Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with U.N. Relief Chief Tom Fletcher; Interview with Rutgers University Professor of History Jennifer Mittelstadt; Interview with Professor of Constitutional Law, Columbia Law School Gillian Metzger. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired February 06, 2025 - 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.
From Gaza after Trump's shock proposal to take it over, I speak to the United Nations Relief Chief Tom Fletcher about what he's seeing and hearing
from Palestinians there. Then, we take you on the harrowing journey of a critically ill toddler and the evacuation from Gaza that almost didn't
happen.
Also, ahead, what is the Trump doctrine? A look at the little-known philosophy that could be driving the U.S. president's worldview.
Plus, constitutional law professor Gillian Metzger talks to Walter Isaacson about the Trump-Musk plan to deconstruct the federal government.
Welcome to the program everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London. Israeli officials are welcoming President Trump's shock proposal to clear out and
take over Gaza. The defense minister says he's ordered the army to draw up plans for large numbers of Palestinians to leave the territory, even though
there is no real blueprint from the U.S. about how this would work and who would pay for the rebuild.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu went on Fox News to praise the idea that's been roundly rejected by his Arab neighbors.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: The actual idea of allowing first Gazans who want to leave, I mean, what's wrong with that? They can
leave. They can then come back, they can relocate and come back, but you have to rebuild Gaza, if you want to rebuild Gaza, you can't have -- this
is the first good idea that I've heard. It's a remarkable idea. And I think it should be really pursued, examined, pursued and done, because I think it
will create a different future for everyone.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: But while there's no telling how many Palestinians in Gaza actually want to leave, many are saying very clearly that they're not going
anywhere. Listen to this woman.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): We will not leave Gaza whatsoever, even through the great destruction and everything, and even the
weather, we are staying here in our destroyed homes. We are steadfast in our land and we are not giving a damn to his statements.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: And she said that with that ruin behind her. And Tom Fletcher is the United Nations top humanitarian official. He's joining the show from
Gaza. It's his first visit since the war began. Tom Fletcher, welcome back to the program.
Of course, your first visit since the war began, but also, obviously you're there during the ceasefire. Just in this sort of conundrum over what Gazans
should do, where they should go, what have you been hearing from them there?
TOM FLETCHER, U.N. RELIEF CHIEF: Well, thank you, Christiane, for having me on. And I'm calling in, as you say, from South Gaza. I entered the
area's crossing this morning. So, I've spent the day mainly in North Gaza, which is desolate, and it's been pummeled. As you drive along, you ask the
people in the car, you know, is that a school, is that a hospital, is it a house? And you can't tell the difference, miles and miles and miles.
And you see the people searching through the rubble. They've been able to start going back to the north as we've seen in recent days. And they're
searching for their loved ones. They're searching for family members. And what you notice is the despair as they search through the remains of their
homes. And you see the dogs as well on the rubble. And what you notice is that the people searching are thin and the dogs are fat because the dogs
are also searching for corpses.
AMANPOUR: I mean, I really -- I've got chills as you say that. Have you been able to -- well, let me just play this soundbite from actually
Karoline Leavitt, who, as you know, is the White House spokesman, and, you know, she and others, including Trump, as we said and Witkoff, who's his
envoy, they say Gaza is uninhabitable. Here's the White House spokeswoman.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: This is an uninhabitable place for human beings. Do you really think that families can live their
dream in a region that looks like this, with no running water, no electricity? It's a demolition site right now. It's not a livable place for
any human being. And I think it's actually quite evil to suggest that people should live in such dire conditions.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[13:05:00]
AMANPOUR: Look, apart from the irony that this is a, you know, U.S.-backed war in reaction to what happened in Israel on October 7th with U.S.
munitions, what is your reaction to the fact that everybody's calling it a demolition site? Can people live there?
FLETCHER: Well, look, and just to be clear, before coming here, I spent a morning in Nir Oz, the kibbutz that was most hit on October the 7th and
where one in four people were either killed or taken hostage, and I spent a lot of time with the community there talking to them about their situation.
A community, by the way, that wants peace with the Palestinians and wants to rebuild their lives, and they want to see the hostages come home and the
Palestinians living a clear, free life again.
But no, when you drive through, one thing you do notice, maybe a week and a half ago, there was more despair I'm hearing from my colleagues. The
starvation levels were higher then. You know, since then we've got 10,000 trucks worth, mainly of food in. And so, people are at least not starving
anymore.
But what's happening is they're taking the tents that we're giving them and they're going back to their homes and they're pitching those tents on the
rubble. I met one grandmother today who's, you know, in the -- in one room in the basement of what's left of the house. I mean, we couldn't go in
there because it looked like what was left would collapse at any moment. And she said, I'm staying here. You know, ask me where I want to go. Ask me
if I want this to be Riviera. This is my home. It was my parents' home and my grandparents' home, and we will rebuild.
And so, I think what you're hearing today, which I hadn't expected, is actually less of the hopelessness and despair that we were hearing a week
or so ago and more of a defiance, not even an angry defiance, but just a sense that we're staying and this is our home and we're not going anywhere.
