- China's bold challenge to redefine the global order, this week on "Firing Line."

(bold patriotic music) Chinese leader Xi Jinping held a massive military parade in Beijing this week, sending a message to the world.

(Xi Jinping speaking in Chinese) (soldiers speaking in Chinese) - [Margaret] More than 25 heads of state showed up, including American adversaries Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-Un.

How should America respond to a growing axis of authoritarians led by the Chinese Communist Party?

- What's at risk?

Our prosperity, our security, our stability, our freedom.

- [Margaret] Senator Chris Coons, a Democrat from Delaware, serves on the Foreign Relations Committee, - Like, we've got partners and allies, but if we're pulling in opposite directions, there's not gonna be a good outcome.

- [Margaret] With wars in Gaza and Ukraine and China's increasing aggression toward Taiwan, what does Senator Chris Coons say now?

- [Announcer] "Firing Line with Margaret Hoover" is made possible in part by Robert Granieri, the Tepper Foundation, Vanessa and Henry Cornell, the Fairweather Foundation, Pritzker Military Foundation, Cliff and Laurel Asness, and by the following.

- Senator Coons, welcome back to "Firing Line."

- Thanks, Margaret.

Great to be with you.

- Over the past month, there have been numerous developments in the United States and abroad that continue to call into question America's role in the world.

- Mm-hmm.

- When it comes to alliances, foreign and humanitarian aid, international trade, and human rights.

- Yep.

- Do you believe we are seeing a fundamental realignment between the United States and the previously established post-World War II world order?

- If we do not change direction, yes.

The last nine months, the second Trump administration has put more pressure on our partners and allies, on the folks we have counted on to be with us in every major values fight, economic issue, security fight for 80 years.

And as we saw this week with Modi walking hand in hand with Putin, with Xi Jinping, with lots of other leaders, it was not just them, our adversaries, Kim Jong-Un from North Korea.

North Korea, Iran, China, and Russia are together fighting in Ukraine.

Russia keeps launching just brutal attacks on civilian targets in Ukraine using technology and missiles and drones from these partners of theirs.

Watching that event in Beijing, I got a 1939 chill, and we only came out on the other side of the Second World War in good shape, actually, as the world's leading country, having defeated fascism and Japanese imperialism because of our allies.

America first, I think, tells a mistaken story about the history of the last eight decades.

It says, "We fought, we won.

We are the world leading power."

And it misses the absolutely central role of our allies in every major development of the last eight decades.

And so I respect that there are lots of Americans who got hurt and who lost because of globalization and who are angry and feel like their future's not what their parents' future was and that the middle class of this decade is nothing like the middle class of the '50s, but Trump wielding a tariff bat and hitting everyone within reach from our closest allies and partners to our adversaries is causing chaos and making folks think they can't count on us.

- As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, you recently returned from a bipartisan congressional delegation to the Indo-Pacific region.

You've co-authored an op-ed for "Time Magazine" calling for the United States to, quote, "Clearly and unambiguously reinforce our commitments to our partners in the region."

- [Chris] Mm-hmm.

- But, as you referenced, just this week.

- Yes.

- Chinese President Xi Jinping has hosted the summit with leaders around the world, including some of our partners, like as you mentioned, India and Turkey calling for a, quote, "More just and equitable global governance system."

Are we too late?

- Look, China, India, Russia, DPRK, Iran, you put all of them together and add up their military might and their economies.

That's a big bloc.

If they actually act in unison, that's a big deal compared to the United States.

But if you take the United States and add our free market, free society, democratic partners and allies, Korea, Japan, Singapore, Australia, Canada, Mexico, the UK, the EU, we dwarf them.

We're three quarters of the world's economy.

We have the most innovative, capable societies.

We have the world's leading universities.

We dwarf their military power, but divided, they can pick us off, absolutely.

And so is it already too late?

That depends.

Depends on- - Depends on what?

- how much more chaos President Trump insists on creating in our closest alliances.

We have free trade agreements with countries from Korea to Australia to Canada and Mexico.

And his tariff fight, he's just tearing 'em up left and right, which makes countries that are our partners and allies say, "What good is a treaty or an agreement with the United States if the president wakes up on Tuesday and says, '50% tariff on you, 30% tariff on you'" and they can't figure out why or what's going on.

- I mean, just take the case of India.

- Sure, sure.

Look- - I mean, this is a geopolitical force that previous administrations had attempted to strengthen in order to act as a counterweight in Asia against China.

- Of course.

- And the Trump administration has levied 50% tariffs on them.

- Insane.

- Forcing them into the arms- - Yes.

- of our adversaries.

- Yes.

- What is at risk for Americans in a reordering of global powers where the Chinese Communist Party dominates an axis of authoritarians?

