Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Nobel Peace Prize Laureate and Iranian Human Rights Activist Narges Mohammadi; Interview with Former U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper; Interview with The New Yorker Staff Writer Jia Tolentino. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired December 18, 2024 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NARGES MOHAMMADI, NOBEL PEACE PRIZE LAUREATE AND IRANIAN HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVIST (through translator): I felt that this is not a movement that is
going to lose its strength and it's still going strong because our women are very strong.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: A world exclusive with the Nobel Peace laureate imprisoned in Iran. Narges Mohammadi on temporary release gives me her brave message to
the women of her country.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT-ELECT: As you know I gave warning that if these hostages aren't back home by that date, all hell's going to break
out.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- Gaza, Syria, Ukraine, a world of problems for the incoming president. And I put them to his former defense secretary, Mark Esper.
And --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JIA TOLENTINO, STAFF WRITER, THE NEW YORKER: This has provided a moment for, I think a lot of people to step back and think, why do we have a
healthcare system that works like this?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- murder, memes, and corporate greed. What the death of a health insurance CEO says about America.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London.
In Iran, the relentless crackdown on people who oppose the regime has expanded to those speaking out about Iran's failure to support its longtime
ally in Syria and criticizing the resources spent on propping Assad up instead of at home. But still, there are those bravely speaking out on
issues of human rights, democracy and women's equality, Narges Mohammadi, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate, who has now been in prison for the better
part of the last 20 years.
The state has accused her of acting against national security, but she has continued to be a voice for freedom and democracy at great personal risk
and sacrifice. And now, in a world exclusive interview, she's made the extraordinary decision to speak to us with her message for the world. And
she's doing so while out on a temporary release from prison on medical grounds, and she's due to be sent back there soon. Narges Mohammadi joined
me from her home for this conversation.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Narges Mohammadi, welcome to the program.
NARGES MOHAMMADI, NOBEL PEACE PRIZE LAUREATE AND IRANIAN HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVIST (through translator): Thank you very much.
AMANPOUR: How are you feeling? You were released from prison for about three weeks in order to recover from an operation. How are you feeling?
MOHAMMADI (through translator): When I was leaving prison, since I was leaving behind my inmates and I'd been given release, I was feeling very
sad. I had a heavy heart and I thought I was leaving behind a part of me, even though for -- it was just for a few days. But the moment they let me
in the ambulance and I saw the streets, I felt liberated and I felt I could see a woman who was crossing the road without a headscarf and they
recognized me and they greeted me and I started chanting, woman, life, freedom.
And I felt that this is not a movement that is going to lose its strength and it's still going strong because our women are very strong. And I was
filled with joy to see our women like that. And I greeted freedom because I realized I was not surrounded by guards and I could leave prison, but it
was -- I had a kind of dual feeling about leaving prison.
[13:05:00]
AMANPOUR: I understand what you're saying, but I'm also -- I mean, I'm just so amazed that you would be leaving prison for only a period of time.
You're jailed for defying the state and yet, you still come out and you shout the slogan woman, life, freedom You're on an international television
interview right now that will be shown all over the world and in the United States, and you're still Standing up for what you believe in. Are you not
afraid of the consequences?
MOHAMMADI (through translator): I have been tried for nine times. But, you know, I -- they continue to convict me of various crimes. But I think the
path that I have chosen will never stop, not even the prison walls and all these convictions can ever stop me. And I feel that alongside the Iranian
people, I am -- I have to go towards democracy and equality. And I hope that we will see victory. And it may not be an easy path, but I am
determined in my belief because of the conditions that exist in my country, Iran.
AMANPOUR: Narges, we are watching the fall of the Assad regime and the evidence of what was left behind in his dungeons, in his prisons, the
torture and the killings of political prisoners over many, many years. So, I want to know from you, what is your condition? You're a political
prisoner in jail in Iran. How are you treated there?
I understand you said that you've been beaten up. You have had multiple heart attacks. You're a young woman, but nonetheless, you've had multiple
heart attacks. How are you treated?
MOHAMMADI (through translator): I do not want to compare the prisons of the Islamic Republic of Iran with those of the Assad regime, because Assad
has been toppled. And now, the dungeons have been opened and people have seen how the situation was, whereas the prisons in Iran, Kurdistan, Sistan,
Baluchistan, Khuzestan, the doors are still locked and we have no information about what is happening there.
So, I can speak about my experiences in Zanjan and Qarchak prison, the experience we had in the IRGC cells, in the security cells and in solitary
confinement, they are very, very tragic experiences. There have been prisoners who've been isolated from everyone. They have been in solitary
confinement. They have been isolated from society, and they're even unaware of their own case files.
