trade deals in Asia, an order to resume nuclear testing, and a government shutdown that's set to become the longest in American history.

President Trump is back in Washington, where tempers are flaring on Capitol Hill as millions of Americans are on the brink of losing critical federal assistance.

Tonight, will President Trump get directly involved in this funding fight?

Next, this is Washington Week with the Atlantic.

Corporate funding provided by Consumer Cellular.

Certified financial planner professionals are proud to support Washington Week with the Atlantic.

CFP professionals are committed to acting in their clients best interest.

More information at let'smakeupplan.org.

Additional funding is provided by Coup and Patricia Euan through the Euan Foundation committed to bridging cultural differences in our communities.

Sandra and Carl Delay Magnus, Rose Hershel and Andy Shrieves, Robert and Susan Rosenbomb, Charles Hamoy through the Charles Hamoy Fund, Steve and Marilyn Kerman, and by contributions to your PBS station from viewers like you.

Thank you.

And now from the David M. Rubenstein studio at Weta in Washington, here is Washington Week with the Atlantic.

Good evening and welcome to Washington Week.

I'm Vivian Salama in tonight for Jeffrey Goldberg.

President Trump returned from his trip to Asia boasting of tra trade deals with China and South Korea.

But he topped off the visit vowing to resume nuclear weapons testing, breaking a decadesl long moratorum respected by most of the world's nuclear powers and underscoring the yin-yang of Trump foreign policy.

All the while, the consequences of the now month-long federal shutdown are being felt across the country.

Joining me tonight to discuss this and more, Paul Beckett is a senior editor at The Atlantic.

Jeff Mason is White House correspondent for Reuters.

Sunman Kim is White House reporter for the Associated Press.

And Andrea Mitchell is the chief Washington and foreign affairs correspondent for NBC News.

Thanks so much for joining me everyone.

Andrea, I want to start with you.

The president obviously just getting back from this almost week-l long trip to Asia.

What did he set out looking to accomplish?

Well, he set out to get deals and to announce deals, but most importantly to meet with Jing Jinping.

And the fact is they got a truce in the trade war, but it's a trade war that the president started without realizing, I think, the unintended consequences and the leverage that China had over the US.

China has this huge advantage on rare earth minerals.

So there's a a one-year moratorum on uh any kind of export controls by China.

The fentinel agreement, the initial soybean agreement to repurchase soybeans from American farmers instead of from Brazil, which had cut off, you know, potentially billions of dollars from farmers and red state farmers were, you know, screaming against the White House for that.

uh which is basically because of the 100% tariff threat that he had made against Beijing.

So he lifted that fentinel sir charge that tariff no longer imposing the 100% tariff on China.

So there's a one-year delay.

It was a positive meeting.

He called it a 12 in in the you know on a scale of 1 to 10.

But I think what was unfortunate, well, first of all, he didn't get anything on Ukraine that I can see that from either side.

Any concession on China buying, you know, excessive amounts of oil from Russia, nor dual use technology or anything else that they're doing to help keep to fuel the Russian military operation against Ukraine.

And nothing on the South China Sea where China has been aggressively, you know, and in, you know, illegally, you know, commanding control over international waters and interfering with a lot of, you know, international shipping as well as ours and buzzing us.

And the other piece is that he didn't get anything really on rare earth minerals or any kind of important concessions.

And just before walking in, he raised this nuclear issue which confused everyone.

It wasn't clear what he was talking about.

He talked about a DOE order and the rather DoD order to the Pentagon.

The Pentagon controls missiles, not bombs bursting in air that we have not, you know, done since 1992.

So what was he talking about?

That's the energy department, not the Pentagon.

Absolutely.

I definitely want to get back to the nuclear issue.

Um but Paul, you know, we we've seen since the first the president's first term in office, this sort of um effort to get some sort of a deal with China, but a lot of it has just been this back and forth tip fortat without any real major outcome.

So can you kind of broaden it out 30,000 foot view of what he's trying to accomplish?

What they what are they trying to accomplish?

We call them all trade talks, right?

