Episode Info
- Season18
Hosted by Christina Ruffini and Sir Richard Dearlove
Guest
Toluse Olorunnipa
Toluse Olorunnipa is The Washington Post's White House Bureau Chief who has an outsized role in how the world interprets President Joe Biden's diplomacy.
Episode Summary
As the Washington Post's White House Bureau Chief, Toluse Olorunnipa has an outsized role in how the world—especially the power players in America’s capital city—interpret President Joe Biden’s diplomacy. In this week's bonus episode, Olorunnipa sits down with guest host Brett Bruen to look at what it’s like to travel the globe on Air Force One and write the first draft of history books on major moments from the Russian invasion of Ukraine to the controversial decision to withdraw from Afghanistan. They also discuss foreign anxiety over a second Donald Trump term and what role international affairs will play in the presidential election in the United States.
Listen & Subscribe
- Watch on YouTube
- Listen on Apple Podcasts
- Listen on Spotify
Transcript
INTRODUCTION
Mcfarlane: I'm Julia McFarlane, host of One Decision, the podcast that looks at the choices made that shape our world. Together with my cohost, the former chief of British intelligence, Sir Richard Dearlove, we unpack the key decisions, past, present, and future, that matter to us all. We drop new episodes every Thursday. But today, we're bringing you one more decision, smart analysis of the latest breaking news around the world with Global Situation Room president Brett Bruen, who served as the White House director of global engagement during the Obama administration.
Bruen: Over to you, Brett. Appreciate it, Julia. Tolu Olorunnipa is a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist who currently works as bureau chief for The Washington Post at the White House. He has to manage all of the massive amounts of information flowing out of and into the White House. We had the chance to sit down recently and talk about that job, but particularly how this administration has been handling foreign policy. And as it heads into a reelection campaign, what the White House is trying to do to reassure allies as well as to convince the American public that he deserves another term.
INTERVIEW
Bruen: Could you take us for a moment into those cramped quarters below the White House Press Briefing Room? Talk a little bit about how major announcements on foreign policy get handled. I know there often are off the record briefings. There may even be individual conversations with national security adviser or other national security officials. What is that like? How do major foreign policy decisions get rolled out?
Olorunnipa: That's a great question. As White House reporters, we kinda have to cover everything, and that can mean one day North Korea is launching a a missile. The next day, there's a big agreement with South Korea and Japan. The next day, there's a potential coup in Africa. And so White House reporters are often sort of jolted back and forth between different things happening in different countries. We tend to try to get access to the people who are making decisions within the White House about these various foreign policy briefs, and we get briefings from them a lot of times when an announcement is about to come forward or when something is happening on the global stage. We get on the phone, we get on Zoom with some of these national security officials, and we get them to tell us what is happening behind the scenes. A lot of times, briefings happen either off the record or on background, and hopefully, that that system allows some of these foreign policy leaders in our government to speak more freely without worrying about, you know, upsetting or offending their global partners. But we, as reporters, try to get as much information about how these decisions are being made, what the impact might be on the American people, and how the president is assessing the various things happening on the global stage. And those briefings tend to be very much in the weeds, and sometimes they can be very intricate in terms of the various nuances of foreign policy. But as reporters, we try to press the administration and get them to say what actually is happening behind closed doors and get them to talk about how whatever issue is coming into play fits into their broader foreign policy vision, which the president has spoken about. And sometimes there are conflicts between things happening on the global stage and what the president says. His vision is when it comes to things like defending democracy and standing up to dictators and defending human rights. A lot of times, you know, the president or the White House has to balance those broad idealistic visions with things happening on the ground, whether among allies or partners, and figure out how to navigate the thorny world that is foreign policy, and reporters have to figure out where to make emphasis and where to translate and how to translate that information to readers.
Bruen: And I won't force you to reveal any tradecraft or tactics, but there are a lot of leaks or there's information that's coming to you, whether it's from within the administration, those in the opposition, even from foreign governments who may be trying to reveal plans or intelligence. How do you handle those? And then what's the interaction like with the White House around some of those revelations?
Olorunnipa: Well, leaks, disclosures, private information, those are the coin of the realm in political journalism and foreign policy journalism. Essentially, you're telling the public things that are happening behind closed doors, things that are being done by their government, things that are being done by other governments, trying to get to the truth of the matter. There are people that are hired to put a spin on things, to present things in a positive light. But as reporters, you have to take that information along with other information you may be getting that may contradict sort of that sunny, optimistic, you know, well put together message that may be coming from the White House press operation, and you have to figure out what's actually happening, figure out how things are actually taking place behind closed doors. And so those leaks often allow reporters to get behind the scenes. It allows the public to understand what's happening. And so, you know, we value those, but we also, you know, try to vet them. We try to make sure that they're fact checked as much as possible. When we get maybe an unauthorized disclosure, we do take it to the White House or take it to the person who may, you know, have an official response and give them an opportunity to respond to what people are saying or respond to the information that we have. And we make sure that their response is included in whatever reporting that we do. And we weigh the various competing interests, we weigh the various information that we're getting, and we figure out the best way to present it to the public. It's not always easy because sometimes you're getting two completely different contradicting pieces of information from two different sources, and you have to figure out who's more credible and figure out whether or not one side has more evidence behind what they're saying than the other. And so there are a lot of very nuanced, difficult decisions that have to be made when you're putting together these stories, especially when it comes to unauthorized information, sometimes classified information, and reporting on it and trying to report on it in a responsible way.
