黄仁勋被指涉间谍丑闻引关注，美加贸易摩擦持续

We start with the biggest story of the week. Jensen Huang's stepping down as head of NVIDIA after news of an inappropriate relationship with someone alleged to be a Chinese spy. It is a huge story for investors and for a world consumed with building out AI. But it's bigger than that. Richard Haass served as the head of the Council on Foreign Relations and now is a senior counselor to Centerview Partners. The business world was rocked by news coming out of NVIDIA about the problems of Jensen Huang.

Normally, you'd say that's a business story. But this is the most valuable company in the world on the cutting edge with AI microchips and really... really in that intersection of U.S.-China competition over AI. What are the ramifications for international diplomacy here? -Well, it is a business story, and at the same time, it's much more than a business story. The business story is going to be governance at the company.

They got some real issues to contend with. Let's park that to the side. No, this is not just any company. They are producing the largest number of the most advanced capable chips in the world. So what happens there, shall we say, affects the U.S. and global economy. Then, as you say, you've got the China connection. If all the reports are true, they seem to be that this woman was not simply a paramour, but was a spy.

It's actually a central part of the Chinese growth model, the theft of intellectual property. So it would totally fit with... with that tradition. But then there's some also very interesting national security aspects. What did the president know, and when did he know it? Months ago, he had been informed through the intelligence community, through the National Security Advisor, Marco Rubio's second hat, that this woman was most likely a Chinese spy.

Why was this individual allowed to travel with the president, have the access? Why did the Justice Department not investigate every aspect of his life? And then it raises other issues. Is it just the China connection? Well, where else has NVIDIA been selling large amounts of chips, David? To the United Arab Emirates. Well, what about that? That is not, shall we say, a place that has a... necessarily where the technology stops there.

And this administration and, you know, the personal figures around the president, the family, have all sorts of business ties with that part of the world. So this is a really interesting set of political issues, business issues, and national security issues. And I would say if the Justice Department, as is likely, is unwilling to look into this, then I would think this is actually a legitimate topic for the new Congress and one of its committees to get to the bottom of this.

Westin: There's been a lot of talk about, and use, of export controls for national security purposes to make sure that we're not exporting, particularly to China, particularly some advanced technology. What does this say about that whole apparatus if you can get around it that easily? -It's an interesting question, because I think export controls are intellectually well-disposed towards them in principle. But in practice, I'm not sure they work that well.

In a global economy there's so many connections where the people can talk about something or physically hand over something, and then people can copy it or what have you. So my guess is export controls aren't nearly as effective as we would like them to be. And in some cases, that might even be counterproductive, that they require and stimulate someone else to become more self-sufficient, that if denied something, then they make it an urgent priority to produce it themselves.

So my guess is when the historical record of export controls is written, it won't be quite as positive as its advocates would have it to be. Westin: There was a midterm election. -Thank you, David. Westin: We've had a lot of ramifications for the Congress, where you had both houses switch. Generally think of that as domestic, the Congress. What possible effects could it have on international relations and President Trump's position?

Well, the first point to make is a version of the point you made, that historically, the lion's share of the control over American foreign policy has been the prerogative of the executive. What, 50, 60 years ago, Arthur Schlesinger Jr. wrote a book, what? "The Imperial Presidency." And that was in the context of Vietnam. But every president since has gone to war or used military force without congressional approval. Congress has delegated enormous powers.

For example, when it comes to tariffs, presidents can do what they want in diplomacy and so forth. So the short answer to your question, David, is the election won't matter that much. So if tomorrow Donald Trump wants to make a new proposal, more pro-Russian, more pro-Ukrainian, when it comes to that war, he can do it. But for 95% or more, presidential leadership on foreign policy is going to remain. Plus, this administration doesn't have ambassadors, for the most part.

About three-quarters of our embassies are empty. The way policy is made gives informality a new meaning. So again, there's not a lot of entry points for the Congress here. Westin: You have dealt with U.S. diplomacy at the highest levels of government, both in the White House as well as the State Department. So you've seen this over years. To what extent does the political standing of the president in the United States domestically affect his position with respect to others, like Vladimir Putin, and even more important, perhaps, President Xi that he's meeting with at the ASEAN summit? -No, you're exactly right.

I think it hurts Donald Trump with the Iranians. They are pretty good readers of the American political system. A lot of their senior people went to school here. So they're watching. They saw the midterms. My guess is they've decided they can drive a harder bargain, that one of the takeaways from the election is the American people don't have much more stomach for this. Donald Trump's standing is diminished. So I think we'll see probably a tougher line, if possible, tougher.

It's been pretty tough up to now out of Tehran. Yeah, and you've got these upcoming meetings with President Xi and with Vladimir Putin. So yeah, they've taken note of what's happened. Funnily enough, though, David, I think all 3 are somewhat weakened. Donald Trump comes out of the midterms with very little wind that is back, so to speak. Vladimir Putin's not winning, and over the last couple of months has been more losing the war against Ukraine.

His economy is in shambles. Xi Jinping also, as you know, has enormous economic problems. So the so-called "big 3" ain't so big right now. And that's an interesting context for this meeting. Westin: Another hallmark of President Trump's foreign policy has been tariffs, including those he levied on Canada. Chrystia Freeland, former Canadian Deputy Prime Minister and author of the book "Unreliable Boyfriend," negotiated a trade deal with the first Trump administration.

Bring us up to speed, if you can, on the nature of U.S.-Canadian relations right now. Particularly when it comes to trade. We've talked a lot about it. There were some statements coming out of the Trump White House just on the eve of the election. Things are getting better. It's hopeful with Canada. Maybe it'll work out. From your point of view, is that right? -Not yet. And, you know, what I think Americans need to remember is we have a trade deal with the United States.

According to that trade deal, we're not supposed to impose tariffs on each other. According to that trade deal, if we have problems with each other, we have a whole system of tribunals to work those problems out. We went through Trump 1. We negotiated a really good deal. And then out of the blue, new tariffs are imposed on us directly in contravention of that deal. And those tariffs are all still in place. I find those comments, though, that you cite