AMANPOUR: I also heard some people being interviewed on the radio who while they said they wanted to stay they said that if rebuild doesn't start
-- and of course, the Arab nations even yesterday came out and said they are committed to doing it but while the Palestinians are still there. Of
course, it's a huge logistical drama and dilemma. But, you know, then we might have to, we might have no choice but to leave.
But I want to ask you also because they said, yes, food, as you're confirming, but they don't have electricity. They don't have internet
reliable. They don't even have reliable fresh running water. Plus, we hear that food in the market is still at extortionate prices. What can you tell
us about those basic necessities?
FLETCHER: Well, the food prices are coming down now because we've got two weeks' worth of bread and flour in, and that's made a massive difference.
We've got food to a million people who are at risk of starvation.
There's some commercial traffic coming in. Fuel is very, very limited. People are still cooking on fires as they have been for 15 or 16 months in
the rubble of their homes. We're getting a bit of medicine in. I visited the one decent pump working in the north of Gaza, which we've helped to get
started. Again, which thousands of people are coming miles in order to use.
I met one old guy, you know, my father's age, mid-70s, who got there and he showed me his jerry can of water. And he said, all I have left in the world
is this jerry can and this water. But they are able to access some of that water.
The great need at the moment, Christiane, is tents. That's what we're really focused on getting in. Because as people try to return to their
homes and as winter sets in, it's quite cold here today. Very windy and very rainy. As winter conditions set in, we've got to get people back into
shelter again. So, tents is the big need right now.
AMANPOUR: And do you have -- do you think that the International Community is ready to pony up for that kind of thing? I mean, look, we've seen and
I've been talking to even former Trump officials about the cutoff of USAID even in the most vulnerable situations. We see that everybody talks about
donor fatigue and this and that. Do you feel that the things that they need, like the tents, will come in?
FLETCHER: Well, you know, we're going capital by capital asking for the support we need. We're asking for almost 4 billion for the flash appeal
right now, just to sustain these supplies through the ceasefire period. There's a 42-day window. Every day when we can get these trucks in, we got
703 trucks in today, means we're saving the lives of survivors. We need to get to as many survivors of this as possible.
Now, I hope that donors will come forward. Obviously, we need to make the case day by day. We need to tell them exactly what we need. We need to show
that we're efficient. That we can deliver. We can do that with local trusted partners. We need to show them very importantly that the aid won't
get into the hands of Hamas, that we've got the pipeline working.
You know, we'll go day by day. We got to hold this ceasefire for as long as possible. And I'm determined that no one will be able to say that the
ceasefire fails because we weren't delivering the aid that we had been committed to deliver.
[13:10:00]
AMANPOUR: You mentioned Hamas and of course, ever since the hostage exchanges started, Hamas has been very visible, still looks like and claims
to be in charge. It appears that they're saying that they're also involved in security for the humanitarian passages and checking cars and basically
doing, I guess, what was agreed during the ceasefire negotiations.
What can you tell us about that, about your interactions with Hamas there?
FLETCHER: Well, it's hard to say because obviously Hamas stay out of the way of us and we ask them to stay out of our way to allow us to deliver aid
to the survivors, to the civilians. We need to do that through our trusted community partners and we don't want to do that through Hamas.
Clearly, they are emerging. Anecdotally, people will say that they're more in evidence. I didn't see any Hamas, certainly no manned Hamas checkpoints
today as we drove from the north almost all the way to the south.
They've obviously, during these hostage handovers, tried to be as visible as possible. They want the message to go out that they're still there. But
in my conversations, the Palestinian civilians are saying, you know, we need to rebuild our lives. You know, there's no love for Hamas. They know
who has -- who's been bombing them and attacking them, but they -- there is also no love for Hamas either.
You know, I talk to doctors, civilians, aid workers who've been operating under sniper fire and they've carried on going. At Al Shifa Hospital, you
know, I was giving blood earlier on, you know, there were doctors there who delivered babies with these quadcopters, you know, whirring outside the
window and shooting at their colleagues.
And at the first hospital I visited, by the way, you know, there's a sign on the wall, that famous sign that says, you know, if we don't survive,
tell them we did what we could. And I guess my message to the world as someone who's been able, who's been allowed to come in and see and hear,
because you guys haven't, the international media haven't been allowed to do this.
AMANPOUR: No, we haven't.
FLETCHER: My messages -- did we do what we could? Well, we'd be able to say we did what we could? And that's my challenge right now to anyone
watching, and to those donor governments, let's do what we can.
AMANPOUR: I take this opportunity to once again say that we and many, many of the International Press Corps Independents continue our request to the
Israeli government to let us in. I want to ask you this though, what is your relationship with COGAT and the others, you know, the Israeli
infrastructure that deals also with the aid going in? Is it different than it was? What's happening?
FLETCHER: Well, I mean, so I spent two days in Tel Aviv before coming here. It's one of the conditions under which I came in. I couldn't have got
in otherwise. But I had good, productive conversations with COGAT, with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, with the National Security Council. I spoke to
the president as well.
