Condoleezza Rice: U.S. Tech at Risk Amid University Cuts, China Threat

Channel: Alex Kantrowitz

Published at: 2025-07-16

YouTube video id: jJpBoa06We0

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJpBoa06We0

Is the United States at risk of losing
its technological edge as it cracks down
on university research funding, pushes
away international students, and falls
behind China in some key disciplines.
Let's talk about it with former
Secretary of State and Hoover
Institution Director Condisa Rice, who's
here with us in studio at Stanford
today. Secretary Rice, welcome to the
show.
>> It's a pleasure to be with you.
>> So, we find ourselves in an interesting
moment right now. The US has long been
viewed as the leader in technology, but
you look at China. They're the leader in
battery technology, the leader in EVs.
You can make an argument that they're
leading in humanoid robots, and they
just came for our AI industry with Deep
Seek. So, is the US in danger of losing
its lead to China right now?
>> This is actually a really interesting
story because I think we're seeing a
pattern here. the United States will
lead in innovation uh lead in discovery
and then somehow we manage uh to to lose
that uh that edge. So battery technology
is an excellent example. We actually
invented battery technology and somehow
now we've lost the lead. So I'm very
interested in why this keeps happening.
You know some of it may be that the
innovations are not um ready for the
market. uh they don't have a commercial
value and so they sort of faded to the
background they get picked up because
we're very open about our innovation and
our research you can read it anywhere
and so uh China has done very well uh
taking American discovery and innovation
and then uh creating a market for it uh
so it's something we have to be very
careful about because when you come to
AI and I know we'll talk more about this
you're talking about uh what my friend
Fea Lee calls a civilizational
technology and uh that would be very
different than le losing the lead in say
battery technology. So you you're on to
something something does happen that we
discover innovate and then we lose the
lead.
>> Now I think a lot of people will take
issue with my first question. They'll be
like the US is not in the lead or who
cares and it's not important the US can
develop technology. China can develop
technology. So why do you think it's
important the US stays in the lead and
what are the consequences if it falls
behind? Well, we're in an arms race in
technology because uh there are many
things about the USChina relationship
that are not adversarial. They are the
two largest economies. We are going to
have to find a way to trade together.
But uh in security policy, we are
adversaries and uh I would say that's
largely a decision that Beijing made. So
as a result, the technology race uh is
also adversarial at the high end. You
know, I think one of the really kind of
silliest uh statements that I made or
maybe I I would say kind of a dumb
speech if you will is when Xiinping said
that they were going to surpass the
United States in frontier technologies
like AI and quantum and he gave a date
within essentially 10 years. So what did
he think was going to happen? We were
going to get our backs up. We were going
to start to think of it as an
adversarial race. And um I am one who
believes that if somebody's going to win
the race on these frontier technologies,
it had better be a democracy because if
something goes wrong in AI, and it's
quite possible that something will. As a
matter of fact, it's probable that
something will. Maybe it's even
predictable that something will, we will
have um investigative reporting. You'll
probably be doing it on your show. We'll
have uh congressional hearings. the
Chinese will do what they did with CO.
They'll hide it. They'll lie about it.
And so an open society that develops
these these foundational technologies,
these transformational technologies, I
believe, is simply safer for humankind.
>> Okay. But the Chinese are open sourcing
their models and our labs are closed.
>> Well, our labs are closed for commercial
purposes. But I think when you look at
the amount of work that is done at the
frontiers of these technologies in
universities uh we we publish just about
everything openly and as you know many
people saw deepseek coming because uh
they were reading the literature they
were reading the open source literature
I'll tell you an interesting uh fact not
a single uh AI specialist computer
scientist that I know was surprised by
deepseek
>> really because most of the financial
world definitely was
>> every national security expert that I
know was surprised by deepseek so that
just shows that if you are following the
research and you're following the
research papers uh maybe you'd know a
little bit more than if you're a
national security type
>> right and speaking of research papers I
mean it is the open transformer paper
that came out of Google which by the way
founded by people who went to Stanford
here in Stanford that's what led to the
beginning of this generative AI moment
so I want to ask you what uh what do you
do if you are determined to stay on top?
What do you do? And I think that a lot
of people have been talking about you
got to stop the exports of chips to
China, the chips that these AI
innovations are built on top of. And
it's so interesting because we're in
Silicon Valley, but it's a misnomer. It
really should be called Silicon Design
Valley because where the Silicon is made
is in Taiwan. And if you put
restrictions on China from taking this
core material being made in Taiwan, I
think the US even believes Taiwan is or
says Taiwan is part of China. Um, and
says you tells China you can't use these
chips, the most important material and
the most important technology moment.