There are people who have been in solitary confinement for a long time. As a result, they have suffered from physical ailments and are still
suffering. And there are some who have actually died in solitary confinement, and nobody knows what's happened and what happened to their
case files. There are many such files, there are not just a few. So, we've been witnessing very disconcerting situations. Perhaps once they open
prison doors in Iran, we will see much more.
AMANPOUR: And you specifically, have you been physically abused? Your lawyer said that you've been beaten up, badly beaten.
MOHAMMADI (through translator): Yes, on several occasions I was beaten up. In about 2019, from 1:30 to 5:30 in the afternoon when I was in the prison
yard, I was beaten up very badly. My whole body was covered in bruises and injuries. I asked -- I urged them to send doctors in. And there were 24
bruises in -- on my body. And -- as I was beaten up by the guards. But unfortunately, my complaints fell on deaf ears, and I was convicted again.
I was sent back to Evin Prison, where recently, two -- we campaigned against the death penalty and we started chanting slogans because they'd
carried out a death penalty. And we managed to make our way to the prison yard. And it was then that the male prison guards came and stood there.
[13:10:00]
And once we started chanting loudly, they started hitting me on the chest, whereas I was supposed to go for an angiography, and my arteries were
blocked, yet they were beating me on my chest. So, that was not -- nothing accidental, it was deliberate on their part.
AMANPOUR: Narges, you have not seen your twins, your children, since they were nine years old. That was back in 2015. I know you FaceTimed them
because we have the footage when you came out just now and talked to them. You were able to speak to them for the first time in three years just
recently. And your son, you know, called this conversation intense. What was it like for you being able to talk to your children again after three
years?
MOHAMMADI (through translator): It -- the three-year period for you may not be too long, but for me, the changes I'd seen in Ali and Kiana in these
three years, I was amazed. I was actually a bit shocked. I felt that they had really grown up and I felt that -- and I'd lost the long period of
being with them. Because when I left Iran, they were eight and a half years old, and I remember I hugged them, Ali and Kiana, and we sang "Morghe
Sahar," which is a revolutionary song, together, and that was ten years ago.
But when -- three years ago, when I was on temporary release for a year, I felt I had -- there was a gap that had appeared in our relationship. And I
felt that they probably felt the same. But I could really -- I could see the change in them.
AMANPOUR: Yes, and I've spoken to them. You know, obviously you know that they accepted your Nobel Peace Prize. They read a message from you from
jail. And I spoke to them. This is what Kiana, your daughter, told me in January. We're going to play a little bit of what she said. I hope you can
hear it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KIANA RAHMANI, DAUGHTER OF NARGES MOHAMMADI (through translator): Obviously, with the little day to day things, I would have really liked my
mother to be here, to show me how to put on makeup, teenager things like that. So, it is hard to live without her, because nothing replaces the
presence of your mother.
But I'm still very proud of her, and I'm very happy that she chose to fight for women's rights in Iran, and that she has dedicated her life to this. It
is an honor to be her daughter, because I admire her a lot.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Narges, and she also said, I hope to see my mother at least once again my life. How do you reckon with those two words from your daughter?
MOHAMMADI (through translator): On many occasions, when I was in prison, I felt the challenge of motherhood versus being a human rights activist. I
had I endured many hard times thinking about Ali and Kiana, and now that I listen to what Kiana said, they -- again, I picture them.
There was a time when neither myself nor their father were present in their lives and when they were leaving Iran on their own, and when they lived in
France and they were going to school and when they reached puberty and the experiences they had when they needed me as a mother and -- but they didn't
have that.
I don't know whether they will forgive me or not. Of course, when I spoke to them, they said, oh, we are proud of you and we support you. But the
truth of the matter is, I feel that these children have bottled up so much and they have endured so much hardship and maybe words cannot express or
make up for this loss.
And I am -- really, I am in two minds, I don't know when they say, we forgive you, whether they will ever forgive me or will they ever, forever
have all this hardship in them. And -- but I hope that one day I will meet them in person. I will be able to explain to them that in Iran, we lived in
such predicament that we had no other choice and we had to choose this path in order to achieve freedom and democracy.
[13:15:00]
AMANPOUR: It's a huge, huge sacrifice that you and your family are making. How is your mental health, your spirits? Because you are going back to
prison. You've got a three-week furlough for recovery from this operation. And obviously, you, your lawyer, your supporters want you to have much,
much longer out. But how do you cope in prison? You and the other women who are separated from children, husbands, family?
MOHAMMADI (through translator): Look, life continues in prison. And I could elaborate about life in prison, because it could be maybe a bit
difficult for your audience to understand. Look, you have to define life in prison through perseverance and resilience. That's how you can define it.
So, if you have that resilience in you, you can be sure that you as a prisoner, you can make some kind of life for yourself in Iran and in the
Iranian prisons, especially in the general ward of Evin Women's Prison, especially after the uprising off 2022. Women have become more resistant.
