 Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to this World Economic Forum session on what to expect from a possible Republican administration. I'm Robin Iblit, just to refer to Shadam House, senior advisor now with Hacklet. This is, when they put you in the salon room, you know it's serious. So thank you very much for being part of this session here, which has been shared publicly. So this is very much on the record. And what a topic. They had to pick the words fairly carefully in the title in the first place. And I was just talking to the panelists, this great panel a second ago, just saying, we're going to have to, in the very limited time we've got, just make some big assumptions here. Just so you know, we're going to assume obviously a Republican as one, because that's in the title. And I think we've agreed amongst ourselves that we think we know who's probably likely to win the nomination if that takes place. So I'll let folks work on that assumption, but maybe add in some, on the other hand, if, not least as I'll mention a minute, we've got different interests here on the panel as to who maybe should win. So what I'm going to let me do first is just introduce who we've got. So you've got a feel of the spread, and we're going to try and cover as much as we can at the time. I'm going to make sure we've got 10 minutes towards the end for you to ask questions. So anything we've not been able to cover, colleagues here on the panel, hopefully you'll have a chance either to do it in the answer to a question or shoehorn it in there, however you can. A wonderful panel, starting to my left, and I may actually, I've kind of pretty much done it the way it is here, former Senator Rob Portman, now Chair of the Portman Center for Policy Solutions, two-term US Senator through to 2023, six terms in the House of Representatives, served in the George W. Bush and G. H. W. Bush administrations. And he's also, I think, importantly to mention in terms of this conversation, was one of the founders, or the founder of the Ukraine, Senator Caucus. So welcome, Senator Portman. Great to have you here. Rob from now on. Dr. Ken Roberts, who is the President of the Heritage Foundation, since October 2021, it's almost like you've come in getting ready for this push through to the 24 election. He, prior to this, he was the CEO of the Texas Public Policy Foundation. Heritage have published since 1979, certainly came out in 81, this mandate for leadership. And I think it's out already. I was skimming it, so it is. That's the final version. There is a mandate for leadership, and they have quite a track record of what Republican administrations take on when it's there. So I suggest you take a look at it. If you can, it's on their website. Professor Walter Russell Mead, a distinguished fellow on strategy and statesmanship at the Hudson Institute. I'm going to call it a conservative think tank. You can take me on, Walter, if you want later on that one. Professor Bard College, which doesn't strike me as very conservative, but spent 12 years at the Council on Foreign Relations as a senior fellow there. I'm just going to say he's a renowned author and regular columnist as well. And wonderful colleague, and looking forward to his viewpoints on this, as I am everyone's. Dr. Alison Schrager, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, an economist, which means she has to cover, as we were discussing a minute ago, a lot of things under that title. A columnist at Bloomberg, specialized in public finance, tax policy, labor markets, all things I think we will get into in this session. And Jerry Baker, editor at large now for the Wall Street Journal, was the editor-in-chief. He used to write for The Times, writes a regular weekly column, free expression for the Wall Street Journal. And I think it's a weekly show on Fox Business. Podcast, no, it's a podcast now, it's just a podcast. Okay, well, it's a show still if it's a podcast. But Jerry, as we were just asking earlier, he covers anything. So Jerry, wonderful to have you there. He is an American citizen, but I said I'm going to treat him as the ordinary person who will at least bring that perspective of, like me I suppose, interested in many people in this room as to what's going to happen. So having that got out of the way very quickly, I want to just ask, I think a very fundamental question. Even if you take the a priori's we've put in place here that it's likely to be, if it's a Republican administration, a second Trump term in the White House, there's still a question of who controls the Senate and the House. That would be a pretty important thing as we know from any administration in the United States. So Rob, I'm going to turn to you, I think quite logically, to just give us your sense, all colleagues, all of you, who have to be really punchy with our answers. And I'll start doing that if anyone goes on for too long. But what's your take looking ahead and assuming it is a Republican administration that's in there? That probably tells you something about maybe what we've had in the Senate in the House, but over to you, Rob. Well, thanks, Robin. I appreciate it. I'm coming from a congressional bias here having served for 24 years in the House and Senate, but I do think it's important for a few reasons. One, it represents the voice of the people to a large extent. That is something that needs to be considered. But also with regard to policy, and I would look at immigration policy as an example, it's important to change laws. So when President Trump came in, he, through executive order, made a number of changes which helped secure the southern border of the United States. Those changes were immediately changed again when the new administration came in because it was not a matter of law, it was a matter of executive action. And it shows the importance of having legal changes, things like asylum policy, parole, even in terms of some of the funding decisions, there are a lot of other examples of that. But an important one, of course, would be if the President wants to get at the issues of debt and deficit and taxes, those would have to be legislated. So it's important. What's going to happen? I don't have the crystal ball. And so it's like so much of what we're going to talk about today. It's unpredictable. But I think if a Republican wins, more than likely at least one house will become Republican. I think it's likely the Senate would become Republican. It's very close right now. It's two votes, and there are probably two or three states that are now leaning