.

https://youtu.be/AXEKUjs-BTo?si=ZjMCkQeEi8w3ufHb&t=69 

Michael KOSTA: We’re launching a trade war and it’s gonna affect us?

Suddenly the American public is privy to everything from tariffs—

https://youtu.be/LMYJuwN-K6k?si=GzNF3d9KA0jKfNYAt&t=17

PPR Global: What started with Washington’s tariff hikes on steel and aluminum is now a harbinger of a trade war that could extend to FEuropean automobiles and other sectors.

...to supply shortages—

https://youtu.be/hlAzG3pnEDY?si=pVqJcBik88tgsyke&t=4

NewsNation: ...could also intensify drug shortages, and limit medical device makers...

...to international partnerships.

https://youtu.be/BedfetI1cqc?feature=shared&t=83

Donald TRUMP: And to be honest with you, Canada only works as a state. We don’t need anything they have...

In times like these, people look to academic institutions, government officials, and foreign policy organizations to know the norms and rules of the game, and how to trade with countries around the world using the guidelines we created.

But what if everything we thought we agreed on about trade is no longer effective? What if, in this new world, a consensus in Washington no longer exists?

This season on Why It Matters, we’re going to do something different. We’re going to dive into ONE topic: the role trade plays in the United States and abroad and figure out why the old rules no longer apply. And in order to understand WHY our assumed norms and policies may be wrong today, we need to revisit the trade story of yesterday.

I’m Gabrielle Sierra. Today, in our first episode of the season, we’re hopping in our time machine and heading back to learn how trade made the U.S. one of the most powerful nations in the world.

Gabrielle SIERRA: Talking about trade can be confusing, kind of boring. I'm really sorry. It's your focus, I know. But sell me on why neither of those are true, and give me an explanation of the basics. What is trade? Why does it matter?

Edward ALDEN: Yeah. Actually, I love talking about trade and I love teaching trade because it tells you everything you want to know about the world.

This is Edward Alden. He’s a senior fellow at the Council, and he teaches international economic policy at Western Washington University. Ted is one of our experts that we’ll be hearing from throughout the season.

ALDEN: I mean, at the end of the day, what do we do as human beings? Primarily we consume stuff, right? That's what keeps us alive at a minimum and ideally keeps us comfortable and if we're really lucky, keeps us happy. And that stuff is all coming from somewhere. And in the 21st century, it's coming from all over the world. So all of us live trade every single day. But I think we imagine that trade today is like it was 50 years ago, or 100 years ago, which is advanced products are made in the wealthier countries. We make computers, we make cars, and we sell those to other countries, and then we import raw materials, and every country specializes in what it's best at and they trade. It's not the way the world works anymore. Stuff is made everywhere. 

To make sense of all the things we’ll be discussing this season, we’re going to pop in with some key takeaways for you to keep in your back pocket as we go.

Takeaway 1: When it comes to the products we use everyday, trade is everything, and everything is traded.

Once upon a time trade was mainly about making goods in one nation to sell to customers in another nation. Since then, things have become more complicated. Emerging technologies reshaping the global supply chain have made production more fragmented—spanning across many countries to make one product. A camera lens from Japan, a display screen from South Korea, and a microchip from Taiwan, all come together in China to create the phone you’re probably listening to this episode on right now.

ALDEN: The other thing that makes it really interesting is it has a lot to do with whether the world is a prosperous and peaceful place. I mean, we don't necessarily believe anymore that countries that trade with each other don't go to war with each other. Sometimes they do. We certainly saw that with Russia and Ukraine. But all things being equal, trade is the basic way in which countries get along. I mean, even countries that we have trouble with, like China, we trade a lot with. So it's also kind of at the foundation, I believe, of international politics as well and keeping the world peaceful. And that's something that we all have a huge interest in, whether we think about it every day or not.

SIERRA: So trade is bigger than trade, is what you're saying?

ALDEN: Trade is way bigger than trade. Trade is also kind of an all-purpose tool that spills over into all these other areas of how we live and how nations get along.

SIERRA: What is changing? What norms have been challenged or changed most in the last, let's say, decade, to the last 100 years?

