Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Arab League Assistant Secretary-General Hossam Zaki; Interview with Former Obama White House Health Policy Adviser and University of Pennsylvania Vice Provost of Global Initiatives Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel; Interview with Harvard Law School Professor and Bloomberg Opinion Columnist Noah Feldman; Interview with "Seed of the Sacred Fig" Director Mohammad Rasoulof. Aired 1:15-2:15p ET
Aired February 11, 2025 - 13:15 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:15:00]
PAULA NEWTON, CNN ANCHOR: Coming up on the program. President Trump meets Jordan's King Abdullah, while the Israel-Hamas ceasefire hangs in the
balance. Is there any way forward? I discuss with the assistant secretary general of the Arab League.
Then, as the Trump administration tries to slash funding for medical research, we look into the long-term impact on America's health.
And "The Seed of the Sacred Fig." Christiane speaks to the great Iranian filmmaker, Mohammad Rasoulof about his Oscar nominated new film and his own
flight from Iran.
Plus --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NOAH FELDMAN, PROFESSOR, HARVARD LAW SCHOOL AND OPINION COLUMNIST, BLOOMBERG: Since 1865 no president has refused to follow a direct order
from the federal court. And so, if the president says, I'm defying it, that puts us closer to what you might call a constitutional crisis.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEWTON: -- America's courts push back against an onslaught of executive orders. Walter Isaacson digs into the latest with Harvard Law professor
Noah Feldman.
And a warm welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Paula Newton in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
President Trump is meeting with Jordan's King Abdullah today in a region that faces yet another moment of crisis. Now, the ceasefire between Hamas
and Israel is looking more uncertain than ever. Hamas postponing further hostage releases, saying Israel is breaking the ceasefire deal.
Now, in response, Israel is now accusing Hamas of a complete violation of the agreement. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu now says they'll end the
ceasefire if hostages aren't released by noon on Saturday as planned.
Now, meantime, the U.S. president doubling down on his very controversial proposal to permanently relocate the majority of Palestinians. Remember, at
least 2 million people from Gaza to Egypt and Jordan. I want you to take a listen now to what he said a little earlier.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: I believe we'll have a parcel of land in Jordan. I believe we'll have a parcel of land in Egypt. We may have
someplace else, but I think when we finish our talks, we'll have a place where they're going to live very happily and very safely.
And you know, don't forget, they only want to be on the Gaza Strip because they don't know anything else. They'd never had an alternative and they
don't want to be on the Gaza Strip, but they have no choice. They have to be. And they're being killed there at levels that nobody's ever seen. No
place in the world is like -- as is dangerous as the Gaza Strip. They don't want to be there.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEWTON: Now, though President Trump was threatening to cut aid to those two countries if they don't acquiesce to his wishes, he now says he does
not think he will have to do that. We want to bring in our Jeremy Diamond from Tel Aviv, who's been following all the developments. Jeremy, suffice
it to say, startling developments, really, both in Israel and at the White House.
I do want to begin in Israel with the prime minister saying that the deal is off unless the hostages will be released by Saturday. What more are you
learning?
JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Paula, this ceasefire certainly seems to be hanging by a thread at this moment, very much in the
most precarious position that we have seen in the three weeks that it has been ongoing so far. And it's important to know that we are really only
just beginning past the halfway mark. There are still 17 hostages, nine of whom are living, expected to be released during the remainder of this deal.
And of course, the people of Gaza have been planning and expecting and hoping that they will have at least another three weeks of calm, if not
longer.
But whereas a few days ago, the question was about whether or not the ceasefire could be extended and we could get to phases two and three. Now,
the question is very much about whether or not we will get to the end of phase one. The Israeli prime minister issuing this ultimatum saying, quote,
"If Hamas does not return our hostages by Saturday noon, the ceasefire will end and the Israeli military will go back to fighting Hamas in Gaza."
[13:20:00]
Now, a few caveats here. Notably, the Israeli prime minister did not say all of our hostages, which is what President Trump had said yesterday as he
was suggesting this ultimatum to the Israelis. Separately, an Israeli official is indeed telling us that Israel expects that the nine remaining
living hostages will be released in the next few days. Otherwise, Israel will go back to the war in Gaza.
And so, that tells us a couple of things. First of all, it doesn't seem like the prime minister is demanding the release of all the hostages by
Saturday, or the ceasefire ends. And it also tells us that the fact that the prime minister didn't say a specific number in his remarks he seems to
be trying to leave himself some wiggle room here.
But nonetheless, this is a very serious threat, the most serious threat that we have seen to this ceasefire so far, in particular because just last
night Hamas said that it would not even release the three hostages scheduled to be released this coming Saturday, citing a series of alleged
Israeli violations of this ceasefire.
Hamas, though, did make clear that it was leaving some wiggle room as well, leaving the door open for the mediators to get Israel back in line with the
ceasefire on a number of fronts. And that if that happened before Saturday, then the release could go ahead as planned.
We know that the mediators, Egypt and Qatar, are indeed working to try and resolve this dispute between Israel and Hamas to preserve this ceasefire
agreement at a time when we know that there are a number of families here in Israel that are expecting and waiting for the return of their loved ones
in the coming weeks. And if this ceasefire ends, all of that could be in jeopardy.