Republican that would make the difference. The House, I think it's really up in the air. About 18 House members, I think on the Republican side, who are in districts that killed Biden won. So it's possible you could have a split where one's Republican, one's Democrat, even if the Senate is 51 Republican, of course, it takes 60 votes to do almost anything, including the immigration policies we just talked about. So it matters, and that's something to be watched. But I think if President Trump were to win, or if Nikki Haley were to win, any Republican likely the Senate would switch. Not so sure on the House. That's interesting, yeah. That it would flip back from that situation to the one we have now to almost the opposite. Do you think it's more important for administration to have the Senate of the House? Senate, of course, I'm a senator. No, the other issue that I was going to touch on earlier in terms of the importance, the third one is people. Having served in two White Houses and from the inside viewed how important the people of the President surrounds herself with is incredibly important, right? And so you have to go through a confirmation process for about 2,000 of those, and it's possible to pick acting people. But again, that has some negative consequences to it, they can only serve for a limited period of time and don't have the stature. So, yeah, having the Senate is very important because that's the personnel office. The Senate is the only one that can confirm as people. I mean, more important. Using our assumptions as we are, it is possible to, now you Kevin, that even a Trump administration may not have won the popular vote. I'll say it is like whoever wins, people are going to be contesting and feeling angry, so therefore that 60 vote margin becomes quite an important element for these questions. Let me ask you a quick question, because I was going to bring to this. You said personnel, this is just a snappy, what's the gossip? On the domestic side, if a Trump administration comes in this time, it's because they've been preparing for it. Now, you've been helping them prepare the Republican Party to prepare for this in a way that it was not prepared in 2017. So could you tell me what kinds of people, and if you've got some names, put them out there. Do you think might be the kinds of people that a Trump administration, we're using that assumption, would pull in on the big domestic agenda elements from chief of staff, Treasury, maybe national security, I don't know, maybe I should do that for Walter, I'm coming to admit on that. But on the domestic side, are there people all lining up? Is there a community out there thinking, right, this is the opportunity, we want to get it right? What kind of people do you think would be stepping forward? There are, I will disappoint you, Robin, and not mention names. That's ultimately up to the president-elect and his or her staff, right? So I won't be presumptuous, but I will say the kind of person. The kind of person, and I'll be candid here, because I think I've been invited here to be candid, the kind of person who will come into the next conservative administration is going to be governed by one principle. And that is destroying the grasp that political elites and unelected technocrats have over the average person. And if I may, I will be candid and say that the agenda that every single member of the administration needs to have is to compile a list of everything that's ever been proposed at the World Economic Forum and object all of them wholesale. Anyone not prepared to do that and take away this power of the unelected bureaucrats and give it back to the American people is unprepared to be part of the next conservative administration. Okay, that's very clear. And as you said, I think one of your tweets on the lead up to here was also that you're here to usher the devoisy into early retirement. So I'm heading that way already, so I'm probably all right on that front. But thank you, and we appreciate your candor and being candid. Otherwise, this panel is not going to make sense. So thank you very much for that. And goodbye. Similar kind of thing, we might all be ushered on this panel, we might be ushered out. Walter, just something on the foreign policy side again, about the types of people, you heard what Kevin said about the domestic agenda, really wholesale change. We'll get it right this time, if you're not going to be able to remake the issue. You think that attitude would prevail as well on the foreign policy side? And there are names that are out there already that's potentially playing a role in this? Well, I'm also going to abstain from naming names, but I do think that you will see a determination to sort of follow through on things that were begun the last time. My guess is that the discussion on NATO will be very central and that the 2% will be key and that Trump will focus hard on that right from the beginning. He does not, he's not interested in this sort of legal bureaucratic administrative forms of diplomacy, which are kind of at the heart of the European Union method of doing business. And he's not interested in a sense in the EU, the ideas. Each decision that we've made becomes a framework within which we move. I think Trump has no problems with just starting from the beginning. He tends to see negotiations as principle to principle rather than bureaucracy to bureaucracy. So in that sense, think of Lorenzo of Florence and Lorenzo Medici negotiating with the Duke of Milan, the Sforza. It's much more in that way and he has a very personal bargaining style. He's going to have people around him who are comfortable in advancing that approach. I think of my European colleagues here thinking about who on the European side is going to be able to fit that Lorenzo Medici kind of profile. And in any case, I'm not going to make any comments about people at the moment, but that's going to be quite an interesting challenge. And when you think of what the mix of European leaders, either institutions or governments are and all leaders around, we're thinking very carefully, we'll need a different style. Thank you very much. Alison, let me come to you. Maybe we could get a little bit into the substance here now as I'm coming to you and I'm keeping an eye on time. What do you think on the domestic economic agenda would be top of the entree for a Republican administration? And we're assuming it's a Trump administration, but fold it if you want into something a bit bigger as well. Well, I mean, if it's Nikki Haley, I think we have