All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 9, 2025 - The Ben Shapiro Show
55:02
What Do We Do About CHINA?
Participants
Main voices
b
ben shapiro
52:25
Appearances
d
donald j trump
01:20
Clips
d
donald trump-jr
00:38
j
jamie dimon
00:17
| Copy link to current segment

Speaker Time Text
ben shapiro ▲ ● ▼
Today on the Ben Shapiro show, China is growing by leaps and bounds in terms of manufacturing.
What does that actually mean?
How should the United States actually orient its national security strategy to stop China?
What does that mean for Russia?
We'll get into the weeds on all of this.
How do we stop China?
How do we stop Russia?
How do we strengthen America in the world first?
This year, bring me with you for all your holiday travel.
What could be more fun?
Download that Daily Wire Plus app and take the show everywhere you go.
Inside the app, tap follow under my picture.
You will get notifications the second I go live or drop a new episode.
Step away anytime.
Come back exactly where you left off.
Plus, you can watch the same clips everybody is arguing about on social media without having to suffer through social media.
You can even download episodes for offline listening.
The app is where our community lives, chatting live during shows, sharing ideas, debating the big questions.
And because it's ours, it can't be canceled, censored, or shut down.
Download that Daily Wire Plus app right now in the App Store, Google Play, Roku, Samsung, and more.
The United States right now is facing down an existential threat.
That existential threat, of course, does come from a lack of willpower.
It comes from a doubt about what America is.
But in terms of foreign policy, that existential threat comes from a team-up that has been growing.
That team-up is between China, which is really the sponsor state of the anti-American bloc, along with its friends like Russia and Iran.
The existential threat doesn't mean that China is going to attack the United States.
It does mean that as the United States recedes from the world, as Russia expands its sphere of influence in Eastern Europe, as China expands its sphere of influence, not just in the Far East, but also in Africa, across the rest of Asia, into South America, the United States is going to be in the unenviable position of having to withdraw from the world.
And a United States that is no longer able to guarantee freedom of the seas, a United States with no economic allies, a United States that is sort of a secondary partner, as opposed to China being a primary partner for all the rest of these countries, is a United States that has an economy that is shrinking, a United States that is forced within its own borders.
And that is a problem.
That is not a good thing.
That is a problem.
There is this bizarre notion that has arisen on the right that if the United States were to be essentially autarkic, if the United States were to withdraw from the world, the rest of the world, suddenly things would get better, that the amount that we expend in foreign aid, for example, or military expenditure is a complete waste of money.
If we just spend that money at home, then magically everything gets better.
The problem, of course, is that the world is interconnected.
The reason that you are able to obtain better, cheaper products that make your life easier every single day is because the interconnection of world trade makes that possible.
And that, of course, is only possible because of the power of the United States economy and the power of the United States military.
Why do I bring that up?
Well, because China seems to be posing a broader and broader threat.
And yet, there is a bizarre unwillingness on the left to acknowledge the threat that is China.
And on the right, there seems to be an unwillingness to deal with the actual realities of what it would mean to face down China in a responsible and coherent fashion.
So, the Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that China is actually growing at the expense of the rest of the world.
According to Greg Ipp, writing for the Wall Street Journal, who has contributed more to the rest of the world's growth this year, China or the United States?
The answer is the United States, and it's not even close.
Even as the U.S. rolls out tariffs, its imports are up 10% so far this year from a year earlier.
And as China moralizes against protectionism, its imports are down 3% in dollar terms.
The U.S. figures might be an anomaly reflecting people attempting to get around the tariffs by importing product before the tariffs went into effect, but China's are not.
In the past five years, its export volumes have soared while imports have flatlined.
China is swallowing up a growing share of the world's market for manufactured goods.
This reveals an uncomfortable truth.
Beijing is pursuing a beggar thy neighbor growth model at everyone else's expense.
According to economist at Goldman Sachs, 1% more output in China in the past would raise the rest of the world's output by 0.2% as it pulled in imports because we would then export to China.
But as China has raised its own tariff barriers, instead, the relationship has turned negative.
China's growth is now being driven by its leadership's determination and capability to further advance manufacturing competitiveness and boost exports.
So, for the rest of the world, theoretically, that could be a good because that means cheaper stuff coming into the United States.
But there's also a problem in that they are emptying out our manufacturing sector.
Okay, but what this has led to in the West is the bizarre perception that what we ought to do is radically increase tariffs, not just on China, which would be retaliatory and worthwhile, but on every place else.
And that, of course, is a gigantic mistake.
And this leads to questions about the overall policy of the United States vis-a-vis China.
What exactly are we trying to do vis-a-vis China?
Now, I've made the case that if you wish to face down China, you have to do a few things.
One is you need closer relationships, not more attenuated relationships, closer trade and security relationships with other countries surrounding China, including Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, India.
You need better relations with those countries so as to box in China and essentially isolate China.
If China wants to cheat, if they don't want to play by the rules, if China wishes to beggar its neighbor, let them pursue an autarkic economic policy.
The thing about autarky is that it tends to make the country pursuing it poorer over time.
Initially, it looks like an explosion of economic activity.
But over time, as countries start pouring resources into less efficient modes of manufacture in order to do it at home rather than to import those products from abroad, they tend to empty themselves out.
And this is the common pattern in economics.
Every mercantilist or fascistic economic system that has worked like this shows very good early growth numbers.
And then that growth curve eventually peters out and the country ends up with economic stagnation.
This happened in Japan.
It happened in South Korea.
If you go back prior to World War II, this happened in Germany.
One of the reasons that Germany, under the Nazis, had to become an expansionist power is because Germany tried to pursue economic autarky in the 1930s.
And they saw for a brief moment in time, a gigantic manufacturing boom, people getting off of the unemployment lines, moving out of the Weimar Republic era.
But as it turns out, they were doing that, again, based on state expenditures that actually made them less economically viable over the long term.
And so then they had to turn to actual physical territorial expansionism.
Autarky very often turns into a necessity for expanding your access to resources, which leads actually to invasions of other countries.
It is not a coincidence that countries that tend to embrace a very mercantilistic policy, an economic policy that focuses on let's build everything right here at home.