You don't think that China is going to
go invade Taiwan to get them?
>> Well, let me unpack that for a moment
because I think there's several
important points uh there. The first is
that you asked how do we win or how do
we uh deal with the fact that China is
we run harder and faster. That's how we
do it. And uh we get out of our own way.
Um I'll give you just one example. Um
was talking to some people in the
administration, the Trump administration
who tried to get a preeemption on states
having their own laws about uh AI, their
own restrictions on AI. Can you imagine
if you're a young AI company and you've
got restrictions in Delaware or in Texas
and California and they're all
different? So, we have to be careful
that we don't just get in our own way
and we have to continue to innovate and
innovate quickly. Um, I'm a national
security type. So, I continue to believe
in uh restrictions of some kind and I
continue to believe that export controls
can have a purpose in slowing what the
Chinese can do. We know that uh the
Nvidia chip which was uh prohibited for
sale in China, it probably slowed it.
But we would be on a fool's errand if we
think it's going to uh eliminate the
ability of the Chinese to do these
things. If we were going to stop Chinese
indigenous development, we would have
had to do that 1015 years ago before
they really did develop uh the ability
to innovate indigenously. But uh the
first thing is get out of your own way
and run fast and run hard. And secondly
um when you speak of Taiwan uh yes it it
is uh a remarkable fact uh that this
extremely important industry which we
founded has ended up in a place that is
vulnerable to China because China
continues to believe that Taiwan uh is a
rogue breakaway state of China. uh they
want to uh reintegrate it and Xihinping
in particular is someone who has staked
his entire historical claim his personal
historical claim uh his place if you
will next to Mao in the pantheon of
Chinese leaders on what he's called the
restoration of China or ending the
humiliation of China and putting back
together those parts of China that were
taken away by imperial powers. The last
piece of that really from his point of
view is Taiwan. If you look at what
they've done in Hong Kong, Hong Kong,
which used to be, you may remember, it
was one country, two systems, and Hong
Kong was going to have all of these
freedoms. Well, all of that has been
wiped away in Hong Kong. And Hong Kong
is now really just another province of
China except for some economic freedoms
which benefit Beijing. But the politics
is controlled by Beijing. the security
is controlled by Beijing. That's what
they have in mind, I think, for Taiwan,
not an all-out invasion of Taiwan. An
invasion of Taiwan would be like D-Day
times 100. And I'm not sure that
Xiinping really trusts his armed forces.
Uh you might notice that he keeps keeps
uh demoting generals. Generals keep kind
of disappearing uh in the Chinese
hierarchy. And so I'm pretty sure he
doesn't really trust his military. But
you don't have to invade Taiwan if
you're the Chinese. What do you do? You
use cyber attacks. You cut underwater
sea cables. Uh you do what the Chinese
are currently doing. Uh very very often
militaries would call them denial
exercises. So you look as if you're
going to quarantine Taiwan so that it
can't trade. Nothing can get in, nothing
can get out. And Admiral Paparo who is
our uh chief in the Pacific has said uh
it's not a an exercise he said it's a
rehearsal right
>> so that's what we have to be careful
about and and from the Chinese point of
view that's more effective because when
would we react it's a kind of salami
tactic against Taiwan
>> but that the question of AI actually
changes the timeline there are people
here in the valley in San Francisco open
AI anthropic uh that suggest that we're
going to get to super powerful AI or
artificial general intelligence or down
the road at meta they're building super
intelligence or they say that's where
they want to get
>> and the timelines seem to be compressing
when you listen to these leaders. So if
we get to a state where AI is that
powerful and we're telling China you
can't have the chips to build that
doesn't that invite conflict?
>> Well so far they found ways to continue
to innovate without the chips and I
think that's more likely. Look, I I'm
not saying that the the Chinese won't uh
move on Taiwan. I just think that the
idea that they're just kind of one day
you're going to start to see the Chinese
uh ships, navy, air force uh landing on
Taiwan. If you talk to most military
people, they say that's not likely. But
what would you do? You would put so much
pressure on Taiwan through these other
tactics that you'd get a probeijing
government in Taiwan. And in fact, there
are two factions in Taiwan. One is very
kind of independenceminded. That's the
faction that's currently in power. And
the other really values better relations
with Beijing. So better relations with
Beijing may be um as good if you're uh
if you're Beijing than trying to take
Taiwan, which is it's a pretty tall
order.