a lot more predictability. She's been pretty clear and also I think consistent with Republicans in the past, it would be various of Reagan, maybe George W. Bush era. So I think we kind of know what that would mean. I think with Trump, there's definitely a lot more unpredictability. But based on the last administration, I guess we have some in sight. A lot of it when it comes to economics, execution is very important. So who he surrounds himself with is going to be super important because certainly when it comes to things like tax policy, the devil's in the details. You're not going to give any names either of the kinds of people who are advising the, who's advising the campaign at least. If it's no one here, again, it'll be a little bit more unpredictable. But I think we can assume, on the one hand, I've been thinking about this. He is definitely not a big trade guy compared to traditional Republicans. On the other hand, I mean, we got to think about where we are right now. I mean, in a lot of ways things like the IRA and a lot of the industrial policy from the Biden administration has not been particularly trade friendly. A lot of it would call protectionism by another name. So I don't know if he would reverse that or just not do more of that. So from that perspective, any way he might talk a good game about trade, it might be more trade friendly than what we have now, and that's something. So I mean, I guess the other thing I see him going off very quickly is immigration. Because I mean, this is what made his first campaign and this has been a big problem for the Biden administration. As Rob pointed out, I mean, it'll probably be through executive order. I mean, in theory, I mean, I'm someone who personally more than anyone who would be in the Trump administration and pro-immigration. But I also agree what's happening on the border right now is a lot of chaos and is probably holding up good immigration reform. So I suppose maybe if he can bring more order to the border, maybe in the future, something good will happen. And then I mean, my other concern is some of the stuff I worry could be inflationary, particularly bullying the Fed to cut rates before it's time. Particularly if we have more supply shocks or as I said, if there is a pullback on trade or less immigration, we could end up with inflation coming back. What control does the President have over the Fed appointments? All of that kind of stuff, I don't know. Maybe many people in the room here don't know. I'm sure some do because- Well, it's supposed to be independent. But he can choose to appoint or reappoint Powell. I think we already saw one issue, I mean, people say that one of the reasons the Fed was so slow to act on inflation under the Biden administration was that Powell was waiting to get reappointed. So I mean, I don't know- Well, it just gets in there now and again, okay. So I mean, anyway, it's supposed to be independent. There is interaction with politics. And Trump on the last administration very much wanted low rates. And we might be in a regime that has higher rates. So I mean, in the end that could end up being inflationary, but we'll see. Jeremy, maybe we could stay a little bit on the economic side because you can range on both sides of the ledger. But US debt to GDP, I mean, the last figure I looked at was 125%, something like that. It's a pretty big number. It's one of the issues Republicans keep pointing out, saying we want to cut back the spending, we want to cut, cut, cut. But this is a President who, I don't know, doesn't seem to be very orthodox about these things. He kind of wants to have his cake and eat it. So what's your sense as well on that side? Is that going to be a constraint? And what a new Republican administration may or may not be able to do? I mean, I mean, obviously under Trump, the deficit increased dramatically too. It was largely tax cuts, obviously under Trump and then spending under Biden. But if you don't mind, given that we have limited time, Robin, I want to address something slightly different, well, very different. And I'm struck that we've been here for 20 minutes talking about the next Trump administration, especially in a room like this and with everybody's minds, I'm sure. And nobody's yet mentioned the D word, dictator, right? This is what is on everybody's mind right now, that we're about to enter an American dictatorship. I was amused to listen to Walters' very erudite account of Lorenzo Medici. I think that there's an Italian of more recent vintage who many people think might be sort of Donald Trump's role model, Il Ducce. And I wanted to take that on because I think it is a legitimate question. It's a real question. We saw what Trump did after the 2020 election and the way in which he did essentially try to subvert the Constitution there. And I think it's a genuine question of whether or not this is going to characterize the second Trump administration, whether America really is going to move in a significant way departing from Republican democracy. I tend to be a little bit skeptical and maybe I'm complacent and maybe it's because I'm a relatively new American. I feel optimistic about the country and this is a country of laws and not men, famously. I'm a little bit skeptical, but I will say this. Look, Trump does... We were going to talk about retribution, too. Trump talks a lot about retribution. Trump, if there is absolutely no question, I think, everybody here would have to acknowledge that Trump's instincts are certainly not what one might call, in line with traditional constraints of Republican democracy. He just put out a statement today, but some of you may have seen it. He's actually... You know, he's facing these various legal cases and part of one of his defences is going to be... This is a case that's going to be heard by the Supreme Court, is whether or not a president has immunity for any action, any action that he takes in office, complete legal immunity for any action. Now, just to give you more of a flavour of the man, he put out a statement today saying, A president of the United States must have full immunity without which it will be impossible for him or her to properly function. Any mistake, even if well-intended, would be met with almost certain indictment by the opposing party at term end. Even events that, quote-unquote, crossed the line must fall under total immunity. So, again, we know enough about Trump now and he's spelling it out for us. Might just very briefly... Again, I think these concerns are reasonable, fair, given what we've seen