Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Former Trump Appointee to the State Department Matthew Bartlett; Interview with "Anora" Oscar-Nominated Actress Mikey Madison; Interview with The Atlantic Staff Writer Jonathan Chait. Aired 1- 2p ET
Aired February 07, 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.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MATTHEW BARTLETT, FORMER TRUMP APPOINTEE TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT: I've been to numerous political rallies in the Republican side for many, many
years, I have never once heard we should rip poor Africans off of lifesaving drugs.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: At midnight tonight, USAID will effectively disappear. The latest blow is Trump upends U.S. foreign policy. I asked former Trump
appointee to the State Department, Matthew Bartlett, can the U.S. afford to end its soft power?
And later, we go to the movies.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do not touch me.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: "Anora" star and Best Actress nominee, Mikey Madison, joins me on set. How the dizzying, tragic comedy came together.
Also, ahead, an American constitutional crisis. The Atlantic's Jonathan Chait tells Michel Martin why Congress has to push back on Trump and Musk
before the damage becomes irreversible.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London. And this has been the week that American foreign policy seemed to flip on its
head, and parts of it even just shut down entirely. At midnight tonight, USAID puts almost all its staff on administrative leave. Only a few
critical positions will remain at their post.
The billionaire Trump whisperer Elon Musk is gleeful about the cuts, saying the agency, which is, in fact, crucial to the survival of millions of
people around the world, and for winning America crucial goodwill, is being fed, quote, "into the woodchipper."
Of course, this comes also in the week when President Trump has said that the U.S. could breach the Geneva Convention by opening the door to a policy
that experts warn would almost amount, or would amount, to the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from Gaza. And taking control of the Strip, only
for the White House to later walk back much of that plan. On top of that, a purge of the FBI and CIA appears to be well underway.
Any one of these actions would transform the United States and its traditional role on the global stage. So, joining me now on this is Matthew
Bartlett. He was appointed to the State Department by President Trump during his first term. And we want to discuss some of what's going on now.
So, Matthew Bartlett, welcome to the program.
MATTHEW BARTLETT, FORMER TRUMP APPOINTEE TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT: Christiane, honored to join you here.
AMANPOUR: Thank you. Look, a lot of people, I guess, certainly around the world have been, you know, really made very, very uncomfortable and nervous
about USAID. America is the largest provider of humanitarian assistance, and as you know, it's always been called by the U.S. a vital, you know,
tool of soft power.
How does closing it down to all intents and purposes affect the United States, first of all?
BARTLETT: I guess the short answer is, it is unclear, but we are about to find out. Listen, I am a Republican. I am a conservative. There are
arguably some questions, legitimate questions about the activity of USAID. Over the past four years, you've seen maybe some political activism under
the Biden years. You would be naive not to recognize that. You would be equally, if not even more naive, to not recognize the everyday miracle that
USAID and its staff performed around the world in terms of clean water, sanitation, and certainly one of the most central tenets of American
foreign policy over the past 20 years, HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention.
So, this is a very, very unsettling notion. We've seen efforts of reform. Scrutiny is welcomed, continuity is critical, but the notion of closing and
extinguishing USAID is more than dangerous, it is deadly.
AMANPOUR: I'm going to get into some of that -- those crucial elements of what it actually does for people around the world and also for the U.S. But
I want to first play this sort of mash up of soundbites. about USAID and about, essentially, you know, taking it to the wood chipper, as Elon Musk
says.
Here's the president, here's the secretary of state, and here's Elon Musk. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: It's been run by a bunch of radical lunatics, and we're getting them out. USAID run by radical lunatics, and
we're getting them out.
[13:05:00]
MARCO RUBIO, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: They just think they're a global entity and that their master is the globe and not the United States.
ELON MUSK, CO-DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY: As we dug into USAID, it became apparent that what we have here is not an apple with
a worm in it, but we have actually just a ball of worms.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: I mean, Matthew Bartlett, from what I think you said before is, yes, there needs to be some accountability and reform, but not throwing the
baby out with the bathwater. So, just describe, do you agree, A, with that characterization of run by a bunch of radical lunatics that it is, you
know, an apple full of worms?
BARTLETT: I mean, let's just be clear. Again, I was a Trump appointee at the State Department at PEPFAR in the first administration. We made
different choices than the Biden-Harris administration made. Yes, they were run by very progressive individuals, ideologies for the past four years.
That is how -- in part, how you know, administrations change. And this is why, when you now come in a reasonable governing adult would be in charge,
would make reforms, would make government and USAID work, not end it.
So, again, this is a more than a political prism. This is more than reform. This is highly problematic in terms of the outcomes that are desirable for
the United States of America. If you are saying that USAID was problematic in the Biden-Harris years, it is equally, if not even more problematic, to
then just end it.
AMANPOUR: So, can I ask you, because you've raised PEPFAR a couple of times, and I know that you did a lot of work on that, as you mentioned in
the first Trump term. We know that PEPFAR was launched by President George W. Bush. It's to provide lifesaving care for AIDS patients around the
world. And it has saved, according to the figures, some 25 million lives around the world.
Just tell me what'll happen, and we're already hearing from South Africa and elsewhere, that people are being turned away from USAID provided care
in this regard, what will happen? What is the end result of cutting this off?