>> That's right. So let's talk about the
first part of your answer before we got
to export controls where the US will
need to outwork the rest of the world.
Uh if you look at China, there is an
intense work ethic.
>> Um they have regulations. They have
steep regulations. They have taken big
tech CEOs like Jack Ma and effectively
disappeared him for chunks of time. and
still they've been able to push forward
with some of the innovations that I
mentioned at the beginning of our
conversation. So what is happening in
China from a work ethic perspective or
what cultural values do you think they
have or or policies do they have that we
can learn from here in the US?
>> Well, I'm glad you said policies because
I'm actually not much for cultural
explanations. Uh I've seen cultural
explanations these people uh have to
work in a particular way. I I usually
find those explanations don't work. What
does work is do you set up an ecosystem
in which the incentives are such that
you get the right output from uh from
your economy or from your workers and
there I'll say that uh it's been up and
down in China. You mentioned what
happened to Alibaba and Jack Maw, what
happened to 10 cent. China once led the
world in online education startups. They
shut all of it down. Why? Because the
Communist Party, like all
authoritarians,
cannot tolerate the idea of alternative
sources of power. And Jack Ma was
showing up in Davos a little too much
and he was getting a little too popular.
And so I think there are inherent
weaknesses in an authoritarian system.
Uh first of all, they try to do
everything from the top down. We have
the advantage of distributed innovation.
you mentioned three four companies that
are trying to press the the front edges.
We're always going to have a more
distributed approach to innovation and
to uh research and I think that's a very
good thing and that's how we'll continue
to lead. But we shouldn't underestimate
that when it comes to not just copying
but kind of that next uh iteration from
something maybe we've invented and then
you iterate just the next step that
China will be be very good at that but I
I think authoritarian systems uh top
down systems have have their own uh
marks once s seeds of their own
destruction.
>> I mean we'll see what the results look
like. maybe but I think in history
that's proven correct
>> and in history you know we can go back
in history we were very worried about uh
something called Splutnik at one point
uh the Soviet Union did beat us into
space but ultimately the nature of that
system uh we we sprinted ahead
>> but that that sparked a rush toward
innovation in the United States
>> and you know we're here in Stanford you
know as well as anybody that a large
part of the root of our rush to
innovation comes from the universities
system. Right now, the university system
is under attack, especially research
institutions. I'm going to read you some
numbers. Uh the Trump administration has
frozen 2.2 billion in grants to Harvard.
They have frozen a billion in funding to
Cornell, 790 million to Northwestern.
They're looking at John's Hopkins, 3.3
billion. The list goes on. Um, are we
putting our ability to innovate at risk
if we kneecap this important part of the
source of our ability to invent?
>> Let me be the first to say universities
have in some ways been their own worst
enemy in a number of ways. Um, I don't
think uh, universities reacted
particularly well after October 7th. A
lot of things happened on campuses that
should never have happened. I also think
that uh when it comes to freedom of
speech and freedom of expression,
universities weren't the paragon uh that
we should have been for uh civic
discourse around uh difference. So the
question is so let me let me start
there. I just have to lay that ground.
>> I totally hear you and we'll talk about
because I want to get into the Trump
rationale.
>> Yeah.
>> I'm not going to ask you to comment on
Harvard in particular, but the leading
tuberculosis researcher there had
received an order from the federal
government to halt her research. So if
you think about what's happening across
universities,
>> is that the solution?