They've become more resilient. They've become much stronger since that uprising.
Those women have shown their resistance by coming to the street. And those very women who staged the protests have ended up in prison, and they're
continuing that resistance, albeit from within prison walls. So, I can say confidently that life in prison continues its momentum.
I don't mean that life in prison is normal. No, that's not what I mean. And nor do I mean that it's the government that is allowing us to have some
semblance of normality within prison walls and live a kind of a normal life. No, it's no thanks to the government. It's thanks to the strength of
the women, their motivation, that we have adopted some kind of normal lifestyle within the prison walls. We continue to be motivated. We continue
to have hope. We continue to have our resilience.
Look, two of my inmates are on death row at the moment, Pak -- Ms. Pakhshan Azizi and Ms. Verisheh Moradi, but even those facing heavy sentences, and I
can see from experience in our ward, we have prisoners who have been convicted and they have to -- they're facing prison terms of 10 to 15
years, some are on death row, but they're keeping their spirits very high. They're creating role models, the models of a life that is based on
creativity. They're changing prison to anti-prison.
The walls of Evin prison is -- has cracked because of the chance of these women. That's how I feel that they've been cracked.
AMANPOUR: After Mahsa's death, we all decided to go to the prison yard and create some kind of disorder. It was midnight and we were warned by prison
officials to go back to our cells. And they say, if you do not return to your cells, we will forcefully return you to your cells. And many of my
inmates they declared that, no, we will resist. We will continue to resist.
That's what I want to say, that be it inside prison or outside prison, and I'm speaking for myself and my inmates, we will not stop resistance until
we attain democracy. We will continue this life.
AMANPOUR: Those are really strong words. They're fighting words. And I want to end by reading what you sent out of prison for your kids to read at
the Nobel ceremony last year. You wrote, in part, I write this message from behind the high, cold walls of a prison. The Iranian people, with
perseverance, will overcome repression and authoritarianism.
I know you still believe this because you just said it. Do you think you will be released from prison?
MOHAMMADI (through translator): I don't think about that very much. Whether I am inside Evan or outside Evan, my goal is very clear and until
we achieve democracy, we are not going to stop. We want freedom and we want equality, and I know we will achieve that. And so, whichever side of the
wall I am, I will continue my struggle.
AMANPOUR: Narges, what do you think the authorities will do to you after this interview?
[13:20:00]
MOHAMMADI (through translator): I am not at all worried about the consequences of this interview. Because in the past year, especially after
being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, they actually increased the hardship against me in prison. They even took my mobile phone away because they
didn't want my statements to leave the prison, but I managed to send them out, and I knew that I would be punished for sending these statements out.
Some of my meetings, even three times, my lawyer wanted to meet me and they denied him. This meeting, which is actually illegal because it's my legal
right. When my father passed away, they did not even allow me to telephone my brother who lives in Iran to phone and convey my condolences to him.
In the past few years, I have been tried four times and I have been given prison terms. I have passed through all these stages, all these phases, and
whatever punishment they impose on me, it makes no difference because I have my belief. I am standing firm and I am chanting against death penalty,
I'm against gender apartheid, against the policies of the Islamic Republic of Iran, I am a pacifist, I am a woman who is -- who wants to realize
women's rights in Iran. So, I think this is exactly where I should be.
AMANPOUR: And Narges, one final question. You're writing a memoir, is that right? What do you want to send to the world in your book?
MOHAMMADI (through translator): Look, this is not the memoirs of an individual. I have tried to illustrate the changes and developments that
have been taking place in Iranian society and what the Iranian society has witnessed, especially with regards to women. My memoir is an attempt by me
to show what has been happening in Iran in the past decades.
The women have been the ones who've been subjected to the most repression in the country. They have resisted, nevertheless, but this resistance was
not only to the government, but it's also been a resistance to the age-old traditions that exist in countries, including Iran, countries in the Middle
East in general.
And there is -- these women have paid a substantial price for that. It has been a resistance accompanied by hope for a bright future. The women have
been trying to keep the flames of this hope alive, at least in their hearts, even if they've been unable to express it. This is an attempt to
show how the sparks of activism for human rights has managed to overcome the suppression and spread their hope in society. That is what I've been
trying to illustrate. And it's my attempt to show that the struggles of -- this is the struggles of a nation.
Look, the reality is that we are people, we are women, who are doing our utmost to achieve democracy, freedom, equality. When you look at the
history of the struggles of the Iranian people, you can see that the system of the Islamic Republic of Iran has no capacity for equality, democracy,
and freedom. And based on the experience of our people, this regime cannot be reformed.
So, I think that we have reached a position where we need a transition from the autocratic theocracy of the Islamic Republic. But for this transition,
there are conditions. And from -- in my opinion, nonviolence is imperative in this transition. It is one of the important components. Our goal is to
achieve democracy and a secular government.