Bruen: And often you will, I imagine, get the argument from the administration on national security issues that this would put lives in danger, potentially could destabilize certain countries. Just share a little bit in terms of how as the bureau chief for the Post, you and your colleagues try to assess those arguments because, obviously, there's also just a vested interest in not having certain information disclosed.
Olorunnipa: That's right. And these are the situations that are never straightforward and never easy, but I think our north star as journalists is that more information to the public is generally a good thing, and we generally on the side of providing information to the public about what their government, what their taxpayer dollars are doing, both here in The US and on the world stage. Now we do obviously take precautions, and we do listen to government officials when they tell us that information being disclosed could have a detrimental impact. We do work these things out, sometimes, and we do sometimes come to an agreement with government officials. And there are times where we agree to disagree, and we go ahead and publish something that, for one reason or the other, the administration or the person or the people in power do not want to be disclosed. And that's part of our role, with the First Amendment is that, you know, we do play that watchdog role and sometimes shine a light on things that are happening that the government does not want to be exposed. And we try to do so thoughtfully. We try to do so responsibly. We try to weigh the very interest at play and try to make sure, especially when lives are at risk, that we are being responsible about what we disclose. But, you know, it's also important that we don't neuter ourselves and become too restricted in, you know, listening to this idea that putting out information is inherently dangerous because sometimes that information is embarrassing or it's uncomfortable for the government, but it's not necessarily dangerous. And so we have to make sure that we are parsing and really vetting the claims from any government official who says that if you put this out, there's going to be detrimental impact. We have to see whether or not that detrimental impact is only to the government itself or to actual, you know, innocent bystanders. And once we make that determination, that helps us understand how best to put that information out into the public.
Bruen: One issue that seems to have come up again and again with this White House on foreign policy is that the president can, from time to time, riff seemingly on certain issues, whether it's US soldiers going to the defense of Taiwan, which isn't something we necessarily said out loud before, or whether or not he was seeking regime change in Russia when he gave that big speech in Poland. What was it like? Because obviously and in a book that is just out from one of the reporters over at the Atlantic, recently, there are stories about how the White House tried to walk back or maybe put back into the toothpaste container, the comments the president had made. What's that like, and how have you experienced those efforts, and have they been successful?
Olorunnipa: Yeah. I'm I'm glad you brought up those instances because as a reporter, our antennas go off once we hear the president say something that's different from the official foreign policy position of his government. And we saw that a lot during the Trump administration where president Trump would, you know, do things and say things that were not part of the long standing position of The US on foreign policy, but we've also seen that under the Biden administration. And in those cases, as reporters, you know, we jump right on those issues and try to get to the heart of what is being alleged, what is being said. And we put more weight in what the president says than, you know, on the record and in public a lot of times than what his officials are saying because he is the commander in chief. He's the one that sets the policy, and it's incumbent upon the people who work for him to, you know, clarify or to justify or to explain what he's trying to say. But there are a lot of times when the spin after the president says something, you know, it is not very credible. It's essentially not letting the president's words stand on their own, but in trying to interpret them and say what the president really meant was, you know, X, Y, Z, when a lot of times what the president said was quite clear. And, you know, it's difficult for people who work for him to say, you know, he was wrong or he's not announcing, you know, a change in the official position, when a lot of times what he clearly is saying is different from the official position. And so, you know, we try to call those instances out and let the public see that there's a gap between what the president's aides and what his big people who represent his government say and what he is saying on these very hot button, thorny, contentious political and foreign policy issues and what the president himself is saying. And we let the public decide. Sometimes we don't have the ability to come down one way or the other other than to say, there's this big gap. It's not common for there to be a major gap on a major issue between the president's rhetoric and that which his officials are saying, and we leave it to the public to decide about what that means, even as we present as much information about what the various sides are saying.
Bruen: You've accompanied the president on a number of foreign trips. Is there something that stands out for you? I just would love to hear what are some of those anecdotes of of what's taken place on those trips that stood out for you.