NEWTON: Can you give some perspective on what the reaction is in the region, given what has gone on in the White House, though? It strikes me as
we might be on a war footing again by Saturday in terms of Hamas and Israel, and yet, they're already talking about and arguing over how to
rebuild Gaza.
King Abdullah is sitting there next to the president as the president continually doubles down on essentially evicting 2 million Palestinians
from their homeland in Gaza. King Abdullah made it clear there is a plan. What more are we learning about what could be an accommodation here?
DIAMOND: Yes, it appears that there will be some discussions involving Egypt and Saudi Arabia as well. There was a reference in that spray between
the president and King Abdullah to some land in Egypt that could potentially be of use for Palestinians to go there.
But I think that we need to keep in mind a few things, which is that while the president is talking about permanently displacing Palestinians from
Gaza, both Jordan and Egypt have made explicitly clear that they reject that notion entirely, that Palestinians must be allowed to either remain or
to return to the Gaza Strip, whereas the president is talking about turning it into, you know, this U.S. real estate development that he's calling the
Riviera of the Middle East.
But the president was making very clear today that he is not abandoning this idea at all. The king of Jordan did talk about taking in some 2,000
sick and wounded children from Gaza. We know that Jordan has been receiving medical evacuations from Gaza, but we also know that the Israelis have been
limiting the number of medical evacuations taking place from Gaza.
So, the bottom line here is that the president is doubling down on these ideas. The region at large is still rejecting those ideas. But they are
finding a way to allow for continued talks on this that will at least keep this issue on the back burner for now.
NEWTON: Understood. Jeremy Diamond for us. Thanks so much for the update. Appreciate it. And we do want to get more on all of these developments with
Hossam Zaki. Is a longtime Egyptian diplomat who is currently assistant secretary general of the Arab League. And the Arab League, in fact, at the
forefront of whatever plan there might be for Gaza.
Before we get to that, though, I do want to get your reaction to Benjamin Netanyahu now saying that if Hamas does not return our hostages, he says by
Saturday noon, the ceasefire will end and the IDF, key here, the IDF will return to intense fighting until Hamas is completely defeated. I do want to
get your reaction to those latest comments, not just from the prime minister, but from Hamas as well.
HOSSAM ZAKI, ASSISTANT SECRETARY-GENERAL, ARAB LEAGUE: Well, it's a regrettable situation because there was a deal and the deal was made with
the help of Egypt and Qatar and both made sure that they were guarantors of this deal. Now, we hear that the Israeli prime minister is reneging on the
deal and this is putting a lot of jeopardy in this situation, which is already a very inflamed situation.
[13:25:00]
So, we hope things will cool down, heads will cool down, and the deal will be allowed to be executed as planned, as agreed.
NEWTON: Do you believe that -- President Donald Trump unfortunately added to what is going on here, I'll remind you, that he had said himself he set
this deadline for Saturday saying, and I'm quoting him, "Let all hell break out if all the hostages are not released by Saturday." Did the president
contribute to this -- the perhaps the dismantling of the ceasefire deal?
ZAKI: You know, Paula, the sad thing about all this is that we have been looking up at the United States, what, 46 years ago, and ever since, as the
major and the main peacemaker in the Middle East. Ever since it brokered the peace deal between Egypt and Israel, the cornerstone off peace and
stability in this region.
Now, it seems that things are not what they used to be. It seems that the United States with the new administration now wants to alter some things,
some things that the Arab side consider as being fundamental, pivotal and there is really no way of altering such things. And this is becoming very
difficult.
Of course, when you see the suffering of the hostages only, that makes -- it talks a lot about how you see the whole conflict. On the other side, the
Palestinian side, we have about 50,000 people death, 100,000 people, including, of course, women and children, who were maimed, who were injured
in this conflict by Israel, not a word about them. This is a very, very difficult thing to accept.
We want to look up to the United States again as a peacemaker in the Middle East not a country that inflames the situation.
NEWTON: With your words, though, considering how pivotal your organization is trying to be in all of this, do you risk inflaming things further here?
King Abdullah was very clear in saying that, look, there is going to be this meeting at the end of the month with the Arab League. What more can
you tell us? Can you fill in some details about what this plan looks like? Because he very clearly has something in mind, something that he is telling
Donald Trump about at the White House.
ZAKI: Well, what I can tell you here now is that, yes, the leaders of the Arab League are going to meet in Cairo on the 27th. They're going to
discuss the situation in its entirety, including the proposal concerning Gaza. It is clear that the leaders, in their wisdom, are going to be
debating the whole thing and stressing on the principles that they think should be stressed because it appears that those principles are now put
aside, ignored, neglected by, again, the peacemaker, the main peacemaker in the Middle East or what we used to consider as the main peacemaker in the
Middle East, the United States.
So, what is -- what needs to be done here is to explain to the U.S. administration that this is not the end of the road. We can put this in the
back burner and we can still talk, but there needs to be certain principles that are stressed and that are respected. Among which and in the forefront
of which is that Palestinians on their land they cannot be displaced from their land. This is pivotal to understand the conflict of the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict.