>> That's that's exactly my point which is
that um even if universities have made
these mistakes and they have, we have to
be very careful that we're not
endangering something that is of high
value to the United States. I I would
say irreplaceable value. you know 80
years ago we basically made the decision
with Vanavar Bush's important uh white
paper on this that we were going to make
universities the uh ecosystem the
infrastructure for fundamental research
and it was a really kind of brilliant
idea. You would have the defense
department and the energy department and
the national uh institutes of health and
the national science foundation which
would come later to uh to fund
fundamental research in universities
which were kind of cheap actually. Labor
wasn't that expensive and you would get
uh two kinds of innovation from that uh
two kinds of breakthroughs. Some were
commercializable and commercializable
fairly quickly and we saw companies uh
come out of that. Uh and some would have
to wait a while until they proved their
value. Now you could say in the first
case maybe industry would be prepared to
do that kind of work. But think about
how long it took for uh work on neural
networks to actually become the AI
revolution that we're now seeing because
it took the link between the research
that started in the 40s and the 50s on
neural networks then the GPUs to be able
to do it and now you have this
revolution in AI and so sometimes you
have to wait and commercial entities
can't wait and so having the fundamental
research in universities absolutely
critical and my concern is we don't have
a plan B you know if it's if it's not
going to be done in universities where
is it going to be done at one point it
was done in Bell Labs but when Bell Labs
became a cost center for AT&T after the
break up of the baby bells Bell Labs
went under and most of those people fled
to universities where they won multiple
Nobells so I really hope as we're
looking at all the questions around
higher education that it will be
recognized that fundamental research,
scientific research, uh medical
research, really the universities are
the answer. I'd ask most people when you
have some exotic disease, don't you try
to get to a university uh le hospital to
to take care of it because that's the
front uh the the the front foot for
American biomedical research. And you
could go on and on. you know, the the
founding really here of what became
reccominant DNA uh the discovery of of
stem cells uh and uh Google out of here,
Huelet Packard out of here and so done
okay.
>> Stanford's done okay and it's not just
Stanford. I could give that list for
most of the research universities in the
country and and not just the Ivy's but
I'm from Birmingham, Alabama. The
University of Alabama Birmingham is an
an amazing biomedical research center.
Purdue is a an amazing engineering
center. So it's uh dotted throughout the
country as well,
>> right? I mean there's a great article by
uh Jonathan Cole who's the former
provost and deina faculties at Colombia
just lists the uh innovations we've
gotten out of universities. I'm going to
read them just because it's worth
reading. lasers, FM radio, barcodes,
Google algorithm, the invention of the
computer and the iPhone, cures for
childhood leukemia, the papsmear,
crisper, the electric toothbrush,
Gatorade, the Heimlick maneuver, and
Viagra. Apparently, he felt necessary to
list that, but
>> that is a track record of everything
that many of the things that you think
coming out of the United States,
>> it happens in in the in universities.
>> It does. And and there's another piece
to it. Of course, we train uh the next
generation as well in PhDs that come
through these universities and uh then
go on to become faculty or go into
industry. A lot of them actually go into
industry from from the PhD programs. And
so these uh these research universities
are really a kind of gold standard
internationally.
It really has set the United States
apart in terms of the way that we do
this. Uh in continental Europe, they
teach in one place and they do research
in another. At a place like Stanford or
any of these universities, you can walk
across campus and you've got the really
brilliant young 18-year-old and you got
the Nobel laureate in the same body.
It's it's really something we have to
protect.
>> Going back from China to back going back
to China, um this is still coal. In the
past quarter century, investments by
China uh in higher education have become
similar to those in the United States
and has increased the building of new
research oriented universities to
compete with us in STEM fields. It seems
like the rest of the world is catching
on to the US secret sauce. You're seeing
the investment in China and of course as
we're having uh restrictions of people
to be able to do their research in the
United States, Europe has extended the
hand and said come do it here.
>> Right. I still think we'll win uh on the
uh battle for talent. Um if we don't uh
if we don't say to people you aren't
welcome, they're going to find the place
that it's best to do this because uh
these researchers are driven uh by a
sense of mission to do their work at the
highest levels and it's still the case
that you do the work at the highest
levels in the United States. But yes,
too long of uh sending talent or
rejecting talent and having it go other
places will really pay the price. I'll
also say that um I'm a a big believer in
controlling your borders. I'm a big
believer in that we've made a lot of
mistakes over the last few years in in
losing control, particularly the
southern border. And I want to see that
remedi. I hope that when it comes to
bringing talent to the United States, we
will recognize that uh we don't train
enough engineers. We really need um H-1B
visas to get people to come here. If you
look at the the number of founders of
these high comp high-tech companies,
awful lot of immigrants in that group.
So, we we do have a kind of secret sauce
and maybe it needs a little adjusting
here and there, but uh let's let's
remember what's gotten us to where we
are. Okay, I'm going to get to some of
the numbers that we're seeing with
international students in a moment
because it's it's not pretty and we
should discuss it in more depth, but let
me ask you, how do why do you think this
is happening? Um, I'm going to give the
Trump administration's rationale in a
moment. U, but just from a philosophical
level, how do you get to the point where
you start to see university funding as
something you can pause?