BARTLETT: Christiane, that is one of the most key central questions going on in this town and around the world right now. Let's just take a step back
here. I reauthorized PEPFAR -- or helped reauthorize PEPFAR at the State Department through a Republican House, through a Republican Senate, and
signed into law by President Trump in 2018. The world is a better place because of that.
We went from 18 million lives to 23 million lives saved while President Trump, what -- you know, oversaw PEPFAR. He actually called for an end of
HIV/AIDS in America and beyond. So, these are all wonderful things. Secretary Rubio has been a long-time champion of PEPFAR, of the world's
poorest people.
Now, flash forward when the foreign assistance pause was immediately put into place, it took a few days to have Secretary Rubio issue a waiver for
PEPFAR to ensure that critical lifesaving program will continue on. But it's a little more complicated than that because PEPFAR is implemented by
CDC and USAID on the ground. When they are frozen, when monies are frozen, drugs cannot get out, prevention cannot take place. And again, this throws
the entire program into peril.
AMANPOUR: And, Matthew Bartlett, you know, we're using PEPFAR as a very clear example, but as you know, of course, and for our viewers to know,
USAID does lifesaving in every other aspect as well, whether it's for women, neonatal, postnatal malnutrition, all of those kinds of things that
I've covered throughout my career, actually on the ground. And I've seen people actually thank America to our, you know, cameras. And I've seen the
power of that soft power.
What will happen, do you think, to America if that no longer takes place? What do you think the backlash might be from the world?
BARTLETT: It is unclear, but let's be clear. Some of the program in that USAID will not be picked up. Some of the ideological programming will not
be pushed by other countries, but the critical services that keep people alive are the ones that will really have jeopardy.
And then beyond that, foreign policy is always a mix of the carrot and stick. We have seen this play out around the world, you know, for 20 years
and these wars. Let's just remember that the carrot is a lot cheaper than the stick.
AMANPOUR: That's a really --
BARTLETT: A lot of these lessons --
AMANPOUR: Sorry, yes, go ahead.
BARTLETT: Many of these lessons, you know, were learned the very, very hard way in a post-World War II world where the greatest generation went
and fought and saved the world from Nazi Germany. And what did they do afterwards? They launched the Marshall Plan, IMF, World Bank, institutions
that created stability, not just for the sake of Europe and the world, but for the United States own peace and prosperity.
[13:10:00]
AMANPOUR: And I want to ask you why you think this is happening to this organization of all, with all the caveats that you've made about various
ideological things as well. But let me just read what doctor and author Atul Gawande, who served USAID under President Biden, which you say
required some reforms. He said, look, we did work battling and it will stop a deadly Marburg outbreak in Tanzania, a wide outbreak of Mpox variant,
killing children in West Africa. It will stop monitoring bird flu in 49 countries. It'll cut support, aiding some 90 million women and children
with vaccinations, prenatal care, safe childbirth, et cetera.
So, I guess what I don't understand is why you think it's happening in this way. Why so radical? Why so absolute?
BARTLETT: I mean, if you take a large atmospheric approach to this, certainly through the prism of the last election, we have seen places in
America in -- with pressures domestically on the economy, on the middle class, on disaster zones, yet for the last four years, you saw billions
after billions after trillions after trillions announced for the rest of the world.
This had a psychological effect. This now has a bit of a backlash. And when you do find misinformation, some are legitimate, again, instances of misuse
of use of funds, there is a grave, grave frustration and anger. I am not here to defend that, nor am I here to defend bureaucracy. But what I --
what we as even conservatives can affirm is the outcomes, the outcomes of what USAID can do, should do, PEPFAR is doing every single day, is
undoubtedly in the spirit of our nation and it makes us a better, safer, more prosperous nation.
And if you look at some of the own contradiction from this administration, you had a press conference that ended the other day with President Trump
talking about rebuilding a nation state. So, again, to say that foreign aid is going to be, you know, ended, done away with, there is no value. And
then, on the other hand, to say one of my key signatures will to be, you know, going into the Middle East for rebuilding, it is perplexing, it is
confusing, and that is why it is critical that we be crystal clear on the need for not just reforms but for critical, critical services, continuity
while this happens.
AMANPOUR: I want to pick up on a very important aspect of it. And you said, you know, the perception that too much money is being spent by
America to serve the underprivileged abroad. But the truth is, as you know from being in the State Department, it's essentially foreign aid. A Kaiser
Foundation poll found that Americans believe about a third of government spending goes to foreign aid, where the actual number is less than 1
percent. So, misinformation is right there. It's a very small amount, according to a multi trillion-dollar U.S. budget. And as you say, it has
served the American, you know, state and the American people very well.
But do you think that there has been a missed opportunity by many, many governments and administrations on both sides to properly explain to people
what actually they do spend on foreign aid and what it actually does? Because already I can see reports of Marco Rubio, he was in Guatemala,
there's been a leaked transcript of what he said to USAID workers there, and he admitted that, you know, this does a lot of good work, and it's a
crucial arm of foreign policy.
BARTLETT: Absolutely, of course. And I would just be clear that, you know, I do not blame the American public. There should be scrutiny. This is not
the world's money. This is not the government's money. This is the taxpayer dollars. When I was there, that is how we viewed each and every single
dollar spent.
