Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with The New York Times Opinion Columnist M. Gessen; Interview with European Commission Vice President Kaja Kallas; Interview with Jordanian Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi; Interview with Representative Jahana Hayes (D-CT). Aired 1-2p ET
Aired February 21, 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)
M. GESSEN, OPINION COLUMNIST, THE NEW YORK TIMES: I see this country rewarding Putin's aggression and throwing Ukraine and the rest of Europe
under the bus.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Ukraine left looking on as America brings Russia back into the fold. And Trump tests constitutional limits at home. New York Times
columnist Masha Gessen on the threats of rising authoritarianism in the United States and abroad.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAJA KALLAS, EUROPEAN COMMISSION VICE PRESIDENT: We don't want to fight with our friends. We have other threats coming from outside.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- challenges for Europe and the Middle East in this new world order. With top E.U. diplomat, Kaja Kallas, and Jordan's foreign minister,
Ayman Safadi.
Also, ahead --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JAHANA HAYES (D-CT): This department, this agency, President Trump and Elon Musk, who appears to be making all the decisions, really don't
have an understanding for the communities and the children that are going to be impacted by these harsh decisions. And it feels like they just don't
care.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Democratic Congresswoman Jahana Hayes speaks to Michel Martin.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in Washington.
In just one week, the White House posts a picture of Donald Trump as king on the cover of a fake Time Magazine issue, while words like jaw dropping,
head spinning, and earthquake have been attached to Trump's foreign policy. Bringing Russia in from the cold, alienating Ukraine, strong arming allies
may all be part of Trump's negotiating style, but it's got world leaders wondering.
Imagine flipping facts and the NATO consensus completely upside down by calling Ukraine's plucky president the dictator and blaming him for
Russia's unprovoked full-scale invasion three years ago, while at the same time sending his secretary of state to start talks with Russia on Ukraine's
future without Ukraine.
At the same time, longtime observers of American democracy have been stunned by the speed and apparent ease with which Trump and Musk are
barreling through federal institutions right here and testing the boundaries of executive power to the very limit.
Journalist Masha Gessen is a vocal critic of both the Kremlin and Trump. Last year, Masha was convicted in absentia and sentenced by a Moscow court
for reporting on the Ukraine conflict, and their recent reporting explores how authoritarianism can take root in a democracy, arguing in The New York
Times that, quote, "The barrage of Trump's awful ideas is doing exactly what it's supposed to do."
Masha Gessen joined me to put into context this critical moment for the United States and for the rest of the world.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Masha Gessen, welcome back to the program.
M. GESSEN, OPINION COLUMNIST, THE NEW YORK TIMES: It's great to be here.
AMANPOUR: I want to ask you because you have survived and lived through your own autocracy in Russia. So, talk to me about what appears to be a 180
in U.S. speak and relations with Russia over Ukraine and of course with Europe.
This week, President Trump called Zelenskyy the dictator amongst other kind of Putin talking points. What do you see happening?
GESSEN: I see Trump adopting Putin's language. I see Moscow reeling from, you know, their wildest dreams, coming true faster than they could ever
have imagined. And I see this country rewarding Putin's aggression and throwing Ukraine and the rest of Europe under the bus.
AMANPOUR: Putin has said that all of this reaction is, quote, "hysteria," and that why shouldn't we talk to the U.S., and of course, you know,
Ukraine will be involved. Is there anything that you could say might be happening behind the scenes that wouldn't result in essentially throwing
Ukraine under the bus and isolating Europe?
GESSEN: I -- you know, I really believe in looking at the thing and not looking for the thing behind the thing. I think we know what's happening.
They're telling us. And Putin has been telling us what he wants for a very long time. He wants to get back to the post-World War II status quo. When
the world was divided between the United States and the Soviet Union.
He feels like he has been dealt a bad deal in the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union and that Russia deserves -- he personally deserves to
get back to Yalta and to divide up the world again.
[13:05:00]
That is very clearly what he has been saying, what he has been signaling and his people have been signaling in the last couple of weeks as they've
actively started talking to Trump. And it doesn't look like Trump is going to stop that from happening.
AMANPOUR: So, you're talking about --
GESSEN: I think the idea of dividing up the world is appealing to Trump, too.