When they can't, they then have to expand their own territorial borders or the places under their immediate dominion.
Free trade generally means that you don't have to invade other places because you can trade with those other places.
Already coming up, how do we stop China?
They have a strategy.
Do we first?
For the past three weeks, you've heard me talk about our sponsor, Pure Talks Unlimited for Life promotion.
Let me tell you, this promotion was so successful, they're willing to extend it one final week.
So now, through December 14th, get unlimited talk on limited tax and unlimited data with a 30-gig hotspot for just $29.95 a month for life.
Friends, this is Pure Talk's absolute best plan, normally $65 a month.
Now, just $29.95 a month.
You're saving over 50% a month every month for life.
Yes, that's on their crazy fast 5G network.
Now, I've got Pure Talk.
I'm using it all the time.
Obviously, I take my calls very seriously.
I need good reception at the best price from a company that actually likes me.
Well, that's Pure Talk.
This offer absolutely ends December 14th.
Go to peer talk.com/slash Shapiro for Pure Talk's best unlimited plan for just $29.95 a month for life.
Make the switch today in as little as 10 minutes.
Bring your phone, keep your number, start saving again.
That's puretalk.com/slash Shapiro to switch to my wireless company, Pure Talk.
Tax and fees not included, some restrictions apply.
See puretalk.com for details.
Also, this episode is sponsored by Lumen.
You know what I've realized?
When your metabolism works the way it should, you feel it everywhere.
You have more energy, better sleep, the whole deal.
That's why I started using Lumen.
It's the world's first handheld metabolic coach, and honestly, it's pretty simple.
You just breathe into it first thing in the morning.
It tells you whether your body's burning fat or carbs for fuel.
And then it gives you a personalized nutrition plan for the day based on what's actually happening in your body.
Not some generic diet plan, but recommendations tailored to your real-time metabolic state between holidays and unholy amounts of sweets and dinners.
Those personalized plans come in handy.
I also love it, I can use it before and after workouts to see how my body's responding in real time.
It's helped me figure out what actually works for my training and recovery, not just what's supposed to work in theory.
New Year's resolutions will absolutely be elevated in 2026 with all this extra information in my pocket.
It's like having a coach that helps you understand your body's engine and how to fuel it properly, not just for weight management, but for better energy, fitness results, sleep as well.
Instead of guessing or following trends, you're making decisions based on actual data from your own body.
Over time, you start to see the patterns that really move the needle for you personally.
I use Lumen all the time because I work out a lot.
I want to know what I should put into this magical machine that generates Adonis-like good looks.
Winter is the perfect season to build strength from within.
Stay energized, stay resilient, and take charge of your metabolism.
Head on over to lumen.me/slash Shapiro to get an additional 15% off your Lumen.
That's L-U-M-E-N.m-E slash Shapiro for 15% off on top of any offers or sales running on their website.
So, when you look at China, how would you stop China?
Well, you need to do a few things, as we say.
One, build up better security and economic relationships in the Far East.
Also, build up better security and economic relationships, yes, with Europe.
And that means that we can use tariffs as a way to force the Europeans to get rid of their non-tariff barriers.
One of the ways I would be forcing the Europeans to pay their fair share is by using things like tariffs in order to push the Europeans to pay their fair share when it comes to, for example, the price of pharmaceuticals.
Europe pays far less than what the actual market rate should be for pharmaceuticals.
And then the United States ends up paying for that via our taxpayers and via our consumers.
And that's just the way that it works.
We should stop that, right?
There are things that we can do to fight the non-tariff barriers and also the unfairness of our systems with Europe.
But the thing we should be pursuing in the end is freer trade, better relationships.
Because if you're going to box in China, you need to offer both carrot and stick, the stick to China, but carrots to our friends.
And when it comes to achieving carrots for our friends, we can actually offer a little bit of the stick in order to achieve the carrot.
That is why I'm not against using tariffs as a way to pressure other countries to lower their tariffs.
This is a case that Treasury Secretary Scott Besson has made.
So you need to box China in.
You need to treat them like the adversary they are.
You need to build out other lines of supply.
You need supply chains that are diversified.
So we're not as reliant on China, right?
These are all the things you would need to do.
You would need to cut off China's allies at the knees.
So if Russia is expending extensive resources in Ukraine, for example, and it's hollowing out their economy, if it's making them poorer, if it's making them more dependent on China, if in fact Russia is adversarially connected with China against the United States, which again is the philosophy of Duganism, which is the sort of guiding light of the way that Vladimir Putin thinks, if we believe, as we should,
that Russia is a geopolitical adversary of the United States, then obviously we should be pursuing an attempt to get Russia to stop invading Eastern Europe.
And that means supporting allies in the region to the extent necessary to stop the Russians.
Because it's not as though Russia and China aren't talking to each other.
They are talking very extensively to each other.
If we are attempting to form a better relationship with India, then we should be attempting to form a better relationship with India.
Should be trying to make trade relations with India so beneficial to India that they don't want to trade with the Chinese.
There are natural differences in opinion between China and India, which have nearly come to blows several times over the course of the last several decades.
India and China are not working hand in glove.
They have actual territorial conflicts.
We could be attempting to pry India out of China's sphere of influence.
These are all things that a responsible foreign policy would do.
And then we certainly would not be shipping many of the most important components in the battle for the future to China.
China's already stealing RIP.
China's already cheating when it comes to trade relationships.
China is already beggaring its neighbor.
Why should we be sending, for example, some of our most sophisticated microchips produced in the United States or via TSMC?
Why should we be allowing those to flow into China?
Even if we're going to argue that it's only a marginal increase in China's capacity, why would we allow that increase in China's capacity?
China is our geopolitical enemy.
They are our opponent.
Trying to pretend otherwise is foolish.
Because if you allow China to continue pursuing its normal policies, China will, in fact, blow itself out.
Here are China's problems.
China has a serious demographic problem.
It does not have enough people.
I know it's a weird idea, but China is in steep demographic decline.
China had one child policy for decades.
That means they do not have enough human beings in China, even though it's got a billion people.
They do not have enough human beings to actually be able to generate the economic growth necessary to pay for their gigantic redistributionist schemes and mercantilist ideas.
They don't.
They have a massive demographic problem.