>> I've been a university professor for
more than 40 years, right? They hired me
when I was 11. And I just want that to
be understood uh by your audience. But
>> but um I think universities have become
detached from society and from reality
as well. And uh so it's not just uh it
goes a little bit both ways. What do I
mean by that? Uh clearly we haven't made
the case very well for what we do. Maybe
it's that uh people take for granted
some of the uh innovations that have
come out of universities. But if you
walked and asked even a very highly
educated uh member of the attentive
public about how the research system
that we just described worked, they
probably wouldn't know. So maybe we
shouldn't take that for granted anymore.
Maybe we should make it clear why this
is happening. Uh secondly, I do think
that uh universities and elites
sometimes have looked down on people who
quote weren't their own kind.
I do think that uh the stories that come
out about uh the running down of
American values, American institutions,
America is too racist, America's, you
know, people get tired of that and they
don't like the attack on their country
and they don't like the attack on their
culture. And unfortunately, it's become
a little bit associated, it's become a
lot associated with elite universities.
So, I would say to us, let's look in the
mirror a little bit, too. Well, I'm glad
you brought that up because one of I
mean I one of the things that I really
struggled with before applying to
university or applying to college was
the cost and I came out tens of
thousands in debt and I was lucky.
>> Yeah.
>> And if you look at the costs of what
what it takes to go to university today
it is it's out of control. So in the 60s
um this is according to the National
Center for Education Statistics 12,000 a
year for a private 4-year college. Now
it's 35,000. Um, so you could come out
maybe with 40 and this is in today's
dollars. So coming out with like, you
know, 30,000 40,000 in debt, manageable.
Coming out with a 100 or 200,000 after
the um after the interest is not
manageable. In fact, we're actually
capping the amount of money people can
take out um for a loan. I think that
just changes the composition of the
university and it changes the
composition of the elite. the elite
becomes solidified. It's the same people
coming from the same rich families that
never have any contact with people who
are in a different social class from
them. And as much as we're, you know, uh
dividing in our country based off of any
number of characteristics, we're falling
apart because we don't speak to each
other in terms of um class. So, how can
we fix that?
>> Well, I I agree with you. I never
thought, you know, I used to study the
Soviet Union and class conflict. I never
thought I would see what I think is kind
of class conflict or class division in
the United States. And uh I I will say
that uh universities that are are
wellendowed
have made an effort to use that
endowment to make it possible on what's
called needlind. You apply and if you're
good enough to get in, we'll find you a
way to go to school. And so some 20% or
so of uh the student population in a
place like Stanford is firstg. So these
are they're kids whose parents nobody
else went to college. And I've always
said when I can stand in front of a
class and one child is the child of an
itinerate farmer and the other is the
child of a fourth generation legote. I
feel pretty good about what universities
are doing. But it's not just that they
are expensive. And I'll come back to why
they're expensive. I was provost of
Stanford. I was the budget officer. I
understand I understand why it's
expensive. But but I will say um not
every kid should go to college because
many of them don't want to go to
college. They would be just as well with
>> not everybody needs to go. Instead, it's
unavailable for a large part.
>> But if you if you want to go to college,
you ought to have an the ability to go.
And that's why I think financial aid and
making it possible is so important. But
if you're going to take down tens of
thousands of dollars in debt and you
would have done just as well with a
two-year degree and a skill, then maybe
we ought to start to value people who
work with their hands. If you you've
heard a lot about how we need ship
building, we need manufacturing back in
the United States. We don't even have
the skills. We don't have the welders
and the electricians to do that. Why
don't we value those people as much too?
And that's part of that class division
that we're seeing get automated by chat
GPT. So
>> well they're not but but a lot of white
collar people are going to get automated
jobs.
>> They might be there. They just have to
be trained for them.
>> But I wanted to make one um other point
about the divisions. Uh we don't know
each other very well anymore.
>> Um and I have been wondering about ways
to remedy that. Uh when the election
took place in 2016 and Donald Trump uh
won, I actually had colleagues who said,
you know, maybe I should travel and see
what those people in Alabama think and I
thought, you know, if you have to do an
anthropological dig on your fellow
citizens, we have a problem.
>> Weird cliche.
>> It was a weird cliche. Really bizarre
reaction. So, uh the military used to be
a place that people went from a lot of
different backgrounds. Now, that really
isn't true. I'm a fan uh and a believer
in national service. Even if it's
voluntary national service, it doesn't
have to be the military. It could be the
Peace Corps. It could be any number of
uh efforts. I like Teach for America
because I have some kid who's from from
Pacific uh Heights who's going to go
work in the Mississippi Delta. We just
do need ways to to get to know each
other better. We've we've lost that as a
country. And and no democracy can
ultimately survive and prosper with
those kinds of divisions. And and
finally, the educational system is
reinforcing class differences because I
can look at your zip code and tell
whether you're going to get a good
education,
>> right?