Olorunnipa: Yeah. It's a great question. One thing that stands out to me having covered the Obama administration and the Trump administration and now the Biden administration is that president Biden does not spend quite a quite a large amount of time sort of doing these cultural visits when he travels abroad. A lot of times, it's very much strictly business. He doesn't go off and do a cultural excursion. It's not a big part of his approach, but he has been able to speak to foreign audiences and get a lot more, maybe enthusiasm and bigger crowds than he gets here domestically. I found that really fascinating. It happened when he spoke in Lithuania in July. It also happened when he went to Ireland and gave a speech to thousands and thousands of people. And it's very clear that there continues to be a hunger for information from the American president. And even as sometimes president Biden domestically struggles to get big crowds and struggles to get that kind of enthusiasm. When he's on foreign soil, he's energized. He's able to sort of speak about his position as commander in chief and put forward these American ideals. It's been really fascinating to see that thousands of people are interested in seeing him and coming out to to hear what he has to say when he travels to these foreign countries, even though he's not sort of doing the normal kind of cultural politicking that you see from other presidents who go to a country and visit their cultural sites or taste their cuisine. He's really just speaking about American policy towards these countries, and I think in part because of so much turbulence that happened under the former president, people are really interested to hear what the current president thinks and hear about what American policy is and where it might be going, as we move forward toward another election.
Bruen: Well, Tolu, that brings up a really fascinating issue coupled with the fact that we are hearing the president may try to stay above the political fray over the next few months as Republican candidates, his predecessor, Donald Trump, food fight it out, on debate stages on the campaign trail. What do you think we're going to see from this White House when it comes to foreign policy, when it maybe comes to some of those foreign trips, which, as you say, provide him a unique opportunity to look presidential.
Olorunnipa: He's gonna be using his bully pulpit, using his role as commander in chief to address foreign policy, to travel to foreign governments. He's already traveled to several countries this year, and there there are more trips that are coming up. And I think they will try to maximize the benefit that he gets from those trips, including those large crowds that he often gets when he goes to foreign countries, and really try to show that he's being the president, that he is a steady hand while what's happening on the Republican side with Trump being indicted and other candidates on the Republican side continuing to support him and continuing to back him despite those indictments, is more chaotic than what the country is looking for. That's the message that's gonna be coming from the White House. That's the message that's gonna be coming from the president's campaign, and foreign policy is gonna be a big part of that message as he takes that message both domestically and across the world.
Bruen: And yet we're seeing in a lot of foreign capitals right now anxiety over the prospect that Donald Trump two point o could be coming their way. What are you hearing from officials in the White House about that issue and perhaps how they are trying to assuage some of those fears?
Olorunnipa: Yeah. That's a thorny subject. Folks in the White House do not like talking about the potential return of Donald Trump to the presidency. They, you know, think Biden lines up well against Trump in a rematch, but they know that if Trump wins the Republican nomination, he has a chance of becoming president again, and that has upended a lot of foreign relations. There's only so much you can do as president. There's only so much you can promise to your foreign partners when Trump is looming in the background, potentially coming into office in less than two years and willing to upend the partnerships, willing to upend the alliances, willing to upend the agreements that you make as we saw he did in 2017, pulling out of the Paris Agreement, ending the Trans Pacific Partnership and taking all kinds of steps to upend global relations. It makes it hard for Biden and for its aides to go to foreign capitals and say, this is our policy. This is what we would like to do. This is how we'd like to partner with you going forward. Because there are a number of foreign diplomats who are skeptical of whether or not any promises made here in 2023 or early part of 2024 will last. There will stand the test of time, especially if Trump wins the presidency. And so even though White House officials, in the Biden administration don't like talking about the prospect of a second Trump term, they have to square with that potential reality and address how it's impacting their current role in the White House, their current foreign policy, because it is having an impact. It is making things difficult for them as they try to notch some of these foreign agreements, as they try to assuage some of the concerns of their foreign partners, as they try to push back against some inertia that could come into play as foreign governments say, we're gonna wait and see what happens in November 24 before we make any moves to to either sacrifice or agree to what you're asking us to do or, you know, partner with you in any kind of significant way that could lead us to having regrets if Trump comes into office and we've already put ourselves out on the limb. So there is a bit of a wait and see approach by several of these foreign governments, and that has made it difficult for president Biden to pursue some of his foreign policy goals.
Bruen: Tolu, great having you on the podcast. We'll look forward to having you back as the election proceeds and, obviously, the world continues to turn on its axis.
Olorunnipa: For sure. Thank you so much for having me. It's been great.
Mcfarlane: That's it for this week's episode of One Decision. We drop new episodes every Thursday. Like and subscribe so you never miss an episode. Drop us a line. Tell us your thoughts. What decisions have impacted you and where you live? You can write to us. Our email is 1decision@1decisionpodcast.com. From me and the team, thank you for listening, and see you next time.