They have an enormous debt problem.
They've been burying that debt problem in local and regional debt issues.
They've been building gigantic empty cities rooted in debt that they're taking out from their own citizens and against their own citizens.
They have an enormous debt problem in China.
And we always tend to look, this is just the way that people treat economics.
They tend to look at the fact that China builds some nice things and say, wow, they must be doing it right.
But the fact is that mercantilism looks systematic when you look at the areas where they succeed.
And it looks like a trash heap when you look at the areas where they don't succeed.
And the areas where you don't succeed in a centralized economy are the areas that tend to be ignored.
And it's a lot of them.
Capitalism looks really messy, but has a much higher hit rate because capital follows the best ideas.
You don't just keep investing in bad ideas the way you do with a centralized economic system, like a China, for example.
So there are ways to box in China.
The question is whether the United States is actually going to do this.
So the United States has now put out a national security strategy via the White House.
And there's a lot to recommend the national security strategy.
Hard to tell kind of whose fingerprints are on the national security strategy from the White House.
Obviously, the Vice President JD Vance had some hand in it.
I'm sure the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, had some hands in it.
Probably Elbridge Colby, the Under Secretary of Defense, had some hands in it.
Michael Anton, who's sort of a national security advisor, reportedly had some hands in it.
It's a lot of hands in it.
But what that means is that the final result has some good stuff and it has some incoherent stuff.
But the overall sort of takeaway from the national security strategy is an incoherence that I think China and Russia and Iran and other parties are going to try to take advantage of.
So to use China as sort of the chief example, there's been a lot of talk in the defense establishment about the shift from, for example, the Middle East to focus on China, something with which I totally agree.
The Middle East is not nearly as important geostrategically to the United States as it once was because we are now energy independent.
The Middle East is still quite important because obviously when you are talking about the price of global oil, for example, and the Middle East provides a heavy share of that, whatever happens in the Middle East has other ramifications, but it's not nearly as vital as it was in, say, the 1970s when the vast bulk of oil was coming via OPEC.
That's no longer the case.
And so shifting resources from the Middle East over to the Far East makes a fair bit of sense.
In order to achieve that, you wouldn't want to, as the national security strategy suggests, achieve quote-unquote regional balance.
That's a very Obama idea.
So the national security strategy at one point suggests that there ought to be regional balances of power.
Quote, we will work with allies and partners to maintain global and regional balances of power to prevent the emergence of dominant adversaries.
I do not know why we should pursue regional balances of power rather than strengthening our allies.
I don't want Ukraine to have a balance of power with Russia.
I would like for Russia to be weaker.
I do not want Turkey to have a balance of power with Israel and Saudi Arabia.
I want Turkey to be weaker.
I don't want Iran to have a balance of power.
That's not something I'm interested in, right?
Because balance of power suggests that if, for example, Saudi gets too strong, you then have to turn around and strengthen Iran, which makes zero sense at all.
So again, there's a bit of incoherence here.
But with regard to China, the national security strategy released by the White House says a few things.
It says, President Trump single-handedly reversed more than three decades of mistaken American assumptions about China, namely that by opening our markets to China, encouraging American business to invest in China, and outsourcing our manufacturing to China, we would facilitate China's entry into the so-called rules-based international order.
This did not happen.
Okay, this part is absolutely true.
Donald Trump did, in fact, reverse the bipartisan consensus that was false, a total lie, that us integrating China into the world economy would somehow benefit us, but not benefit China because benefit because eventually China would be sort of undermined politically by economic growth.
China did not make the mistake that Mikhail Gorbachev made in the USSR.
If you believe that the USSR should have been upheld, then what you would say to Gorbachev is you don't want a sort of political loosening along with economic loosening.
China allowed some economic loosening, but maintained strict political control.
The national security strategy says China adapted to the shift in U.S. tariff policy that began in 2017, in part by strengthening its hold on supply chains, especially in the world's low and middle income countries, among the greatest economic battlegrounds of the coming decades.
China's exports to the low-income countries doubled between 2020 and 2024.
The United States imports Chinese goods indirectly from middlemen and Chinese built factories in a dozen countries, including Mexico.
China's exports to low-income countries are today nearly four times its exports to the United States.
Going forward, we will rebalance America's economic relationship with China, prioritizing reciprocity and fairness to restore American economic independence.
Trade with China should be balanced and focused on non-sensitive factors.
Now, again, that's fine.
Rebalancing trade with China, boxing China in, would be a good thing.
However, it's the next part of the national security strategy that starts to get dicey.
Quote, the United States must work with our treaty allies and partners, who together add another $35 trillion in economic power to our own $30 trillion national economy to counteract predatory economic practices and use our combined economic power to help safeguard our prime position in the world economy and ensure that allied economies do not become subordinate to any competing power.
America First Diplomacy seeks to rebalance global trade relationships.
We have made clear to our allies America's current account deficit is unsustainable.
We must encourage Europe, Japan, Korea, Australia, Canada, Mexico, and other prominent nations to adopt trade policies that help rebalance China's economy toward household consumption because Southeast Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East alone cannot absorb China's enormous excess capacity.
Okay, so this is talk about trade deficits.
And the basic idea here is that the United States has to rebalance our trade relationships with Japan and Europe.
Now, as we've talked about on the show, trade is mutually beneficial.
As an economic matter, put aside national security for a second.
If you and I trade, both of us benefit.
It's a voluntary exchange of goods, a voluntary exchange of money for goods or services.
Both of us benefit or we wouldn't be doing it.
The idea that the fact that we run, for example, a trade deficit with Ethiopia is inherently economically problematic for the United States is ridiculous.
The GDP per capita in Ethiopia is like a thousand bucks a year, and they're exporting us coffee.
Us buying good coffee from Ethiopia does not beggar the United States.
That's silly.
And this is where the America first tariff policy toward the rest of the world actually ends up achieving the reverse of what it wants to with regard to China.
As I said at the top, if you want to box China in, we need better trade relationships with Japan, Australia, Europe, Canada, Mexico.
Otherwise, you know what they're going to do?
They're going to trade more with China and less with us.
This is the problem.
The national security strategy laid out by the White House simultaneously argues: quote, we should form coalitions that use our comparative advantages in finance and technology to build export markets with cooperating countries.