And I've been to numerous political rallies on the Republican side for many, many years, I have never once heard we should rip poor Africans off
of lifesaving drugs. Never, ever am I proud to say that. There are good people on both sides of the aisle who will champion that. I would counter
that there may have been some politically driven, ideologically driven, different decisions that maybe used USAID funding in highly questionable
ways. You have to recognize that that is entirely detrimental and how those anecdotes and stories and facts are problematic on the whole.
And again, while I am, you know, casting blame on some of these decisions, also acknowledging that many of this is twisted, taken out of context,
misinformation, maybe even disinformation to try to kill PEPFAR -- or USAID around other ideology. So, this is a very frothy mix right now --
[13:15:00]
AMANPOUR: Yes, and of course --
BARTLETT: -- on both sides.
AMANPOUR: -- it's not lost on you or me or anybody who's studying this, that actually there is an accountability mechanism. The independent, you
know, government inspectors, which were all fired by this same administration. So, it is bizarre to try to figure out how to understand
this.
But let me take you to a life situation that you just -- well, another situation that you just referenced, on the one hand saying no to this kind
of lifesaving dollars and on the other hand, saying, we're going to take over Gaza. We're going to rebuild it. We're going to -- whatever they're
saying now, it's hard to tell because it's back and forward.
What do you -- as a State Department official, what did you think when you heard that press conference?
BARTLETT: You know, President Trump is -- continues to be an interesting figure, not just on the global scale, but also in the Middle East. This is
someone who came to power in 2015, 2016 based around a Muslim ban, yet his first trip was to the region, to Saudi Arabia.
This is someone who crafted peace and it is critical that, you know, again, to give credit where credit is due, recognition of Israel, the Abraham
Accords, many, many countries doing the hard work we've seen all too well the past four years, unfortunately, things can fall apart, war can be a
natural state, and it is peace that is the hard work. I think you saw maybe a bright spot when you had both the Biden and Trump administrations in the
waning days, you know, lead to a ceasefire.
President Trump has the respect of Israel and the Arab world, and that was in the past and that hopefully carries through on today. You have Steve
Witkoff, you have Morgan Ortagus, they are tasked with peace, one of the most difficult challenges in the Middle East, but then you saw your press
conference, where again, it's not just what the plan is, but how you communicate it. And when President Trump started talking about occupying,
or maybe even owning Gaza, it is highly problematic. It is highly alarming to our allies, to the entire region.
So, we just need to be very clear that this has been a horrific time in the Middle East for Israel, for Palestine. And if there is going to be a
lasting peace, the Palestinians, you know, need to be a part of their own future in their own land. And if there is some upside here, you know,
you're looking at President Trump, who is showing an acknowledgement who wants that peace and certainly wants a better place and life for
Palestinians as well.
AMANPOUR: Do you think that he -- I mean, he's walked it back to an extent, or the White House has, that he would countenance a forcible
removal of the Palestinian population? Do you think, if that was the case, it basically would amount to what critics are calling ethnic cleansing?
BARTLETT: It's -- you know, it's important to deal in reality as opposed to the hypotheticals. These statements were made. Again, I believe if you
are trying to give the benefit of the doubt, this was President Trump trying to acknowledge the devastation of Gaza and the role the U.S. is
willing to play.
If you are being intellectually honest, they were more than inflammatory, more than problematic. And then beyond that, they were panned by not just,
you know, internationally by players in the region, by the Saudis, by the Jordanians. But if you look politically speaking, I have never seen not
just the left, but also the right speaking up from Capitol Hill, senators from Josh Hawley to Lindsey Graham, Senator Kramer saying that this may not
be a wise idea to, again, the MAGA base online speaking out saying, no more endless wars, no more troops abroad. So, it is unclear how President
Trump's thinking or actual proposals may go forward.
AMANPOUR: And I just want to ask you because everybody abroad is also looking at the whole scale essential devastation of the government by Elon
Musk, et cetera. I mean, it seems like a deliberate system here. And Ty Cobb, who you may remember, Trump's lawyer in the first term, told the
Washington Post, it's a naked power grab, consistent with what Trump's advisers have persuaded him to do, which is to flood the zone with as much
unconstitutional activity as possible, with the hope that they get away with some or all of it.
What do you make of this? Does this trouble you as well?
BARTLETT: You know, this is a very fast paced kind of a whiplash approach to government reform, as you said, done in the most outsider way. Not only
is Donald Trump an outsider, he's brought in Elon Musk to help address and look not just look at but enact some of these reforms.
[13:20:00]
The upside may be this is possibly one of the only ways to smash bureaucracy, long-established bureaucracy that the American public, that
the American president, maybe even the American Congress has long had that would serve the people of America better and produce better outcomes from
government. That would be the potential upside. But the potential downside is a massive, massive risk to the long-established norms of America, to the
power balance of America and to how the American public is served.
It seems as if government is learning a very hard lesson in public sentiment due to the -- you know, due to the last election. But it also
seems that some of these outsiders may be learning a very hard lesson in civics too.
AMANPOUR: Well, Matthew Bartlett, we really appreciate you coming in and explaining the best you can from -- actually, from the Trump perspective,
having been in his first term. Thank you very much indeed.
And up next, the chaos of today's world is reflected in art by the Oscar nominated movie, "Anora." A screwball comedy about a sex worker who finds
herself in a whirlwind romance with the son of a Russian oligarch. It's wowing audiences and critics alike, and it's won the Palme d'Or at the
Cannes Film Festival earlier this year. Here's some of the trailer.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is the beautiful Ani.