ALDEN: Yeah. Well, the United States since the end of the Second World War basically believed in two things. It believed in stability and believed in gradually making trade freer and more open around the world. So we traded with more and more nations.

https://youtu.be/MFlme9NK3Tg?si=AFh7p0z3lHQbwj1M&t=121 

“Golden Fragrance”: By far the largest consumer of coffee is the USA which takes nearly three quarters of the world's supply...

https://youtu.be/bcatrD251VA?si=3vwivoMU8Vad_FBh&t=788 

“Refreshment Through the Years”: Merchant ships of the world...transport raw sugar to refineries. The sugar industry hails the carbonated beverage business as one of its largest customers.

https://youtu.be/JPawOs32pHg?si=c_d0h4UQwo4mjQWi&t=437 

“Of Ships and Butter”: To sustain our world and the security and relative prosperity with which all Americans live we do not have enough and must import. Iron ore, tin, mica, copper, manganese, tungsten, rubber, sugar, fibers...

ALDEN: And there was a fairly well respected set of rules that pretty much every nation in the world abided by.

SIERRA: Okay you said pretty much abided by—so, is this where we get the but?

ALDEN: The world's not really doing it anymore. I mean, the United States, much more explicitly under Trump in the first term, also under President Biden, and now really under Trump in the second term, is blowing that system up and saying, "Actually, we don't really care whether there's a stable rules-based system at all. We think we've been getting screwed by this set of rules for decades now, we're going to tear up the rule book and make our own, and the rest of the world's just going to have to adjust to that." That is a profound and destabilizing, we're only in the early stages of it, but a profound and destabilizing change.

Takeaway 2. What we had at the middle of the 20th century was the most ambitious and successful effort to create an international set of rules for trade, and now it's all changing.

Post-World War II trade policy has been pretty much bipartisan in favor, but now, steered by the Republicans, has become something the two parties are more wary of.

SIERRA: What's been the general consensus among American presidents when it comes to trade?

ALDEN: Yeah, well, you'd go all the way back to Franklin Roosevelt...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIKMbma6_dc 

Franklin Delano ROOSEVELT: That the only thing we have to fear is fear itself...

ALDEN: I mean, right up to Donald Trump in 2016, presidents believed that opening trade around the world was good for U.S. companies, good for those of us who buy the stuff we need for our day-to-day lives, and really good for the U.S. position in the world. It was a big tool for making friends, cementing alliances, making the rest of the world more prosperous, which those presidents saw as in our interest. There were glitches here and there but there was a pretty stable consensus that continuing to advance a freer, more rules-based system was absolutely at the core of American international interest.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yCc6gxqF4w

John F KENNEDY: Today signing HR11970, the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. It marks a decisive point for the future of our economy, for our relations with our friends and allies, and for the prospects of free institutions and free societies everywhere.

https://youtu.be/2KCLApNUUTs?si=JAh1MEw4JZhiTTbA&t=33 

Bill CLINTON: We have benefited for 60 years by leading the way to integrate the world’s economies and that will promote peace, it will promote freedom, it will promote stability...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhweqwW6tQA 

George W. BUSH: Nations in Asia and Latin America now contribute more to the world economy than ever before...and we agreed to keep our markets open and firmly reject protectionism...Free markets, free trade, and free people.

SIERRA: So to go a little further back, how did it all start? You know, was there a Mr. Trade? Who led this global trade initiative way back when?

ALDEN: I mean, there was. Cordell Hull who was Franklin Roosevelt's Secretary of State, and it came out of a set of rules, which those of us who kind of grew up in this post-Second World War era, or in my case, the post-Vietnam War era, we all kind of believed this. And the lesson was that what happened in the 1920s and 1930s was very bad. The United States had emerged after World War I, based on the size of its economy, based on its military strength as a global power, but had decided to say, "Eh, we don't really want to have anything to do with the Europeans. They're a pain in our ass. We'd rather just deal with stuff at home." And so that became the era of what we talk about as isolationism. The United States put in place a series of high tariffs, which are the duties, the taxes that get charged on imports, I mean, everybody learns in high school about the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, but in 1922, there was the Fordney-McCumber Tariff, which was almost as severe as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff. So the United States put taxes on imports. The rest of the world did the same. And then we saw the rise of fascism in Europe and the descent into the Second World War.