And there are some soybeans and there are some uh you tariffs come down a little bit.

These are national security talks about the future defense of these two enormous countries.

I mean what was on the line rare earths as you say that China has said basically nobody's getting any of our rare earths and they agreed to hold off that for one year.

The US agreed to back off a national security entities list that had prevented Chinese companies from doing business in the United States on national security grounds and the US said we'll hold off for one year.

Uh chips, can China get Nvidia chips?

people really a lot of the national security establishment did not want any progress on giving China these Nvidia or allowing China to buy these Nvidia sophisticated AI chips for their technological development.

That's a little murky about whether it will actually go ahead, but these are these are things that get to the core of in 10 or 20 years who's going to run the world, right?

It's a bit it's more than soybeans and it's more than tariffs.

So, and in this case, we also see that they're like, "Okay, we'll pause for a year."

What does that mean?

It means this is going to be a perpetual negotiation between now and next year, and they'll be back at the table next year.

And the Chinese will say, "Well, we still control 90% of the rare earths in the world.

And all we have to do is say you can't have them and you can't develop cars, weapons, any other huge industrial stakes on the line.

So it's about that.

It's about run was about ruling the future and they kind of shook hands and walked out.

And and I mean Jeeoff, so much of that for the president is very personal because he sees the economy uh and prosperity for the Americans as his thing and potentially the Chinese being in the path of achieving that goal.

Absolutely.

I think it's also important to note that before the meeting that they had, he had already blown it up and then they came back, you know, he offered this or threatened this one potential 100% tariff on Chinese goods.

walked that back with the help of Secretary Bessent uh of the Treasury Secretary who set up the meeting.

But then he walked in, he had this peer-to-peer meeting with this other sort of autocratic leader who we know that he has a a tendency to to favor and walked out saying it was a 12 out of 10.

So, and the other kind of takeaways I think that we should also note in addition to the the ones that the two of you just mentioned is setting up more meetings.

uh the president said he's going to go to China next year and that the president of China is going to come to the United States.

So that is a sign that even though there have been a bunch of bumps in the road uh in this relationship that they are planning for future meetings and for future progress and there were other meetings that the president held obviously he stopped in Malaysia men he stopped in Japan he stopped in South Korea and I mean the pump and fanfare was just in full force the flattery efforts were in full force.

Uh what are what do you think world leaders are learning about how to deal with President Trump?

That flattery is the fastest way to his heart is what they have learned uh and really utilizing in this in in in Trump's second term.

My colleagues and I wrote about this about how the president really did seem to be enjoying himself on this trip.

You know, during the first term, these foreign trips weren't necessarily his favorite the favorite parts of his uh his term in the White House.

But now, especially that world leaders have learned to pull out all the stops for President Trump.

He's really having a good time.

You saw him on the tarmac in Malaysia, dancing as he was welcomed to the country in South Korea.

He was granted with honors and a gold crown.

Obviously, gold was very deliberately chosen there.

Um, and but this has this is not unique to this particular trip.

You saw how at NATO earlier this year that the secretary general basically said he was the daddy to NATO.

They know that, you know, flattering him, kind of uh uh bolstering him is the way to work with him and that's certainly something that world leaders have learned and is a change from his first term.

Absolutely.

Yes, one of the big things is stability and so there's a year of relative stability on the economic front which is important because there is going to be an meeting in April and return you know meeting he's going to Beijing then Xiinping is coming here so that's all important they haven't had good communications military to military so there have been all kinds of interruptions and threats and counter threats but again it's a trade war that was unne necessary that the president started and now China is still holding the cards.

And one of the things that I just saw was an extraordinary rep report on the uh the power lines to Shanghai from you know all the way across China by solar and wind technology green technology that China has leaped forward on as this administration has you know criticized wind and said we're going to you know drill drill drill and looking backwards in terms of what is needed for these data.

data centers to power, you know, these huge new data centers for AI that are going to really, you know, become an economic problem and and a power problem, a source of power problem for utility costs across America.