NEWTON: And yet, the president persists. And one of the reasons he persists is because the Israeli government continues to tell him that,
look, it's clear from the hostage releases that Hamas remains in control in at least most of Gaza, you can say. Is this something that the Arab League
will tolerate? Is there anything you can do about it? Because it is clear going forward that right now, we could be seeing the collapse of the
ceasefire deal and beyond that, still no agreement about how to even rebuild Gaza.
[13:30:00]
ZAKI: This is true. What you raised is an important point, a very important point. Yes, it seems too many, on our side, that what is behind
those ideas proposed by the president of the United States is the fact that Hamas is in control of Gaza still after 15 months of war and after all the
destruction that happened. And we said from the beginning that uprooting Hamas as the Israelis have declared is something that is very farfetched,
very difficult to achieve.
What we want, what we have been advocating as Arabs is a political deal. There is no military solution to this situation. And we said this many,
many times, including to Hamas, including to Hamas. This is this has to be stressed. So, we -- what we want to stress now to the interlocutors in the
U.S. administration is that if you want to pursue a role of peacemaking in this conflict in the Middle East and help the Middle East get to a
situation of stability and peace, then you have to look at things in a more even-handed way and proposals have to take into consideration the major
principles that both sides look at.
So, Arabs look at some principles as much as Israelis look at some principles as well. And if the issue is who is governing Gaza, then a lot
of countries, a lot of leaders, a lot of governments have much to say about this and they can chip in with ideas, with practical ideas, but give it
back to the Palestinian Authority because this is the rightful and legitimate government that governs the Palestinian territory.
NEWTON: And there is a dispute about that as well. Unfortunately, what you describe, it seems that it will, unfortunately, leading down the road to
impasse again. We will wait to see what happens this weekend, and also, of course, wait to see what happens at the end of the month with this Arab
League meeting. Hossam Zaki, I really want to thank you for your time.
ZAKI: Thank you.
NEWTON: Now, it's not just President Trump's actions in the Middle East that are getting significant pushback, as you just heard. In the U.S. here,
too, judges are preventing or delaying the implementation of several of his executive orders, among them halting proposed cuts to the National
Institute of Health's research efforts in 22 states now, drastic cuts that some experts argue could severely impact American Public Health.
Joining me now to talk about all this is Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel. He's a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. He was an adviser to President
Biden amid the COVID-19 pandemic and also a key architect of the Affordable Care Act. And I want to welcome you to the program as we continue to parse
all of these developments with the NIH, the National Institutes of Health.
Now, the announcement from the Trump administration of capping indirect payments to the NIH sent chills, I don't have to remind you, through the
entire scientific community. We have been hearing from many, a reminder that the NIH grants have been crucial in groundbreaking medical research
that I have to say, not just the United States partakes in, but people all around the world. Now, this federal judge has, in fact, blocked the cuts
for now. Explain to us, you know, how crucial this funding is and how it works.
DR. EZEKIEL EMANUEL, FORMER OBAMA WHITE HOUSE HEALTH POLICY ADVISER AND VICE PROVOST OF GLOBAL INITIATIVES, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: So, the
United States has been number one in biomedical research for the last 80 years. And a large part of that is the NIH funding hospitals, academic
centers, medical schools, departments of biology.
And the way it is I, as a researcher, put in a grant. I tell them what I'm going to do, either with patients or in a laboratory, they give me the
grant and my grant covers what I'm going to do. But there are a lot of costs that make it possible, infrastructure costs. Rent for lab space and
office space, administrative jobs, whether it's payroll or budgeting, auditing, legal services, it's utilities, it's disposing of radioactive
waste or biological waste, refrigeration for particular samples, all of those things, the government says, we're not going to look and make you
account for each of them, we're going to create a pot called indirect costs. We'll negotiate that across universities, and we'll give that to you
to make the grant possible and my actual research possible.
Now, different organizations, Gates Foundation or the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, do it differently. Sometimes they allow some of those costs to
be in the grant, for example, I.T. costs or special handling of samples. And so, they have different kinds of indirect rates.
[13:35:00]
What the president did is say unilaterally, eh, we're going to cut it down to where others have their indirect rate, without changing what I can put
into my grant the way those other organizations again, like the Gates Foundation or the Howard Hughes Foundation have. And that's a problem,
because there are contracts, expectations and just switching it overnight - -
NEWTON: Is there any doubt in your mind that this will affect the wellbeing of Americans for starters?
DR. EMANUEL: Well, a lot of places are -- actually, patients on research protocols are having to be stopped. You know, you're in the midst of a
cancer treatment as part of research and they're saying, oh, we can't -- we're not funding that grant to the same level, or we're doing critical
experiments on, you know, a particular new novel therapy, that's going to stop.
No, this is meant to undercut the biomedical research enterprise. We have the world's best. It's built on a system, and part of what this is doing is
threatening that system. And it's not meant to make America great. It's actually going to meant to undermine America's premier leadership in
biomedical research.
NEWTON: But what do you think the ultimate goal is here? Go ahead.
DR. EMANUEL: Sorry. I think, look, can there be reforms to the way we do research, how we finance it, what we think should be covered? Absolutely.