According to Ted we all learned about the Smoot-Hawley Tariff in high school but if you’re like me and have literally zero memory of it, maybe you’ll remember this scene from Ferris Bueller's Day Off:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuOHbyuanbY 

Ferris Bueller’s Day Off: In 1930 the Republican controlled House of Representatives, in an effort to alleviate the effects of the... anyone? Anyone? the Great Depression passed the... anyone? Anyone? The Tariff Bill, the Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act which, anyone? Raised or lowered? Raised tariffs in an effort to collect more revenue for the federal government. Did it work? Anyone? Anyone know the effects? It did not work and the United States sank deeper into the Great Depression.

Anyone? Anyone? Hope that jogged your memory. 

ALDEN: So the people around Roosevelt, most notably Cordell Hull, but there were many others, came to look at that set of events and say, "This was really bad. We made some stupid mistakes, that when countries begin to, in effect, go to war with each other over trade." That's kind of what you're doing when you put tariffs in place. You're saying, "We want people to buy our products, not your products." Came to be known as what's called beggar-thy-neighbor strategies. So in effect, your economic policies are hurting your neighbors. That came to be seen as a very bad thing, which contributed to the environment that led into the worst war that the human race has ever seen. And so there was a determination coming out of the war not to make that set of mistakes again, and to build a different system that it was hoped would prevent the same sort of stupidity in the future that we had seen in the 1920s and 30s.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v40KUGys6PI

Franklin Delano ROOSEVELT: ...I’m very proud and the country is very proud of the splendid way you led the delegation at the World Economic Conference.

Cordell HULL: I thank you most sincerely Mr. President. I think that              each of the important countries will soon be coming along hand in hand, and elbow to elbow with our country in its tremendously constructive efforts to restore our domestic economy to a practical and normal basis...

SIERRA: Hm. Okay, maybe this is a silly question, two-parter: how much are we actually getting from other countries versus making here, homegrown? And let's say we just said “we're going to shop local, we're not getting anything from anywhere else”—could we do that?

ALDEN: I mean, yeah, if we're willing to pay a high enough price. Relatively speaking, the United States is a more self-sufficient economy than most, because we're a big diverse country. What they call the trade-to-GDP ratio, so that's the size of trade exports, plus imports as a percentage of the economy is about 25 percent in the United States. Most countries, it's 70, 80, 90 above that. Canada, it's around 70 percent. Europe it's high as well. So most countries are actually quite a bit more dependent on trade than is the United States. So if we decided, and this is I think part of Trump's calculation, if we're going to go down that direction of autarky, autarky is the economic term for countries that are self-sufficient, that make everything, we probably got a bit of a head start on that.

“Made in America.” When’s the last time you saw that stamped on the back of your t-shirt or on the bottom of your favorite coffee mug? Don’t get me wrong, like Ted said, the U.S. still makes a lot of stuff. And a few decades ago, domestic manufacturers were the backbone of the U.S. economy, and provided jobs to millions of people around the country. But as companies sought to lower costs, manufacturing began to move overseas. In a backlash to increased globalization, “Made in America” became the slogan for patriotism, industrialization, and supporting domestic businesses.

And while buying local is great for supporting your community, what would it cost if the U.S. went back to trying to produce everything here at home again? Well, the retail price of an iPhone would jump from about $600 or $700 to over $2,000. Even American-made car dealers like Ford get parts from around the world. Shifting production and the manufacturing of parts entirely to the U.S. would increase the cost of their cars by thousands if not tens of thousands of dollars.

ALDEN: That said, we also have the largest multinational companies in the world, and multinational means just that. It means they're sourcing products from all over the world. They've got factories all over the world. There's an awful lot of stuff that's absolutely critical to us that we don't make. I mean, we saw that in the early stages of COVID, when the United States didn't have mask production, we had to import all our masks and other countries were hoarding those or ventilators. We didn't have enough ventilators. We didn't make ventilators in the United States, didn't make them at the scale that we needed to be able to make them to respond to the crisis. So if you were to try to go down that road, there would be massive, massive disruption. There'd be a whole bunch of companies that exist today that simply would not work.