>> That's a predictor of wealth.
>> That's a real problem. And so whether
it's by giving parents uh choices
through school choice and vouchers or
improving uh public schools, we'd better
pay attention.
>> Yeah. The Trump argument, as the New
York Times captures it, they turned that
universities turned into bastions of le
leftism, hostile to conservative thought
and lost the trust of the American
people. Elements of that might be true,
but again, if you're only going to admit
a selection of the population, you're
going to get uniform thinking. And I
thought if you're going to think about
withholding federal funding, maybe it's
not research, maybe it's other forms of
federal funding,
require the universities to not increase
their tuition, not increase their fees
more than inflation. Why can't why is
that so hard? Why?
>> Well, as a budget officer, I would have
loved to not increase uh tuition and I
think actually increased uh tuition uh
increases moderate for quite a long
period of time.
>> But do you know why it's expensive to
run a university like this?
>> I have an idea. Yeah. I mean, you're not
going to give the same answer as I am,
but I
>> I think that we have had a a increasing
runaway bureaucracy that is running
universities. We pay so much money to
people who are excuse my excuse me, but
pushing paper and not teaching and you
know other amenities because there's
this sort of arms race between schools
to offer things and then you end up
looking at a tuition bill that's out of
control. Well, uh, that's part of the
story and I'm a big believer that you
need to cut administrative bloat, but
let me, you know, when I get a federal
grant, for instance, do you know what
the reporting requirements are like on a
federal grant?
>> That's why the administration is
>> and that's why administration goes
through. So, I would I would trade the
federal government 11 points on what's
called the indirect cost recovery. In
other words, the overhead that the
government pays. I trade 11 points if
you don't make me report uh to the
degree that you do. Um, and another
problem is students expect a lot these
days.
>> So when I first became provost, we had
what were called internet cafes, right?
So you sat down in the basement and
everybody could use the Do you know what
a kid would think today if they walked
into a dorm room and there wasn't access
for their computer? So uh, the costs
have gone up, expectations have gone up,
but I'd be the first to say, uh,
universities need to control costs.
>> Yeah. It's called learned helplessness,
right? you teach them that this is what
they should expect and they can't do
anything else. And
>> you know, let let's just go back to the
consequences here because assuming that
the funding does,
>> you know, get withheld for long term,
uh, we could see again a a harm in our
ability to innovate and the innovations
coming out of China that I read in the
beginning of this conversation were
before any of this happened. Uh, is it
surprising to you that it's Republicans
who are traditionally pro business are
seeding what could be the the um the
roots of a decline in business because
they're kneecapping the university?
>> Well, I think a couple of things are
happening. Um, people some people are
angry about the kinds of things we've
been talking about and so uh and
universities become then a kind of easy
mark uh because they have made so many
mistakes. I I also think that um again
there's a something of an educational
mission here to really draw the line
from that funding that federal refund
funding for uh university research to
where we are as a country in terms of
innovation. When I go to the hill to
talk to people there are certainly uh
any number of senators uh and congress
people who understand that and uh they
are trying to hold the line. you know,
people are also looking for money in
these budgets to be to be really clear
about it, right? So, so some of the cuts
are coming because people are just
looking for money because you can't cut
entitlements. So, you find uh these
smaller ways to do it. But I've I've
been a a voice for we really really have
to uh reenter ourselves on how important
the innovations that came out of a very
smart specific system that we created 80
years ago. And I just want to repeat, we
don't have a plan B. So we really do
have to make sure that we're adequately
funding federal research. And and it's
not, by the way, just biomed or
engineering or what happens here in the
valley, but a lot of defense capability
is going to be dependent on what we do
in terms of innovation as well.
>> Right. And you would think that if
anyone would know that, it would be
folks in tech. And I think it is notable
that you're making these points on a
technology podcast. I'm doing that
because I really want to speak uh to
that community. We we've done something
at the Hoover Institution uh along with
Stanford. It's called the Stanford
Emerging Technology Review. And the
whole purpose of it I I co-chared with
the dean of engineering at Stanford,
Jennifer Whittam. And the idea is that
uh we need to help policymakers
understand what's coming on the horizon
in terms of frontier technologies. But
in order to do that, we have to have the
scientists who are really in the labs at
the bench to help us understand these
technologies. And then they need people
like us who understand policy and
institutions to help those those
institutions understand uh what those
technologies are doing, what the
challenges are, what the upsides are,
what the downsides are. And um that's
what we're trying to do. So that's why
I'm on your podcast in addition to the
fact that a lot of people like your
podcast.