All of that in mind as well, it's also possible that the president could blow it up again as we saw with Canada.

So the the president is walked out ebulent from that meeting and super confident, but he was pretty pleased with Canada as well at one point and then and he's said he won't he will not resume talks with Canada.

So he's punishing Canada.

Uh they and I was just in Canada doing on a reporting trip and punishing Canada for a provincial commercial, an ad that actually correctly quotes Ronald Reagan.

Ronald Reagan from one of his radio speeches on terrorist in the middle of the World Series which is right and was not Mark Carney or the national government's position.

It was not the prime minister who did this.

it was a more populist Ontario governor and still punishing Carney by laying an extra 10% tariff on Canadians.

It just underscores how much everything can change.

But certainly there is a year of stability set ahead if the agreement that they came up with stays in well and certainly the rest of the world is watching the way that Trump is conducting business and kind of uh perplexed a little bit.

You know he takes a bite out of them but then everyone comes to the table.

You know it gives the opportunity to come to the table.

It creates a lot of economic certain uncert certainty though.

Absolutely.

Because things can change so quickly and we've seen that with the Canada example we just mentioned.

We've seen it with how the run-up to the China meeting happened and how at the end it it it ended in what he described as a very positive way.

Yeah.

Andrea, you mentioned uh the president's uh suggestion about nuclear.

On Truth Social, he on his way back from Asia, he wrote on Truth Social that he instructed the Department of War, for formerly known as the Department of Defense, to start testing our nuclear weapons on quote an equal basis.

And he said that process will begin immediately.

Why the change in stance?

Well, first of all, he said it um this in real time.

I was watching.

Yeah.

He said it in our time around 9:30, 9:45 p.m.

Yeah.

Exactly as he was about to walk into the meeting with President Xi.

So the initial signals, whoa, are we talking about China, which has the third largest arsenal, way smaller than the Russians.

No, he's most likely reacting and he may later clarified on his way back home that he was talking more likely about what Putin had done in the 48 previous hours in testing a new nuclearpowered missile.

So, not a nuclear.

It's important to note that the only country of all the nuclear powers that's tested a weapon in recent years was North Korea and that's the last time was in 2017.

Correct.

And we have not done it since 1992.

Right.

In addition, the only test site that is currently used or was used is in Nevada.

The Nevada legislature unanimously in May passed a vote against any nuclear testing.

So, it's very unpopular.

Now, it's a federal site, but it's unclear what he is asking for because it's the energy department that would have to do this, not the Pentagon.

But then Secretary Hegsth the next day made it even more confusing and so did the vice president.

So one of the things that I'm that worried about frankly as a citizen is is the president projecting like right before a meeting with the other superpower in China that he doesn't understand military terminology or nuclear weapons and that the Pentagon doesn't and that there's no process because I know Marco Rubio knows all this stuff.

He was the intel leader on Senate and he knows it cold.

But this is actually in project 2025.

This is one of the proposals to resume bomb testing.

It's very controversial with nuclear experts.

All of the people who control nuclear weapons believes it's proliferating.

I talked to Jim Stvides who was our former NATO commander yesterday about this and it would be a terrible idea in terms of proliferation to resume.

We are not signitories to the best testban treaty but we have observed it as you point out since 1992.

So you're sending a signal that we don't have an understanding and I think it is the result of the no deputies no policy papers and maybe this is Russ vote the author of the 2024 five project rather in 2024 pushing something which is strategic policy that he knows really nothing about.

Yesterday, um Jeff and I were at the White House.

We saw Vice President Vance try to clarify some of this.

And he said, you know, sometimes you just have to dust it off and test it out, make sure everything is working properly.

But Paul, you you've been based in East Asia and Southeast Asia over the course of your career.

Uh nuclear powers across that region.

There's renewed tension between Pakistan and India.

It's been up and down lately, but uh tension nonetheless.

both nuclear powers.

You know, you have North Korea uh that's also uh a nuclear power.

What signal does this send to the rest of the world when they're hearing the president of the United States talking like this?