Takeaway 3: Trade has a domino effect. 

Think about the supply chain issues the world faced during the COVID-19 pandemic. Safety precautions and mandates kept many workers in manufacturing and agriculture at home. This led to an increase in cost to transport fertilizer from nations like Russia and Canada to other countries, and very quickly, the world began feeling the impacts of a fertilizer shortage. This led to lower crop yields, higher food prices, and an increase in food insecurity around the world. 

Global supply chains are susceptible to roadblocks that are difficult to recover from, especially when triggered by extreme events, like a global pandemic. When it comes to disruptive trade policies like tariffs, the same thing can occur...

ALDEN: Take the auto industry, for example. I mean, Ford and General Motors in the Midwest are completely integrated with our operations on the Canadian side of the border. Every vehicle they make is using parts that come from the other country, and often they're parts that go back and forth multiple times. There's one adaptation performed in Canada, and then the part comes to the United States, and it's changed again, and then eventually assembled into a vehicle in Canada, or vice versa in the United States. You bust that up by putting tariffs in place, and the entire business model of Ford and General Motors goes up in smoke. You know, if there were cars made in Canada and cars made in Mexico and cars made in the United States and there were 25 percent tariffs on them, then you'd kind of have a rough idea how that's going to affect the final cost. But if you have parts that are going back 4 or 5 times in the course of making that vehicle, and there's a 25 percent tariff at each stage of that part moving across the border, then the effects get multiplied. And so I think that we're not recognizing in these discussions the complexity of the modern global trading system and hence the potential disruption. I mean, I talked about the tariffs of the 1920s and 1930s. The effects today could be far, far worse because of how complex and integrated the modern world trade system is. So could they over a significant period of time reorganize, to make stuff in the United States? Sure. But we'd be vastly poorer as a country, not to mention what we'd be doing to our neighbors a disservice.

SIERRA: So we could, but we shouldn't.

ALDEN: We could, but we shouldn't. Yeah.

SIERRA: On a global scale, how does trade tie into national security?

ALDEN: Well, let's start from the simplest, and I still believe this is more true than it's not. And we could go way down the rabbit hole on this, but by and large countries that trade with each other are less likely to go to war. They have a stake in not going to war. They depend on their neighbors for products. So I think big picture, national security trade tends to be a stabilizing force. And then you start to dig down. I mean, our national security and the Pentagon relies on imports for a lot of things. I mean, for raw materials, critical minerals, manufactured goods, we work with the Europeans and the Canadians and others on aircraft and missiles and other defense products. So there's a whole arms trade. There's a whole trade in defense products that's important to being able to have a strong, well-equipped military at a cost that's hopefully not too outrageous.

Not only do solid trade relationships help us prevent war by remaining partners, trade is also how the U.S. built up its large defense arsenal. The Pentagon works with U.S. allies to manufacture different weapons and parts. For example, the U.S. and EU have begun co-producing artillery shells and Mitsubishi, based in Japan, manufactures parts for U.S. missile production and development. In fact, many of the rifles and automatic weapons that the U.S. military uses are solely manufactured in Germany, Italy, and the UK. Our defense at home turns out to be a global effort. 

ALDEN: And then the final dimension, which gets a lot of attention, is that there are some products that are just really critical for military superiority. I mean, some of these are not that hard to control. You think of night vision goggles. I mean, soldiers use night vision goggles for all sorts of things. They're not actually all that available commercially. I mean, you can get them in some places, but not licensed. So there are some technologies that are fairly narrow and easy to control, but nowadays, the most important technologies for national security are the same ones that are important for commercial success, namely advanced semiconductors and all the various appendages of the modern technology system. And so it gets very complicated to figure out how to try to keep that stuff out of the hands of adversaries while not crippling your own companies that are making these high-end products. And that's a huge issue in the relationship between the United States and China. We don't want to sell the latest, greatest semiconductors to China that you can use for AI applications or for military applications. The United States has a global lead in these. And so we try to keep this stuff out of the hands of the Chinese. It hurts our own companies because China's a big market, but it hasn't been all that effective anyway. China seems to be making significant progress in AI despite Western restrictions on selling them products.