America's economic partners should no longer expect to earn income from the United States through overcapacity and structural imbalances, but instead pursue growth through managed cooperation tied through strategic alignment and by receiving long-term U.S. investment.
Hold up a second.
Now, what you're talking about here is we should form coalitions using our comparative advantage in finance and tech, but we should also prevent other countries from building their manufacturing capacity to make t-shirts and such.
Okay, none of this is going to result in the thing you want it to result in.
And the proof is in the pudding.
All righty, coming up, we'll get to the president's decision to allow NVIDIA to sell certain types of sophisticated microchips to the Chinese.
Why is that happening first?
You know, most children's vitamins out there are loaded with teaspoons of sugar and artificial ingredients kids don't really need.
Well, that's where our sponsor, Haya, comes in.
They've created this amazing chewable vitamin that kids actually love.
The best part, zero sugar, but still totally delicious.
Even the pickiest eaters would approve.
They've packed in 12 organic fruits and veggies plus 15 essential vitamins and minerals.
It's non-GMO, vegan, allergen-free, and thoroughly tested for safety, which means you and I can both feel confident giving our kids vitamins made to this high-quality standard.
And are you tired of battling with your kids to eat their greens?
Haya now has kids' daily greens plus superfoods, a chocolate-flavored greens powdered designed specifically for kids.
It's packed with more than 55 whole food ingredients to support brain power, development, and digestion.
Just scoop, shake, and sip with milk or any non-dairy beverage for a delicious and nutritious boost your kids will actually enjoy.
They even send stickers with your first order so your kids can decorate the bottle and make it their own.
We've worked out a special deal with Haya for their best-selling children's vitamin.
Receive 50% off your first order.
To claim this deal, you have to head on over to hayahealth.com/slash Shapiro.
The deal is not available on their regular website.
So head on over to H-I-Y-A-H-E-A-L-T-H.com/slash Shapiro.
Get your kids the full body nourishment they need to grow into healthy adults.
Also, this episode is sponsored by Helix.
Sleep is your secret weapon during cold and flu season.
It's literally when your immune system does its best work.
But here's the thing: you're not going to get that deep restorative sleep if you're tossing and you're turning on the wrong mattress.
When you're fighting off germs, trying not to catch them in the first place.
You need a mattress that actually supports your body and keeps you comfortable all night.
It's not just nice to have, it's essential.
Nobody wants to be tired and run down during the holiday season.
Helix knows how to make sure you're waking up your best self.
Finding the right mattress doesn't have to be guesswork.
Helix makes it simple with their sleep quiz.
It asks about your preferences and sleep style and then matches you with the right mattress that's actually correct for you.
They're not just making promises.
Helix is the most awarded mattress brand out there with glowing reviews from Forbes, Wired, and other trusted experts.
The best part?
They deliver straight to your door with free shipping.
So no hauling anything yourself.
Plus, what they're happy with Helix guarantee, you get 120 nights to try it out and a limited lifetime warranty.
So if it's not working for you, returns and exchanges are totally seamless.
It's basically a risk-free way to finally get the sleep you deserve, especially when you need it most.
I'm on the road right now.
I'm missing my mattress.
Something fierce because I have a helix sleep mattress made just for me.
Head on over to helixleep.com/slash ben for 27% off-site wide and get a mattress made just for you.
That's helixleep.com/slash ben for 27% off-site wide.
Make sure you enter our show name into the post-purchase survey so they know we sent you helixleep.com/slash ben.
According to the Wall Street Journal, President Trump retook the White House almost a year ago, promising a manufacturing boom.
He got one in China.
Chinese industrial production broke records this year as its factories churned out more cars, machinery, and chemicals than ever before.
Despite the disruptions of tariffs, the country's trade surplus in goods has set a record as growing shipments to Asia, Europe, Latin America, and Africa offset the hit from Trump's levies on direct sales to the United States.
Chinese companies that built their business around low trade barriers to sell into the U.S. have adapted and in some cases are bouncing back.
In May, Chinese-owned e-commerce giant Timu's business model of serving up affordable household goods, beauty products, and clothes to American consumers looked all but finished.
Today, Timu is once again among the most downloaded apps in the United States, and business is booming.
Why?
Well, because if you're worried about affordability, I know there are a lot of people on the right who are up against the American desire for cheap products.
We used to just call that affordability.
Americans do like products better and cheaper.
That's a reality.
If you can't compete, you lose.
China has reported a goods trade surplus of more than $1 trillion for the year through November.
Manufacturing output in the first 10 months of the year was up 7% compared with the same period in 2024.
China's on track this year to post a surplus in manufactured goods of around $2 trillion.
Now, again, some of this is China subsidizing its manufacturing capacity at the cost of massive debt.
But part of this is because the United States decided that we were going to go to tariff war, not just with China, but with everybody.
And it turns out everybody else still wants cheap goods.
It turns out everybody else is happy to shop in China if they want to.
Not only that, if we're looking at ways to box in China, I have to say, I do not understand for the life of me why we are allowing NVIDIA to export the H200 chip to China.
President Trump says the United States will receive a 25% cut of whatever China buys.
But the whole point is that once China has widespread access to those chips, they will buy some and then they will steal the IP and make others.
Not only that, China's way out of the box.
We've talked about their problems with debt.
We've talked about China's problems with human lack, right?
They don't have enough human capital because they killed half their population through the one-child policy.
They have an aging population, a hugely aging demographic.
What's their way out of the box?
One way out of the box is winning the AI race.
What does AI do?
AI means you need fewer people.
AI means that you can actually increase your productivity numbers without as many employees.
That the computers and the robots do all the work.
The chief beneficiaries of that are places like China, which actually are lacking human capital, lacking human beings, and have heavy debt problems.
So why are you allowing them the possibility of winning an AI race that not only has consequences economically, but also has consequences in terms of military power?
All the next wars in human history are going to be AI-powered wars, drone-on-drone, AI assessment against AI assessment.
Whoever has the best tech is going to win.
That is going to be the next step in human warfare because it will be robot warfare essentially.
So NVIDIA is doing really well.
It helps the NVIDIA stock valuation.