AMANPOUR: Narges Mohammadi, thank you so much. Thank you very much for this interview.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: So, that's true bravery and demonstrates a commitment to a peaceful resistance for a peaceful transition to democracy. But the regime
continues to intensify its crackdown on pro-democracy activists.
[13:25:00]
We've learned that Reza Khandan, the husband of the leading human rights lawyer Nasrin Sotoudeh, was arrested last week. Nasrin says that when
officials came to their door, they took him before she and her son had a chance to hug him or even say goodbye.
Meanwhile, the draconian new hijab and chastity law was due to come into force on Friday, but it's been paused. It would introduce harsher
punishments for women and girls for exposing their hair, forearms, or lower legs. President Masoud Pezeshkian called the legislation, quote, "ambiguous
and in need of reform."
Dealing with Iran is just one on a very long list of foreign policy challenges for the incoming president, Donald Trump. Not least, Ukraine
fighting for its survival, Israel's war in Gaza, and Syria grappling with a post-Assad future. And then, of course, there is China. And his pick for
secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth is facing a string of controversies.
So, let's put some of this to Trump's former defense secretary, Mark Esper, who's joining us now from Virginia. Welcome back to the program. Can I
start by asking you about Syria? And as you know, so many different factions and groups are operating on the ground there. One of them has
emerged dominant and is the ruling one. But how do you see this playing out?
MARK ESPER, FORMER U.S. DEFENSE SECRETARY: Well, first of all, good to be with you again, Christiane, I enjoy talking with you. So, look, we know
that HTS, the lead group on the ground, led this incredible resurgence and assault the toppled the Assad regime in, what, less than a week or so. And
of course, that's a great thing to celebrate for many years. The brutal reign that is the Assad regime has put upon the Syrian people, but we don't
know what's going to come next, and that's the big question.
It's leader, Mohammad al-Jolani has been saying the right things. He's been doing the right things and with regard to reaching out to other
communities, whether it be Christians or Druze or Kurds, you name it. And he's been showing restraint with his troops. So, I think that's the big
unknown.
I'm really glad to see that the E.U. interlocutors and the United States are engaging with him, trying to figure out what path he intends to take
the country and how he intends to lead. And so, far we know he's put in place leading the country, this former governor, if you will, from Idlib
Province.
And so far, we should be reasonably happy with how things have been progressive -- progressing relative to other Arab states has been
overturned, whether it was Iraq, notably in 2003 or Libya, where it's really gone bad and descended into factualism and a civil war. We may still
see that, but so far, I mean, there's hope.
AMANPOUR: So, there are so many factions, including competing Kurdish factions, one backed by the U.S., the other backed by Turkey. And actually,
President-Elect Trump said this week that he thinks Turkey will have a big amount of leverage and a big say in what happens in Syria. And I think many
people in the region think Turkey is the big player, big winner in what just happened.
So, what do you think, because remembering back to the first Trump administration and you having to execute an order to pull back American
forces there, what should the U.S. do, even if it's, you know -- I mean, can it do complete hands off? Republican Senator Lindsey Graham says no,
because it has to make sure ISIS doesn't come back.
ESPER: Yes, no, the short answer is no. Look, there -- I don't see any reason right now to have American boots on the ground. But we have
interests there, a number of interests. You mentioned Turkey. Turkey clearly is the winner here right now. They supported these rebel forces.
They armed and resourced them.
And so, now, we see, as you mentioned, they're going after the PKK, which they consider a terrorist group. And we're trying, at the same time, to
defend the Syrian democratic forces, which have been allies of ours against ISIS.
But the bigger picture is this, when you talk about American interests, we have an interest in Russia losing its foothold in the Middle East. And we
should probably talk about that because they have those two strategic bases, a naval port at Tartus. And an air base further up north in Latakia.
And then second, and maybe more importantly, we see that Iran currently is out of Syria. And that Syria for decades has been the major conduit between
Tehran and Lebanon to resupply, support, arm Hezbollah since it's the founding in the early '80s. So, the two major strategic interests we have
right there are get Russia out and keep Iran out.
[13:30:00]
Second -- thirdly, I guess, we want to make sure that whatever emerges in Syria does not become a terrorist state, much like Afghanistan. Fourth, we
want to make sure that that country that emerges isn't a threat to our ally, Israel. And then, fifth, again, we have to make sure we support our
Kurdish allies on the ground.
So, there are a number of U.S. interests here. We definitely need to be involved. I'm glad to see the administration, the current one, engaging,
and I hope that the Trump team, when it comes in, will continue that engagement to shape the future of Syria for the better.