>> Yeah, we we cater to a larger audience
than just tech.
>> Just tech.
>> Um, so of the people in the tech world
that supported the president um and have
been behind his agenda up until recently
was Elon Musk.
>> Can Elon Musk's third party work?
>> Oh, I don't know. I'm I'm a specialist
on international politics, not American
politics. And I always remind people
secretary of state. Yeah, but that does
international politics remember. Uh a
lot lot easier to to figure out that I
am uh a great fan of uh great
entrepreneurs and uh people who have
pushed the envelope. We have a lot of
them here uh including including Elon
Musk. Uh politics is a strange business
and it doesn't look like it doesn't
actually look like industry. It doesn't
actually look like business. it doesn't
innovate very quickly at all. And
sometimes there's a little bit of a
clash uh between the valley and the way
that the valley thinks about things and
the way that Washington thinks about
things. Um we do uh what we call um
these uh these programs where we bring
together the tech people and government
people and uh we try to help them speak
the same language.
>> And how's that going? It it you know we
we're getting people who speak speak the
same language a little bit but it just
shows that uh what you can do in the
valley what you can do in business you
can't always do in the political realm.
Uh the political realm uh the government
has functions that uh businesses don't
have has many many many more veto groups
and many many more constituencies that
have to be taken account of. My solution
to a lot of our problems in Washington
is uh to look to where the founding
fathers looked which is not to
Washington but what's happening in the
states and the localities because there
you really do get governance that's
closer to the people and if you start to
feel bad about democracy sometimes go go
to a city or go to a state and watch
what's happening there and it'll it'll
uh rejuvenate your belief in democratic
institutions.
>> Oh definitely. I mean, maybe I'm a
coward for this, but when I thought
about which type of reporter I should
be, the local reporter was always the
scariest one because you're reporting on
people and living in their community.
That's right. And the same goes for
representatives as well.
>> Um, all right, couple more questions
about funding. Well, one more question
about funding.
>> U, I've complained for a long time in
our conversation about how the federal
government is pulling funding, but you
look at the endowments and universities,
and you mentioned this, and they are,
um, I mean, unbelievable. So, uh,
Harvard's endowment 53.2 2 billion.
Stanford, where we are, 37.6 billion. A
little less, but you can still do a lot
with that money. Why are we complaining
about university funding? Shouldn't
these very rich institutions, which have
effectively become financial
institutions in and of themselves, just
fund all the things they're asking the
government for?
>> Well, endowments um under our um
nonprofit status, we pay out a certain
amount of the endowment every year, and
it covers uh mostly uh a whole range of
uh activities. But do you know how much
of that endowment is actually
restricted? That is the of that 37 or 38
billion. A lot of that money was given
by people who gave it very specific
things and you can only use that payoff
for very specific things. So those are
big numbers but there it's not as
flexible as people think. The other
thing is that endowments were uh
structured to make sure that
universities lasted uh for perpetuity.
That's the whole idea of the endowment.
And I'll give you an example of one time
that Stanford had to invade the
endowment. We had a major earthquake in
1989 called the LMA Pria earthquake. We
had at the end of that earthquake $157
million in unfunded uh because we were
self-funded unfunded damage to the
earth. The the four quad corners were
down. The museum was down. Uh you could
drive a truck into a pothole uh on the
streets. we actually did take down more
of the endowment payout to be able to
finance the rebuilding of the campus. So
when you think about something like
that, you think these endowments have to
be there for uh keeping the university
in perpetuity. But the main point that I
would make is that they're a lot less
flexible than people think.
>> Okay. All right. I I hear you. I mean,
you could get a lot of money off the
interest of that
>> 37 billion.
We also we also have students and we
have dormitories and uh you know you you
as you were driving over to Stanford you
might have noticed that the roads are
all torn up.
>> Uh well that's called planned
maintenance,
>> right?
>> Uh nobody funds planned maintenance
except the payout from the endowment.
>> Really?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. So look earlier you talked about
international students. I promised I was
going to come back with some numbers.
Some numbers. The Financial Times says
US universities face a $1 billion
revenue hit over foreign student fears.
So more important than the money is the
um fact that if the US is a brand, it's
not attracting the amount of
international students that we had
previously. This is from the article.