But this is one area where America first really should kick in.
It shouldn't kick in with regard to tariffs on Japan.
It should kick in with regard to why are we selling H200s to the Chinese, even if it delays them by six months.
That is a national security consideration.
The H200 has higher performance, according to the Wall Street Journal, than the H20 that NVIDIA was previously allowed to sell.
It's not as powerful as the company's top Black Welt products released this year or the Rubin generation of chips coming next year.
With that said, some of what's going on here is pure bulk.
Now, yes, more sophisticated chips mean greater efficiency.
But if you're China, you could brute force this thing theoretically if you have enough of these chips that you can string together.
According to the Wall Street Journal, the exports could also help Chinese tech giants that have struggled to get top chips to train their models.
Jensen Huang, who's the head of NVIDIA, has argued that the company should be allowed to compete in the Chinese market because China has many of the world's top AI researchers and the U.S. should want them using American technology.
But why?
unidentified
Why?
ben shapiro ▲ ● ▼
I mean, the idea is that China will then go and they'll build their own if we don't allow them access to this one.
Fine.
We should out-compete them.
We should out-compete them.
The attempt, NVIDIA was trying to sell a slimmed-down black wealth chip to China.
So if Trump's initial critique of the sort of globalist trade regime is rootless corporations attempting to make money at the expense of American security, I mean, this one is like top of the list.
This doesn't make any sense to me.
If you want to box in China, you have to stop them from winning the AI race.
As Stu Wu at the Wall Street Journal writes, with one unorthodox deal, President Trump instantly reshaped the U.S.-China technological cold war.
The fear among his critics, he just helped Beijing catch up.
He handed China's AI industry what it couldn't build itself, the high-end semiconductors needed to rival America.
And again, one of the problems here is that the reason this happened is because of the trade wars.
President Trump may have made concessions in these wars on the chips because the Chinese have so much control over rare earth minerals where we didn't game out.
Again, I said we have to build alternative supply lines and then box China in.
If you don't build out those alternative supply lines, China has a pressure point, which it used.
Also, China has manufacturing advantages in places like pharmaceutical.
Jamie Dimon of J.P. Morgan Chase, he pointed out that we currently rely on China for 90% of our pharmaceutical ingredients.
jamie dimon ▲ ● ▼
It's not just about China, but we rely on single parties for things we need for F-35s and nuclear submarines.
So the resilience, we rely on China for something like 90% of the ingredients go to our pharmaceuticals and 90% of our penicillin.
ben shapiro ▲ ● ▼
Again, if we are going to go to conflict with China, which we should, then we should be smart about it.
Phil Graham and Donald Boudreau, both economists, they are writing in the Wall Street Journal today about world trade and the fact that world trade is growing in the absence of the United States.
They point out the current trade diversion began when Mr. Trump's first term tariffs led China to shift its exports to other countries.
Under Mr. Trump's second term tariffs, Chinese exports to the United States fell by 69% from February through September, but Chinese exports to other regions rose.
Over these same months, Chinese exports to Association of Southeast Asian Nations, that's Asian member states, were up by 61%, to Japan and Korea by 41%, to Africa by 35%, to the EU by 28%, to India and Latin America each by more than 10%.
As trade is diverted around the United States, other countries will continue to specialize in producing goods and services for which they have comparative advantage.
This specialization and the trade that sustains it will enhance efficiency and fuel economic growth in those trading nations.
America's economy will become increasingly isolated to our own detriment.
Before tariffs, well over half of U.S. imports were inputs used by American producers.
Keeping tariffs high will deny these producers access to many of the world's lowest caught inputs.
Instead, U.S. producers will become less efficient and less competitive on the world market.
And by the way, as we simultaneously cut ourselves off from world trade, which is a mistake, we are going to have to scale up our military.
And there's very little in the actual national security strategy with regards to what it looks like to scale up our military.
In fact, again, there's this sort of peculiar isolationist streak that runs through a national security strategy that seems to ping pong between a Reagan-esque peace-through-strength policy that President Trump historically has supported and a bizarre sort of isolationism that suggests that America needs to move away from its attempts to provide a muscular supporting presence to allies around the world.
We may be falling behind China in terms of military capacity.
According to the New York Times today, the Trump administration wants to increase defense spending in 2026 to more than a trillion dollars.
Much of that money will be squandered on capabilities that do more to magnify our weaknesses than to sharpen our strengths.
What do they mean?
Well, they point out that China's ability to strike U.S. forces has radically expanded.
They now have 500 intermediate-range missiles, 1,300 medium-range missiles, and 900 short-range missiles.
Those short-range missiles from China are capable of striking South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan, of course.
The United States continues to direct its money toward gigantic aircraft carriers that take decades to build.
The USS Gerald Ford cost $13 billion.
Drone war can make it obsolete.
This is a point being made by people over at Palantir, for example.
Meanwhile, to pretend that China does not have an overall strategy is, of course, silly.
China is very strategic in its overall game plan.
China has been using for years its Belt and Road Initiative in order to make inroads in Africa and in South America.
You know, when the national security strategy focuses heavily on the Western Hemisphere, what we should recognize is that the threat to the United States is not chiefly Venezuela.
It is chiefly China.
And China is working with places like Venezuela and Cuba.
I'm not worried about the Cuban government.
I'm worried about the Chinese using the Cuban government.
And China is working with Russia, of course.
So the national security strategy goes out of its way to wrap the Europeans on the knuckles.
That is totally fine with me.
The Europeans deserve to have their knuckles wrapped.
The Europeans have lived high on the hog by not paying their own defense bills for decades.
And they simultaneously have imported an enormous number of people from areas of the world that seek to undermine European civilization.
That critique from JD Vance, that critique from the administration, totally correct.
However, however, if you wish to instill in the Europeans a new backbone, if you wish to do a spinal injection on the Europeans, you need to point out who their enemies are.
And yes, of course, they have internal problems, real internal problems, serious internal problems, but to pretend that the United States ought to take a sort of neutral position between the Europeans and the Russians is not so.
That is wrong.
The Russians have overtly made clear their strategy for decades under Vladimir Putin, and that is to expand their sphere of influence to play at being a great power, despite the fact that the Russian economy is smaller than the economy of the state of Florida or Italy.