My sense at the moment is that we share an interest in getting as much aid in as possible during this ceasefire window. That the Israelis want this
ceasefire to hold as well. Hamas, by staying out of our way, also want this ceasefire to hold.
So, for a while, we have this shared interest insurging aid in at scale. It's why we've got over 10,000 trucks in just over two weeks. So, I welcome
that. It's very different to what we were experiencing even just three weeks ago before the ceasefire. So, it's a positive development.
AMANPOUR: But not such a positive development, I guess from your perspective, is that the infrastructure that you have on the ground is
UNRWA, right? It's been doing that business of aid and education all the rest of it for the Palestinian refugees for decades and decades. Israel has
banned it. It came into effect last week. And Trump has announced the U.S. will not resume funding for UNRWA.
It says it's still operating in Gaza. How? And if it doesn't, and if it's unable, what will become of the place?
FLETCHER: Well, we rely completely on UNRWA colleagues who really deliver the bulk of support to the Palestinian people, particularly education and
health, which no one can replace them on. But I coordinate the whole of the U.N. humanitarian sector. And so, there are a number of agencies. I've just
actually come from a dinner with a huge group of them.
And so, we're working together, whether it's World Food Programme delivering food, UNICEF working on children, our role as the coordinator,
UNFPA working for women's reproductive rights. So, it's a massive collective U.N. effort and we are determined not to let politics get in the
way of that.
I have to say, you know, I've just come from a staff meeting as well. One of the toughest meetings I've ever done, and this is the toughest working
day of my life. Let me be clear. You know, I've just -- I've been recently in Syria. I've been in Ukraine. I've been in Darfur. There's nothing like
this, Christiane. You know these places as well. So, you know what that means.
[13:15:00]
But I just come from a staff meeting, and just about every person my team, as well as having their offices destroyed, has lost family members in the
last 15, 16 months. They've lost their homes. Most of them are displaced as well. So, they are delivering under intolerable conditions. And I think we
need to recognize that.
I mean, there's a whole conversation, you know, everyone wants the conversation to be about UNRWA, but let's also recognize that last year was
the deadliest year on record to be a humanitarian worker. And most of those deaths, almost 300 of them were here in Gaza.
AMANPOUR: One of the most deadly for journalists in Gaza as well, of course, most of those victims, trying to tell the story that you're telling
us now. Can I ask you though, you talk about politics shouldn't be involved in aid and humanitarianism, but politics, by their own words, is very much
involved in the United States as, this weekend, USAID will go dark and the aid workers around the world are being told that they have several weeks to
get back to the United States and nobody quite knows what is going to happen. It's one of the most important aid distribution operations from the
United States. Elon Musk has said, and he tweeted, USAID is a criminal organization. Time for it to die.
What is your evaluation of USAID and what do you think -- how do you think if it doesn't operate anymore, it would complicate the delivery of
humanitarianism around the world?
FLETCHER: Oh, let me clear -- let me be clear. I mean, USAID, I've worked with USAID in many places around the world for decades now, and they
they've been extraordinary. They've been a humanitarian superpower. They've been a major supporter of life-saving work globally for decades.
You know, last year, I reckon we probably reached 50 million people with life-saving aid, people in dire need, because of American leadership and
because of American funding. And I hope -- and I don't think the American people are ready to give up that leadership of the world, that soft power
role that has been so important for them over decades. I hope they're not ready to give up that extraordinary life-saving mission that has done so
much for the world.
But of course, we're nervous. We're anxious. Our partners on the ground can see the impact already of just this temporary freeze. And look, every
country's taxpayers, every country's government should review the way they spend their taxpayers money. That's their first responsibility. They should
be demanding that we do this in an efficient way, that we're innovative, that we really deliver what we say we will deliver.
But the humanitarian movement is here because of the hundreds of millions of people globally who are in such desperate need. And the Americans are
absolutely key partners in that effort. So, you know, I'm hoping that they will see the value of that work and that they will show that leadership
that we know they're capable of.
AMANPOUR: Tom Fletcher, the head of the U.N. Humanitarian Organization, thank you very much for joining us from Gaza.
And now, a Palestinian toddler who was forced to wait weeks for permission to leave Gaza for life-saving medical treatment is finally in Jordan,
receiving that critical medical care. And Correspondent Jomana Karadsheh has more on this little girl's journey to safety. And a warning, of course,
it might be difficult to watch.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JOMANA KARADSHEH, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Rana's preparing her baby girl for the big day. Habiba is finally leaving Gaza for life-saving
treatment. This is what the wait has done to the two-year-old.
The black and shriveled skin you see is gangrene that has worsened dramatically in a matter of days. We followed Habiba's fight for her life
for weeks. After our CNN report, Jordan heard her cries for help and decided to evacuate her for treatment for a suspected rare genetic
condition.
But it took nearly two weeks, time Habiba doesn't have to make it happen, the negotiations with Israel described as difficult by Jordanian officials.
Israeli authorities did not respond to CNN's repeated requests for comment on the delay in Habiba's evacuation.
Over the past week, as her mother helplessly watched Habiba teeter between life and death in intensive care, Rana had to also go through a roller
coaster of emotions.