- So our prosperity, our security, our stability, our freedom, - That's it?

(laughs) - All of it.

- On Truth Social on Tuesday, Trump accused Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, and Kim Jong-un of conspiring against the United States.

- Yes.

(laughs) Seems obvious, yes.

- What should the administration be doing about it?

- Oddly, I have a bill, a bipartisan bill that's part of the Defense Authorization- - DISRUPT ACT of 2025?

- The DISRUPT Act, what do you know?

Look, a bipartisan group of us are saying "We need a strategy that says, 'These aren't separate actors anymore.'"

We used to really work at separating and playing off against each other, DPRK and Iran, Russia, China.

How did we win the Second World War?

What was the most important thing?

Manufacturing.

We had a majority of the world's manufacturing base.

We were churning out, you know, aircraft carriers and bombers and cruisers like nothing else.

We don't have that today.

China and India together have the majority of the world's manufacturing capacity.

Now, so do places like Korea and Japan and Australia who would love to be working with us.

The powerhouse of manufacturing of Europe is Germany.

Like, we've got partners and allies, but if we're pulling in opposite directions, there's not gonna be a good outcome.

- How do you assess China's growing threat to Taiwan in this moment given Xi's stated plan to move on Taiwan by 2027?

- Xi's been perfectly clear with the world, with us, that it is his goal to reunify Taiwan and PRC mainland and that he intends to be ready to do so by military force if necessary in two years.

That should incite a certain urgency and focus.

The war in Ukraine has profoundly refocused Taiwan's military and populace.

They are still very skeptical, broadly, the civilian population that China, that the PRC will ever invade or occupy them.

But the frequency with which Chinese ships and planes are crossing into Taiwanese airspace or the EEZ, constantly.

A striking thing that had just happened when I got to Australia was a Chinese naval convoy had gone all the way around Australia and done targeting drills as if they were about to launch missile attacks on major Australian cities.

That had never happened before.

The Chinese are practicing, rehearsing force projection farther and farther into the North Pacific, east of Taiwan, the South Pacific.

These aren't subtle signs.

- You mentioned Ukraine, Vladimir Putin's attendance in Beijing has also yielded reports that Russia and China are nearing a deal on a pipeline to deliver more Russian fuel to China, which will inevitably help fund Russia's war effort.

Has Trump's attempt to disrupt the bond between China and Russia completely failed?

- Yes.

I mean, when President Trump hosted Vladimir Putin, welcomed him with, literally, a red carpet and US military officers and a lot of pomp and circumstance in Anchorage, I think by having American B-2 bombers fly over, he intended to send a message.

I can't see what that meeting produced other than some progress for Putin in terms of being welcomed- - PR for Putin.

- back into the world of nations.

But the military parade that Xi Jinping then staged and the display of cutting-edge world-class weapons and a massive goose-stepping military was meant to send the same message back, "My buddy Putin's with me, and by the way, so is Modi and so is Kim Jong-Un, so, you looking at me?"

- Yeah, so Putin has refused to make any concessions to Trump on his, you know, desired peace talks.

He initiated one of the heaviest bombardments on Ukraine following that to date, including an attack with more than 500 drones in one night this last week and has all the while continued to blow past Trump's ultimatums and deadlines for making peace or else.

- Putin is literally giving a big middle finger to Trump and the United States every day.

And to keep saying, "Maybe two weeks from now, maybe two weeks from now," is showing real weakness in the face of violence, aggression, and war crimes.

Putin is only going to stop when we stop him.

And thankfully, the Ukrainians are doing all the fighting.

There's not a single American soldier fighting and dying on the front lines in Ukraine.

Why would we not say, "We're doubling down"?

We're giving them more of our most capable, most effective weapons.

We are behind them.

What emboldened Putin was when Trump and Zelensky had that horrifying blowup in the Oval Office and then Trump cut off resupply and intelligence briefly, but that really sent a shock through Ukraine.

And he's now turned back around to saying, "Oh, I'm beginning to see that Putin maybe isn't such a nice guy."

But he's gotta keep moving.

Peace through strength, something he says all the time, requires actual strength.

This isn't a reality TV show.

It's reality.

It's a war, the biggest war in Europe since the Second World War.

And only by making Putin stop do we have any hope of making Xi not start.

- And the place to make him stop is on the battlefield.

- Absolutely.

- Do Putin's actions from the last week make a mockery of Trump's efforts?

- Yes.

- Let's turn to Gaza.

You called it urgent that Israel allow more humanitarian aid in.

- Yes.

- In July, you voted against a measure to halt the sale of $675 million of weaponry to Israel.

Is that vote in tension with your call for humanitarian aid?

- My public statements then and now are demanding that Israel allow humanitarian aid in.

Their explanation is that Hamas is stealing or diverting most or all of the aid that's been let in.