of Trump. However, again, I do ask you all to remember that America is a constitutional democracy. It is subject to the rule of law. And I talk to people like this. Oh, well, he's appointed all these judges last time. He's appointed, you know, he's got a Supreme Court majority, which is in his favour. Well, actually, that's way too simplistic. In fact, that Supreme Court declined to hear any cases that were brought in the wake of the 2020 election. And I don't think you should assume at all that this Supreme Court, however much of a conservative majority it has on it, will rubber-stamp anything that Trump tries to do. So, again, while I think it's absolutely reasonable to be concerned about Trump's character, about his personality, about this kind of thing, about the way he sees the rather expansive idea he has about the role of the executive and his particular role of the presidency, and we should be concerned about that and Americans should be concerned and the rest of the world should be watching it, I wouldn't get carried away with this idea that it's either, you know, sort of Germany 1933 or Italy 1923 that were in America 2024. No, and good thing you raised it, Jerry, because I said something we talked about before that we'd bring up, and let's me come back. Kevin, let me come to you, because I said, I wanted, it's quite good the way that Jerry said it up. What did the President, what do you think? President Trump, he's the President from being the former President, but if there were a new President Trump, what does he mean by retribution? What is the issue calling out very specifically of former Attorney General and former Chairman of the Joint of Chiefs of Staff and so on? I mean, it sounds very personal. And you said to yourself a minute ago, anyone who's kind of not with the program is not gonna be in an administration. You know, one thing that Davos, you might say, and the people can't stand up for is liberal democracy. So if the idea that's gonna be swept under the table is part of the idea, hopefully that's not what he means. What do you mean, what do you think he means by retribution? Well, it's laughable that you would, or anyone would describe Davos as protecting liberal democracy. It's equally up for it. It's equally laughable to use the word dictatorship at Davos and aim that at President Trump. In fact, I think that's absurd. But I'm gonna step aside from that constructive criticism and instead answer your question. And I'm gonna be substantive here. President Trump, if he's the next President, for that matter, I think whoever the next conservative President is going to take on the power of the elites, which I mentioned earlier. But the thing that I wanna drive home here, the very reason that I'm here at Davos is to explain to many people in this room and who are watching. With all due respect, nothing personal. But that's your part of the problem. Political elites tell the average people on three or four or five issues that the reality is X when in fact reality is Y. Take immigration. Elites tell us that open borders and even illegal immigration are okay. The average person tells us in the United States that both rob them of the American way of life. They're right. President Trump will take that on on behalf of the average American. Elites also tell us that public safety isn't a problem in big American cities. Just traveled to New York or Washington or Dallas, Texas. The average person will tell you that the lack of public safety damages not just the American way of life, but their life. President Trump will take that on. Thirdly, I guess the favorite at the World Economic Forum is climate change. Elites tell us that we have this existential crisis with so-called climate change. So much so that climate alarmism is probably the greatest cause for mental health crisis in the world. The solutions the average person know based on climate change are far worse and more harmful and cost more human lives, especially in Europe during the time that you need heating, then do the problem and the problems themselves. Fourth, two more here, Robin. The fourth, China. The number one adversary, not just to the United States, but to free people on planet Earth. Not only do we at Davos not say that, we give the Chinese Communist Party a platform. Count on President Trump ending that nonsense. And fifth, as we sit here, another supranational organization, the World Health Organization, is discussing foisting gender ideology upon the global self. These are practices that are under review, if not being rejected by countries in Northern Europe. The new president, especially if it's President Trump, will, as you like to say, trust the science. He will understand the basic biological reality of manhood and womanhood. And do you know why? Not because of retribution, not because he's a dictator, but because he has the power of the American people behind him. And it's connected to Senator Portman's excellent point that in addition to needing a vigorous executive, we look forward to having the popular will inform both the House and Senate in 2025 to pass laws on all of those issues and many others, ultimately, Robin. I think President Trump, if in fact he wins a second term, is going to be inspired by the wise words of Javier Millay, who said that he was in power not to guide sheep, but to awaken lions. That's what the average American and the average free person on planet Earth wants out of leaders. Very clear points, and I'll give a chance for everyone to come back, including on the Q&A and any particular issues they want to challenge. The one thing I will challenge, we can come back to it later on, Kevin, is what will be the mandate of the American people? If A, the mandate tends to be a popular, not a plurality, the vote. If he wins the election, the mandate's clear. Kevin keeps saying if he wins the election. Can I ask Kevin, is there any conceivable way in which if he loses the election, he will accept that he's lost the election, or whether you would accept that? What was the last part? Do you accept, would you accept if he loses the election, that he's lost the election, or would it be like last time? If we're sure that there's election integrity, but I'm not sure that we can be. Well, yeah, I think you've answered my question. We're not going to get to the end of that one, so park that one for the moment. I want to first bring in Rob, then I'll come to you, Walter, and then we'll go on. Rob, I was going to go around with you to the issue of trade and so on. Yeah. I want you to say