And they want to do so at the expense of the Europeans, because what the Russians do not lack is stones.
They lack a functioning economy.
They lack a functioning democracy, but they have nuclear weapons and they have gall.
And so what does that require?
It requires that the Europeans and the United States actually work together to stop Russian predations.
And yet if you look at the national security strategy, Russia barely earns a mention.
Quote, should present trends continue about Europe, the continent will be unrecognizable in 20 years or less.
As such, it is far from obvious whether certain European countries will have economies and militaries strong enough to remain reliable allies.
Many of these nations are currently doubling down on their present path.
We want Europe to remain European, to regain its civilizational self-confidence, and to abandon its failed focus on regulatory suffocation.
Yes, agree with all of that, but the strategy continues.
This lack of self-confidence is most evident in Europe's relationship with Russia.
European allies enjoy a significant hard power advantage over Russia by almost every measure save nuclear weapons.
As a result of Russia's war in Ukraine, European relations with Russia are now deeply attenuated, and many Europeans regard Russia as an existential threat.
Managing European relations with Russia will require significant U.S. diplomatic engagement, both to reestablish conditions of strategic stability across the Eurasian landmass and to mitigate the risk of conflict between Russia and European states.
Okay, let's be clear here.
The United States should not pretend to be a neutral broker between Russia and Ukraine.
We have a very strong, yes, there's massive corruption in Ukraine.
Also, there's massive corruption in Qatar, in Saudi Arabia, in a wide variety of nations that the Trump administration has quite warm relations with.
The idea that we ought to play a neutral role with regard to the Russians or that the Russians are about to flip and suddenly become a pro-American power.
That is foolishness.
It is absurd.
It is not true.
The Russians are adversarial to what they call Atlanticist interests, which is predominantly the United States.
So when the national security strategy says it is a core interest of the United States to negotiate an expeditious cessation of hostilities in Ukraine in order to stabilize European economies, prevent unintended escalation or expansion of the war, and reestablish strategic stability with Russia.
What does strategic stability look like when Russia is an aggressive power?
The Trump administration has quite properly called the Europeans on the fact that they have continued to purchase Russian gas.
But what we should be doing is providing them American LNG.
We should be strengthening our relations with them in the face of Russia's increasing predations because, of course, Russia and China are working in tandem.
According to the new national security strategy, quote, the Trump administration finds itself at odds with European officials who hold unrealistic expectations for the war perched in unstable minority governments, many of which trample on basic principles of democracy to suppress opposition.
Okay, yes, there are problems in places like France with suppressing the right.
There are problems in places like Romania with suppressing.
We've talked about this on the show.
To somehow call the Europeans on the quote-unquote suppression of minority political rights while making room for the Russians where there are no minority political rights.
You find yourself flying off a fourth story balcony if you oppose Vladimir Putin in Russia is kind of absurd.
A large European majority, says the national security strategy, wants peace.
Yet that desire is not translated into policy in large measure because of those governments' subversion of democratic processes.
Okay, this is the reverse of what the actual situation is.
Yes, the Europeans, there are many Europeans on the right who would like to cut a separate peace with Russia.
No, that would not be good for the United States if Russia somehow earns itself a gigantic chunk of Ukraine and another invasion of Ukraine in the next five, 10 years.
The notion that we ought to be chiding the Europeans on their democracy, but not chiding, we should chide everybody, but chiding the Europeans and not chiding the Russians and pretending neutrality.
I mean, I can see why the Russians are trying to expand their foothold in Ukraine.
I mean, what guarantee could a United States that puts out that in the national security strategy give to the Ukrainians to get them to stop fighting?
Like, what security guarantee would be trustable under those circumstances?
You can see why Vladimir Zelensky, again, none of this excuses the corruption inside the Zelensky regime in Ukraine.
None of it.
I asked Zelensky directly about corruption in Ukraine when I visited with him in Kyiv.
You can watch the interview.
But you can see why Zelensky is refusing to cede land to Russia.
Why?
Because he doesn't have any security guarantees from a country that is attempting to equate Russia's predation with European multi-party democracy, which is not even remotely on the same scale as what's happening in Russia.
Donald Trump Jr. in Qatar, of all places, which, yes, is a terror-supporting slave state.
Okay, let's just be clear.
Qatar can be a strategic ally of the United States in certain respects, including all Uday airbase.
And also, they can, in fact, be a terror-supporting slave state, which is what they are.
Human slavery is alive and well in Doha.
Who do you think is building all of their beautiful buildings?
They have a population, a citizenry in Qatar of something like 300,000 people.
But that ain't the population in Qatar.
Alrighty, coming up, we'll get to Qatar, what people are saying there about Russia.
It's a little weird.
First, this Christmas season, you could actually help change a life.
Actually, two lives.
Picture a young woman who just found out she's pregnant and wasn't expecting it.
She's scared.
Maybe she doesn't have much support.
She's not sure what her options are.
Well, that's exactly who our sponsor, Pre-Born Ministries, is there for.
They offer free ultrasounds and counseling to women facing these tough decisions.
Sometimes just seeing that ultrasound and talking to somebody who cares makes all the difference.
If you're looking for a meaningful way to give this year, this might be worth considering.
Steve Jobs, Celine Dion, Steph Curry, these were all unplanned pregnancies.
Maybe you were too.
Maybe somebody you love was.
Life has a way of working out differently than we expect.
When a woman is facing that difficult decision, pre-born is there to help.
When a woman sees her baby's ultrasound or pre-born, everything can change.
That moment often gives her the courage to choose life.
This Christmas, just 28 bucks can sponsor an ultrasound.
And right now, your gift is doubled through a matching grant to donate.
Dial pound250 and say baby or visit preborn.com/slash ben.
That's pound250, keyword baby, or preborn.com/slash ben.
You're not going to do anything more important this year.
Go help out our friends over at pre-born right now by dialing pound250 and saying baby or visit preborn.com/slash ben.
I asked our sponsors over at Comet, a project of perplexity, what is the population of Qatar and how many citizens are there?
Qatar's total population is 3.1 million people.
That's the total population.
How many citizens are there?
Somewhere between 330,000 and 360,000.
