Samatha Power’s Exit Interview
38:58 Share

Church's fans keep it real, and we gotta reward that. Church's Real Rewards makes it real easy to save real coin, real fast, like in real time. Get a free two-piece chicken or three-piece tenders with your first purchase when you sign up.

This episode is brought to you by LifeLock. The holidays mean more travel, more shopping, more time online, and more personal info in places that could expose you to identity theft. That's why LifeLock monitors millions of data points every second. If your identity is stolen, their U.S.-based restoration specialist will fix it, guaranteed, or your money back. Get more holiday fun and less holiday worry with LifeLock. Save up to 40% in your first year. Visit LifeLock.com slash podcast. Terms apply.

Hi, I'm Ravi Agrawal, Foreign Policy's Editor-in-Chief. This is FP Live. Welcome. In a few weeks, the Biden administration will hand over the reins of power to President-elect Trump. U.S. foreign policy could change dramatically.

One of the arms of government, USAID, will play a key part in that change. USAID administers more than $60 billion of American taxpayer money globally and plays a key role in achieving the White House's international objectives.

Well, my guest today has been the administrator of USAID for the last three plus years and steps down in January. Her name is Samantha Power, and she's been on the show before. As you might know, Power also sits on the National Security Council. She's the first person in her role to do so.

And that comes up a fair bit in this conversation, as does Power's personal legacy. And that's because even before this role, she's been a media superstar as a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, as a former journalist, and also the author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning book, A Problem from Hell. So there's lots to talk about. This one's a bonus episode, just in time for the holidays. Let's dive in. Samantha Power, welcome back to FP Live. Great to be here.

So we're going to check in on a number of hotspots today, but let me start with this. In A Problem for Hell, the book I just mentioned, which made a strong moral case for using American power to prevent human rights crimes around the world, you wrote, and I quote, When innocent life is being taken on such a scale and the United States has the power to stop the killing at a reasonable risk, it has the duty to act.

You wrote that in 2002, I believe, and you're in a position of power now. So I have to ask, why haven't you done more to stop the ongoing atrocities in Gaza, much of which have been committed with weapons funded by U.S. taxpayers? Thank you. Well, having the privilege of being at USAID, an agency that is the lead government actually trying to reach Palestinians with assistance,

I actually feel really fortunate given the scale of suffering that I'm in a position to be negotiating things that I know seem small, maybe next to the scale of suffering going on, but that matter for people who are reached with the food distribution or something as, again, what seems as paltry as a tent, but one that at this point we only have 22% of shelter commodities actually having reached civilians, even as the temperature drops.

So that's my focus, Ravi. I, again, get to work with our responders. I get to work with the agencies who are in Gaza, putting their lives on the line. As you know, more aid workers have been killed in Gaza than any other place in the world. And I take my responsibility to advocate both within the administration for the policies that I think will best advance the cause of trying to see less civilian pain and

against the backdrop of this horrific war, but also the operational responsibilities I have to actually negotiate changes that can make a difference. It's really bad. It is, I think, in terms of the concentration of suffering, the attacks on civilians while the IDF is pursuing Hamas, which is still again waging attacks against Israeli civilians and has made no secret still of its desire to destroy Israel.

civilians are caught up in the conflict. Tens of thousands of kids have lost one or more parents. So you're right. It's not because I wrote a book. It's because it's also my job as USAID administrator, as we are the agency that has resources and political leverage to push for changes that will see less of that suffering. And my only hope now, Robbie, honestly, is that we are hopefully closing in on a ceasefire

now that Hamas can't count on the wider war that it had hoped for. But that is the only way we're going to see humanitarian assistance reaching people at scale, and the civilian casualties that are coming about so often in IDF strikes, including even in the safe zone. And I want to be clear, the reason why I even bring up your book is because, you know, in addition to your role, you're a superstar, you're a human rights superstar. And it's part of your profile, it's part of

what brings you attention and gives you, in a sense, more power than previous administrators in your role. So not for a second will I question your intent on this particular issue. I question outcomes. And let me ask you this. You should question outcomes. I mean, I think the...