AMANPOUR: Mark Esper, let's me -- let me ask you, because you brought it up. Obviously, as you said, the Russians for decades have had those bases
there, and it's where they project their power into the Middle East, into Africa, and they've got quite a lot of foothold in that regard. How does
the U.S. get Russia out of there? I mean, I'm really interested to know how you think that could happen. And is there any kind of Ukraine link that you
can think of?
ESPER: Well, clearly, you know, what has enabled Russia's departure, which was preceded by Russia's inability to support Syria here over the final few
weeks was the fact that it's distracted in Ukraine, that has expended a lot of military forces in Ukraine and probably sought unable or unwilling to
support Syria at this point.
And so, you know, what we see now is them pulling quickly S-300, S-400 air defense systems out, flying them out of the country. We see the naval
forces assets moving offshore. But when it comes to pushing them out and keeping them out, this should not be difficult because, you know, HTS, the
rebel group on the ground, knows it for 50 plus years as long as Russia has had bases there, they have been supporting the Assad regime. They have been
enabling the killing of Syrians for decades and of course, most notably in the last 10 years since Assad moved to put down the latest resurgence --
insurgency. Russia was bombing Syrians, they were using other troops to engage Syrians. And so, their history there is not good.
So, I imagine HTS would keep them out. We know that Moscow is trying to stay in. I think we need to get in on those negotiations as well. And I see
already that, you know, the E.U., for example, is talking about there can be no sort of normalization, if you will, let alone humanitarian assistance
or rebuilding assistance if Russia is allowed to stay in country.
So, I think things like that, a combination of soft power with incentives and disincentives are the way to engage HTS and bring them along so we can
see, again, not just a better future for the Syrian people with more normalized governance, but a Syria that no longer has Russia occupying
major ports and facilities.
AMANPOUR: Mark Esper, obviously the president's going to need a very clued in ready on day one defense secretary. And you know that his nominee has
been getting a huge amount of pushback, a lot about his personal habits, drugs, alcohol, the rest of it as allegated -- alleged rather, a lot about
his own words against diversity, against women in combat. Now, he says he supports women.
But this is what I -- this is what another previous defense secretary, William Cohen, told me about the notion of women in the pentagon. Here's
what he told me.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WILLIAM COHEN, FORMER U.S. DEFENSE SECRETARY: We can't fight today without women in combat. And you have to define what is combat. Are you talking
about hand-to-hand combat like the Peloponnesian Wars or you're really man to man in the trenches, or are you talking about the kind of combat that we
have today and likely to have tomorrow?
Women are flying our high-performance aircraft. They're doing a great job at that. They're flying our helicopters. They're sailing our biggest ships.
They are fundamental to our ability to defend this country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, what -- I mean, I'm assuming you agree with that. What would you say to Hegseth or indeed President-Elect Trump? Should he look for a
different nominee?
ESPER: Sure. Look, I do agree. I served women during my four years at West Point in the early 1980s. I served with them on active duty. I served with
them in combat when I was in the Gulf War. And of course, later as army secretary and secretary of defense, I would go out and see the troops
train. I would see them deployed around the world. And they are, they're critical. Women are critical to the readiness and capacity of the force.
They're doing all these missions.
And most notably, the achievements of the last few years is when we allowed them to go to the Army's premier leadership schools, infantry schools like
Ranger School, where they've performed tremendously. They've shown that they can keep up with their male counterparts. The key to all this, which
nobody should disagree with, is you have to have very clear standards and you have to enforce them. And that's what the women want, by the way, as
well. And that would be my argument and was my argument as both Army secretary and secretary of defense is that we maintain high standards of
fitness, of readiness, of performance, make sure everybody, men and women alike, are held accountable.
[13:35:00]
And that will continue to keep our military, the United States military, the most capable and professional force in the world.
AMANPOUR: And to that point, finally, are you concerned that, for instance, this -- in this case, this cabinet position is being filled by a
loyalist who could turn the military into a political operation rather than the separation of civilian and military?
ESPER: Well, I and others have warned for years that, you know, the lesson Donald Trump learned from his first term, as he thinks about his second
term, first and foremost, will be that he needs true loyalists in all these positions. So, I assume that to be the case with all of his appointees. And
he has a wide mix of appointees out there.
So, look, my concern is always, it's what guided me, is that your oath is first, and fundamentally to the constitution of the United States, not to
the President, not to the party, not to a philosophy, but to the constitution and serving the country.
So, I think that's what -- when these people go before advice and consent in the coming weeks, that's going to be a focus of the senators on the
nominating committees.
AMANPOUR: It's really interesting with so much out there on everybody's plate. Mark Esper, former defense secretary, thank you so much indeed.
And we turn now to another polarizing issue and that's the public reaction to the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO, Brian Thompson. He was shot dead in
midtown Manhattan this month after a six-day manhunt.