90% of the people living in Qatar are not citizens.
They cannot vote.
They have no actual serious legal rights there.
Not only that, when you ask Comet, how many of these expatriates are either slaves or indentured foreign laborers?
The Global Slavery Index estimates about 20,000 people in Qatar are living in modern slavery.
That would be forced labor or forced marriage around 2020, 2021.
But not just that.
Human rights organizations report migrant workers make up over 90% of Qatar's population and 95% of its labor force.
And many low-paid workers experience serious abuses under or linked to the Khalafa, the Kafala sponsorship system.
Documented problems include passport confiscation.
That is where a foreign worker shows up and their boss takes their passport so they can't leave.
So now they're stuck there and they can't get out.
Restrictions on changing jobs or leaving the country, unpaid or delayed wages, debt bondage through recruitment fees, which can amount to conditions resembling de facto slavery or indentured servitude for some workers.
And Qatar uses that money in order to apparently pay pretty much everybody to head on over to Qatar.
And Qatar uses that money to pay for a gigantic propaganda operation in the West, to pay for its sponsorship of soccer teams in London and ownership of half of the assets in the UK, and also to pay people to come over to Qatar and talk warmly about how magical Qatar is.
Donald Trump Jr. in Qatar, which again plays a, shall we say, middle role between the United States and adversaries of the United States, including places like Russia, he suggested in Qatar that the United States may walk away from Ukraine.
donald trump-jr ▲ ● ▼
Because of the war and because he's one of the great marketers of all time, Zelensky became a borderline deity, especially to the left, where he could do no wrong.
He was beyond reproach.
Years of corruption, years of graft and theft on a world stage that everyone in this new room knew was happening was totally absolved.
And it's ridiculous.
We're not dealing in reality.
unidentified
But is your hunch that President Trump is going to walk away?
donald trump-jr ▲ ● ▼
I think he may.
What's good about my father and what's unique about my father is you don't know what he's going to do.
The fact that he's not predictable, he's not following the playbook of every clown who's, again, been a bureaucrat for decades, you don't know.
ben shapiro ▲ ● ▼
Now, again, I believe that President Trump will do the right thing with regard to Ukraine because there's one thing he doesn't want, which is the perception of American weakness, including, for example, Russian troops strolling through Kyiv because of a cut-and-run strategy in Ukraine.
I will say that the disproportionate focus put on Ukrainian corruption sitting in Qatar, one of the most corrupt states on planet Earth.
It is legitimately a dictatorial monarchy, is pretty astonishing.
And if you think that America's enemies don't take no, they absolutely do.
They absolutely do.
And that has some consequences.
Now, again, some of what's going on with regards to China has political considerations attached in the United States.
One of those political considerations has been Chinese restrictions on soybean exports from the United States to China.
Just another reason why a free trade system promoted by the United States, yes, using tariffs to ratchet down tariffs that other countries have put on us, would be superior to throwing up tariffs on the entire world and then having to cut deals with the Chinese.
So America's farmers, particularly soybean farmers, have been harmed by the trade war between the United States and China.
President Trump says that soybeans are now being exported to China.
Here's what he had to say.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼
Since my successful meeting in South Korea with President Xi, purchases have been made and soybeans are being exported out of the United States to China as we speak.
And I say that our soybeans, I told this to President Xi, our soybeans are more nutritious than competitors.
Somebody said, is that a Trump statement or is that real?
In fact, you know who asked me that question?
President Xi asked me that question.
He said, really, I had never heard of him.
unidentified
And he was a food purchaser for a long time.
ben shapiro ▲ ● ▼
I mean, that's all fine.
Okay.
But the reality is that if we have to cut deals on NVIDIA chips so we can open up their markets on soybeans, that seems like a bad deal to me.
It also means that because of all of the tariff conditions, and again, it's not just us tariffing other countries.
It's also just the broiling economy that's forcing a bunch of other countries to try and now make common cause with other countries.
As trade shifts away from the United States, in other words, as that happens, we have to keep bailing out farmers.
So yesterday, President Trump announced a farm bailout.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼
What we're doing is we're taking a relatively small portion of that, and we're going to be giving and providing it to the farmers in economic assistance.
And we love our farmers.
And as you know, the farmers like me, because, you know, based on voting trends, you could call it voting trends or anything else, but they're great people.
They're the backbone of our country.
So we're going to use that money to provide $12 billion in economic assistance to American farmers.
ben shapiro ▲ ● ▼
Okay, so again, those are some of the consequences that happen when, in fact, you have mercantilistic policy on all sides, is that you require payoffs.
Now, what does all this mean for affordability?
Are things getting more affordable?
Well, the inflation rates have obviously come down.
They've come down because, well, I've been very critical of the trade policy of the administration.
We've had great deregulatory policy under this administration and excellent tax policy under this administration.
And President Trump is right when he says the Democrats caused the affordability problem.
Here was the president yesterday.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼
We inherited a mess affordability, but you can call it affordability or anything you want.
But the Democrats caused the affordability problem, and we're the ones that are fixing it.
So it's a very simple statement.
They caused it.
We're fixing it.
ben shapiro ▲ ● ▼
Okay.
He's not wrong about that.
At the same time, the only way that people are going to feel the dynamism of the American economy is if we actually allow for the dynamism of the American economy, broad scale.
That doesn't mean picking and choosing winners and losers.
It doesn't mean taking stakes in private companies.
It means allowing the economy to roar.
President Trump knows how to do that.
And that's what he should do.
And by the way, liquidity is not going to be the problem because apparently the expectations for the rate cut are really, really, really high from the Federal Reserve.
According to Axios, The likely outcome of a two-day Federal Reserve policy meeting that concludes Wednesday would be one more rate cut that will probably last for a while.
The final signals from Hawks, Doves, and Fed leadership all point to an accord of sorts that the Federal Open Market Committee probably will cut its interest rate target by a quarter point on Wednesday while signaling a high bar for when it may do so again, which again makes sense.
I mean, I'm not sure that I'm even in favor of the rate cut at this point.
It seems to me that there's plenty of liquidity in the economy.
With that said, liquidity is not going to be the problem.
The problem is going to be how do we outcompete everybody else?