Threearters of universities surveyed in
recent weeks anticipate a fall in
international student numbers uh this
year with the majority expecting a drop
of at least 10%. So a lot of these stu
especially here a lot of these
international students they'll come get
an education at Stanford and then
they'll go invent the next algorithm uh
inside meta or open AI or anthropic. Um
are we going to do more damage scaring
away these international students
because of our immigration policies?
Well, I really hope that um that we will
be very clear that we believe in
international students and I I'm a huge
believer that bringing students from
around the world is good for our
students, is good for them, etc. Um I I
want to see what the numbers look like
in two or three years. Um I'm not one to
take a snapshot in time and it's not
even clear to me that we are going to
have a 10% uh reduction. There may be
some places that that's the case, but
I'll tell you, I have some experience
with this
>> because I was national security adviser
on September 11th. And for a variety of
reasons, we had to really constrain uh
student visas. Um three of the hijackers
were actually registered on student
visas. So, we very much constrained
student visas. We were the ones who
created that system that you read about
uh civis where you put in and you get an
a report on the student as to whether or
not they're actually taking classes and
so forth. Um we turned that around with
uh within three or four years. And so
some of these effects may be temporary.
Let's wait and see. But I'm uh one who's
encouraging particularly state to to
make sure that the visas are keep
coming. Um, I think students are
starting to get their visas and we'll
see what it looks like in the fall. I I
wouldn't want to make predictions about
what the impact will be.
>> So, speaking of 911, I mean, if you look
at the United States right now, we have
a moment where we're turning in inward.
Uh, we have tariffs to try to bring
manufacturing home, but really to lessen
our dependency elsewhere. Some of those
are smart, but it's again it's a focus
inward. Um, we're restricting student
visas. We're we're we're massively
anti-war in this country. If you look at
the reaction to
>> I don't I don't know about anti-war. We
just did some very good work in Iran.
>> I know I'm saying but just look at the
reaction there. It was very
controversial both in the with the
Democrats and with the Republicans. How
much do you think the legacy of the Iraq
war contributes to this moment?
>> Oh, it probably contributes a little
bit. I told President Bush, you know, uh
in August of 2008 that we'd been about
war and terrorism and it'd been tough on
the country, but I think it's a
relatively small issue. I think what's
happened over time is the United States
has borne the burn the brunt of uh what
George Schultz called the security
commons. We did we were the ones who
defended the sealanes. We more than
overpaid for NATO's defense. We more for
than overpaid for defense of a great
deal of the world. And so I do think
there's a little bit of a sense in the
United States that uh we need to
redistribute the load. I was very
grateful to see the secretary general of
the you of the uh of NATO say the United
States has carried too much of the lobe
for too long and it's time for us in
Europe to do our part. And so uh this is
not I this is one of those things that I
think has been boiling for a while. And
now what you're seeing is that other
countries with the United States
threatening to step back but maybe not
fully stepping back. you're seeing other
countries recognize that uh we need to
we need to spread the load a little bit
more. I mean my my in one of my favorite
allies was the Australians because when
you're the secretary of state 911 is the
secretary the the secretary of the
United States is the 911 of the world
but the Aussies would call and they'd
say there's a problem in the Marshall
Islands made and we'll take care of it.
We'll call you if we need you. We need
more of we'll call you if you if we need
you.
>> Right. Okay. I want to end here. A
couple years ago, you were uh rumored as
someone who could be the head coach of
the Cleveland Browns. You said you're
not doing it, but I want to test your
football knowledge to see if this could
be something that you could do today.
>> All right, second and goal.
>> Yeah,
>> you're down four.
>> 25 seconds left to go. The ball's at the
one yard line. Are you passing or are
you running?
Well, if I have Josh Allen, I'm going to
run
>> because I'm going to or if I if I have
Jaylen Herz and uh you know, the the
brotherly uh push, then I'm going to
run.
>> Anybody else? I'm going to throw the
ball to the corner. Um and u have my
receiver go up and get it.
>> Marshon Lynch in the back field.
>> Uh Marshon Oh, that's that's a tricky
one. I'm not going to criticize Pete
Carol.
>> All right. Well, if you would run, you
would have won Super Bowl 49. Secretary
Rice, thanks so much. Really great
speaking with you.
>> Thanks so much. Great being with you,
too.
>> All right, everybody. Thank you so much
for listening and watching, and we'll
see you next time on Big Technology
Podcast.
[Music]