As they prepared to leave for an evacuation that was later cancelled, Rana got crushing news, Israel would not let her leave Gaza with Habiba, forcing
this mother to make an impossible choice, to let go of Habiba, to save her life.
[13:20:00]
Dear Lord, if this is your will, I'll accept it, she prayed.
But it was just too much to accept. Rana has to stay strong, she's Habiba's everything. On Monday, they woke up to good news, Jordan had secured
approval for Rana to travel with Habiba, but this time, just as they got ready to go, they were told her son no longer had Israeli permission to
leave.
You're a big boy, I know how hard this is for you, Rana says. God will take care of you better than I ever will.
No one can make Habiba smile and forget her pain like her only brother, Soheib. He even brings out her cheeky side.
I'm going to go and leave you, Habiba says. But the thought of being left all alone is just terrifying for the 11-year-old.
I don't know what I'll do without them. Where do I go now, Soheib cries. It's time to go, the ambulance is here. Soheib puts on a brave face for
their goodbyes. But soon after they head out, another twist, Soheib is cleared to join them. Jordan tried to spare Habiba this harsh long journey
by land, but Israel wouldn't approve a Jordanian airlift.
Across the border in Jordan, there's no time to waste. The military medevac chopper King Abdullah ordered is here for Habiba, ready for when she
crosses into Jordan. With nightfall, the moment they've been waiting for, medics move fast to get the toddler. Habiba peeks out quietly from under
her blanket, too young to understand what this is all about. As they head to the chopper, she wants mama. They need to get her fast to the hospital,
but they do it gently.
KARADSHEH: It's a quick trip to the hospital. The medical team is here and ready. They're going to be monitoring Habiba every second of this trip.
KARADSHEH (voice-over): Habiba's stable, but she's just arrived from an exhausting journey out of intensive care. For a shattered Rana, it's too
early to feel relief. As we get ready to take off, the team comforts Habiba.
It's the first time this family is flying, their first time seeing the world outside of besieged Gaza. Habiba's story is one out of thousands of
children who have become another faceless statistic of this war, trapped in Gaza and deprived of life-saving medical treatment.
On Monday, Israeli authorities said they approved Habiba's evacuation as a, quote, exceptional humanitarian gesture. As soon as she arrives at the
hospital, medical staff begin what doctors in Gaza couldn't do, a full clinical diagnosis over the next 24 hours. Doctors here hope they'll be
able to save Habiba's right leg and her arms, but they also fear it may be too late. Her journey out of Gaza may be over, but another difficult battle
now begins for little Habiba.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Wow. That is incredibly difficult to process. And Jomana tells us that Habiba is now getting good care in Jordan. Her mother sent this
picture of her in hospital surrounded by cheery balloons. However, there's still a very tough road ahead. She's currently fighting an infection and is
waiting for doctors to make a potentially life altering decision whether they'll need to do a triple amputation. Thanks to Jomana Karadsheh, of
course, for that report.
Now, with Donald Trump's extreme foreign policy swings, talking of making Canada the 51st state, taking over Greenland and the Panama Canal, experts
are somewhat at a loss for how to define what he's doing, but one historian argues there is a clear explanation for his worldview, that of a
sovereigntist.
In a recent opinion piece in the New York Times, Rutgers University Professor Jennifer Mittelstadt argues that this little-known movement is
central to much of Trump's decision-making. It has its roots in the early 20th century as a backlash to internationalism and organizations like the
League of Nations, which preceded the U.N.
Professor Mittelstadt is joining the show now from New York to explain. Welcome to the program and I can't think of a better week in which to have
you because there's just been so much that everybody's trying to process and figure out how to define.
[13:25:00]
And so, I was fascinated by what you wrote in the New York Times. And sort of you start by saying, how did a peak about -- you know, fit of peak about
China and tolls lead to upending a long resolved territorial issue about control and a threat to force Panama into ceding territory to the U.S.? And
you ask, was there some larger rationale to explain it? So, I'm now asking you to answer your own question.
JENNIFER MITTELSTADT, PROFESSOR OF HISTORY, RUTGERS UNIVERSITY: Thank you so much for having me I'd have to say that it was difficult for me at first
to come up with a rationale. I'd been working on a project studying grassroots, right-wing Americans in history and their interest in U.S.
foreign policy, and if anyone should have known, I should have known what was going on with all of the different claims that Trump was making. But
the truth is, it took me a while to figure it out.
As we know, and especially close watchers of Trump can tell us, he's quite changeable. He himself may not have a clear ideology, but those around him,
those who support him in Congress, his policy advisers, and many of those who elected him do, in fact, have an ideology.
And when I started to see him talk about the Panama Canal, that's when it clicked for me that what invocation of this long tradition of suspicion
about internationalism organized around protecting national sovereignty, and the Panama Canal was one of those places that had long been of interest
to them.
AMANPOUR: So, you know, again, there are all sorts of isms that conservatives have had, whether it's anti-communism, whether it's
nationalism, often populism, although that can be left-wing as well, imperialism, isolationism. And you come up with this word, sovereigntism.