You can't look at what has been achieved. You can't look at the number of trucks that are reaching people, for example, now in North Gaza, where we've barely been able to see a trickle of food reaching people since October. And while we see a little bit of an uptick elsewhere in the country, no, we're near commensurate with basic conditions. But what I'm saying is,

Again, I'd sooner be in this role, pushing within the US government, pushing the IDF and Israeli political authorities, than I would be writing another book about the subject. Let me push you a little bit on that and give us a bit of a sense. So you, again, you have all this access to power in the White House, and I'm sure, I imagine, you're pressuring them to apply more leverage on

on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. You've met with the Prime Minister. You've been to Gaza and to Israel. Tell us a little bit behind the scenes, when you push them to focus more, think more about the collateral damage of their actions, what happens and why can't they do more? Ravi, that's not what I'm going to do here today. I'm not going to talk about my meetings and that's not what I'm going to do here today.

I'm going to try one last approach on this particular thing, because I think a big part of why many of us bring up your work and your history as a journalist is because, again, it's relevant here. And one aspect of this, many of our listeners and viewers are

straddle the line between policy and writing about policy. And so they're very interested in this particular aspect of the conversation. But also going back to your book, you wrote back then, "My only regret is that I don't work at the State Department so I can quit to protest policy." And many people, many US officials have quit over US policy in the Middle East, over the civilians who've died in Gaza and Lebanon.

Did you consider quitting and talk to us a little bit more about the trade-off between being in power and trying to affect change and being outside of power? Well, I think I just spoke to that actually just in response to the previous question. I have the greatest respect not only for the people who live their values that way by going and seeking to agitate from outside or to try to make a statement by leaving because they care that much.

But also, USAID has been roiled with dissent and concern about American foreign policy and the engagements I've had with my staff, including with ideas that they bring forward about what we should be pushing for inside, what we should be pushing the Israelis for. Again, I welcome them. I invite them. It's an extremely important part of occupying my role the best way I know how to do.

But, you know, when it comes to that question, so I can at the same time respect people who have chosen to depart because they feel that that is what is warranted. But I look at also the portfolio that I have and the levers that I have, the levers, frankly, that I'm about to not have after noon on January 20th.

And I asked myself, would I sooner be in this situation exercising those levers? And remember, you know, the suffering in the world is arguably most concentrated in Gaza, Sudan, Ukraine,

But there is a lot to be done globally. And so having this opportunity, this privilege, which I know will be fleeting to use. I mean, if you're right that I have some extra leverage, then that's all the more reason to try to remain and exercise that leverage as best I can.

But I'm also looking at a full field. I'm looking now at what do we do with potentially a million people flooding back to Syria where there's unexploded ordnance. And just after finally escaping this monster in Assad, there's all kinds of risks, including

minds, but more than that, of course, of the authorities and the turn that they're going to take. I'm looking at Sudan and, you know, working 24-7 to try to get convoys to reach people in Zamzam Camp, which is now coming under sustained attack, to get some support to women who've been raped in the mass sexual violence that the rapid support forces have carried out, akin to the genocide that I covered back when I was a journalist.

And then in the affirmative agenda, you know, we are competing with the PRC. They have a very different development model. They're thrilled when they see democratic backsliding. We are trying to reverse those long-term trends of democratic backsliding, but also bring economic sucker to communities that are still not only reeling from the pandemic, but

but from the debt distress that the large loans that their governments have taken out from the PRC. So I could go on and on about our climate program, about our food security program, about what we do on malaria TB. But my point is, you know, again, in asking the question you ask, which is totally legitimate, I am trying to take into account, again, the cost benefit of how much good am I doing or can I do where I am?

versus going to the outside. And of course, there are trade-offs. Let me jump to one of the other sort of arenas you mentioned, Sudan. And the civil war there, as you said, has killed many tens of thousands of people. There's a famine underway.

A bipartisan group of senators this week has called on the Biden administration to do more. I mean, I guess, first of all, would you call what's happening there a genocide? And second, just from USAID's perspective, what more can be done now to send in the aid that people there need? If I mean anything that we can think to do, just as on Gaza, we are we are doing with, again, the limited effects of

that we see on the ground, but we have reached many millions of people, even if not with enough commodities that they need. In terms of what the atrocities underway should be called, again, that lives at the State Department. There's a complicated analysis underway there, but we certainly see many

of the kinds I mentioned, one of the features of the genocide back in 20 years ago was that it involved mass sexual violence to try to destroy the African tribes in Darfur specifically. Those same militia are at large today and again the reports are

just as chilling and harrowing as they were back then with the complicating factor that you also have the Sudanese armed forces, you know, using air power in a manner that often does not discriminate between, you know, civilians and non-civilian. I should say they were active in the genocide back there as well, but now they're fighting each other.

with only civilians caught in the crossfire. I think as members of Congress have made clear, as President Biden has made clear publicly and privately, any country that has leverage over the players on the ground who are doing a heck of a better job getting access to arms than they are providing access for the populations in their territory to food and water and medicine,

Those spigots have to dry up for the calculus to change by the parties on the ground. And Tom Perriello, our envoy, who I'm sure you've talked to, has been really working with the UN and the African Union and members of the Arab League to try to bring people together around a shared set of objectives. But right now, both belligerents, both parties think that they can win.