But unilaterally saying, I don't care about the old contracts, I don't care about our agreements that we're going to fund it in a certain way, I'm just
changing it myself. That is not a recipe for strengthening the system.
I think the system can be reformed and can be strengthened, but this is not the right approach. This is slash and burn rather than let's think about
how to improve what we're doing.
NEWTON: And to the reasons as to why they're slashing and burning perhaps, a 2022 report by the conservative think tank that published Project 2025,
something Americans have heard a lot about, they claimed that NIH funding was being used to subsidize the DEI agenda of the political left.
Now, Donald Trump, we heard him during the campaign, right, he tried to distance himself from Project 2025. Is there any doubt in your mind that
they're executing on this right now?
DR. EMANUEL: Oh, no, the cutting in the NIH indirects was part of Project 2025. It's right there in the program.
NEWTON: You believe it's ideologically driven then?
DR. EMANUEL: Yes. Look, you can say, we don't want to have DEI. That's already been said, and I think people have heard that message. But you
don't cut indirects from, in some cases, 50 or 60 percent because places are in high rent and high payroll locations down to 15 percent and say
that's DEI. That's way more than DEI. DEI may be a fraction of 1 percent. That has nothing to do with DEI. That is a cover that is -- does not
justify the kinds of cuts that are being proposed.
And Americans are going to suffer. We have to be quite clear. American patients are going to suffer. Future innovation is going to suffer and the
biotech and pharmaceutical industry is going to suffer because progress being made in labs is going to be prevented because of this, and they are
beneficiaries. They get new ideas, new potential products to test in.
Our world leadership in biomedical research, biotechnology, pharmaceutical industry is really threatened by this.
NEWTON: It's at stake. I do want to point out how perhaps someone looking for efficiency may not understand exactly what's at stake when they're
looking for, despite what you say is they might mistake it for overhead, that's too expensive, when really, it's necessary.
But also, these drugs like Ozempic that have been miracle drugs for weight loss and helping with diabetes as well, it came from analyzing the Gila,
the venom from the Gila monster. It's extraordinary to me. What do you think would happen to that Ozempic research right now, that Wegovy research
right now, if DOGE, the Department of Efficiency there run by Elon Musk, came across this as a line item in the budget and the NIH?
DR. EMANUEL: They would probably -- so, let's remember the GLP-1, Ozempic and Wegovy and Mounjaro, the research on that started in the early 1980s.
It's taken 40 years of work to develop effective drugs. And now, tens of millions of Americans, not to mention millions of people around the world,
are benefiting, and we continue to learn new benefits. They would probably make fun of this. Oh, why are we looking at venom of a Gila monster? That's
a joke.
[13:40:00]
But this is how discoveries are made. We often look -- I mean, for example, there's a lot of investigation of the heat vents in oceans for new
antibiotic and things like that. We don't know where the next discovery is going to come from, that's why we call it research. And that's what we have
to do. The more research we do, the better the chances are we're going to get breakthroughs. And we're looking for breakthroughs right now, in all
sorts of neurological diseases that are a real problem for millions, tens of millions of Americans That's the real -- next frontier.
NEWTON: Yes. And that could be in jeopardy at this hour. Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, we will continue to follow up with you on this. Thanks so much.
Appreciate it.
DR. EMANUEL: Thank you.
NEWTON: Now, as we just mentioned, one by one, the Trump administration has seen its executive orders frozen from its campaign to end birthright
citizenship to the destruction of USAID. And now, a judge in Rhode Island has become the first to declare that the White House has actually disobeyed
a court order, while Vice President Vance has suggested that judges do not have the authority over Trump's executive power.
Now, could this signal the start of a constitutional crisis? Harvard law professor and Bloomberg columnist Noah Feldman joins Walter Isaacson to
break it all down.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Thank you, Paula. And Noah Feldman. Welcome to the show.
NOAH FELDMAN, PROFESSOR, HARVARD LAW SCHOOL AND OPINION COLUMNIST, BLOOMBERG: Thanks for having me, Walter.
ISAACSON: Yesterday, a federal judge said that the Trump administration had defied the court's order to release billions of dollars in grants that
were supposed to go out. Tell me what you think the significance of this is. It's still not clear whether the administration was consciously defying
that order or, as it were, casually defying it. I know that sounds like it might not make a big difference, but it actually does.
Since 1865 no president has refused to follow a direct order from the federal court. And so, if the president says, I'm defying it, that puts us
closer to what you might call a constitutional crisis. But if the administration is just dragging its feet and goes into court and says,
well, we thought you meant a different order, which is what they said here, and then the court says, no, I told you to restart the funding. If they
say, as the administration has said, OK, we're going to appeal. We're angry. We're going to appeal. That's OK. What's not OK is to say, we, the
administration, are going to ignore an order of an Article 3 Court.
ISAACSON: But let me read to you something that Vice President J. D. Vance posted over the weekend, which seems a bit concerning, it was -- he wrote,
if a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal. If a judge tried to command the attorney general in
how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that's also illegal. Judges are not allowed to control the executive's legitimate power.
I thought they were allowed to control it, or is the word legitimate power something I'm missing?