And as you say, you know, the Panama Canal debate, sort of, sort of settled you there.
So, take us back then to that, and why that? And why that? Why was the Panama Canal ever such a big issue?
MITTELSTADT: So, to understand what's happening with the Panama Canal, you do have to go back to that earlier period, that 1919 period that you talked
about. And it's they themselves who use the word sovereignty. It's they themselves who call themselves sovereigntist anti-internationalists.
And I think that in looking back to that period, you see the beginning of a kind of questioning in the wake of World War I about what is a state? You
know, what is sovereignty? What does it mean in a period when globalism had come to a halt because of the war, new nations were being created with new
nationalisms, empires were dying? And now, here comes this idea that on top of all of this, we will have an international government.
And that is really where I think the concerns began for them. What would it mean to have some kind of limitation, some kind of interference in the
jurisdiction in the governance of American, I guess, people and also territory?
So, the Canal becomes an issue after World War II, when a new international body, of course, is created, none other than the U.N. And very soon after
the creation of the U.N., all kinds of nations, which had either been under imperial control or were wishing to get out from under imperial control,
are using this new body and the promise of the United Nations to seek self- governance. Panama is among them. And very early on starts to ask if the Panama Canal can be taken up in the United Nations as essentially a kind of
disputed territory, and pressing to have that territory returned, in fact, to the country of Panama.
AMANPOUR: And then you told -- you tell this incredible anecdote about the then-president of Panama in the '70s bringing the United Nations Security
Council members to Panama and saying, quote, "calling it a colony in the heart of my country." It was still under the U.S. control. At the same
time, you quote a key American saying, that it's ours just as much as the Capitol Dome and our national anthem is ours.
So, this whole thing, you know, enrages the sovereigntists. And you say it boils down to a battle between those who view international cooperation as
a tool to project American power versus those who fear it as a humili -- sorry, a humiliating surrender of American autonomy. Is that where Trump
fits in?
MITTELSTADT: I think so. I mean, one of the things that historians like to say is that history doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes. And so, there may
not be this incredible direct line from that moment in 1973 to today. But what there is the kind of recurring problem of the question of how do
people running American foreign policy, understand internationalism.
[13:30:00]
Do they understand it as a tool that can be used in which -- through which to leverage American authority? I would say the vast majority of leadership
in the United States, at least since World War II, has understood institutions like the United Nations, the IMF, later the World Bank, as
institutions through which the U.S. can exert its own sovereignty.
But I suppose one person's sovereignty is another person's weapon, a weapon being utilized against them. And I think sovereigntists always understood
these to be very compromised institutions in which other nations and nations that they did not believe should be equal to them were having a say
over the things that the U.S. could do and say, hence the Panama Canal. Why should Panamanians be able to request their own territory back when it was,
quote/unquote, "ours," you know, as much as the Capitol Dome.
AMANPOUR: So, you know, fast forward, and you say -- well, actually you quote the sort of sovereigntist perhaps in the Project 2025 movement, which
has been very key to the sort of structure around the Trump 2.0 basically saying they might withdraw from the U.N. itself. They say international
organizations that erode our constitution, rule of law, or popular sovereignty should not be reformed, they should be abandoned.
How far do you think this movement is going to be able to go? Do you think up until coming out of the U.N.? I mean, for instance, Trump did pull out
of the WHO, the World Health Organization, and now a likeminded president of Argentina, Milei, who, you know, celebrates Trump's politics, has also
done that. Do you see this kind of movement gathering pace?
MITTELSTADT: It does seem like it's gathering pace. I mean, historians are notoriously no good at predicting the future, which we're much better at
looking back at the past. But this has been a dream, really, of anti- internationalists since the formation of the United Nations, is to have the U.S. withdraw. There were grassroots campaigns, you know, from the 1950s
all the way up, really, on and off through today, asking for the U.S. to withdraw. It's always been, I think, the ultimate goal. And to also
withdraw from other internationalist organizations. NATO, for example, has long been suspect among anti-internationalists, as has the WHO and a
variety of other ones.
I would expect now in a second Trump administration for sovereign tests to double down. I would expect for them to look for opportunities to be able
to withdraw from these organizations and perhaps to encourage other right- wing governments who are also anti-internationalist or right-wing parties that are anti-internationalist to do the same.
AMANPOUR: Can I ask you, because I know you can't predict the future, but you look back, and these sovereignties also were formed a key part of
America first before the world -- Second World War, they did not want America to come in against the Nazis on the side of their allies. I wonder
what will this do for America if this project keeps moving past? Where will it leave America?
MITTELSTADT: Well, you're right about my reluctance to predict the future, but if I had to think of a time period that reminded me of now, I think I
would look back to that period between 1919 and 1939, when so much was in flux. And there were people around the world who were questioning the
wisdom of the great globalization that had preceded World War I, and who were now sort of questioning whether or not that had been a good idea.
They were watching the new League of Nations and wondering whether or not it was actually producing the promises that then-League of Nations said it
would, to reduce conflict, to create more equality among nations. And I think we're seeing, in the past 20 years, a kind of caution about the
globalization that we've seen in the sort of since the end of the Cold War, right?