Oh, the national security hawks in Trump's camp and Robert O'Brien, who was one of his former national security adviserss had proposed this a few years back.

So, they see that as this is a sign of American muscle.

This is a sign of we have so many more, you know, we have so many nukes that we're going to start testing them again.

going to advance our outdated arsenal and everybody heads up we're going to get a lot stronger when it comes to nuclear weapons.

That's that camp.

The other camp says which includes a lot of national security people says first of all what we have has to be maintained in a state of readiness.

So it's not a question of dusting them off and make that's done constantly just not to the level of live testing like he's talking about.

And then secondly, it's like, well, if the United States is going to do it, what permission does that give to a North Korea, any other country that actually has probably a lot of catching up to do?

But if you're doing live testing, you can catch up a lot faster than if you're having to do it under the confines of a treaty that you've signed.

So I think that is the danger of it.

Whether it comes to pass or not, I think probably around the world people are saying, is that really going to happen?

Right?

which is probably a a standard kind of response to a lot of President Trump's uh comments as well.

Um I I do want to turn to the the shutdown, the government shutdown, which as of November 5th will be the longest in American history and tempers are flaring.

President Trump got back to Washington to uh growing anger um over this shutdown.

Here's Senate Majority Leader uh John Thun this week.

People should be getting paid in this country and we've tried to do that 13 times and you voted no 13 times.

This isn't a political game.

These are real people's lives that we're talking about and you all have just figured out 29 days in that oh there might be some consequences.

So, in a lengthy Truth Social post early Friday, President Trump laid out to uh the blame on Democrats um and said that Republicans should quote, "Play their trump card and go for what is called the nuclear option to get rid of the filibuster and get rid of it."

Now, Paul, just explain to viewers exactly what he's calling for here when he talks about the nuclear option.

We're all about nuclear.

There seems to be a theme there.

Nuclear option would be ending the filibuster.

The filibuster essentially ensures that the vast majority of votes in the Senate require 60 votes and if you ended the filibuster it would go down to 5150 and that would be a mechanism by which the Republicans would be able to push ahead with their version of what it would take to end.

You know more about this than I do.

Am I right?

Yeah, that's absolutely correct.

Okay.

Thank you.

You're doing great.

Uh and so that would be the question, right?

Would be if you end that but the Republican leadership in the Senate doesn't want to end it.

Neither party likes in the Senate wants to end it.

Joe Biden tried over voting right leg right rights legislation and I think Joe Mansion and Kristen Cinema opposed it.

So there's very little appetite in the Senate for ending this procedure and the procedure is there to so that they're kept in check a bit so you don't have these huge swings and it's so it's it's I think it it's very caught up in their sense as a sort of civilized deliberative body that they are.

Jeeoff, there's some very real world impacts that are coming in the next few days.

You and I again, we were at the White House yesterday when Vice President Vance was talking about air traffic controllers missing a salary.

What else can we expect in the coming days?

Well, and one thing that he talked about was also the threat to Thanksgiving travel, which is just a few weeks away.

We're just getting into November and the the sort of catastrophic consequences that that could lead to if air traffic controllers are not showing up.

The other realworld consequences involve um nutrition assistance.

Uh there are a couple different programs that are affected.

There's the SNAP program, also known as food stamps, which nearly 42 million people are on.

39% of those are children.

Uh there's the women, infant, and children program, which is also affected.

The White House has said that they're going to use some money from tariffs to help fund that, but hasn't provided details.

And there's also Head Start, which provides uh preschool uh and education services for lower-income children all across the country.

Also, of course, big questions about um afford the affordable care act and the affordable care act, which is what the Democrats have been hanging their hat on throughout this shutdown uh warning about the impact of dramatically increases in premiums and the cost of healthare.

And that will happen as well if the shutdown if they don't come up with an agreement and the shutdown doesn't end.

I think that the the air traffic control issue and the pressure from two major airlines this week to come up with a solution and end this thing is going to increase pressure a lot on the Democrats.

Um you begin to feel this when you talk to some of the senators that they think they've been winning on this.

Their polling tells them that they've been winning that it's popular.