MIKEY MADISON, OSCAR-NOMINATED ACTRESS, "ANORA": Hi, I'm Ani.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm Ivan.
MADISON: He was really weird. And I love him.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No way.
MADISON: Yes way. And I'm seeing him again tonight.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Will you marry me?
MADISON: Seriously?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Seriously.
MADISON: Three karats.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: The film has bagged six Oscar nominations, including for Best Picture, up for Best Actress is its bright new star, Mikey Madison. Her
performance has been called one of the year's best, and it's launched her career into the stratosphere. This week, Madison came here to the studio to
discuss the film and her rapid rise.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Mikey Madison, welcome to our program.
MADISON: Oh, thank you for having me.
AMANPOUR: So, tell me, you've just won the Breakthrough Performer of the Year at the Critics Circle, and of course, congrats on the Oscar nomination
for Best Actress. You're how old?
MADISON: 25.
AMANPOUR: And that's young, and this is like your third major film. How extraordinary is this moment for you?
MADISON: It's hard for me to grasp in a way. It's sort of unbelievable, surreal at times. I think maybe months from now I'll be able to really
fully understand what has happened. But it feels like the past. I mean, since last May really things have been going by so quickly, also very
slowly at the same time.
AMANPOUR: You know, I read that you were a very shy person.
MADISON: Yes.
AMANPOUR: Your parents are both psychologists.
MADISON: Yes.
AMANPOUR: Did they help you to meet this moment? How did your shyness sort of metamorphosize into this incredible sort of blooming?
MADISON: I don't think my shyness has ever helped me with anything, I have to be honest.
AMANPOUR: But did you -- have you been able to overcome it?
MADISON: Yes. I mean, I think in some ways, yes. I mean, when I was younger it was hard for me to even make eye contact with someone.
AMANPOUR: You're doing good.
MADISON: Well, I was trying to get there. So, I think as I've gotten older, I've just become more comfortable with myself. I feel like I'm in a
place where I just really know who I am. And so, I think that helps with shyness and things like that. But, you know, I'm certainly not the only
actor who is shy. I think a lot of shy people get into acting in sort of the film industry. So, yes.
But my parents are -- you know, they're very intelligent. Have always approached psychology and emotions from like a very scientific way. And so,
I think that was interesting for me.
AMANPOUR: The overarching theme of this movie is you, sex worker, basically end up being in a very tight relationship and a marriage with the
son of an oligarch, a Russian oligarch. So, two completely different life experiences collide together in partnership in this film. But it doesn't
start off like that. Here's a scene from the club.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MADISON: I know --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ani, I got a kid who wants someone who speaks Russian.
MADISON: You know, Jimmy, the girls and I have been talking, and if your cousin doesn't start showing us some respect, we're not going to tip out
anymore.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All right. I'll talk to him.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Who are you talking about, the DJ?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All right. seriously?
MADISON: I shared my playlist with him, and he was very rude and dismissive.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You're killing me. Let's go. Come on.
MADISON: No. I'm eating my food.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[13:25:00]
AMANPOUR: So, from the get-go, you are your own person and you're very clear about your boundaries. The character speaks some Russian, certainly
understands Russian. As you said, a sex worker. So, what was the prep for that?
MADISON: Well, just in terms of the language, that was not a language I spoke before filming or had ever attempted to speak. So, I took, you know,
months of Russian language sessions. I worked with an incredible dialect coach who also worked on our film. And he -- you know, we would have two-
hour sessions every two or three days, and I would really just try to drill as much into it in my brain as possible. It's a very, very complicated
language.
AMANPOUR: It is.
MADISON: Yes. And so -- but I really wanted to understand what I was saying. I didn't just want to memorize it.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
MADISON: Like what's on the page. I wanted to know the nuance of how each word sounds. How it feels to say it. What my -- what the other actors are
saying to me. So, I dedicated a lot of time to learning as much as possible.
And then, obviously, she's from Brighton Beach. She's from Brooklyn. There's a very specific dialect that comes from --
AMANPOUR: In the American accent?
MADISON: Yes.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
MADISON: Yes. And so, you know, I'm a L.A. Valley girl. I don't sound anything like that. So, I was like, OK, well I'm going to have to really
specify what her voice sounds like. And all these little things really just came together to bring Ani to life in a different way and, you know,
project her as someone very different than me. I was just the vessel for all of that.
AMANPOUR: Yes. And you shaped this character. How did you prepare for the sex scenes or the sex worker scenes?
MADISON: Well, you know I did a lot of research into sex work because I think I went into my preparation of the film really not knowing much about
that community or what that profession is like. And it completely opened up my eyes and I was able to -- we had consultants that were brought into the
film. So, I was able to meet these incredible women and they offered so much insight and nuance into what that kind of work is like.
And so, I think that that just opened up my mind. And that's how I was able to film all of those scenes. I mean, you know, my character is a sex
professional and it's her job, her body and her nudity is part of her work. And so, for me, I think I also approached it in a similar way.
I was very comfortable. I mean, Sean Baker is just -- he's a wonderful, lovely person. And Sammy Quan and that whole production, you know, their
priority is safety, comfortability. Like, they want everyone to have a wonderful time making their films, and that sentiment was really echoed. It
was such a positive experience for me.
AMANPOUR: I want to play another clip, and it's essentially fast forward from there, from the first one, and you end up marrying Vanya, Ivan.