something about that, but first to pick up again one of the points that Jerry mentioned, and maybe it ties into I think someone Kevin's points. States, I mean, there is a palpable concern, and I'm speaking now as a non-American, but people are very interested in the future of America. I've heard the term kind of civil war, the fact that there was an assault on Capitol Hill, January 6th, 2021, there's a lot of weapons. States may have a different view of the outcome of the election, either way, whichever way it goes. Getting to the point that Jerry mentioned earlier about what makes up America, where the power lies between the Congress and States, do you think States may end up playing a very important role in a Trump administration if they are Democratic-controlled States and for whatever reason decide that a radical agenda that, as Kevin said, is very convinced of its correctness, but maybe representing 50% of Americans, you know, are you worried that we're heading to something really existential because I think that's certainly a concern I hear a lot. Let me start with trade and build on what Allison said, because I think she's right, but let me give very specific examples. There might be some surprise globally about what the Trump trade agenda is, because you recall he actually completed the US-Mexico, the USMCA agreement, which was the new NAFTA agreement, and that template actually was accepted not just by the corporate elite, but also by trade unions because it helped protect American workers and helped provide some more of a level playing field between our two largest trading partners, Canada and Mexico. I'm a former US trade representative, I believe in trade, but I believe it needs to be level playing field, and for years the United States, particularly vis-a-vis China, has been naive about trade. You think about it, he not only did that, he got four-fifths of the way there on the UK agreement, and if there are any of our UK brethren here, they will tell you that they're ready to go, and so are a lot of other countries, and every country represented in this room has done more in terms of trade agreements than the last four years in the United States have. In this administration, we've decided to pull back not a single trade agreement, even with countries that begged us for it who would really help on a geopolitical basis, like Ecuador, let's say, or Taiwan, for that matter. So I think it's interesting because people just believe instinctively he'll be more protectionist. He may be in some regards, particularly with regard to tariffs, but in terms of establishing trade agreements that are free trade agreements that then help not just trade more trade, but reform economies, he actually has a track record of wanting to do that, whereas the current administration does not, so that's interesting. Second, we haven't talked at all today about the fact that this will be one term, unless there's an attempt to change the constitution, which I don't think there would be. So that's very different for the American political scene, because you know in the first term, presidents are looking to what? Get reelected, particularly in the last three and four years, and that second term typically is when they take a few more chances, right? And so things like debt and deficit, things like the kind of actions you have to take on the border to really make a difference, things like trade. I mean, I think there might be a little different attitude, and that's not unhealthy in my view. Not that I'm four, only having one four year term for presidents, but maybe one six year term, what makes sense because it seems like the reelection is so important in that first term. That's something to think about. And then you'll find a question. I mean, look, I'm an optimist. I think our constitutional protections worked ultimately on January 6th. I thought January 6th was horrific. I thought it was a bad day for American democracy, but what happened? The Senate came back in a session that very night, certified the votes. You know, our founders had it right, and we do have a lot of, rule of law means something in our country, and we do have a lot of constraints, and then including on the states, in terms of how the states might respond to federal actions that they don't agree with. So I'm less concerned about that. Okay, so you think that the balance would hold? Walter, I know we wanted coming for a while, so just come in on whatever point you put your hand up for before, and then I'll keep the flow going. All right, well, I just wanted to sharpen the trade discussion a bit, and maybe sort of highlight where there might well be a US-European divide under a Trump administration. And we haven't used, we hadn't talked about the D word, we also haven't talked about the G word, much green, that I think a Trump administration would probably withdraw from the Paris Accords. I suspect that the IRA, a Trump administration, would carve the green stuff out of the IRA and replace that with other forms of support for other American industries. And I think that's actually a quite real possibility that maybe some have discounted. I could also see a real fight. The European Union has sort of said, well, what is our power? We don't have much in the way of an army, we don't have, there are a lot of things we don't have, what we do have is a consumer market. And so we will use the power of our consumer market to sort of externalize European values, European approaches, green tariffs, however we call them, would be a piece of that. I would think a Trump administration might well say that's grounds for a trade war and welcome it and fight it probably much harder than Europeans might expect and might be quite willing for that to go on. And it would become then an objective of the Trump administration to prevent the EU from in line with some of the things you were saying, to prevent the EU from exporting its vision of a rule of law to American companies. No, very important point to raise. And Allison, let me come to you at the minute because there's been reasonably good coordination between the United States, European countries, the EU, Japan, South Korea, others on issues like export controls, investment controls. Where do you think a Trump administration would go in its thinking with this day? The way they kicked it off and the Biden administration followed along with taking that much tougher line on China. But could this then be applied potentially to other parts of the world? The EU is running a big surplus right now with the US