But as these pressures and they become more consumer pressures and they get blamed even yesterday uh there was huge weather interruptions on air travel and it was immediately blamed on the shutdown when it really was a weather interruption on a lot of the cancellations.

I was traveling yesterday and I can just tell you was a nightmare yesterday but um on Thursday in New York City in particular in the northeast and there's been a lot of weather on the east coast lately but the the pressure I think is going to mount as we get closer to this deadline especially u the the food assistance they are managing to come up with money for the military billions of dollars to pay the military uh by transferring money from other accounts without congressional appropriators moving with the objection by the way of some of the Republican appropriators in the Senate that they didn't that again the president is doing things with money that is not permitted under the under the law.

Sman, you cover the White House.

You've also covered the Hill for many years.

How much is politics at play?

Obviously, we know politics is at play.

We have elections coming up in a few days time.

How much is that factoring into how both parties want to proceed whether or not they decide to actually negotiate for real?

Well, Virginia is really the state to look at if you're kind of looking in the context of shutdown politics because clearly Northern Virginia has the highest population of federal workers.

Um, but I'm a little less convinced that the shutdowns or that the elections on Tuesday will specifically play in a Democratic strategy here.

I do think that there are signs of some movement towards actually ending a shutdown earlier this week and I saw es especially with small groups of bipartisan senators meeting to actually try to find a way forward.

No, there's no deal yet, there's no official gang yet to end this.

But the fact that there are actual talks and discussion happening is much more of an encouraging sign than we've seen in shutdown.

But as it rel as it um as it pertains to Tuesday, I think Abigail Spamber, who's the Democratic candidate in the governor's race there in Virginia, has made this has made her campaign much more broader um when it comes to the Trump administration's assault on the federal government.

And I think that's going to be the takeaway that Democrats have if uh if she wins on Tuesday, as the polls indicate she will, that his that in part that what the president has done to the federal government and how he's sort of systematically dismantled it is not popular, particularly in Virginia.

We have just over a minute left and I I But how how likely is it that President Trump gets involved?

He's been relatively hands-off, right?

And that's by design.

I think he gets involved when there's a need for him to get involved and that need is going to come when Republican leaders tell him that, okay, you need to come and do something about this because Republicans have actually been fairly consistent, you know, from Trump on down.

That all you need to do to end the shutdown is for Democrats to vote for this funding bill that's already passed the House.

And that calculus that uh that line from Republicans hasn't changed as of this point.

We have a little over 30 seconds left.

Andrea, you've covered this town for a little bit.

Is it how how unusual is it for a president to leave the country not once actually but twice including this one this last trip which was the longest um that he's taken so far during a government shutdown.

It is unusual not unprecedented.

Uh other presidents have canceled trips but he clearly thought that the China issue and being on the world stage was more important and he's not playing a role in this.

Also, he's not making deals when he promises or portrays himself as a dealmaker and chief.

He did that in Asia.

He's not doing it at home.

At least not yet.

Very interesting.

Well, we will continue to watch this, of course.

Um, and we're going to have to leave it there.

Thank you so much to our guests for joining me and thank you at home for watching.

I'm Vivian Salama.

Good night from Washington.

Corporate funding for Washington Week with the Atlantic is provided by.

In 1995, two friends set out to make wireless coverage accessible to all with no long-term contracts, nationwide coverage, and 100% US-based customer support.

Consumer Cellular Freedom Calls.

Certified financial planner professionals are proud to support Washington Week with the Atlantic.

CFP professionals are committed to acting in their clients best interest.

More information at let'smakeup plan.org.

Additional funding is provided by Coup and Patricia Euan through the Euan Foundation committed to bridging cultural differences in our communities.

Sandra and Carl Delay Magneson.

Rose Hershel and Andy Shrieves.

Robert and Susan Rosenbomb.

Charles Hamoy through the Charles Hamoy Fund, Steve and Marilyn Kerman, and by contributions to your PBS station from viewers like you.

Thank you.

[Music] [Music] You're watching PBS.

[Music]