MADISON: Yes.
AMANPOUR: And not something that his parents are thrilled about, and they try to get you to split up. Here is a scene on the tarmac where you are in
no uncertain terms, your character, Ani, is telling them where to go.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You are getting on this plane, and you are getting divorced.
MADISON: Yes, we're going to get a -- divorce, but first I'm getting a lawyer, then I'm going to sue Ivan, and you, and I'm going to walk away
with -- half, because I didn't sign a prenup.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Ballsy, right? I mean, very, very self-assured. I mean, you're taking control of your life right there.
MADISON: That's one of the things I love about this character, is that she has this amazing fighting spirit, and she will fight tooth and nail,
physically and emotionally to fight for what she believes is hers or the life that she's been welcomed into.
And you know, that scene is one I love so much because I remember we premiered it at Cannes and when that scene came on people were cheering in
the audience. They were cheering for that character and this moment she had where she really stands up for herself.
AMANPOUR: Tell me about your relationship with Vanya, Ivan.
MADISON: Yes, Ani's relationship with Ivan, I mean, she -- well, she meets him at her place of work. And so, at first, I think she sees him as a
really amazing potential client. He's charming, he's kind, he's adventurous, he seems to be living this incredible, comfortable party
lifestyle that's really attractive to her.
You know, he employs her. And so, she's sort of performing this version of herself, this sort of perfect girlfriend experience version of herself to
him. But then, I think that the lines become blurred quite a bit because she really becomes seduced by this lifestyle and really falls in love with
the idea of him.
[13:30:00]
AMANPOUR: And then the end is actually -- it's sad. I think this character, Igor, who was in the employ of the oligarchs, in a way, he was a
body for hire too, right? He was a henchman for them and enforcer for them. And I don't know whether you -- whether your characters bonded in that way.
Describe the very end, because you're in this car together, and you're sort of bonding over maybe a joint sadness.
MADISON: Yes. You know, Igor, played by Yoriy Borisov, who's so wonderful.
AMANPOUR: Who's actually Russian.
MADISON: Yes, he is Russian.
AMANPOUR: Yes, yes.
MADISON: Yes. He's actually the first Russian actor to be nominated for an Oscar since 1977.
AMANPOUR: Wow.
MADISON: So, it's really, really spectacular for him. Yes. So, you know, Igor, throughout the film, is really the only character who has treated Ani
like a human, with any kind of decency and respect. Respect, I think, is definitely one of the themes of the film and power. And so, in this last
scene, there's been so much headbutting between them. But there is this undeniable connection, I think, that sometimes there's just someone -- some
people that you meet in life where you have this sort of soul tether, soul tie. And I think that they both see things in each other that they -- that
are -- that's going on within themselves.
And so, in that moment in the car there's finally a moment where they're able to communicate and share something honest and truthful with each other
without any words at all.
AMANPOUR: Interestingly though, you talk about -- it was hard to summon the tears that were required in that final scene, because it was emotional,
it was sad, and your whole film had been projecting toughness, your whole character throughout the film.
At first, apparently, you said you couldn't shed a tear no matter how hard you tried. Quote, "When I got to that scene, I was angry, I didn't
understand why." The breakthrough came from something deeply personal. An old voicemail from your father that you listen to whenever you need to feel
centered. I thought that was remarkable. So, tell me about it. I've just read it out. But tell me about summoning up that last bit of emotion there.
MADISON: Well, you know, it's funny because when I was filming that scene, so -- I mean, with the character and also with me, there were so many
emotions that were building up and she's, you know, a very vulnerable person, but she's protecting it with this layer of steel. She doesn't want
anyone to see her hurt. And I think it was sort of the same with me while I was filming.
And I was so frustrated I would be crying, like, in between takes talking to our producer. And I'm like, I can't cry. And she's like, you're crying
right now. So, what's going on? What's happening? And I think it was really just -- I was so concerned about not being able to do her justice in that
scene. I was so concerned about not getting the scene right, which isn't even possible because as an actor you can't get a scene right. It's either
you're honest and in the moment or you're not.
And so, I was like, I think I just need to try to let go of any expectations I had about this scene. Let go of the pressure of this being
the last scene in the film, and just like, allow the floodgates to open. Because I was like, I was holding it in for some reason. I don't know.
Maybe I could ask my parents to psychoanalyze that, but I was like, I think I need to pull something personal from my own life to just ground myself.
And I was like, OK, well I have this voicemail, and I was talking to Sammy Quan, our producer, and just like, I think you guys should listen to it. I
did. So, there's Sean Baker sitting in the back seat of the car.
AMANPOUR: He was there?
MADISON: Yes, he's sitting in the back.
AMANPOUR: Directing the scene from the back seat?
MADISON: Yes, yes.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
MADISON: And then, Yuriy is obviously in the car with me. And so, Sean just held the phone, played this voicemail that's very personal, private,
embarrassing, vulnerable, all of those things.
AMANPOUR: Which you don't want to tell us what it said?
MADISON: Well, it was -- you know, he sent years ago. He's my dad. My sweet dad sent me a voicemail during a time where I -- you know, I needed
some hopefulness. And I just -- he said the things that I needed to hear, you know. He just talked about seeing a lot of hope in my future. That's
basically what it said.
And we played it and we all listened to it. And I think just the intimacy of listening to that voicemail really, it just grounded all of us, brought
us to kind of more of like a raw, uncomfortable place. Like we were all kind of on edge.