Internationalism has been the only game in town for about 25 years, 30 years, since the end of the Cold War. And there are real questions about
what it has been able to sort of bring to everyday people on the ground all around the world. So, I would expect to see a kind of, I guess, really
difficult and choppy period in international relations with an abandonment of the international order.
AMANPOUR: Well, thank you for the warning from history. Professor Mittelstadt, thanks for joining us.
And it is now a familiar sight, President Trump at his desk, wielding his pen, issuing executive orders. But what exactly are the legal implications
of this signing spree? Gillian Metzger is a constitutional law professor at Columbia Law School, and has previously served as deputy assistant attorney
general. And she joins Walter Isaacson now to decipher the actions that we've seen so far and what comes next.
[13:35:00]
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Thank you, Christiane. And Professor Jillian Metzger, welcome to the show.
JILLIAN METZGER, PROFESSOR OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, COLUMBIA LAW SCHOOL: Thanks for having me.
ISAACSON: President Trump has embarked on sort of a wide-ranging assault on the bureaucracy, shutting down agencies, cutting spending. It was pretty
much what he was elected to do and Congress has offered no real pushback. So, what's wrong with what he's doing?
METZGER: Well, there's several things that are concerning about what he's doing. I mean, I think what we're seeing is really a remarkable assertion
of executive power. Our system is not one where the president is supposed to be governing single handedly.
The -- many of the actions that the president has taken certainly appear to be in acting in the face of governing statutes, some instances at odds with
the Constitution. So, I think his actions so far do raise some pretty serious rule of law concerns.
ISAACSON: Well, wait, let's go to the -- in defiance of the Constitution. Give me a couple of examples.
METZGER: Well, for example, his executive order on birthright citizenship. It's very hard to square it, to put it mildly, with the 14th Amendment. And
has been enjoined already on that basis. Some of the claims that we may see in some of the actions on funding may reflect a very capacious view of the
president having an inherent power to not spend, which is not a power that has been recognizing. In fact, the Constitution very strongly gives the
power of the purse to Congress. So, that would be another area where concern about his actions not working with the constitutional framework as
a reason.
ISAACSON: You know, let's drill down on that power not to spend, whether it be sequestering, impoundment, or just not spending money that's been
appropriated by Congress. That seems a somewhat murky, although, there have been cases about it, area. To what extent can the executive branches say,
OK, this is wasteful money, we're not going to spend it?
METZGER: You really have to look at the -- there is actually a very reticulated legal framework that governs spending. There is, in the
Constitution, the grant of the spending power to Congress and also the Appropriations Clause that says that the executive branch cannot make
spending without an appropriation from Congress. The two things that really reiterate why Congress is the main constitutional actor.
ISAACSON: But that says they can't make spending without appropriation, but can they just not spend some money that's been appropriated if they
think it's wasteful?
METZGER: Right. So, when you're talking about not spending, you're still actually acting in violation of a statute because the statute -- the
appropriations statute grants the funds and if it's a statute that doesn't grant discretion about how they are expended, or if the executive branch is
acting in a way that's at odds with the terms of that statute, you still have a violation of Congress' control over our funding.
There's also a background statute, which dates back to 1974, and was enacted in response to the last president who ever raised this kind of
broad attack on spending, which was President Richard Nixon. And it's the Empowerment Control Act of 1974, and it very significantly restricts the
occasions on which the executive branch can refuse to spend money that has been appropriated by Congress.
ISAACSON: So, let's say he doesn't spend money, or the bureaucracy doesn't, or the agency doesn't spend money, what's the legal recourse? Does
Congress have to sue to stop it? Can an ordinary citizen sue to stop that?
METZGER: Well, we've had a couple of lawsuits already by one by a group of states and one by a group of nonprofits, both of which were affected by the
funding freeze in terms of having funds that they were expecting or relying on taken away.
And so, that gives them, in that sense, standing. And the claims that they have raised are attacks on the action as being arbitrary and capricious
because these were lawsuits aimed particularly at the OMB memo in part, and the lack of explanation in that very brief memo for this categorical across
the board pause in fundings, what they're targeting as arbitrary and capricious, and also because of the lack of statutory authority on the part
of the executive branch to just pause funding, which again, Congress has required.
I mean, there might be some -- no doubt there are some statutes that are affected by the spending pause that, in fact, do give some discretion to
the executive branch. But again, the pause was enacted in such a categorical, across the board way that it really -- you can't tie it to
those specific statutes. It's a real deviation from the way appropriations and spending has been treated in the past.
[13:40:00]
ISAACSON: Does it matter if Congress, let's say, it just rolls over as it seems to be doing at the moment?
METZGER: I think it does matter. You know, you can do lawsuits. And lawsuits, in this case, there were very quick temporary injunctions put in
place. But, you know, fundamentally, it's going to have to be Congress that's going to be defending its core constitutional prerogatives. And so
far, we really haven't seen that. And we're going to need to see it in order to really enforce the constitutional framework.
ISAACSON: Well, let's go over some of the specific things. There's USAID, the Agency for National Development, Foreign Aid. And he wants to either
decimate it or shut it down or roll it into the State Department. Is that legal?