The suspect, 26-year-old Luigi Mangione has been in custody charged with murder as an act of terrorism. Since the killing, the internet has been
swirling with divisive conversations about his potential motive and what it says about America's health care system. Jia Tolentino writes about this in
her latest piece for The New Yorker, and she joins Michel Martin to discuss what Thompson's murder says about the country.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, Christiane. Jia Tolentino, thank you so much for talking with us.
JIA TOLENTINO, STAFF WRITER, THE NEW YORKER: Thank you for having me on.
MARTIN: You've talked about the fact that you think the way people are talking about this publicly, because, of course, you know, respectable
people have to say this is inexcusable. This is not how we handle situations. You see a number of public officials certainly saying that
vigilante violence is not to be tolerated.
But you're saying privately, and certainly social media posts are in some ways public expression of our private thoughts, really said something else.
You just want to talk a little bit more about that?
TOLENTINO: Yes, I always think it's interesting when there is something that happens and people speak about it very differently in private than
they do in public. And I think -- you know, at first, I was thinking, maybe this is particular to people my age who have no sense of propriety, right,
who are letting the memes rip in the group chats.
But I think, you know, one thing that we've realized in the -- you know, the profoundly sort of anarchic and chaotic response to this murder is that
you don't have to be any particular age or gender or race or from any region or even have any sort of political ideology whatsoever to feel that
the American healthcare system is profoundly immoral and to feel that everyone, so many people have been pushed to such a breaking point and
mostly been able to do very little about it, other than to try to raise money however they can to get out of bankruptcy or start a GoFundMe or
simply just suffer and I think we found that in the response that the sense of glee -- you know, frankly, the glee that was uncomfortable, maybe for
some people to withhold -- to behold in public, it was indicative of something that really has cut across all sort of traditional divisional
lines in this country.
MARTIN: Well, I want to go back to something you wrote in the piece that you wrote for The New Yorker. You wrote that Thompson's murder is one
symptom of the American appetite for violence. His line of work is another. Say more about that.
TOLENTINO: One thing that I think I've been thinking about in the last couple of weeks, and I think a lot of people have too, is that the American
health care system, there is no reason for it to exist in the way that it does. And we take it for granted that this is just how we live, that we are
locked into the system because, you know, attempts to push for a single payer public system, they have not succeeded and there are a lot of things
in America, like gun control, et cetera, that people feel sort of powerlessly locked into, that there is no way to do anything about it when
you vote fundamentally.
But this has provided a moment for, I think, a lot of people to step back and think, why do we have a healthcare system that works like this? Why are
we the only developed nation in the world that doesn't guarantee healthcare to all citizens? Why do we have private health insurance companies like
UnitedHealthcare playing such a primary role in the system?
[13:40:00]
We pay more per capita in health insurance -- in healthcare costs than any other country that's comparable. We have the lowest life expectancy at
birth out of any other comparable country. We -- our system is so expensive. It is so profitable for a very select few companies and people.
And it is so, so punitive in terms of what it does to people's actual health and ability to live. And there is is no reason that it has to be
like this.
UnitedHealthcare's annual revenue is hundreds of billions of dollars a year. It's annual profits. Brian Thompson, during his tenure, raised those
profits from $12 billion to $16 billion, that we have this profit-making machine and what it comes off the back of.
You know, there are lots of different kinds of violence, right? Someone shooting someone in the street is one. I think our healthcare system is
quite clearly another. And that's something that has emerged full force in the way people are reacting.
MARTIN: So, talk more about that because you're making an argument that structures can create violence. That violence isn't just a person doing
something bad to another person, that systems themselves can create violence or certainly harm. And one of the things you write, you know, to
most Americans, a company like UnitedHealth represents less the provision of medical care than an active obstacle to receiving it. Can you say more
about that?
TOLENTINO: Yes. You know, I mean, this goes back to the Friedrich Engels conception of social murder, which he wrote about in the mid-19th century,
right? That when a society withholds the conditions that are necessary to live from its people, which we do in this country, in terms of, you know, I
would say the minimum wage, housing, and very particularly healthcare, the most direct way. When a society denies the conditions that are necessary to
live to its people, and they die because of it, that that itself, he called it social murder. And, you know, there's another -- you know, another
Norwegian social scientist termed it structural violence in 1969.
And I just think, you know, there are a lot of ways to unjustly and immorally end someone's life before it should have ended. One of them, the
kind of violence that we fixate on in this country is a single person with a weapon that intends harm upon another person and then causes it, but
there's a lot of other ways to end a life early and unjustly and immorally, and denying people healthcare is one of them, especially when you know,
there is so clearly -- you look at CEO compensation in this country, healthcare companies aside, you look at the revenues of a company like
UnitedHealthcare and the fact that it denies one-third of all the care that doctors ask for for their patients. Every single one of those denied claims
is a potential bankruptcy is a potential sickness, potential death.