[13:35:00]
And so, then we shot the scene, and there was just some different energy to it.
AMANPOUR: A floodgate had been opened?
MADISON: Yes, it had. It had. With the character.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
MADISON: Yes.
AMANPOUR: But also, for you, the actor?
MADISON: Well, I think it was like, in front of the camera, yes, because I was so used to playing a character who is protecting all of that. She will
not let anyone see her vulnerability because I think she's trying to hold on to this like bit of dignity that she has left. And to let anyone know
how truly heartbroken she is about all of this and how she's been treated would be too much for her.
And so, in this private moment where there's nobody except for the one person who has treated her decently, I think she's able to let some of that
out.
AMANPOUR: Sean Baker apparently created this around you. This character. I mean, he didn't just present you with the script, right, and say, this is
the character. He came to you having seen you in other things, right?
MADISON: Yes, yes.
AMANPOUR: I mean, it's pretty -- that's not bad for any actor, much less a young one.
MADISON: Yes, I had never had that experience before. I'd never had a director want to write something for me. And so, it was very exciting. I
had to really quickly like let go of -- try as much as possible to let go of my imposter syndrome of like, why did he choose me? Why does he want to
do this with me? Like I -- and just kind of accept the experience and what was coming, because I've always dreamed of being able to collaborate with a
director like this.
You know, I've been working for a decade now, as an actor, trying to work - -
AMANPOUR: With some great directors too, Quentin Tarantino. What will it take to shed your imposter syndrome for good?
MADISON: Oh, I don't know. I don't know. I mean, I think that there will always be a bit of that.
AMANPOUR: An Oscar?
MADISON: But, you know, I have to say -- I never want to get to a place where I'm like -- where -- I don't know, where I don't have that piece of
me. That I think that it almost pushes me to continue being a student in a way. I always want to keep getting better, learning, you know, refining my
craft in some way.
And so, I don't know. I don't think I'll ever get to a place where I feel like, oh, I'm good, I don't need to learn anything else. I think I always
want to be -- I don't know. I think that that's good though.
AMANPOUR: It's good. It's good. You always want to learn, but you always have to believe that you have the right to be there if you've learned.
MADISON: No, it's true.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
MADISON: And I think that there's a difference between -- there's definitely a middle ground, I think, that I could reach, yes.
AMANPOUR: What is your next film project?
MADISON: I don't know yet. There's some films that I really love and have my fingers crossed for. But I don't know. I don't know exactly what it will
be. Which is kind of, like, nerve-racking, but then, also, really exciting, because, I don't know. I kind of feel like all my dreams are coming true a
little bit. Which is like, I don't know, maybe there's wood somewhere and I'll knock on it.
AMANPOUR: Knock on it. But what a great place to be, thinking your dreams are coming true. It's great. Congratulations.
MADISON: Thanks.
AMANPOUR: Madison, thank you very much.
MADISON: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Now, earlier in the program, we discussed the acts that Elon Musk has been taking to critical agencies in a way that many believe could
be unconstitutional and even illegal. In a new piece for The Atlantic, journalist Jonathan Chait warns that it is urgent for the legislature to
reclaim its power before it's too late. And he tells Michel Martin why too late could come a lot sooner than everyone thinks.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, Christiane. Jonathan Chait, thank you so much for speaking with us.
JONATHAN CHAIT, STAFF WRITER, THE ATLANTIC: Thank you.
MARTIN: I want to talk about a couple of recent articles that you've written for The Atlantic, but I want to start with one where you say that
the constitutional crisis is here. In plain language, what are the things that lead you to that conclusion?
CHAIT: Well, the Constitution's Article 1 gives Congress power over spending, and that's the system that we've had in this country for the
entire existence of this republic. If Congress establishes an agency or a spending program, that is the law, and the president has to follow the law.
Now, there have been disagreements about how the president handles that and in the priorities, but that basic fact has not been challenged. And that
fact is what the Trump administration is now challenging. They are claiming for themselves the right to eliminate any program or any agency that they
don't like for any reason whatsoever. So, that is totally new, and that would completely upend the balance of power between the branches of
government.
MARTIN: Do you think that the public sees it as seriously as you do?
CHAIT: No, I don't. Although, you are seeing some evidence that President Trump's approval ratings are falling back a bit, even just over the past
couple of weeks. And you've seen that Elon Musk has grown unpopular.
[13:40:00]
So, I think the general idea that the administration is doing something radical and moving really fast is getting through to the public. And it's
common for presidents to come in and think the public wants them to undertake radical change, this is a mistake that presidents of both parties
have made. And assume that the public will reward them for moving things really fast. And that's usually not the case. And this seems to be another
instance in which that same mistake has been made.
MARTIN: So, what are some of the moves that the president, you know, with Elon Musk in the lead, this tech mogul, richest man in the world, what are
some of the decisions that they've taken that have caused this kind of alarm? Describe what's going on here.
CHAIT: Yes. Well, they put out this very broad and confusing memo that seemed to just suspend the entire federal government's operations, which
threw lots of people justifiably into a panic before a court sort of slapped them down. But now, they're trying to do a version of that
seemingly piecemeal.