This January, the U.S. was shocked by the creation of DeepSeek, a Chinese AI company that used old Nvidia hardware to create a large language model with the same computing power as U.S. competitors, like ChatGPT’s new GPT-4. 

In fact, the announcement of DeepSeek was such a shock that it temporarily tanked U.S. markets and led policymakers to question the effectiveness of these controls on Chinese companies. 

ALDEN: We did the same thing during the Cold War with the Soviets. I remember back when I was just getting my start in all this stuff, huge controversies over whether we were going to sell fiber optic cables to the Russians for intelligence reasons, right? It's easy to tap above ground communications. Fiber optic communications underground the U.S. intelligence services have a hard time following that stuff. So this huge controversy over AT&T, like giving basic phone cables to the Russians in the late 80s and 90s. All that went away after the Soviet Union collapsed. But this is an old issue.

SIERRA: You assume everyone's kind of doing the same too, keeping all the best stuff for themselves?

ALDEN: Well, they're trying, except the U.S. by and large, and there are exceptions here. The U.S. by and large remains the world's technological leader and the world's military leader. So it's mostly us trying to keep stuff from other countries.

Well, there is an organization that is supposed to be keeping an eye on all of these things. The World Trade Organization, or WTO. 

The WTO was founded in 1995 as a successor organization to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, better known as GATT, established in 1947. The foundation of the WTO was to regulate trade between its member countries, and as of today, there are 166 participating members of the World Trade Organization. Since its creation, the WTO has helped resolve hundreds of trade and tariff disputes, it’s lowered trade barriers, and negotiated dozens of agreements. But over time, it has struggled to maintain its influence as the world’s trade legislator.

SIERRA: Do you think international organizations like the World Trade Organization have the same sway to keep countries in line anymore?

ALDEN: No.

SIERRA: Cool. Next one.

ALDEN: I could go into detail if you want, but no, the WTO has become a powerless organization. When you think, ‘feckless United Nations organization,’ that's what the WTO has become, which is extraordinary because for a period of time after its creation, it was unparalleled in its influence. There was a procedure to resolve commercial disputes and nations largely abided by that. That's almost unheard of in international politics. Nations don't give up their sovereignty for anything. And they gave up sovereignty when it came to dealing with commercial disputes. That worked reasonably well for about 20 years. But I think when the history books are written, people are going to write about the WTO the same way they write about the League of Nations in the 1920s and 30s. A wonderful romantic idea that never really quite worked in practice.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Xp75Egtvi8&t=31s 

“Rise of the WTO”: Stability, a sense of global community, they were the key.

The World Trade Organization was not without its shortcomings. Its member states were unable to agree on new rules, so it quickly became ineffectual at solving disputes between countries. Many policymakers accuse the WTO of not holding China accountable for its unfair trade practices, and today, instead of negotiating through the World Trade Organization, many countries have opted for bilateral agreements.

It would take a lot to reform the WTO, but without a global regulatory body, the risk of multiple trade wars increases dramatically.

SIERRA: What has Washington gotten wrong about trade or is currently getting wrong about trade? And what rules and norms do you think need to be reevaluated?

ALDEN: I think unfortunately, trade got way oversold. I gave a lecture a while ago out in Nebraska where they're really worried about this because their farmers are going to get creamed by the retaliation. And the basic theme of my lecture was, ‘let's make trade boring again.’ Because trade was better when it was boring. And we've really seen this on both sides. You go back to the debates over bringing China into the WTO and the Clinton officials and the business lobbyists made outlandish claims about how great this was going to be for the world and great for U.S.-China relations. And of course U.S.-China relations have mostly gotten worse since China came into the WTO. So we imagine that trade would do a lot more than it did.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SreJlZGd1c0

Joe BIDEN: We're not going to let China flood our market.

Barack OBAMA: There has to be a level playing field for American companies competing in China.

When China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001, it was given access to new trade relationships, allowing the country to expand its export markets. But...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SreJlZGd1c0 

The Wall Street Journal: Joining the WTO meant China faced fewer tariffs and restrictions from its trading partners and the result was dubbed the ‘China Shock.’