which is gonna be noted very much under a Trump administration. I mean, it's hard to know. I mean, there's a lot of unpredictability there. I mean, there were a lot of reasons he was particularly concerned about China. If nothing else, it looms very large in the public eye. It would become such a big trading partner. It'd become associated with sort of eliminating a lot of jobs, stealing a lot of IP. You know, no other country is really looming as large in Americans' minds as having unfair trade. So I wouldn't expect that. But again, it really could come down to who he surrounds himself with or if he feels like that changes. I think Rob's right that in some ways he does like to make deals. We do know that about him. So he could be more inclined to make more trade deals. So that would be the hope. Jerry, on foreign policy, Ukraine. I mean, we've got minutes. I'm gonna turn to the audience. So just have your questions ready. Let's just get a few ideas from you on the table. On Ukraine, what's your call? I think support for what the US financial assistance and military assistance to Ukraine is ebbing rapidly in the United States. Heavily, obviously, among conservatives and on the right. But you're seeing that there's a big continuing question mark over whether this extra allocation gets through the Congress. So I think that is, I'm sorry, again, does that apply to military and financial assistance? Certainly to military. I think, again, there is a combination of rising pessimism, if you like, about where the Ukrainian effort is actually going and focus on domestic issues. And I mean, everybody's talked about this. I mean, the immigration, the situation on immigration in the United States is absolutely appalled. It's just a scandal. And it is, and I think finally, even some Democrats are starting to wake up to this. And I think the border is out of control. And I think there is gonna be a strong demand to do something about it. But just very briefly, Robin, I'll take it and broaden the question out from Ukraine about NATO. Because the other thing that I keep getting everybody I talk to here thinks if Trump wins, it's basically the end of NATO because the US, Trump, they've heard what he said about NATO. They know that he has a bit of an affinity for Vladimir Putin and Russia. And they also see the broad tides of American strategic attention heading to Asia, Pacific, anyway, NATO's finished. I wouldn't be so sure. I mean, of course I understand the thinking behind that. And people listen to what Trump says and think that's the end of NATO. But you know, and they saw what he did and they remember the famous incident that John Bolton likes to tell of when he was at NATO summit and Trump nearly pulled America out of NATO in a fit of peak in the middle of a NATO summit. I wouldn't be quite so sure. It's very, it's very interesting because Trump, if you listen to Trump now when he talks about NATO, in fact, he gave a town hall in Iowa a couple of weeks ago, he actually now claims NATO as a victory for him. It's a success, and by the way, I don't think he's necessarily wrong about that. He says, you know, every American president, you know, since Eisenhower has wanted the US, asked the Europeans to do more, to contribute more in their own defense, it's outrageous that the United States carries as the burden sharing issue is intolerable for the United States. And I'm the first president who's actually got them to do it. I've actually woken them up. They've actually done it. That's a great, so he talks about having, having succeeded in actually revitalizing NATO by getting, now again, we can all argue about what exactly how much the Europeans really are doing in terms of increasing their contributions to NATO. But so I just, again, given the way, one final point, Robin, too, which is that there's an unpredictability about Trump and everything we say that there's an uncertainty about politics and policy generally. Kevin's Heritage Foundation have been working very, very energetically on helping, you know, to produce a kind of a blueprint for a second Trump administration. And I think it will be much more coherent than it was than the first Trump administration in terms of personnel, in terms of policy. You know, frankly, Trump sort of, you know, picked a lot of people who he'd just seen on Fox News and quite liked to do serious jobs in his administration. I think that won't happen this time. But no, I'm not, that's not a joke. I mean, that's literally how some of those senior positions were filled. There's going to be a much more serious coherent approach this time. But I would not necessarily, just to say, I think it's, I think you can rest assured, maybe that we're not facing a dictatorship after November. I wouldn't necessarily think that NATO is dead either. The other thing, of course, he's got to do the largest source of LNG right now in Europe is from America, and that was his big other complaint. So he's kind of one on two things. Let me give you one last chance to come back on this, Kevin, and then I'm going to take it out for the questions. What do you take on the foreign policy agenda on Ukraine? What's your view of this? And China, which you mentioned it in your list. But if you have it in the list, let me just say, one thing that WEF stands up for very strongly is Ukraine and its right to exist and defend itself. So if that's something you think also needs to be swept away, let us know, yeah? But on China as well, what would be done differently, if you see what I'm saying? Ukraine and China. Let me just correct the slightest assertion you made there. We want Ukraine to win. We want to see Ukraine win with a lot more help from European allies. I think the United States has a role. Heritage has been clear about this for two years now. There is a world in which we support military aid for Ukraine. I think the entire American right would, or almost all of them, provided it's 100% focused on military aid. There is real transparency in how the funds are used. And it's just a fact. This is not conveyed pejoratively. If you look at our index of economic freedom at Heritage, Ukraine's in the bottom 10 on government transparency. We don't celebrate that. We wish that were different. But the transparency concern, which the political right, his voice from the beginning, is real. Thirdly, it actually needs to have a strategic end game. And the President of the United States, Joe Biden, has done a God awful job in articulating what that is, particularly from the standpoint of what's in the best interest