AMANPOUR: Spheres of influence?
GESSEN: Right. I think physically dividing up the world. It's not just spheres of influence. I think he imagines re-carving the map.
AMANPOUR: Can I ask you, because, again, you have lived in and, you know, thoroughly examined Putin's Russia. Is this administration a match for
Putin, Lavrov, et cetera, around a negotiating table?
GESSEN: You know, I don't know -- I mean, I could probably try to answer that question, and probably the answer is no because Putin and Lavrov have
thought harder about this. They're actually better at this than Trump and his people are. They're still quite inexperienced, even if they're more
competent than the first administration. But I'm not even sure it's the right question, in the sense that they don't have competing interests. They
are actually on the same side of the table.
AMANPOUR: When Zelenskyy counters that Trump is in a disinformation space, I mean, he is stepping outside a lane of careful courting of his American
backers over the past three years of being very, very aware that without at least their weaponry, you know, he might not be in the position that he is
right now, as bad as it is. How do you read what Zelenskyy is doing?
GESSEN: I see Zelenskyy as the only politician on the world stage right now whom we're actually seeing having the courage of his convictions. He's
calling things what they are. He is speaking up for a democratic Europe. He's calling for Europe to mobilize for the interests and the values that
it was founded upon. And he is the only person doing that.
AMANPOUR: And what do you think will happen with Europe? Do you think Europe can -- I mean, it does look as if President Trump is, as the former
British prime minister, Sir John Major, said, essentially realigning America away from Europe while, quote, "cuddling up" to Putin's Moscow. Do
you see that happening? And what do you think could happen to Europe?
GESSEN: Well, if Europe doesn't want to be carved up by this crazy new America and Russia, then Europe has to probably create its own army, its
own defense alliance, and articulate its own strategic interests. It's hard to imagine that happening because we don't see a united Europe. In fact,
it's probably less united than it's been at any point in the three years since the start of the war in Ukraine.
AMANPOUR: So, then what happens? It's hard to predict disaster. I think that there are many -- you know, there are many moving parts and there are
certainly many variables. But what we do know is that Putin wants a lot more than Ukraine. He has been, again, very clear, without really any kind
of hidden agenda, threatening other European countries, including Poland, including the Baltic States, most recently through his ideologue, Aleksandr
Dugin, Germany. So, his sights are on Europe. And Europe's line of defense has basically been Ukraine.
For the last three years the United States, under the Biden administration, and Europe have basically been saying, we are OK with the war in Ukraine
continuing as long as it's just Ukrainians dying, right? It's important to keep Ukraine from losing that war because then it will spread to the rest
of Europe. But we only want Ukrainians to die. And now, we're seeing the results of that. And if that line of defense falls, all of Europe can fall.
AMANPOUR: That's really horribly, you know, dark. It's a very dark prescription for the future. But I know many in Europe are very concerned
about this, including if there is a vacuum of American leadership, that people like, well, certainly China, which is really the only competitor to
the U.S., would take over global leadership.
So, could -- you've written a book called "Surviving Autocracy." How does one survive autocracy? I mean, in your own country, Russia, which you left,
and we'll get into those reasons in a second, was it possible to survive autocracy?
GESSEN: Well, I don't know if it was possible for a society to survive autocracy. It's certainly very difficult for a political system to survive
autocracy, and that's what we're seeing. We're seeing Trump destroying the American political system in a way that he didn't do during his first
administration. And in a way that will make it almost impossible to reverse what he has done.
[13:10:00]
AMANPOUR: Why do you say that? A German politician was saying, in the context of the war in Europe, at the Munich Security Conference, well,
we've got three years, 10 months, and a week to go, and then maybe things will realign. But you're saying it could be impossible to realign.
GESSEN: Well, it's extraordinary -- it's an extraordinary belief in Trump's trust in the electoral system, when he seems to have zero respect
for any other foundational institution of the U.S. government. So, why do we think that he's going to make an exception for the elections?
There may be something called elections in four years, but I'm not at all convinced that it's going to be an actual free and fair election. And even
if, in the best-case scenario, it's a free and fair election and even if, in the best-case scenario, Trump loses that election, we have -- you know,
we can look at Poland where the autocratic government, much -- moved much slower than Trump did and was in power for only a couple of terms.