You've got Musk holed up in the Eisenhower building next to the White House just kind of going through the federal budget and without having much
expertise to do this job, determining which programs he considers wasteful or fraudulent or part of some kind of left-wing conspiracy that he imagines
has been going on for years and trying to just zero out those programs or declare them dead.
And then, meanwhile, they're sending out letters to the whole federal workforce, urging them to retire immediately. And some people are figuring
out whether they should take that offer, or whether it is an offer at all, or whether it's even legal. And all these things are very hard to
determine.
So, they're just throwing sand into the gears of the machine, or they're just jamming up the machine as hard and fast as they can without having a
very close idea of how it operates and what the effects of all this might be on the people who are relying on these government services.
MARTIN: One of the things that has really set off red flags for a lot of people is that Musk and this group of young software engineers, apparently
some of them -- you know, we're told that one of them is as young as 19 years old, most of them are in their early 20s, have had access to the
Treasury system for dispersing government funds.
CHAIT: Right.
MARTIN: And this has heretofore been supervised by career employees. The career employee who was in charge of this was retired under duress, it
seems, after he objected to them having access to this. Now, as we are speaking now, a federal judge has said they can only have limited access,
only two members of this team can have limited access. It's so-called read only access. Would you just talk about, like, why this is so concerning?
CHAIT: I don't think anybody knows exactly what they're doing, and that's part of the reason for the concern. We do know, though, that they've misled
the public about this. They said that Musk only had read only access to this information, but reporters found that they didn't. They actually had
access to go in and change the outcomes of these payments.
So, what people think, although, you know, I don't want to just pass on this speculation as fact, but it seems as if Musk is inclined to use this
tool to advance this antigovernment agenda that he set out for himself, that basically, instead of going to Congress and saying, we think this
program is too big or this agency should be shuttered, they're just going to unilaterally cut off the payments to whatever programs that they think
shouldn't exist, just going straight to the end point. And so, that would accomplish his work immediately.
And even if the courts were to step in and say, you can't do this, the damage of moves like this would be so difficult to reverse that they might
functionally succeed in their goal, even if it's illegal.
MARTIN: President Trump and his kind of designated agent in this, Elon Musk, have been arguing that these programs are either inefficient or, in
their words, corrupt. What do you say to that?
CHAIT: Look, there are inefficient programs in the federal government, and there are certainly inefficient systems that prevent the government from
functioning efficiently. And I know of some policy wonks who have been writing about this and trying to make the government work better. It's very
frustrating that they're not listening to people like that who have real expertise and actually want to make the government more cost effective and
more efficient.
And instead, seem to be just running rampant through the government, picking out programs that have names that sound weird to them, or which
they just make -- see the pants guesses are doing something bad or something progressive and just zero them out with any real thought. So,
it's frustrating as someone who wants to make government more efficient that they're not doing this in any kind of careful or respectable way.
[13:45:00]
MARTIN: Before we move on to the constitutional crisis aspect, because that is your larger point, that this isn't just about an overreach in one
area by a person who is inexperienced, doesn't really know how the government works, what it does, is that he seems particularly fixated on
USAID, which distributes humanitarian aid. The president and Elon Musk seem particularly fixated on this, to the point of using some very disparaging
language to talk about the people who do this work and the work that they're doing.
Why are they so fixated on these agencies? Do you have any -- this particular agency, do you have any sense of that?
CHAIT: That's a great question, and I've tried to figure it out. It's one irony, and I'm actually working on a story about this, is that the Marxist
left hates USAID, has always hated USAID. And the reason they hate it is that it is a tool of American foreign policy, and as such, it was designed
to counter the effects of communism, now counters the effects of the Chinese Communist Party globally.
By providing humanitarian aid throughout the online world, it tries to show the world that the United States cares about them. So, it's a kind of joint
diplomatic humanitarian mission. So, describing it as Marxist is really an inversion of the truth.
Now, why they came to this, as you say, is very, very hard to understand. If you wanted to give them credit for being clever, you'd say the American
public doesn't like foreign aid. The American public massively overestimates the amount of the budget that goes to foreign aid. So, one
reason people don't like foreign aid is because they think we're spending far more on it than we are.
But it is a soft target. And if they want to establish the principle that the White House has the right to terminate any federal program that it
wants without going through Congress, you want to start with the softest target to begin with. And then you've established the principle and you can
start going after harder targets. And that would really enable conservatives to advance policy goals that they've always wanted to do,
right?
You've got large chunks of the conservative movement that have opposed the expansions of government that have taken place since the New Deal and the
Great Society, but considered a lot of these large spending programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, to be popular and difficult to cut or
to privatize.
But if they could just do it at the White House with the snap of the fingers and not have to have a vote in Congress, not to have public
accountability, that would be a generational change in the structure of government and advance a lot of their goals.
MARTIN: One of the arguments that you make in your piece is that, look, if this is a constitutional crisis, this speaks to a neutering of the third
branch of government, which is the Congress, then presumably everybody in Congress should be concerned.
CHAIT: Well, the first branch of government, I think, is that the founders decided to be the first branch. Congress is supposed to preempt this.
MARTIN: The first branch. But the question I have for you is, why are they not more jealous of their own institutional imperatives?
CHAIT: Well, right. What you've identified is really a longstanding flaw in the Constitution, and neither of us is the first person to identify
this, but the founders weren't thinking about political parties when they designed the system. Parliamentary forms of government are designed with
parties in mind. You have party control as in the core of how those systems are supposed to operate.