FELDMAN: J. D. Vance is using what lawyers call technically weasel words there. He's trying to say something that in literal legal terms is sort of
kind of true, but that is extremely misleading in terms of the way he phrased it.
Because the way it's supposed to work, the way it does work under our system, is that it's up to the courts to say what the law is and then it's
up to the executive branch to execute the law as the courts have said it is. So, if the court says that the president has exceeded his executive
power, then he has, and he has to stop.
Now, there's a body of law about when the president has exceeded his executive power, and if a court were to ignore the whole body of law and
reach a decision that contradicted it, we would say in ordinary English, they got it wrong. But the president would still have to listen to that.
So, what J. D. Vance is doing there is he's making it sound as though some, someone other than the courts could say, you got it wrong, so what you did
was illegal. And that's not the ordinary English meaning of the word illegal. But technically, Vance can say, well, I'm not saying we should
defy the court's orders, I'm just saying they would have been wrong. And in order to say they would be really wrong, I use the word illegal. So, what
he's doing is he's undermining the legitimacy of the proper system using weasel words.
ISAACSON: Explain to me how the courts, I guess, way back when Justice Marshall did Marbury versus Madison, got the power to decide what laws mean
and what the executives have to do to enforce them.
FELDMAN: Well, you're absolutely right, Walter, that this goes all the way back to 1803 and one of the most famous Supreme Court cases ever, Marbury
against Madison, as you've said, in which Chief Justice Marshall said, the power of the courts is the power to say what the law is, even when that law
contradicts the Constitution, and then they will say it's unconstitutional. So, that's why that's such a famous case.
[13:45:00]
And by saying that the courts have the power to make a law unconstitutional, he was also saying, we the courts have the final word on
what the meaning of the law is, and everyone else in the government has to listen to us.
And although there have been one or two moments in our history, the very early part of our history, where presidents were a little ambivalent about
listening to the courts about that, it's been very well established, certainly since the end of the Civil War, and in even clearer terms, since
the end of the Civil Rights Movement, that when the court speaks, that's the law, and the president has to listen, the same way President Eisenhower
did when he listened to the courts and sent airborne troops to Little Rock to integrate the schools.
ISAACSON: One of the presidents that Trump reminds me of is Andrew Jackson in some ways. And of course, Andrew Jackson famously said of Chief Justice
Marshall after the Supreme Court had made the decision about preventing Cherokee Indian removals he said, well, Justice Marshall has made his
decision, now let him enforce it. So, what happens if the courts get defied? How do they enforce it?
FELDMAN: I will say, like you, Walter, I was raised on that story. There's now some question about whether he actually literally said that, but the
idea is consistent no matter what. And the idea is that the courts don't have a police force that works for them, they don't have an army that works
for them. So, in our system, the rule of law depends on the president and the executive branch actually obeying what the courts say. That's a
fundamental, a foundational principle of our constitutional order.
And the Jackson story is there to remind us that if a president doesn't do that, we don't have a great check. You know, historically, I would have
said, oh, you impeach a president who doesn't listen. We tried to impeach President Trump twice. He was impeached both times, but not convicted
either time. So, we realized that's not as powerful a tool as the framers wanted it to be. So, we want to avoid a situation like that.
And I just want to emphasize we're not there yet. I'm not saying that that can't happen, you know, not only am I not a prophet, but no one wise would
prophesy about Donald Trump, but he was president for four years, and in that period of time he did not directly defy any court orders. And so, I'm
hopeful that the administration won't do it this time either.
ISAACSON: Yes, you wrote that Trump never really defied a court order and you said, just as you did just now, that you're hopeful. What makes you
hopeful?
FELDMAN: What makes me hopeful is partly incentives. You know, Trump appointed three justices of the current Supreme Court and he's got at least
three more who are -- he's got three more who are often sympathetic to the conservative position.
So, he can win important cases in front of the Supreme Court, unless he defies the authority of the judiciary as a whole. Because the one thing all
nine of those justices have in common is their importance and their power derives from being justices of the Supreme Court. And so, if he flouts the
judiciary, he's flouting the justices, and he's going to lose the Supreme Court. And that would be extremely unwise.
Now, I can almost hear you thinking, this is Donald Trump. So, why is unwisdom a reasonable predictor? And I hear that loud and clear. But I also
think that it would enmesh the country in a huge debate about what would probably, in practice, be a relatively small matter. Not that the closure
of USAID, say, is small to those who receive the money, but in the grand scheme of the government of the United States, it's not the hugest part of
the government.
And so, to get into a fight with the courts over something like that, and to lose all of his authority with respect to the judiciary, would, I think,
even for Donald Trump, be counterproductive.
ISAACSON: Let me get to the very specific case right now about the freezing of federal grants and funds and the court ordering them to
unfreeze it and ask again the question of enforcement. If indeed they say unfreeze the funds and president and his agency heads just don't send the
money out, what could happen? I mean, how could that be forced?
FELDMAN: Well, a court has a bunch of tools at its disposal, and the court, thus far, used a pretty gentle tool, it sort of prodded the
executive and said, we told you, now do this. But if the executive doesn't listen, the court can order monetary damages against the government. And in
an extreme situation, it could identify the relevant official and order that official individually to carry out his or her job in dispersing the
money.