of Americans. Those two issues are very much linked, but not in the way the conversation goes here at the World Economic Forum. That is to say that from the perspective of the United States, because our first obligation in foreign policy is to look at it through the lens of what's best for the American citizen, the much bigger threat is the Chinese Communist Party. And not just because of their imminent threats or their threats for imminent action against Taiwan, especially after the outcome of Saturday's election, but because the Chinese are a far greater economic power and I would even argue cultural power in the world, not just in the United States. Therefore, we would argue to sum up here, Robin, for the next conservative president to be a prioritizer. It's not an either or question. Too much of the media commentary puts that as a false choice, it's not. It's a matter of realizing this fact. This year, as no doubt the great fiscal Senator Rob Portman would know, the United States is going to pay three quarters of a trillion dollars in interest alone. I'm telling you from the standpoint of the American political center right, that has to change before European countries, especially in Germany and France, to wag their finger about what we're supposed to do on their behalf. Great, thank you very much, very clear again. Right, let's get some questions in. I'm going to take a little group. I was probably feeling people are going to be shy because I'm not seeing hands shoot up. Any hands shooting up here? Anyone got a question? I'm going to start. If I know somebody, I'm going to call on you, but I'm not sure what I know here. Right, no, okay, in that case, we'll keep going around on our own track. But if you have any questions, we'll think of one in a minute. Please. Can I say something? Sorry? I shall have a question. Oh, good, thanks. A question perhaps for Mr. Roberts. So day one of the Trump presidency, what does he do? What are the first two or three actions that he does? Thanks for the question. As soon as what I hope is a very brief, inaugural address concludes, and brief not because what would be in it would be unwise, quite the opposite, but because our country is on fire, there needs to be pushing through Schedule F civil service reform so that the president can fire a good number of the unelected bureaucrats in the administrative state. The administrative state's the greatest threat to democracy in the United States, and we need to end it. The second thing is, he needs to really confront all of the policies surrounding so-called climate change. We've had great discussion here by Walter and Allison, who are excellent on that point, about focusing on fiscal policies that have nothing to do with wrong-headed and really harmful subsidies of wind and solar. We love wind and solar energy at Heritage. We just want them to stand on their own in the free market. And because that affects human prosperity, more than a billion people in the world have been lifted out of poverty in the last 35 years because of fossil fuels. The president is going to take that on, and the third thing that he's going to do, I think, and this would be a bit of a departure from his last administration, when he spent too much money, is really be focused on fiscal restraint, because we simply can't afford it. It's something that transcends the political left and the political right. And I can certainly tell you from the standpoint of Heritage, and all of us at Project 2025 will be zealously supportive of all three of those actions. Allison, let me bring you in here. Where do you think those cuts would come from? I mean, if we're going to... Well, that's what I wanted to say is, I mean, I'm concerned that he wouldn't be very fiscally responsible. I mean, first of all, he's already been very clear that he's not going to touch entitlements, which is honestly the big driver of our debt. He's not going to cut entitlements. Yeah, which is the big driver of our debt going forward. And, you know, I expect he would renew the tax cuts that he put in in 2017. I actually like a lot of aspects of them, so I'm not saying that's bad, but I'm saying I wish he had done them in a more deficit-neutral way, and I don't expect him to do that. So I think we can expect... He doesn't seem like someone who has a problem with debt. Although, you know, maybe... So I do anticipate sort of bigger debts anyway. I mean, he may be my cut some subsidies in propping up some industries. Stop paying the interest rates on the debt. That would be interesting. That would be a particular option. Walter, you've quite a bit on the foreign policy side as well. China, Ukraine, what are your thoughts on that? I'm going to come to Rob as well on these bigger topics. I think Trump will... President Trump is likely to shock people by the number of deals he's willing to entertain. Unlike, again, a lot of classic diplomacy, Trump is ready to... You know, we saw what he did with North Korea, or at least began with North Korea. In fact, one place where you'll find a pocket of strong support for Trump today is on the left in South Korea, where they really thought his innovative approach to North Korea was helpful. So I could well see a Trump administration sending an envoy to Iran and saying, okay, what's the deal? Certainly, I wouldn't be surprised to see it happen with Russia, with China, and everything would be on the table, at least figuratively. Trump is someone... I think if you read The Art of the Deal, which was the first book published under the Trump brand, I think you'll actually find some ideas about negotiation and how you do it and how you pursue it that were in evidence very much in the first Trump term and might help some of us understand a little bit better just how this all works. But I would see that he would be ready to put everything on the table. It will be deeply alarming again to people in Europe because when we say everything, we might mean NATO. He might mean NATO. But putting it on the table doesn't mean you're ready to sacrifice or throw it away or kill it. It's a bargaining technique, not necessarily a statement of a bottom line. So, but I would say fasten your seatbelts. So, it's a bargaining technique potentially about other people's security without them involved in the bargain, obviously. Well, I think in the bargaining over NATO, for example, would be with Germany and other countries in Europe. So, in fact, it would be. Look, you want me to keep protecting you. You have a long list of things that you say that you want me