And yet, for the new liberal democratic Polish government, it has proven exceedingly difficult to rebuild things like an independent judiciary and
more importantly to re-establish human foundational value of government. These are -- these things are very, very hard to reverse.
AMANPOUR: Given that USAID, among other things that it did, was also to support certain countries on human rights, on free press, when it was only
state-run information available, and now that that's gone, what do you think that will do in terms of strengthening or weakening democracy?
GESSEN: Well, first of all, it's a humanitarian disaster, right? It's just a disaster for so many people who were depending on USAID funding for their
livelihoods, for their life sustaining medication, that's the first thing that happens. That's not good for democracy. A system that doesn't value
human life and human dignity. And that's what we're really talking about.
Because when we talk about democracy, it becomes very abstract. You know, are we supporting institutions? Are we supporting independent media or
democracy building in other countries? But are we a country that has taken a stance on human life that is worthless, that the lives of people in
countries dependent on USAID funding are worthless, the lives of people in this country are worthless, the lives of federal employees are worthless,
the lives of people on public assistance are worthless, the lives of migrants and trans people are worthless? That's really what this government
is doing. And you can't have a democracy, which is a government of the governed, if the governed are worthless.
AMANPOUR: So, of course, they would say, the Trump administration would say, just in terms of the DEI, for instance, we're actually just trying to
level the playing field because all the minorities, whether women or whatever, have had a leg up. We're just trying to save our country from the
radical agenda of over progressive of thoughts and actions.
You left Russia because of its crackdown on many things, including LGBTQ rights. You came here for a safe haven. You're also transitioning. Do you
feel any safer here after having fled Russia? Do you feel safer now?
GESSEN: You know, I'm in a situation of several hundred -- at least several hundred Russian dissidents who are wanted by the Putin regime. The
Putin regime has sentenced me to eight years for spreading disinformation by reporting on Russian war crimes in Ukraine. So, I'm wanted by the
Russian government, as are, as I said, several hundred other Russian dissidents who have sought safe haven in the West, including in this
country. With this incredible burgeoning new relationship between the United States and Russia, that's terrifying, right? Putin is clearly going
to ask for us at some point. That's part of what's frightening.
Another part that's frightening is, yes, I left Russia because my family was directly threatened by Putin's anti-gay laws. And I'm a trans person
living in the United States now. I don't feel personally threatened at the moment because I live in New York, because I work at the New York Times,
and because there's certainly a lot of privilege that I enjoy that protects me.
[13:15:00]
But having lived in Russia in a similar position, I know that privilege only goes so far. And of course, in this country, the attack on trans
people is also specifically designed to push trans people out of public spaces. It's the denial of documents, the denial of -- you know, the
requirement that you use the bathroom of the correct gender, you know, you don't want to see what happens if I walk into a women's bathroom, but it's
not pleasant for anybody involved.
All of these things are designed to push trans people out of public space. And of course, public space is where journalists work, right? So, it's
also, for me, a professional risk and an attack on trans journalists, who, again, as a New York Times columnist, I'm somewhat protected, but I look at
my students and I realize they're at real risk.
AMANPOUR: You've written a lot of really interesting and of the moment columns recently, and one of them is about, as you say the -- you've used
the word destruction of democratic institutions here, federal governments and departments and the like, cultural organizations.
You wrote, and I'm paraphrasing, why even smart people capitulate or whatever the word is. Why? Why do you think it's been so easy? I mean,
literally without a peep, almost.
GESSEN: There are a lot of good reasons to obey when a government like this comes in. So, some of the threats coming from the federal government,
as weak as the federal government is compared to some other places that have gone autocratic. The threats are real, to pull federal funding, to go
after other businesses that people have.
And so, if you look at people like Jeff Bezos or Mark Zuckerberg who have sort of fallen all over themselves to obey in advance. You also see some
clever rationalizations and some real rationality, right? Bezos is protecting his businesses. During Trump's first term, Trump went after
Amazon to punish the Washington Post. Zuckerberg is using what I call the zeitgeist argument. It's not even so much a direct threat as, look, we're
working in a different culture now, and we have to adjust. That's good for business.