And if the official didn't do it, I don't think it's outside the bounds of possibility. The judiciary could issue an order directed at that person
with the consequence that the person could be in contempt of court if they don't follow it, which in theory could mean that such a person could
actually be put in jail or subject to individual fines until they perform their job. I hope it doesn't come to that.
ISAACSON: Let me read you something that Chief Justice John Roberts said a few weeks ago in his end of year report. And he's going to be the person
that we're all going to be watching when these cases get to the court of whether he has the sense of an independent judiciary from the Trump
administration. He said, within the past few years, elected officials from across the political spectrum have raised the specter of open disregard for
federal court rulings. These dangerous suggestions, however sporadic, must be soundly rejected.
[13:50:00]
And now, we've heard, in the past few weeks, some of these same suggestions. Do you think that Chief Justice Roberts is intimating that
this type of things have to be soundly rejected?
FELDMAN: I do. And the chief justice cares a lot about the legitimacy and effectiveness of the court as a court. And it's been hard for him because
this court is so polarized, like the country is polarized, that it's undermined the court's legitimacy, and that's what he thinks about when he
wakes up in the morning and what he thinks about before he goes to bed at night, preserving the legitimacy of the institution that he's in charge of.
That said, you know, he has not been shy about speaking out, and he did it in the first Trump administration when he thought that Trump was
questioning the independence of the judiciary. And if necessary, I think he'd be confident to do it again.
You know, there's an interesting quirk here, which is that the -- same J. D. Vance, the vice president, who's been making these statements that are,
I think, in intent and in effect, supposed to undermine the judiciary, he's married to a woman who's a very brilliant lawyer who was a law clerk for
the chief justice. And my sense is that Vance is probably smart enough to run these statements by his wife before he makes them public to ask, is
this narrowly enough within the technical bounds of what is legal to not, you know, get a rebuke from the court? And he's just inside the line right
now.
But I think if he goes further, or if President Trump does, there's evidence to suggest from the past that the chief justice will speak out.
And most importantly, all of the justices do believe in the importance of maintaining the rule of law, even if they don't agree with the decision of
a lower court and they might overturn it, they still think it has to be followed until it's overturned.
ISAACSON: One of the things that the Trump administration seems to have done is firing the dozens of prosecutors that worked on the January 6th
cases, in other words, the cases involving the insurrection at Capitol Hill on January 6th. And the Department of Justice has demanded a list of FBI
agents who worked on that case. Tell me what you make of this in terms of the politicization both of the Department of Justice and the FBI, which is
a part of that department.
FELDMAN: It's bad. You know, we have worked hard to maintain a tradition of independence, investigation, and prosecution, and that means that
employees, especially career employees who have career civil service protections, cannot be retaliated against for whom they prosecuted, even if
that person was the president of the United States or the former president of the United States who's back in office.
So, if those folks who were fired were careered people, civil servant protected, then that was unlawful. And they would have a right to be
reinstated, provided they wanted to do that. If they were people who were appointed to the Department of Justice for special purposes, then they
could be potentially fired. But again, the key point is that we do not want criminal investigation or criminal prosecution to become personalized.
I will say, just to be fair, if you ask the Trump folks, what they'll tell you is, what do you mean you don't want it to be personalized? Joe Biden
was the president. He had defeated Donald Trump in an election. I guess they don't admit that part. But he'd run against Donald Trump in an
election and he was going to run against him again. And he was criminally prosecuted by the sitting president. So, you, the Democrats, are the ones
who politicize this. So, you can hardly complain about the firing of a few people compared to the prosecution of the former president.
And I think it's important to say, although, I don't agree with that point of view, I hear it. It's -- it is the case that it's hard to maintain non-
politicization if you prosecute a former president, who's also a candidate for the presidency. So, in some sense, what we're seeing is the aftermath
of that decision to prosecute. And there's some blame to go around, notwithstanding that I strongly, strongly reject the idea that individual
agents or prosecutors should be targeted or fired.
ISAACSON: But I mean, how does that justify when it comes to the January 6th uprising and insurrection, the criminal trials there? Is there some
argument, I mean, that was a political thing as opposed to just --
FELDMAN: No, no. I don't think there's a credible argument. I mean, you may hear it from hardcore Trump supporters, but I don't think that's
credible. You know, we saw on television what happened on January 6th. Those trials were public trials, with all of the evidence brought to bear,
and it was very clear of what folks had done. And those criminal prosecutions were, I think, entirely legitimate and appropriate.
And, you know, Donald Trump has pardoned effectively all of the people who are criminally prosecuted there, which tells you that he's the one who's
politicizing those prosecutions in retrospect.
[13:55:00]
ISAACSON: We saw a headline in The New York Times this week that was, you know, and somewhat I was taken aback by it. It said Trump's actions have
created a constitutional crisis, scholars say. You are kind of indicating you don't think it's yet a constitutional crisis. Tell me what you think
the ingredients are for a real constitutional crisis and how that's being played out now.