And I think, you know, we talk -- we fixate so much on this one kind of violence at the expense of recognizing that the conditions of life in this
country for many, many people are that of the denial of the tools that are necessary to simply live.
MARTIN: You know what I think -- what I found fascinating is the very day that the alleged shooter, Luigi Mangione, was arrested was the very day
that another young man was acquitted of the chokehold death of a man on the New York City subway. Now, yes, he didn't flee. You know, he presented
himself to authorities. He said, I did this. He said, I had an explanation for this. This -- I thought this man was threatening and I felt that I was
doing my part.
But I found it so fascinating that there were people outside of his trial calling him a hero.
TOLENTINO: Right.
MARTIN: Calling him a hero. I mean, and subsequently, the president-elect invited him to sit in his box, you know, at the Army-Navy game this
weekend, basically lionizing him. And I just found it so fascinating that there has been this -- you know, obviously people weren't allowed to go
shoot people in cold blood on the street because they're mad at them. But I did find it so fascinating that there was such a different reaction to
these two deaths. And I'm just curious if you noticed that too.
TOLENTINO: Yes, I have a lot of thoughts on this, right? I mean, both men were 26 years old and, you know, maybe the reaction isn't so different,
right? There are -- you know, we can't dance around the fact that Luigi Mangione is -- he is an enormous folk hero to people, I think, on both
sides, on, you know, everywhere on the ideological spectrum, where Daniel Penny, he is a folk hero, very firmly and only on the right.
But, you know, both people are being celebrated for taking someone out that was seen to be a danger to public safety, right? But when you compare their
victims, I think that's when that's when things really get much clearer, right?
[13:45:00]
I think the -- you know, there were not congressmen, there were not CEOs mourning Jordan Neely, Daniel Penney's victim, mourning him as someone that
whose life was precious, whose the end of life was unjust, right, but reflexively, the response of people in power to Brian Thompson's murder was
men like this, men that make $10 million a year, men that shepherd their Fortune 500 companies to, you know, shareholder profits, quarter over
quarter, this is supposed to -- in America, this is supposed to confirm morality, right?
The simple fact that someone is that wealthy, you know, that they preside over many employees, that they can generate capital gains for so many
people, that in itself is almost one to one in this country, at least among the powerful with morality. Although, as we all know, the way that you
acquire money like that is often through profoundly compromising systems, and none of which are as stark as the private healthcare system itself,
right?
And so, in this way, Brian Thompson, he is seen as automatically deserving of respect where Jordan Neely, the victim of Daniel Penny, he was the
victim of that same exact system. He was seen as a danger simply because he did not have money and because the systems that some people can make $10
million a year benefiting from, those systems operate by neglecting and ignoring and casting aside people like him.
MARTIN: Yes, I think you may have seen this. Andrew Witty, who is the UnitedHealth Group CEO, wrote an op-ed last week, saying that the --
emphasizing the company's mission to make healthcare more compassionate to people and transparent. And he said, and I'll quote here, "We know the
health system does not work as well as it should, and we understand people's frustrations with it. No one would design a system like the one we
have. And no one did. It's a patchwork built over decades. Our mission is to help make it work better."
Like how do you or do you reconcile these statements with the realities that you wrote about in your piece? And then, frankly, they have to know
we're true. I mean, they know what their numbers are.
TOLENTINO: And I found it kind of shocking and amazing that The Times would publish, you know, like a PR newsletter from UnitedHealthcare. I
think it is -- I thought it was really honestly funny that Andrew Witty, the CEO of UnitedHealth Group, thought that after all of the things that
have come out about UnitedHealth in recent days, all of these investigations from the last few years, all of these government
investigations, all of these class action lawsuits about how the company employs algorithms to kick elderly patients out of rehab beds 14 days after
they have surgery, right? How there are internal programs that have been deemed illegal in multiple states about how they have to kick people off
reimbursement once they're getting too much therapy.
You can't get around the fact that this is how the systems work, that how they generate their profits is not despite the fact that because of the
fact that they deny so many people care. You know, obviously it's complicated. It's not exactly that black and white. But that is how this
company makes money.
So, I applaud the PR team at UnitedHealth Group for spending five days, you know, working every little sentence in there to try to, you know, convince
people that they're working their hardest to take care of people. But I think, I -- you know, I think it's not true. I think The Times had to shut
down comments on that one because it was -- you know, it was not a successful winning hearts and minds campaign on the part of UHG.
MARTIN: Do you think that people who claim not to know why people are angry, do you believe them? I mean, do they -- can they really not know?
TOLENTINO: That's a really, really good question. I think that there is a degree of cognitive dissonance that comes from living in this country that
comes from, you know, the profoundly immoral systems on which all of our lives rest and the fact that we have to simply live still, right?