Some of these arguments are actually values-based. We have to protect our employees. We have to protect our shareholders. These are all good reasons
as far as they go. They're good tactical reasons. There's only one reason not to obey, which is that this bands is what builds autocracy. If people
withdraw their participation, if everybody acted like the seven legal officials who resigned over the Department of Justice's order to drop
charges against Mayor Eric Adams, if everybody acted like that, Trump wouldn't be able to do what he's doing. But most people are obeying.
AMANPOUR: So, how do you see that progressing? I mean, is everybody shocked now? Are they stunned into silence or inactivity, or do you foresee
the world we live in, the alternative fact, you know, universes of social media, the fact that it's very difficult to find the truth? Do you think
it's going to be -- it'll take time or it'll never happen? Some kind of pushback against individual rights and federal rights?
GESSEN: I mean, this is not a great country to build a mass resistance movement. We're very atomized, we're very polarized, we don't have local
media, we don't have local politics to speak of. So, all of these things actually mitigate against an effective resistance, against Trumpism. At the
same time, we do have freedom of the press still. We do have the wealthiest civil society in the world. We do have some pretty great legal culture. So,
it's not over until it's over.
AMANPOUR: Masha Gessen, thank you very much indeed.
GESSEN: Thank you for having me.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: All this started to come into focus this time last week at the Munich Security Conference. No sooner had President Zelenskyy told me in an
interview that nothing about Ukraine could be discussed or decided without Ukraine, he was blindsided when President Trump sent his high-level
delegation to discuss ending the war at a meeting, as we said, with Russian officials in Saudi Arabia.
Now, leaders from Europe attended two emergency summits after that to discuss a unified response and ensure their place at the table, too.
Britain's Prime Minister Keir Starmer calls this a once in a generation moment for national and transatlantic security.
[13:20:00]
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KEIR STARMER, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: Europe must play its role and I'm prepared to consider committing British forces on the ground alongside
others if there is a lasting peace agreement. But there must be a U.S. backstop, because a U.S. security guarantee is the only way to effectively
deter Russia from attacking Ukraine again.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Meantime, Trump's vision for owning Gaza also has world leaders on edge, but for now, a tenuous ceasefire there is holding, with more
Palestinians and Israeli hostages being exchanged each week. Israeli officials say negotiations for the second phase will begin soon. It was in
this context that I spoke to European Commission Vice President and former Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas, as well as to the Jordanian foreign
minister, Ayman Safadi, on stage at the Munich conference.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: I want to ask about the two raging issues in the world right now, the war in Europe, the war in the Middle East, and how we're all
affected by it. President Trump's peace plans for both Ukraine and Gaza are without the Ukrainians and without the Palestinians.
KAJA KALLAS, EUROPEAN COMMISSION VICE PRESIDENT: Any deal for it to work, Ukrainians need to agree to this, that is very clear. And when we look at
this whole process, then it's not really sure they are talking about what is this deal really.
I think, right now, the most important thing is that that Putin doesn't really want peace. So, I think we should put the efforts there that they
would want peace.
AMANPOUR: Why do you think that he does not want peace?
KALLAS: If he wants peace, he could, you know, just simply stop bombing Ukraine. I mean, that is as simple as that, but he's not doing that. So --
AMANPOUR: So, a similar question to you, Foreign Minister. Obviously, the whole crisis over 15 months set off by October 7th and the war of avenging
of self-defense by Israel. Again, President Trump has said, for instance, that particularly about Gaza, that we'll have it. It's ours. We'll take
care of it. We'll make the Riviera of the Middle East. And furthermore, has asked -- or insisted, expected your country and Egypt to take some 2
million Palestinians. Your reaction right now, today, after all these days of having to deal with this?
AYMAN SAFADI, JORDANIAN FOREIGN MINISTER: President Trump bottom line is saying that he wants to bring about peace to the region and we say we are
partners. We've been working, striving to have that peace for decades. But in order to have that peace, a deal by definition, going back to your
question, is a deal that is concluded to the satisfaction of both parties.
Our view on Jordan is the only way that you can have just and lasting peace in the region is to end occupation and have sovereign independent
Palestinian State on Palestinian national soil on the basis of June 4, 1967 lines, living in peace and security with Israel that is accepted and
normalized with in the region. To get to do that you're not going to be able to do that by not addressing the core issue of conflict, which is that
you -- how you do have Palestinian people who are attached to their land, want to stay on their land.