METZGER: I don't believe it is from what I've seen so far. There is a -- the most basic problem is that USAID is an agency that was created by
Congress. Congress has the authority to create agencies, not the executive branch. If Congress creates an agency, then it's going to take action by
Congress to decreate an agency.
The appropriation statutes for fiscal year 2024 do allow the executive branch to do some reorganization, but only if the executive branch consults
with Congress first and actually prohibits the use of any funds that go to the State Department or USAID for a reorganization where there hasn't been
that kind of consultation with Congress. So, this actually seems to be really flying in the face of that statutory framework.
ISAACSON: Now, let's take another one, which is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. That also seems to have been rolled into the Treasury
Department. The new treasury secretary is now in charge, and he's basically, I won't say shutting it down, but dismantling it a lot. Is
what's -- wrong with that, since that was also something Trump ran on saying he was going to do?
METZGER: I mean, just because he runs on it doesn't mean that he gets to do it if it's at odds with governing statutes, right? That's kind of the
fundamental principle that's underlying a lot of these lawsuits is, you know, trying to ensure that the executive branch actions go forward in
accordance with governing statutes.
For the CFPB, you'd want to look at the statute creating the agency and assess whether or not this was a power that Treasury had. The CFPB was
initially created as an independent agency with very strong independence protections, many of which it still has in terms of, for example, having a
budget that's independent and independently funded.
So, the question would be in all of these cases, whether or not the action that the executive branch is asserting is really compatible with the
governing statutes? And that's what courts are looking at.
ISAACSON: All of this seems part of a larger dispute, one that we know the Supreme Court's going to have to resolve on whether the executive is sort
of unitary and that the president can do whatever he wants with the executive branch. Explain that theory and the sense you have of the Supreme
Court, which seems to be somewhat more supportive of that theory than previous courts.
METZGER: Yes, it certainly is. So, the unitary executive theory emphasizes that the executive power under the Constitution is vested in a president, a
single president, and emphasizes that he, under this theory, gets to exercise all of the executive power, which is then understood to mean not
simply supervise the exercise of executive authority by all of the different employees and departments and agencies that Congress creates in
the executive branch using Congress' own constitutional power, but instead, it seemed to me the president sort of has the authority to make the
decisions.
And in particular, to remove, you know, officials exercising executive power, particularly so far, the court has emphasized that at the high
level, right? So, we're talking in particular, for example, the CFPB director, a principal officer in the executive branch who has a five-year
term.
So, the, this Supreme Court has taken a broad view of presidential authority and asserted this unitary executive view, particularly in the
context of challenges to removal restrictions. So far, the court has not overturned a leading precedent going back to 1935 that does allow removal
protections for a multi member independent age headed agency, for example, or for inferior officers who don't have a significant policymaking
authority.
ISAACSON: Well, the way you get specific on that, like, is that the National Labor Relations Board and Trump fired a Democrat on it? Is that
what you're talking about?
METZGER: Right. Well, so the National Labor Relations Board commissioner would be a principal officer. And the question, if that goes forward, and I
believe a lawsuit has been filed, the question that will be raised is that removal was not in keeping with the governing statute and removal
protections and whether or not those protections intrude on the president's ability to take care of the executive branch and on his ability to remove
high ranking executive branch officials.
[13:45:00]
In its recent decisions, again, the court has retained this earlier precedent that allowed removal protections for a multi member boards that
had served divided partisan grounds, as the NLRB is. Whether or not it will conclude that the NLRB exercises too much executive authority or that the
protections against removal in that statute are too great or decide to overturn that earlier precedent is one of the things the litigation will
show.
ISAACSON: This is part of the larger movement that started with the overturning of what's known as the Chevron deference, which means that you
kind of defer to agencies -- unelected agencies, to make rules and regulations to do what Congress does. Tell me how that fits into what I
guess the Trump people would call overreach by the federal bureaucracy and their desire to trim that ability back.
METZGER: What Chevron basically said was that if an agency is charged with implementing a statute, then a court should defer to the agency's
interpretation of ambiguous statute if that interpretation is reasonable. And in that sense, yes, it -- you know, it gave agencies deference for
their interpretations of statutes on the grounds that Congress had implicitly delegated authority to them, right, having them be the
implementer of the statute.
Interestingly, we have a president administration right now that are making very bold assertions of executive power. And in fact, what we see with the
Roberts court is that they've been a little bit skeptical about some of these broad assertions of executive power. And in particular, you know, if
the Trump administration is asserting particular views of governing statutes, under the overturning of Chevron, they will no longer get
deference for those views.
So, whether or not the Roberts court approach to agency authority and its assertion of judicial power to review agency interpretations ends up
fitting with the agenda of the Trump administration, which wants to assert executive power in its own right is something we still have to see.
ISAACSON: So, to simplify that a bit, what you're saying is that the decision which conservatives cheered of not allowing the agencies too much
deference when they make regulations could come back and hurt what Trump is trying to do, which has let some of these appointees of his in these
agencies scale things back radically.