And I'll tell you, I believe José Andrés and World Central Kitchen, Cindy McCain and the World Food Programme and a dozen other leaders of organizations from UNICEF to UNHCR who've told me that tragically, this is too often the IDF either targeting humanitarian relief efforts or preventing them from getting in.

This is a real crisis, and it is hurting Israel's legitimacy and support in the United States and around the world.

- The reason I ask if it's in tension is that several of your colleagues who align themselves more along the, this is sort of the moderate plank of the Democratic Party.

- Right.

- Actually voted to stop sending those weapons to Israel.

- Right.

- Because of the humanitarian crisis.

There is a new Gallup poll which has only 32% of Americans approving of Israel's military action in Gaza.

- Right.

- But among Democrats, that number stands at 8%.

Do Democrats need a fundamental mindset change when it comes to how they think about the relationship with Israel after this war?

- Bluntly, I think we need a fundamental mindset change in our relationship with Netanyahu and his leadership.

I am not going to walk away from Israel and the ideal of a Jewish democracy in the state of Israel or the ideal of a two-state solution where the outcome of this is a self-governing Palestinian territory and regional peace.

The facts on the ground, though, are making that harder and harder to see.

And bluntly, if Netanyahu and his government move ahead with annexing the West Bank, with reoccupying Gaza, with forcible displacement of Palestinians, I'll take very aggressive action to push back on that because that violates some of the most foundational understandings we have about human rights and law, and Israel is a democracy and is an ally of the United States and is a country that suffered a shattering traumatic assault by Hamas.

There are still hostages being held in tunnels beneath Gaza today.

But the intensity of that trauma and suffering for the Israeli people cannot justify intentionally constraining humanitarian aid to starving civilians.

It can't.

- In the middle of August, President Trump deployed the National Guard to Washington, DC.

- [Chris] Mm-hmm.

- [Margaret] Now, it is the case that most Americans are concerned about crime.

- [Chris] Yes.

- And Washington, DC has reported less crime since the National Guard arrived in the streets of the capital in mid-August.

Trump reportedly plans to extend the presence of troops until December.

If the presence of troops deters crime, are there any risks to using troops for these purposes?

- Yes.

- What are the risks?

- It's a foundational risk to the understanding of the role of our military in law enforcement and what it means to be a society where there is civilian control of the military.

The mayors and governors of Los Angeles and California- - I want to get to them.

- Chicago and Illinois- - Let's stay on DC.

- are not saying, "President Trump, please save us.

We have riots in the streets, we have crime.

We need you to send in the National Guard."

- [Margaret] In the case of DC.

- Mm-hmm.

- If President Trump wants to help with crime, is there a better way to do it?

- Yes, with law enforcement officers.

The National Guard- - It's like, how can you argue with the results?

You can see how the critics will say, "But how do you argue with the results?"

- Sure.

It is an incredibly inefficient and expensive way to deal with crime.

Most National Guard troops are not trained, equipped, and appropriate for law enforcement domestically.

That's not what they do.

- Right.

Right.

- What I'm troubled by is President Trump keeps ginning up a sense that he and he alone can fight crime in Democratic cities where he is very specific about, you know, Chicago is a hell hole filled with crime.

And now he's saying, "I fixed DC and it's crime free."

There's a performative aspect of this.

There's an extent to which he's using American troops as political pawns.

- So to your point about Chicago and Los Angeles, a federal judge ruled this week that President Trump's deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles had violated the use of the military for domestic law enforcement.

- Yep.

- Trump has still promised to send troops to Chicago, and he has threatened to send troops to New Orleans.

Look, federal judges have also ruled recently that Trump's tariffs were illegal, that he misused the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelans.

These decisions will be appealed, but in the meantime, the tariffs are still being collected.

Troops are still in Los Angeles.

People who were deported are not coming back.

- Mm-hmm.

- [Margaret] Are we seeing the limits of the judiciary?

- Mm-hmm.

- As an equal branch of government that can check the executive.

- We are seeing the limits of the judiciary and of Congress.

Our framers assumed that the folks who served in Congress and in the judiciary, that we would be more loyal to and more jealously guard the prerogatives of our branch, whether it's Article I and our power of the purse or it's Article III and the federal judiciary that has, uniquely, the ability to call the president to account and say, "No, you can't do that" and issue injunctions.

So far, the Trump administration has lost dozens and dozens of federal court cases saying, "No, you're breaking the law.

This isn't in your power."

And he's pushing and pushing and pushing.

Our framers assumed that when that happened, the Article I power, Congress, would step in because we have the power of the purse and of appointments and confirmations and should be using that to say to the President, "Wait a minute.

You have to respect federal court orders and you have to stop doing things that your administration's been told repeatedly are illegal."