The 12-year surge in Chinese imports into the United States beginning in the early 2000s has come to be known as the ‘China Shock, because it resulted in a quick and shocking decline in the U.S. economy, leading to the loss of over 2 million American jobs.

Since the U.S. and China established full diplomatic relations in 1979, the two sides have diverged in handling volatile disputes over regional authority and security issues. The U.S. has gone head to head with China over fairness in trade and investment, cyber espionage, and human rights practices within and beyond China. So, as you can imagine, the “China Shock” only furthered tensions between the two.

ALDEN: If you look here in the United States, for certain workers in certain places, import competition hurt them quite a bit. But in terms of our economy, it's a drop in the bucket. Millions and millions of jobs in this economy turn over every year. Most people don't work in traded industries. They work in service industries of one sort or another. Most people, most Americans are not working in sectors that get affected by trade. Most of the good jobs aren't in trade anymore. I mean, back in the 1960s and 70s, manufacturing was a really good job. But most manufacturing jobs actually aren't great jobs anymore. They don't pay very well. Most of them are getting replaced by robots and machinery. Even if we bring a lot of traded sectors back to the United States, it's not going to create very many jobs.So it's been outlandishly oversold, and I think Trump now is terribly overplaying his hand in terms of how much leverage he thinks the U.S. has on trade. For most countries in the world now, the United States is no longer their largest trading partner. China is. 

SIERRA: Oh wow.

ALDEN: We don't have anything like the leverage we used to have. We have a lot of leverage over Canada and Mexico because they're small countries that are entirely dependent on us, and Trump's a bully so he loves beating up on small countries that are entirely dependent on us. But as a tool for global influence, he's way, way overselling what we can do with trade.

Takeaway 4: Trade relationships with countries around the world, including our adversaries, are really important for our security.

Eroding the trust of our partnerships and dismantling economic cooperation could destroy access to U.S. markets and do irreparable damage for smaller economies. And this move could provide openings for competitors like China and Russia to leverage their economies instead.

ALDEN: So that's my worry. I mean, I think it's ridiculous that trade is on the front page every day. It really shouldn't be—

SIERRA: You're like, "Everyone, leave me alone."

ALDEN: ...it's the saddest thing.

SIERRA: You just want to go back to living a nice quiet life.

ALDEN: Quiet, yeah!

And maybe that’s why many of us today think trade is boring, or at least should be boring. Because since the 1950s or so, there was a general consensus among presidents and policymakers that trade was a good thing. Historically, most of the discussion in Washington revolved around legislation and regulatory measures to make trade work better.

But today, trade is frequently making the headlines in a different way. It’s being wielded as a tool to leverage influence in other foreign policy domains–to stop immigration across our southern border, tackle illegal drug trafficking, and force our allies to ease up on regulating American tech and social media companies. Trade is no longer just about trade.

There is a stark divide on what path to take going forward when it comes to trade policy, and our partners abroad are growing skeptical of how Washington will pursue a unified strategy in the years to come.

That’s why next time on Why It Matters, we’re diving into the Washington consensus, with CFR head of studies Shannon O’Neil.

ONEIL: Current trade norms are upended. There are no trade norms today. Today the only Washington consensus I see is a suspicion in Washington as to what trade the United States should be involved in.

Does a clear strategy for trade exist in Washington anymore? And what have policymakers gotten wrong? More on that in two weeks.

For resources used in this episode and more information, visit CFR.org/whyitmatters and take a look at the show notes. If you ever have any questions or suggestions or just want to chat with us, email at [email protected] or you can hit us up on X at @CFR_org.

Why It Matters is a production of the Council on Foreign Relations. The opinions expressed on the show are solely that of the guests, not of CFR, which takes no institutional positions on matters of policy.

This episode was produced by Molly McAnany, and me, Gabrielle Sierra. Our sound designer is Markus Zakaria. Our interns this semester are Isabella Hussar and Jo Strogatz. Robert McMahon is our Managing Editor. Our theme music is composed by Ceiri Torjussen.

You can subscribe to the show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube or wherever you get your audio. For Why It Matters, this is Gabrielle Sierra signing off. See you soon!