And they appear willing to allow and to inflict all kinds of harm on civilians in pursuit of that maximalist goal. Whereas we know at the end, just as every war in Sudan

has ended at the negotiating table, but that is what's going to happen. It's just a question of how much harm in the meantime. Let's talk about Ukraine. You were instrumental in securing financing for Ukrainian farmers who were being targeted in Russian attacks. You visited the country several times. Talk to us about how American aid money is being deployed there and what impact is it having?

You know, Ravi, we've talked in the context of Gaza and Sudan about the frustration, you know, the impact which exists, but the gap between what we seek and what we see.

In Ukraine, the impact is breathtaking and much of that turns on it being a very different circumstance. Humanitarian access, development access is not an issue. We can reach the people we intend to reach and then get out of the way because it turns out, as we've seen on the battlefield as well, Ukrainian civilians are capable of taking precious taxpayer resources

and turning $1 into $6, which is what we see in the agricultural sector. For every dollar USAID has invested in returning Ukraine to becoming the breadbasket of the world, we've actually succeeded in turning that into about $6 of benefit, or they have succeeded in turning it into $6 of benefits such that, as you know, I think,

Ukraine is now exporting almost as much wheat and sunflower oil and corn as it was before the full-scale invasion, despite what Putin has done to the Black Sea ports and despite his occupation and takeover of so much rich farmland.

That's just in agriculture. Look at the journey they're on toward the European Union in terms of the anti-corruption, which again, still work to be done, the independent media, the governance questions, the vetting of judges.

All of those have to be in line if they are going to go all the way to Europe. And that journey has not been slowed down by these brutal attacks, including on energy infrastructure. In fact, that path and the work has been accelerated and deepened. And that's something those resources have allowed us to do, which also not incidentally allow us to represent with considerable confidence that the resources are going to their intended destination.

destinations. The number of small businesses started this last year is higher than the number started before the full-scale invasion.

GDP last year was 5%. It's going to be about 4.5% this year. I mean, that would be the envy of many countries, not just those subjected to full-scale bombing. And last thing I would just point to is the investments that US taxpayer have made in energy infrastructure, which we channel to our Ukrainian partners. Keeping the lights on, they flicker, they go out for a period. Maybe we have to rush in with generators or mobile boiler houses or whatever.

But by and large, being able to keep the lights on, keep the heat on. There's a reason Putin's attacking energy infrastructure. He is trying to create leverage for what he hopes will be a negotiation where he gets to keep what he has taken. Putin could have won this war without firing another shot if the economy had collapsed, if energy infrastructure had collapsed. And thanks to the support of these Ukraine supplementals, we were able to work with the Ukrainians to prevent that from happening.

You know, as you talk about $1 turning into $6, I just want to work in a question from one of our subscribers, Easton Reed, who works in government. And, you know, his is a general question, but it could be applied to Ukraine. He points out that 82 cents of every foreign aid dollar goes to what he calls the industrial aid complex instead of local community recipients. Have you been able to do anything to change that? It's a great question. I would say, yes.

where we have the furthest to go is in humanitarian assistance, because it is very hard to substitute for the scale and speed of large, you know, often UN agencies or large international agencies like the International Committee of the Red Cross, the World Food Program, UNICEF, you know, and the congressional requirements in terms of knowing that your dollar is going where it's intended, the checks and balances, the compliance requirements.

smaller organizations, by definition, don't have the big budgets to be able to afford the lawyers to do the paperwork and to basically be able to meet these compliance requirements. So I would say that is a growth area for sure.

Where we've made headway is we have doubled our development assistance, broadly speaking, to local partners, our direct assistance to local partners, but it's a very small percentage. We started at about 5.6% of our assistance going directly to local partners, and now we're up to about 11%. I will say there's a lag, so I expect that the next administration will actually see

you know, a surge that takes that number substantially higher still.