FELDMAN: A constitutional crisis exists when two things happen. The first thing is you have two different branches of government. They're staring at
each other and no one knows under the rules of the game what's going to happen next. An example would be that a court orders the president to do
something, the president says no, now they're staring at each other, the court and the president, and there's no written answer in the constitution
of what's supposed to resolve that. It's not like Congress can come in as the third player and resolve it. We don't know exactly what's supposed to
happen.
And then the second component has to be that both of the people staring at each other, or both of the branches staring at each other, are willing to
take this all the way to the end. Neither is going to blink. The way, for example, Richard Nixon ultimately blinked when the courts required him to
turn over the Watergate tapes. He blinked by handing over the tapes, or almost all of the tapes, and then subsequently, when things got really bad,
he resigned, which is another form of backing down.
So, we don't have those two factors right now. We could. It could happen. There were moments when it seemed to be happening in the first Trump
administration, although we got through them. So, it's not impossible that we could come to a constitutional crisis. But I think it's important to
save those words for a situation when things are really at the brink, because if we overuse those words, we're going to dilute their meaning and
when we get a real constitutional crisis and people like me are waving our arms and saying, now is the time, everyone should pay attention, people
will say, what are you talking about? You've been saying there's a constitutional crisis since the beginning of the Trump administration and
nothing bad has happened. So, maybe you're not telling the truth.
So, I think those are words that it's worth reserving for the circumstances that I described where we really don't know what's going to happen next and
neither side seems prepared to back down.
ISAACSON: And you don't feel we're there yet?
FELDMAN: We're not there yet because we don't have open defiance of a judicial order. We don't have the administration refusing to follow the
law. What we have is the administration doing a lot of things over the last three weeks that were unlawful, sometimes only in a technical sense, but
they were still unlawful. And we have courts saying, that's unlawful, you can't do that.
And so, if at the next phase, the Trump administration basically complies, revamps those plans, does them differently, restarts the pause the way
they've done in the funding, then there won't have been a crisis. And I'm sure we'll run into other problems. You know, there are plenty of things a
president can do that are lawful, but incredibly bad and incredibly foolish, and Trump has already done a few of them, and my guess is he'll do
more.
But that's, again, different from a constitutional crisis. That might just be a good old ordinary governance crisis, you know, when the president is
doing things that are bad for the country.
ISAACSON: Professor Noah Feldman, thank you so much for joining us again.
FELDMAN: Thank you for having me, Walter.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
NEWTON: Next for us to the film capturing the widespread protests that swept Iran after the death of Mahsa Amini in 2022. "The Seed of the Sacred
Fig" tells the tale of an increasingly paranoid investigator in Tehran's Revolutionary Court and how he, his wife, and his daughters are impacted by
the country's mass protests and they're followed. Here's some of the trailer.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): Nothing but lies. Turn it off.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): You shouldn't have told your family about your work.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): I should have hidden it?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): To the grave.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): Where are you?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): What's going on?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): Afraid your family will find out what you do?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): I'm not afraid of anybody.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
NEWTON: Now, "The Seed of the Sacred Fig" who won the special jury prize at the Canne Film Festival and is now headed for the Oscars. Talking with
Christiane, Director Mohammad Rasoulof spoke about the film's success as well as his own flight from Iran. Here's their conversation.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Mohammad Rasoulof, welcome to the program. This is an exceptionally interesting film that
you've made. You're also outside of Iran. You left as you'd finished shooting it. Why?
MOHAMMAD RASOULOF, DIRECTOR, "THE SEED OF THE SACRED FIG" (through translator): Before I began making the film, I was already being
investigated in the Revolutionary Courts due to my previous films and my activism on social media. I had already received a first sentence for these
reasons, and I chose to leave Iran when it was confirmed I had to go to prison for eight years. So, I decided to leave and keep making films.
[14:00:00]
AMANPOUR: Mohammad, how did you leave? And, how did you film this? I noticed on the closing credits, it says, all filmed in secret. How did you
film it so secretively?
RASOULOF (through translator): When I wrote the script, I realized that it was very ambitious and it was perhaps impossible to make it. But then I met
up with my close friends who were the core of the crew and we spoke about it and we decided that if we worked with a very small casting crew and very
light equipment, max what you'd use for a student film, and that if I would direct the film remotely, it would seem likely that we would manage to
complete the film, and in fact, we did. Whereas, the post production was taking place simultaneously outside of Iran. So, for me, everything took
place remotely.
When I decided to leave Iran, a few people before had told me that if one day you were to decide to leave the country, contact us and we'll help you.
And so, when I left my home, I put a few things into my backpack without any electronic devices or I.D. I left my home, and I reached a safe place
and contacted those people who helped me to get to the border. I got close to the border.
The first time I attempted to cross the border and leave Iran, there were some problems, and I wasn't able to. So, then I went to another border
crossing, and there I was able to leave Iran. And I entered a neighboring country, where I contacted the German consul, since my family was already
living in Germany.
When the German consulate was able to confirm my identity, they helped me reach Europe. My entire journey from Iran to Europe took 28 days.
AMANPOUR: And all for a film that has been nominated for an Oscar. Obviously, Iranian films have been doing very well abroad in the last many,
many years. But this is an incredible price that you are paying, exile, prison, abuse by the authorities. Is it worth it?