But what the American constitution designed was they imagined that these separate branches would operate as branches independently of each other,
right? So, that they would be jealous of their powers and make sure the other branches didn't impinge upon their control. So, you would have
Congress making sure the president didn't take too much power because Congress would want to make sure the Congress is strong, and the president
would do the same thing vis-a-vis Congress and the executive branch and the legislature and the judicial branch would all check each other.
But parties upend those incentive systems, right? When you've got Congress and the president controlled by the same party, members of Congress just
want the president to succeed. Now, that's a longstanding feature of American politics, but it's kind of risen to a new height under the
Republican Party, because Donald Trump has so much power over other Republicans.
The Republican Party has come to define its ideology almost entirely in whatever terms Donald Trump sets. And Trump has shown that he can just
change what the party stands for overnight and most Republicans will follow him instantaneously. He's also shown that any Republicans who defy him, he
can say that they're a rhino or Republican in name only and in support of a primary challenge against them and probably end their political career.
MARTIN: So, let's talk about the Democrats now, because you've also been writing about them.
CHAIT: Yes.
MARTIN: You're not impressed.
CHAIT: No.
MARTIN: You're not impressed? Say more.
CHAIT: Well, I wrote a piece about the Democratic National Committee's recent meeting where they elevated their leader and sort of had a bit of a
discussion about what's happened in the past and where they want to go.
[13:50:00]
And you've got to be a little bit careful talking about a meeting like this, because the Democratic National Committee sounds like it would be in
charge of the Democrats, but it's really an organization that has relatively limited power. If you're a Democrat running for office, you
don't have to go to the Democratic National Committee to find out what to say or who's going to be the candidate in your district, whether that's
determined by voters.
But I think you can't just stop there because the reason -- or at least one reason the DNC is so powerless is that a lot of the power over the
Democratic Party has been ceded to the progressive movement infrastructure over the past 15, 20 years. Progressive activist groups financed privately
by donors, often very liberal donors, have advanced a series of causes and, you know, environmental justice, reproductive justice, and racial justice.
And all those activists have set out to push the party to the left since the second Obama term and they've had tremendous amounts of success in
pushing them to the left.
But I think in a lot of ways, they pushed the party to the left of where the public is and where they were winning during the Obama era and have had
some responsibility for the defeats of the last election. And what I noticed in the DNC meetings is there didn't seem to be any acknowledgement
of this problem. They just seem to be doubling down on the same buzzwords in the same analysis that got them into the problem in the first place.
MARTIN: So, so what about members of Congress? I mean, they have -- again, some of them have been in office for a long time. They have their own
standing in their communities. They have their own reputations. So, you know, what's the -- I mean, where is the leadership there? I mean, it's the
simple problem here that there is no figure who commands the respect of -- or at least the followership of sufficient numbers of even members of
Congress to kind of create a -- I don't know any other word to use, although it's become kind of a --
CHAIT: Opposition.
MARTIN: -- a buzzword, a resistance.
CHAIT: Yes. Yes.
MARTIN: Is that is that the issue? Is it a failure of sort of the leadership personalities?
CHAIT: Well, look, I think we should be a little bit patient in assessing the situation. I think it's a very common problem for a party that shut out
of power to lack effective voice and effective leaders because they just don't have a power base from which to operate in.
And usually when parties come back, it's not because of the ideas that they're developing in opposition or the charisma of the leaders they have
in opposition, it's because the ruling party, the governing party overreaches and creates a backlash and then the opposition party finds ways
to exploit that backlash.
I think whatever leaders the Democratic Party develops are going to come out of the presidential primary, that that's going to begin in three years
or so, and they're going to figure out whatever issues resonate most with the public, whatever failures of this administration they can run against
and craft a message.
But my concern is that while they position themselves to do that, they recognize that they can also take on a bunch of positions that are too far
to the left of where the public is that'll make it impossible for them to take advantage of public discontent with Trump.
MARTIN: And, Chait, before we let you go, the courts. I mean, so far the courts have been -- have confronted Trump and his agenda at multiple
points. I mean, they've already said a federal -- one federal judge has said, look, this idea of eliminating, you know, birthright citizenship in
the 14th Amendment is overreach. But there is another argument to suggest that that's his goal, is to get some of these issues in court because he
does believe -- he appointed three of the current Supreme Court justices. They have demonstrated that they have a maximalist view of executive power.
Is there any effective check on the actions of this president?
CHAIT: Well, you're certainly right that that's one -- they have basically two routes by which this can work. One is that they just get these cases to
court and they win. And they change the precedent and they get the court to say actually the executive branch can just unilaterally eliminate any
spending program it doesn't like.
Now, that seems to violate the plain text of the Constitution and the way it's been understood for over 200 years. But the Constitution is whatever
the five most conservative justices say it is. So, if that's what they say it is, that's what it is.
Secondly, it's possible that they're going to lose, but they'll move so fast that they'll have an effect anyway. That once you drive out the staff,
the expertise, the institutional knowledge in a lot of these agencies because they can't sit around waiting forever to see if they win in court.
[13:55:00]
They've got to go on their lives. They've got mortgages to pay. They've got, you know, things to do with their lives. You won't be able to rebuild
it. So, I think that the second danger is probably more sears than the first, but either one is a possibility.
MARTIN: Jonathan Chait, thank you so much for talking with us.
CHAIT: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: 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