But it takes a lot more staff. The same issue that I was describing, applying to humanitarian agencies applies to these local organizations. We need to make sure that they're able to absorb the requirements that go with taking taxpayer dollars. And we've worked with Congress on this. We've worked with OMB in terms of some of the regulations, in terms of simplification. I think chat GPT and AI could help a lot because we're

One of the reasons some local organizations can't apply or compete for US grants is they might speak Creole or Swahili. And a lot of these over the years have been in English or at best maybe French or Arabic or Spanish.

And now we have the ability to reach communities and to have things translated and then for them to do their bids or their proposals in their language and get that immediately translated back. So we have a chance, I think, to go much deeper. And that's something this agency is very intent on taking forward. But it's a very fair and important question. Thank you.

And you are listening to Foreign Policy Live. Remember, you can catch these conversations live and on video on foreignpolicy.com. Subscribers get to send us questions in advance, in addition to a range of other benefits, including our magazine. Sign up. Use the code FPLIVE for a discount. That's FPLIVE, one word.

Ryan Reynolds here for Mint Mobile. You know, one of the perks about having four kids that you know about is actually getting a direct line to the big man up north. And this year, he wants you to know the best gift that you can give someone is the gift of Mint Mobile's unlimited wireless for $15 a month. Now, you don't even need to wrap

bit. Give it a try at mintmobile.com slash switch. $45 upfront payment required equivalent to $15 per month. New customers on first three month plan only. Taxes and fees extra. Speeds lower above 40 gigabytes on unlimited. See mintmobile.com for details.

Right now, up to 55% off your Babbel subscription at Babbel.

babbel.com slash Spotify podcast spelled B-A-B-B-E-L dot com slash Spotify podcast. Rules and restrictions may apply. You know, I was looking back to the last time we spoke about a year ago, and one of the things we talked about was how a lot of countries around the world, they don't really want aid. They want trade. And in many parts, many ways, that is your model as well. It's something you want to encourage and where you want countries to get to.

But one of the criticisms of the Biden administration has been that, like its predecessor, the Trump administration, it has turned inward. It has focused less on free trade and more on protectionism. And in many ways, that has hurt some of the very objectives that an organization like yours wants to get to, which is more trade and less aid.

You know, Ravi, we've just come through, or I thought we had come through a fairly arduous few weeks building up to the continuing resolution, the so-called CR. And, you know, you may know more than I do. I haven't checked to what's happening and we'll see what happens with that. But

As you know, Haiti trade preferences were included in that CR and that comes about through the leadership of Congressman Jeffries, the willingness of Speaker Johnson to move forward with that very strong bipartisan support led by Republican Congressman Brad Wenstrip, who pushed that Haiti trade preference. But also that came about because of the tireless advocacy of the Biden administration.

And as you probably read in the press, we came very close to seeing the African Growth and Opportunity Act renewed. Unfortunately, at the 11th hour, it was not able to be included as part of this really complex package. But I think certainly what emerged was just how many members of Congress cared about that measure, wanted to push it forward. Of course, the CBC, but not only the CBC, people seeing it.

how important AGOA is not only in terms of prices in the United States for consumer products, not only, of course, for jobs in Africa, but also in the strategic competition with the PRC. And that is why, again, the Biden administration has been championing the reauthorization of AGOA, which is going to expire next year. So there's still a little bit of time left

But you cannot divorce these kinds of trade preference pieces of legislation from the broader objective that, of course, has bipartisan support.

which is that our model of development, our desire to see self-reliance in these countries, our desire, as you said, to move from aid to trade, to see foreign direct investment, to see economic growth, to recognize that inclusive economic growth needs to translate into jobs for young people, or that's incredibly destabilizing.

All of these views benefit from the kind of trade preference legislation that I was just describing and that the Biden administration threw its weight behind. So I think the characterization is not right, but I do think we have a lot more work to do to show up

in earnest in the way that countries that are reeling from debt distress because of the PRC and the terms of the loans that these countries took out at a period of great vulnerability, given the pandemic and the economic slowdown or shutdown that occurred associated with the pandemic, they're now looking, they want us to be the partner of choice

But to come in and again, I don't know what will happen in the next administration, but it's really important to take advantage of the fact that we have expanded here at USAID, at the DFC and at the Commerce Department and elsewhere, we've expanded our economic toolkit. We're better able to compete and show that the U.S. model is the better model. For every dollar that the Chinese stole out in debt, we do $9 in grant assistance.