RASOULOF (through translator): You know, as I was leaving Iran in that second, I was absolutely not thinking what might happen to the film at the
time. In fact, it didn't even seem possible that the film could make it to Cannes. My idea really started maturing when I was in prison previously, as
a filmmaker. What should you do? What can you do if you're in prison?
And when I was there, I realized that as a filmmaker in prison, the only thing that could happen was that I'd become a victim of censorship and, you
know, that's not a role I wanted to accept. And so, I decided I'd have to choose a route whereby I could keep working on all the stories and make
films and all the stories that had been maturing inside my mind and I thought were necessary.
When I was out of Iran and the news of the film's acceptance at Cannes was announced and I learned about it, then everything sort of took its own
course. Everything derived from the film. And I don't think I did anything more than filmmaking, really.
AMANPOUR: But it's a very, very -- this film is a very, very deliberate critique of the regime. It is a family drama, but it also takes part in the
context of a father who has been made into a judge who then stamps execution orders against -- leveled against people who protested the death
of Mahsa Amini back in 2022. The woman who was killed, her supporters say, by being beaten because of failing to wear the hijab. The Iranian
government says that she died of a heart attack.
But this was -- this is the heart of the film and it delivers a very intense inter family, you know, conflict as well. We're going to play a
clip now.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): Me and thousands of others are slaving away to preserve this country from whom? For you. You are defending
a bunch of sluts who just want to walk the street naked.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): Who wants to walk naked?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): The people in the streets.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): Who, Dad? I happened to be the crowd yesterday.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): You had no right to.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): It was a coincidence.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): I was leaving the college with my friend. They shot her in the face with buckshot. And they arrested her
at her dorm. Even if she lives, she'll lose an eye. Her beauty is gone, her bright future too. Why?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, Mohammad Rasoulof, the girls are a younger generation and they have different views than their father about the revolution and about
the Revolutionary Court. Tell me what you are saying about Iran today with this film.
RASOULOF (through translator): First of all, 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 effect on the people who worked inside the prison.
[14:05:00]
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 woman life freedom, 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.
AMANPOUR: Well, again, this family devolves into a conclusion that is quite shocking, and I'm not going to do a spoiler because it's a really
important development. And I want to ask you because it's all wrapped up in the title of the film, "The Seed of the Sacred Fig," refers to a tree in
which the young shoots choke off the older trunk. So, that's real symbolism.
RASOULOF (through translator): Yes, as I wrote this story, I unconsciously, sort of by chance, remembered about the story of this tree,
that in popular belief in the south of Iran, is known as a sacred tree that people have great respect for. And I thought the story of the life cycle of
the tree was very interesting, because it's as if there was a story that came out of nature itself, that has all these metaphorical and symbolic
sides. And if you look at the story of the tree from the perspective of each different character in the film, you'll derive a different conclusion.
And so, I thought all these different interpretations of it were really interesting.
AMANPOUR: And again, watching it and watching what an authoritarian, you know, corrupt dictatorship does even to a family and forces them to -- or
at least the father to start interrogating his own family members, you know, the whole situation becomes paranoid and surveillance even within
families. What do you want your viewers outside of Iran to take away from this?
RASOULOF (through translator): You know, it has to do with the modern history of Iran. I heard that so many people at the beginning of the
revolution, who were involved in the revolution, and who were very ideological, did the most violent actions against people in their own
families, against their own relatives. They sentenced to death their own children, and so on, and this always stayed with me.
On the other hand, I had this idea that with this finale, it would be possible to show how submission to power leads to extremism, and how
extremism, in turn, leads to violence.
AMANPOUR: And given the violence, and given what's happened to you in the past, and that you're in exile now, do you think you'll ever go back to
Iran? Can you make films again there?
RASOULOF (through translator): You know, I think not only myself, but all the Iranians who are forced to leave the country because of this
totalitarian, oppressive regime are ready to return to their country, to Iran in any second. And the truth is that I'm constantly waiting for that
moment. I keep checking the news and I know that I'm prepared even if nothing improves or things for me in Iran were not ready, let's say for my
return, I would still return.
It really depends on how well I can work on the stories inside my head at the moment. And because I'm really interested in making more films. And
once I've made them, I'm ready to go back to Iran and pay any price that is necessary. And unfortunately, I think the only way ahead is to pay a price
for us inside Iran.
AMANPOUR: Well, Mohammad Rasoulof, thank you so much indeed for joining us. "The Seed of the Sacred Fig."
[14:10:00]
RASOULOF: Thank you so much. Thank you very much.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
NEWTON: And finally for us, colorful costumes, elaborate masks, and a dancing cucumber. Carnival season has kicked off in Latin America. In
Bolivia, a figure representing the spirit of carnival, known as the Pepino or cucumber was paraded through the streets in the casket. It's been
sleeping in for a year. Now, before being woken up by a kiss from the queen of the carnival, marking the beginning of the festive season.
While just over the border in Peru, thousands of dancers and musicians are gathering in the southern city of Puno for vibrant celebrations honoring
the Virgin of Candelaria.
That's it for us 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 on social media. I want to thank you for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:15:00]
END