METZGER: Yes. I mean, because, at the end of the day, it is going to be courts determining whether or not agencies have authority to do the actions
they want to do without giving them deference. And it is -- Chevron was always a doctrine that served the interests of the administration and power
in terms of giving it deference. So, we will see whether or not it comes back to bite a little bit Trump administration.
ISAACSON: I want to talk about DOGE, the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, which was established by Transforming the U.S.
Digital Service, run by Elon Musk. It's been given a lot of access, including to the Treasury payment systems, maybe read only access, the
secretary of treasury says. Is there something illegal or wrong with that, in your opinion?
METZGER: Well, I think there are some real concerns that have been raised. There's some real Privacy Act concerns. There's some real concerns about
sort of just lack of accountability. These are systems that are very closely held, and access to them is stringently limited. And so, it's
concerning to think that they are being made open more generally.
There, there has been litigation, a lawsuit again filed, and this is, I think, the theme of my remarks, but raising the Privacy Act challenge to
some of what -- some of the access that has been granted.
ISAACSON: Elon Musk has been called a special government employee. What does that mean, and is he subject to the conflict-of-interest rules in
government?
METZGER: So, special government employees are a category of employee that are statutorily authorized. The critical feature is that they are officers
or employees whose tenure is expected to be temporary and limited to 130 days out of any 365-day period.
They are subject to the many of the conflict-of-interest requirements and the financial disclosure requirements. They are -- they have some
exemptions from some requirements and they may not need to file publicly on the financial disclosure front, depending on how many days they are
employed, but they are subject to those restrictions.
[13:50:00]
ISAACSON: And who's supposed to enforce those restrictions?
METZGER: Well, those are restrictions that are generally enforced, for example, by the Office of Government Ethics and by others in the
administration.
ISAACSON: And can the Trump administration and President Trump himself decide how those will be enforced?
METZGER: Well, I mean, again, a kind of core responsibility of the president is to take care that the law be faithfully executed. And that is
an obligation that the president and leaders of the executive branch historically have taken quite seriously. So, if a statute requires
disclosure, then I would assume that an administration would take that seriously.
ISAACSON: Over the past 20 or 30 years, presidents have been using executive authorities and orders and just expanding presidential power.
Congress has been deferring, the courts have been deferring. Has the president had this much authority ever before in our history? And is this a
trend that Trump is just accelerating?
METZGER: Well, certainly you're absolutely right. We are -- we've been on a path of expanding executive authority in part given some of the political
divides in the country and as a result of difficulty that Congress has had in terms of taking on major issues and enacting legislation.
I think that the -- what we're seeing with the Trump administration is, in some ways, a following on and expansion that trend. And you know, the
degree to which the current administration appears to be willing to act in the face of governing statutes, in the face of the Constitution is, I
think, a distinctive trait and one that is particularly alarming and worth highlighting. But the overall expansion of presidential authority has been
going on for a while.
ISAACSON: Professor Gillian Metzger, thank you so much for joining us.
METZGER: Thanks for having me.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And since that interview, the Department of Justice has agreed to limit the Department of Government Efficiency, DOGE, access to highly
sensitive payment systems within the Treasury.
And finally, tonight, there's less than a month to go until the Academy Awards, where some of the year's best films will battle it out for Oscars.
Like "The Seed of the Sacred Fig," it's a family drama set against a backdrop of political protest in Iran. Here's part of the trailer.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): Afraid your family will find out what you do?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): I'm not afraid of anybody.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: I spoke the director, Mohammad Rasoulof, about what inspired the narrative. Here's a clip.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MOHAMMAD RASOULOF, DIRECTOR, "THE SEED OF THE SACRED FIG" (through translator): The story of the film derives from my personal experiences.
When the Women, Life, Freedom movement began, I was in prison. And the experience of this revolt, for me, had to do with seeing its effects on the
people who worked inside the prison.
I had a casual encounter with a senior prison official who seemed to recognize me. He got close to me and told me in secret how embarrassed he
was about himself and that he was even thinking about taking his life. Then he told me that his family, his children, kept criticizing him and asking
him why he collaborates with the system, with this oppression? And here's where I had the first spark to write the story.
But then, of course, for many years, perhaps over 15 years, I was constantly having to deal with the security apparatus, interrogators. I was
interrogated many times. I went to prison. I went to court. And I kept asking myself, how do these people bring themselves to work with the
system?
But this question I had about these individuals and those specific social conditions after Women, Life, Freedom protests sort of came together. And
then, when I came out of prison, I watched these terrifying videos that the protesters themselves had filmed of the oppression. And I noticed how
inspiring these young people, and especially these young women are.
And so, I decided to tell a family story that can take on a wider dimension. And I was very much influenced by the young generation. I'm very
much influenced by the young generation in Iran.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[13:55:00]
AMANPOUR: And Rasoulof had to flee after filming that, mostly in secret. So, stay tuned for the rest of my interview with Mohammad Rasoulof sometime
next week. And in the meantime, "The Seed of The Sacred Fig" releases in the U.K. on Friday.
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.
Thank you for watching, and goodbye from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