But that is catalytic. That's about moving toward being able to close USAID missions and to have those economies be self-sustaining and self-generating. So I think it's important to note the contradiction between wanting rightly to compete with the PRC and to see the flaws in their model and really the harms that have been inflicted on these countries by virtue of these huge loans and the fact that most countries that we work in are now paying more in taxes

on the interest payments to creditors, including the PRC, than they are on education and health. That's not going to be good for anybody in the long term. Pandemic prevention, countering violent extremism in the long term. So we have an interest, a lot of interest in managing that, but you can't want to manage that on the one hand and then think that we can walk away and pull back. We have a toolbox to hand over that is expanded

that has proven results. And we'd be really excited to see the next administration not shrink that toolbox back down, but expand it further because the opportunities I think are boundless. I'll come to the next administration in a minute. I mean, there's an argument that one could make that they will be more transactional, more opportunistic in certain ways, which could have positive or negative impacts.

But one more beat on the administration you've served under. You sit on the National Security Council. As I mentioned, that's the other hat you wear. And when you hear criticisms of the Biden foreign policy agenda, namely the withdrawal from Afghanistan was botched. The Middle East looks like a mess right now. There have been no major trade deals.

U.S. soft power has declined dramatically. America applies double standards in its policies. This is an accusation that I hear from leaders across the global south. Part of it is because of Gaza. How do you respond to that? And when you look back at your time in government, what is the defense of that critique?

Well, I guess maybe I can just speak on the basis of my own experience, you know, in traveling to around 50 countries and meeting with government leaders, but of course, always meeting with civil society, private sector leaders, independent media, you know.

I mean, what I hear is a desire for more, not less partnership. There's no question that the war in Gaza has affected particularly Muslim majority countries, but not only views of the United States as reflected in the polls.

But even on that, what I hear is, you know, calls from NGOs, calls from other donor nations. Hey, can you can you reach out to the to the IDF to ask for this? Can you reach out to, you know, can you will the White House do this, you know, with Prime Minister Netanyahu? Hey, you know, can this be added to President Biden's talking points since he has immersed himself in the humanitarian situation? So,

There is such an indispensability to U.S. leadership, as you saw with the ceasefire in Lebanon that was negotiated by the United States. And as I pray for the hostages and for the people of Gaza that you will see in the closing days here when it comes to the ceasefire in Gaza that we've pursued for so long. Same with Sudan at the center of the Sudan negotiations I mentioned earlier, Tom Piriello, our envoy there.

And so there just is no substitute when it comes to diplomacy for U.S. leadership. Look at artificial intelligence and these cutting edge technologies.

domains for American foreign policy where the US has built, you know, again, the infrastructure for now a normative framework that I hope the next administration will take forward. But what I hear is, hey, can you do this? You know, can you support this? Thank you for this. And I say thank you back because it's such a privilege and it's so in the interest of our own people.

to be building, trying to build, help these countries recover from the walloping shocks that they've had to endure, not just the pandemic, the debt,

the war in Ukraine and Putin taking offline Ukrainian agriculture for a spell until that got brought back, but also the Houthi attacks on shipping, the climate shocks. I mean, this is a really tough time for countries to be meeting the needs of their citizens. And so that is leading to people to look to the United States and to really appreciate, again, President Biden's moves in their direction to expand this toolkit.

And President Biden has a few more weeks in the job. So let's talk about the next administration. For all the criticisms of the Biden administration in this conversation, there's little doubt that Trump does not prioritize human rights or development in the way that you have long argued for and that many human rights advocates have argued for.

What is your sense of how a second Trump term will affect the American aid and development agenda around the world? And, you know, putting on your hat at USAID, what do you foresee as, you know, USAID's role in sort of securing the priorities that you've been trying to put in place? I can't predict anything. And I think anyone who tries to, just given the

composition potentially of some of the, you know, if the cabinet nominees go forward, you know, you have a really heterogeneous team that the president-elect is seeking to surround himself by. And I know firsthand that in the interagency scrum, it's never obvious who is going to prevail. I mean, maybe it becomes obvious over time.

But, you know, I mean, so many of the positions that Senator Marco Rubio took, you know, align with the longtime objectives of this agency in terms of standing up for human rights, trying to combat corruption, not liking to see dictators on the march as they are in Venezuela and other parts of the world.

And, you know, wanting to also expand markets for American businesses, make sure that there is another massive infectious disease outbreak, that we're better prepared because we have better surveillance overseas. I mean, there's so much in, you know, our development toolkit that aligns with U.S. interests. I mean, really, even narrowly defined, right?