That is the thing that matters.
Other things the GOP could do right now, obviously cracking down on welfare fraud would be a big one.
The president is focused a lot on illegal immigration, but the actual bigger story with regard to Minnesota is the gigantic presence of huge bags of government cash inevitably leads to fraud.
These programs are not efficient.
They do not achieve the goals that they seek, generally speaking.
A fascinating story from the Wall Street Journal today talking about the sort of welfare fraud that is actually far more common than what we saw in the Somali community in Minnesota.
And that is people just lying about their conditions in order to achieve welfare.
According to the Wall Street Journal, diagnosis rates of autism among children have more than tripled over the past 15 years.
One reason which Minnesota's welfare scandal lays bare with shocking details is Medicaid fraud and abuse.
This is Alicia Finley writing.
Medicaid pays healthcare providers big bucks to diagnose and treat children with autism, sometimes tens of thousands of dollars a month for a single child.
Yet states rarely verify that kids who are diagnosed actually meet the medical criteria for the disorder or that they get appropriate treatment from qualified specialists.
The result, children covered by Medicaid or the government-run children's health insurance program are two and a half times as likely as those with private coverage to be diagnosed with autism.
Many lower-income kids are labeled autistic merely because they have behavioral or developmental problems.
So if you want to look at the tremendous number of increased autism diagnoses, one of the reasons for that, of course, is because if you pay people more based on their diagnosis of autism, you're going to get more autism diagnoses.
In Minnesota, the number of autism providers soared 700%.
Payments to them increased 3,000% between 2018 and 2023.
All of this underlines broader problems with America's social welfare industrial complex.
Liberals measure success by how much money is spent rather than outcomes, and they accept waste and fraud and abuse.
This is particularly true in our disability system, the number of people claiming disability in the United States.
You think disability, you think some dude racked up his back and legitimately can't work anymore.
Somebody lost a leg in a coal mining incident.
Disability now applies to tens of millions of people, most of whom are not in any real sense disabled.
But they can claim disability with very little evidence, and now they are on the government dole.
Giant sacks of cash at home bankrupt the economy.
They are a drag on the economy, of course.
You know, the generalized fact is that if you want to increase the dynamism of the American economy, you need to jettison the ballast.
There is too much ballast.
And there are ways around some of the ballast.
For example, if you let the market work, so one sort of green shoot in terms of letting the market work.
According to Peter Loftus, reporting for the journal, drug makers are moving to sell their medicines directly to patients, abandoning the middlemen they've long relied on.
The shift is a huge departure from how pharmaceutical companies, including Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Pfizer, have sold drugs for decades and threatens the multi-billion dollar business of firms that have traditionally filled prescriptions.
It's saving some patients hundreds of dollars off the cost of prescriptions because companies have been lowering the prices for drugs sold directly.
In the meantime, drug makers who've been rolling out the services in recent months see a big opportunity to boost sales, though they risk losing revenue if they don't offset lower prices by selling to more patients.
According to Pratabh Kedikar, the chief executive of pharmaceutical consulting firm ZS, for the first time, pharma is looking to end, sorry, for the first time, pharma is actually looking end-to-end at the full patient journey.
So you can see it in the weight loss market, where people are actually selling directly to consumers.
Now, that is actually a good thing because if you move through an insurance system, then very often you're paying way too much, or the insurance company is giving you a fake bill.
They then negotiate it down and they pay it.
They'll tell you that it costs them a thousand bucks for a dose.
And then they're not actually going to pay a thousand bucks.
They go and they negotiate it with the provider.
And then they are reporting that they're getting a certain level of discount.
So for example, one person gets his health insurance through a Medicare plan that doesn't cover the weight loss drug Zepp bound.
He said, quote, it was $1,050 at Costco when I started and the vials weren't available.
As soon as it was offered at $550 in the vial, I switched.
And then he used the savings to help his daughter-in-law pay for her prescription for the drug.
Again, let the markets work, the price goes down.
Don't let the markets work, the price goes up.
This also applies to things like H-1B visas.
I know this is very controversial stuff now because we're supposed to believe that illegal immigration and H-1B visas are perfectly coincident.
It's the same policy question.
It is absolutely not the same policy question.
For the 1,000th time, there are fixes we can make to the H-1B system.
If you want the educational level to be higher for people coming in, fine.
If you want to make people pay a fee, depending on the company that's applying, open, open question.
But to pretend that raising the cost to bring in additional labor doesn't impact the price on the other end is obviously untrue.
And so one of the factors in healthcare costs, particularly in rural areas, is that many of the healthcare providers in rural areas of the United States, places where many Americans who have graduated medical school don't want to move, are being filled by people who are actually on H-1B visas.
According to the Washington Post, after President Trump signed an executive order restricting H-1Bs in September, soaring costs are roiling rural healthcare facilities that have long struggled to find staff.
The fee increase for visa applicants, coupled with broader crackdowns on legal pathways for foreign-born workers, threatens a growing industry and jeopardizes patients who need timely care, according to some labor experts and immigration lawyers.
Again, these are open questions, but pretending that economics are not a matter of trade-offs.
That is what economics literally are.
unidentified
They are a matter of trade-offs.
ben shapiro ▲ ● ▼
Now, I know that it's become unpopular to talk policy.
I get it.
I know that when we talk policy, some people's eyes glaze over because it's more fun to talk about the Rockham Stockham robots of politics.
But the reality is that once you are in power governing, things better get better and more solid.
That is going to be the question for Republicans in 2028.
It is much easier to campaign when you're out of power than it is to campaign when you are in power.
That is just the reality of the situation.
And so if the Republicans wish to be victorious in 2026 and 2028, they're going to need to deliver.
They've already delivered on many fronts.
They're going to need to deliver in even broader fashion on economic affordability, which means really economic robustness, and a national security strategy that strengthens our allies at the expense of our enemies.
Alrighty, coming up, we will talk about Jasmine Crockett, the crazed Democrat from Texas, now wants to run for the Senate.
We'll see how it goes for her, Cotton.
It's a bold strategy.
Remember, in order to watch, you have to be a member.
If you're not a member, become a member, use Coach Shapiro.
Check out for two months free on all annual plans.
▲
Export Selection