The President is only constrained by the Congress and the courts if we work in concert to actually constrain him.

It's just a piece of paper if we don't act as patriots with more loyalty to the constitutional structure than to the partisan concerns of the moment.

- Does this risk being a fundamental change?

- Yes.

The folks who've been confirmed as nominees, the bills that have been passed, the policies that have been adopted by Congress have shown a deference to the President even at his most aggressive and even at his most expansive.

And while district courts have issued orders that have so far been observed, when they're getting to the circuit level and the Supreme Court level, the recent Supreme Court jurisprudence seems to suggest the principle is whatever the administration wants.

We are in real danger if the Supreme Court does not draw some clearer lines on presidential authority and use of power, and we are in real danger if we don't appropriate, if we don't use our power as Congress to say, "We spend the money.

We say what you can spend."

- Yeah.

- We need to show some courage, and that's gonna take four Republicans in the Senate voting against nominees or for legislation that the president may not like or want.

That's what happened in the first Trump administration.

There were critical moments where the Senate stood up to what the president wanted.

Without that, we are at real risk of a fundamental reordering of our constitutional system.

- There's no indication that four Republican colleagues will be there for you based on the track record of the last- - Nine months.

- [Margaret] Nine months of the Trump administration.

- I've been very disappointed in my colleagues.

And look, Democrats can give brave speeches, can stand up and storm out of hearings, but at the end of the day, as long as they've got 51 votes in the Senate and they're willing to change the rules and they're willing to break the norms and they're willing to go along, we can't really do anything except urge them to read their Constitutions and remember their oaths and challenge things that are well outside historic norms and our constitutional order.

Look, we have policy disagreements all the time.

That's part of politics.

This is different.

This is dangerous.

- Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. testified this week before the Senate Finance Committee.

More than 1,000 current and former HHS employees have called for his resignation since the firing of the director of the CDC last week.

You called that firing alarming.

And you've said that Kennedy's, quote, "His legacy at HHS will lead to deaths at home and abroad."

What should the Senate be doing to hold him accountable?

- Demanding his resignation, cutting off funding for some of the programs he's launching.

- Do you join your colleague, Senator Ossoff in calling for his resignation?

- Yes, absolutely.

I voted against him because I thought he was wildly unqualified to be the Secretary of HHS and because he has advanced unscientific and I think unconstructive, even dangerous ideas and policies as the secretary.

Look, there are aspects of the Make America Healthy Again movement that I embrace, support, think this is a good idea.

We've got lots of things we could do to be a healthier country.

Vaccines are a critical part of public health.

We are coming through the biggest and deadliest outbreak in measles in our lifetimes.

My wife and I chose to vaccinate our children, not because the government told us to but because our pediatrician told us to and we trusted him and they survived what otherwise would be deadly childhood diseases.

As you know, I've been to dozens of countries where children still die of completely preventable childhood diseases.

We've been the world leader in promoting infant and maternal health in the developing world, and now we've largely abandoned that.

- On one of the final episodes of "Firing Line" that was hosted by William F. Buckley Jr. in 1999, Fareed Zakaria was his guest and reflected on how Americans view their place in the world as it was changing at the end of the 20th century.

Take a look at what Fareed said then.

- Americans in their, now in their fifties, sixties, and seventies grew up in a world in which their personal lives became interconnected with the great events of history.

Americans of subsequent generations, particularly Americans of my generation, feel no such connection.

The younger generation, having grown up in times of peace and prosperity, feel themselves utterly unconnected with these broader events.

- We've talked a lot about the reordering of global alliances and the new global order.

How does one go about convincing a new generation of Americans in this new millennium who are skeptical of a US-led world order that it is worth preserving?

- We gotta believe in democracy, and these last few years have been really hard for us.

If we believe in ourselves, if we take the risks involved in democracy, which means compromise, not a popular word in Washington, listening to each other and respecting each other, we have a chance at restoring our faith.

This is why I am grateful for "Firing Line."

This isn't a three-minute cable TV press hit.

We've actually had a 30-minute conversation.

We need more Americans to have more conversations with their own families about their past, with their own community about where they wanna go and with their own children about the urgent issues of the future, from climate to artificial intelligence to social media to restoring upward mobility in our society and then act on it.

- Senator Coons, thank you for returning to "Firing Line."

- Thanks, Margaret.

- [Announcer] "Firing Line with Margaret Hoover" is made possible in part by Robert Granieri, the Tepper Foundation, Vanessa and Henry Cornell, the Fairweather Foundation, Pritzker Military Foundation, Cliff and Laurel Asness, and by the following.

(lively upbeat music) (upbeat music continues) (upbeat music continues) (warm upbeat music) (gentle instrumental music) - [Announcer] You're watching PBS.