to do. What's the list of things that you're prepared to do for me? That would be the question he would ask. Well, the bargaining happens with allies. First of the very least and potentially in the longer point. Again, I'm looking around, but I didn't see hands go up anymore. Okay, yeah, people are getting warmer, but you've only got like three minutes to get warmer in. Please, could you take the mics coming right to you just very quickly, say who you are? Quick question, thank you. For Mr. Baker, the U.S. is a nation of laws, but the Supreme Court doesn't have an enforcement arm. And the argument is that Congress impeaching the president is the only backstop. So, how do you see that actually playing out given Mr. Robert's response? Yeah, I mean, there are many concerns, right, which I didn't go into. There is the use of the presidential pardon, which can have enormous consequences in terms of the enforcement of criminal law, for criminal federal law. What, as you say, the Supreme Court doesn't have an enforcement mechanism. The accountability process for a president, certainly while in office obviously, is the impeachment mechanism. So, there will be, it will be trouble. There will be more of what we saw the first time around. Trump, remember, was impeached twice. There are Republicans who like to impeach Joe Biden right now. Bill Clinton was impeached. I mean, that's becoming a sort of a regular, if rather futile, act of supposed accountability, especially obviously when the Senate doesn't convict. So, there will be lots of this kind of storm and stress. I've absolutely no doubt. I think Trump will, and again, as he did in the first term, he will try to press certain policies which will be rejected by the courts. And that happened with a lot of his immigration proposals. It's also important to say, even as we express these concerns about the man, Joe Biden has also pursued the use of executive power in ways that have been overturned by the court. So, yeah, I expect a lot of stress to the system with Trump. I expect the kind of statements he makes today seems to imply that he should have absolute immunity for any act whatsoever. Famously, his lawyer was asked at the hearing last week whether that would extend to him ordering Seal Team Six to take out his political opponents. Not suggesting that will actually happen, but there will be lots of, there will be testing, dramatic testing of the ability of the United States constitution and legal system to bear stress. And the guardrails, as they talk about it, will be challenged. I just, again, and this may just be naive, I just suspect that for all of this stress and for all of the kind of storm and drung around it, the constitution is strong enough to ensure that a president actually is not able to act in autocratic ways, sorry. Exactly, cool point. Let me give you each a chance to say one more thing. First, Rob's gonna come in a bit on Ukraine and any of those other points that came up here. I would just say that interestingly enough, we talk about people telling the truth and at least not telling the truth. I think that under, well, I know that under President Trump and you can address it if you want, Kevin, the US trade balance went up significantly despite having imposed all the tariffs saying I'm gonna protect the jobs and so on. America's trade deficit got a lot worse. So, what I'm gonna ask each of you at the end, you've got to give literally a two, three word answer. What would be different about America in 2028 if there's been a Republican administration? Have a think about it. While Rob says something about Ukraine, then maybe while he's thinking about Ukraine, showing that he's done both worlds, he'll actually have an answer at the 2028 side as well. Or I can come back to you at the end if you need more time to think about it. I want to hear them, you know what I'm saying. Okay, Rob, I'll give you, you have the last shot then. No, just on Ukraine quickly. I mean, I'm a strong supporter of Ukraine, as you know, I think it's definitely in our national security interests as Americans for Vladimir Putin not to win. I think if he does win, I think he's on the border. I know he's on the border than the four additional NATO allies for which we have an article five commitment. And I think we would spend a lot more money, equipment, troops and so on. My concern about Ukraine, my criticism about the current administration's approach to Ukraine is that they're not giving Ukrainians what they really want and need. So, it's the attack on missiles, it's the long range missiles. It is the Abrams M1 tanks that happened to be in Ohio. It's also the F-16s that countries are ready to provide but need the licensing. Those are the things that are either moving very slowly or not moving at all. And there are other air defense systems that they really need and want. And so, I think there's another way to look at this which is that Donald Trump was the first president to provide lethal aid to Ukraine. You recall in the Obama administration, they provided blankets, they provided radios. The Ukrainians were desperate. And it was Trump who actually signed off on providing that lethal aid. So, you think about the Stinger missiles. So, I'm not giving up on that. Now, maybe I'm naive because you can hear what President Trump says about it today but there's another approach that Republicans I think should be taking which is that what's currently happening is not effective and I agree, there needs to be a plan. There needs to be a solution. And the solution is let's go all in and let's be sure that we protect the territorial integrity of this country because it affects our national security, what we would have to otherwise do. Thank you, right. Sorry to do this for you folks, I'm over time, I'm going to get killed. Yeah, they really wanted us to stop but you've got to do it. Biggest change about America by 1028? Revitalized self-governance for Americans and the rest of the world. Walter? It won't be Trump versus Biden in 2028. That's a big change. That's a good one. You should have come to your last. No one will admit it but they'll realize America is a lot more resilient than they realize. Walter stole my line but I was going to say Americans will be looking for a president who is not going to be in his 80s when he's present. Rob, now they go through very quickly. One more. No, I think it goes back to the rule of law in the Constitution. I think it'll be tested and it'll be proven to be resilient. Okay, thank you very much. Please thank the straight panel.