And I think a lot of people resolve that cognitive dissonance by saying, well, the way that it is, is the way that it is. And we have to just keep
going the way that we're going. Otherwise, who knows what kind of chaos, disorder, and hell we will slide into. Kind of not realizing that many
people already live in that hell.
I think there's something real where to understand where people are coming from you have to admit the baseline immorality of a system upon which kind
of all of our lives depend.
[13:50:00]
And I think we've seen with the sort of teaching of American history with, you know, the idea of taxing the rich, right? Like I think that there are a
lot of people that have erected an immovable wall that will not -- you know, that because there are so many things about this country that are
singular and amazing that are -- that they are unwilling to admit that there are other things that are rotten to the core and have always been,
right? And I do think that perhaps many of the people were baffled at the reaction, that's a result of those walls.
I also think that one of the things that the reaction is shown and one of that is that there is a hunger for direct action in this country. I think
this is an opportunity for people to consider that there are obstructive forms of protest that used to be alive in this country. I always think
about act up in the 80s, right?
There are -- you know, if people want to make CEOs of profoundly immoral companies, if we want to make their lives miserable, we can do that without
shooting them. We can do that by protesting, by occupying, you know, the act up, shut down the stock exchange and the FDA. You know, there is a
hunger for that. There are a lot of forms of that kind of resistance that are not violent and murderous. And it's one of the things that I'm hoping,
like, that I want that to push through very badly.
MARTIN: I guess and one of the things that I'm sort of puzzling over here is that, you know, former president and now future President Trump
assembled the richest cabinet in history, to our knowledge, and is poised to do so again.
And you had -- he had a wider margin of victory than he had the last time he ran. And, you know, he did -- no one is disputing that he won this
election. They can like it or not like it, but no one's disputing that he won it, which means that more people voted for him. And so, then how do you
square that with this sort of outrage at these systems, which he shows no inclination to disrupt?
TOLENTINO: Yes. I mean, I think that, you know, there are a lot of people -- there are a lot of perhaps under informed voters that still get this
sort of baseless whiff of populism off of Trump, despite every single thing that he's ever showed in his life. He's still positioned himself as a
populist leader, right, as someone that's like fighting for it.
And, you know, if you scratch that one second, it all falls apart, but he has pretty successfully pushed that message. And I think it's -- you know,
the sharp right return that every single city and state in the country basically took is -- I don't know, it's -- I mean, it is terrifying to me
for a variety of reasons, but I think there's actually something promising in the fact that this reaction has been bipartisan, that you don' -- that
actually, this is something that people on the right and on the left and in the center and in the weird sort of diagonal horseshoe, maha (ph), right,
left, you know, all of these kind of contemporary configurations of politics or anti-politics that we have right now, there is a populist
agenda here that neither party is actually pushing that is profoundly popular, right, that CEO pay is out of control and that these companies are
operating immorally and that the enrichment of multimillionaires and billionaires at the direct expense of ordinary people, you know, is unjust.
And I find something a little bit promising in the fact that when I was writing the piece, just to make sure that I wasn't getting, you know, lost
in my sort of Brooklyn socialist bubble, I was checking lots of places, right? I was checking comment sections on local Fox affiliates, I was
checking The New York Post, I was checking The New York Times, I was checking random TikToks, sort of all of these things. And everywhere no one
was really saying like, yes, these companies are corrupt. It's all Trump's fault, or it's all Biden's fault, right? Like, people were recognizing that
this is a system that kind of neither party is really trying to do anything about.
And there is a -- there is like a real political opportunity there, and there's a real potential locus of political promise if only someone would
take it up, in actuality, which obviously Trump's not going to do.
MARTIN: Jia Tolentino, thanks so much for talking with us.
TOLENTINO: Thank you for having me.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And the southern border is another important issue facing America. Immigration lawyers and activists warn that the return of the
Trump administration could also mean the return of its controversial child separation policy. It's a topic I'll be talking about with journalist Jacob
Soboroff and filmmaker Errol Morris. It's the focus of their new documentary, "Separated." So, tune in for that.
And finally, tonight, Santa is coming to town on a jet ski. In Brazil, Father Christmas has swapped his snowbound sleigh for a sunny seaborne mode
of transport to deliver presents to children with disabilities.
[13:55:00]
The local fire brigade and NGO Heroes of Love teamed up to spread some joy and love on Rio's famous Copacabana Beach. The charity supports patients
suffering from cerebral palsy and autism, among other conditions. And dozens of kids turned out with smiles all over their faces to receive their
gifts. It's a heartwarming, if unusual way, to kick off the festive celebrations.
And that's it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. And remember, you can always
catch us online, on our website, and all-over social media.
Thanks for watching, and goodbye from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