And that aligns, of course, with the values that not only many, many presidents espouse, but that, again, members of the potentially members of the incoming team have espoused as well. So I can't predict. I guess I would say one thing, though, about you referenced, and I know it's really appreciated here at USAID, having a seat on the National Security Council seat.

And, you know, because I've been doing some farewells and it's even though we have a month left and we're, you know, the work is not diminishing. That's for sure. In fact, we're hoping that there'll be a ceasefire in Gaza and we'll be able to flood assistance in and finally be able to reach people at the scale that is long overdue.

But, you know, there's a lot of, you know, thank you for ensuring that USAID has the seat on the National Security Council. I didn't have anything to do with that. I mean, that was President Biden. And I don't think it was meant to be symbolic or, you know, a statement of this or that. It was a recognition of

that you can't deal with the crises in the Middle East if you're not hearing from USAID about what people on the ground are saying, for example, about the HTS and what governance was like in Idlib not that long ago, what we might expect. If you can't reintegrate people from al-Hawl prison in a manner that makes them less susceptible to ISIS's recruitment,

when those same countries that we will ask to interdict shipments, let's say, of goods going to Iran are asking us for help in preparing for extreme weather events. You know, you can't just show up when you need something. It fundamentally, you know, ends up needing to be a more enduring partnership. And I recognize the transactional aspect of foreign policy in every administration. But the, you mentioned soft power, the soft power dividend, right?

of making those investments over time, over decades, including under President Trump, where this agency continued to do incredibly important work on food security, on health security, on girls' education, on growing small businesses and trying to create not just growth, but inclusive growth or help countries to do so. So

You know, the last time around, there are shifts, of course, on some of the high-profile issues, but by and large, under the great leadership of Mark Green, who President Trump appointed, this agency was in really great shape when I came. And those programs out in the world, they have long pipelines. So I expect there to be a lot of continuity. And I hope, my real hope is

is that the incoming team can see that over this four years, we have again worked with Congress to create new tools to combat debt distress, to create new tools to identify and shore up a much more diversified supply chain set of conduits to the United States for critical minerals and other things.

We have worked with the DFC to address the digital divide, but also to get involved now in, we just in a catalytic role, but in significant infrastructure investments, working with the World Bank and others.

And so given that the competition with the PRC is such a prominent piece of what President-elect Trump has said he wants to achieve here in his second term, we have a lot to offer. And so I really hope that the transition engagements will continue to pick up pace because I think there's a lot that we have brought online that there may not be broad public awareness of, but I think there could be a lot of excitement about it.

We're almost out of time, but just at a personal level, if you had to explain what your personal legacy is in government, what would you say? I don't really think that way, but I think I keep coming back to this toolkit. We have a bigger toolkit now to advance individual dignity and look out for American interests along the lines of what I've described and to compete with the PRC and show that

why our model of working countries help supporting countries in their efforts to become independent, not dependent. We have diversified that toolkit a lot and having a seat on the National Security Council is a symptom

of our relevance. It's not a concession to great advocacy by me in the transition. It's a recognition that these tools are arguably more central to American foreign policy interests than they have been in the entire history of USAID, which was founded, as you know, by President Kennedy back in 1961.

So my only hope is that, again, that the team comes in and really takes a look at what this agency and some of the other development tools across the US government has to offer. But I think our legacy is an expanded toolkit and I think a workforce that feels really inspired to be part of doing this work every day, even if they find themselves, of course, distraught by the headlines.

to know that we are doing everything in our power to try to help where we can help, I think has kept people going. Samantha Power, I thank you for your time and I wish you all the best. Thank you, Ravi. And that was Samantha Power, the Administrator of USAID. Later this week, we will bring to you the first of two holiday episodes and they both have the same guest, Fareed Zakaria.

First, we will look back at 2024's biggest trends, and then we'll look ahead to 2025. You won't want to miss it. FPLive, the podcast, is produced by Rosie Julin, and the executive producer of the show is Donna Scherr. I'm Ravi Agrawal. I'll see you next time. Americans are more divided than ever. What can be done to start repairing trust between people of differing opinions?

How about trying a little diplomacy? Join me, Annalise Riles, for season two of Everyday Ambassador, where we talk to experts and geopolitical thinkers from around the world to show you the small moves that make big change. Listen wherever you get your podcasts.