And on the issue of displacement, again, President Trump said that he's driven by humanitarian concern, that he believes you cannot rebuild Gaza
while the people of Gaza are there. Our position is that we have a plan that shows that we can do it. And remember, this is not the first time we
have such amount of suffering and destruction in Gaza.
Last time around, the amount of destruction was 50 percent of the current destruction, and yet, Gaza was rebuilt. But beyond that, in order for us to
avoid reliving the horrors of October 7 and since October 7, we've got to find peace. The only path to peace is to address the ejectment rights of
both parties. And we don't believe that displacement would do that.
So, just to answer you unequivocally, we have 35 percent of our population are refugees. We cannot afford any more.
KALLAS: I think it's very important that we get the governance of Gaza right because that means that the security of the region and that also
means the rights of both parties there. And we, as the European Union, really want to be part of that discussion because we are the biggest
supporters of Palestinian Authority. We are the biggest supporters of UNRWA, of all the Palestinian refugees. So, I think we are also the
reasonable and reliable partner.
AMANPOUR: Vice President J. D. Vance delivered a pretty tough speech, should we say, to Europe. Pretty much scolded Europe. Essentially said that
the biggest threat he saw was European internal politics. That you're not listening to your people and therefore, we have this big problem and this
big weakness. What's your reaction to that?
[13:25:00]
KALLAS: When we meet in person, then we have very good and frank discussions. U.S. is a great ally and they are also saying that they keep -
- or they remain our great ally when, you know, listening to that speech, it seems like, you know, they try to pick a fight with us, but we don't
want to fight with our friends. We have other threats coming from outside.
And I think, you know, in domestic politics, we have all kinds of issues and we are settling those ourselves, but we need to work with our allies
with the bigger threats that there are in the world like we have together with the United States regarding, you know, Russia attacking Ukraine or,
you know, the international order, really not functioning, other aggressors in the world having appetite for their neighbor's countries, critical raw
materials, the protection of these. I mean, there are so many issues that we can work on and will work on.
AMANPOUR: I want to -- talking about governance, what high representative just said, Smotrich, you heard, said finally this -- whatever he said, this
nightmare of a Palestinian State has been buried. How do you convince -- I know it's not your issue, but how do you think you convince the Israeli
population that it doesn't need to be a nightmare? Because Hamas in power again will not make anybody feel happy or secure.
SAFADI: I mean, let's just simplify things. What do Palestinians want? What -- you know, they're human beings like everybody else. They want to
live in peace. They want to have schools for their kids. They want to make sure that they have dignity, that they don't have to cross 10 checkpoints
to get from point A to point B within their own city. They want peace.
And in the context of that peace, we all are willing to come around and create the necessary mechanisms that will ensure security for everybody,
for Israelis and Palestinians. So, when did we try the two-state solution? So, let's create a condition, a new reality in which you have a Palestinian
State living in peace and security with Israel.
And everybody talks about new ideas. And probably I'm quoting our -- different the Qatar prime minister here. The two-state solution is a new
idea. Has it ever been tried? Did we try it and it failed? Let's create a Palestinian State where Palestinians have dignity, freedom, and the right
like everybody on Earth to live in peace and have aspiration and grow. And that should live in peace and security with Israel and all of us in the
region.
Since 2002 people forgot something called the Arab Peace Initiative, but it's still on the table. Our proposal is let's create that new Middle East.
And the key to that new Middle East is addressing the legitimate rights of Palestinians to freedom and statehood, that they can live in peace and
security with Israel. Because by the end of the day, Palestinians are there to stay. Israel is there to stay. That's the reality.
AMANPOUR: So, a common theme in both Europe and in Israel-Palestine is security guarantees. How do you get past this phase of war and conflict in
a way to ensure that it doesn't happen again? So, it's been floated that for Ukraine, if this peace proposal or this ceasefire proposal
materializes, in fact, even Hegseth said that, that there needs to be robust security guarantees for Ukraine minus any chance of it joining NATO.
Now, they kind of had to sort of maybe walk that back a little bit, but not much.
What do you see as a viable security guarantee along a 1,300-kilometer frontline? No American boots on the ground, apparently. Does Europe have
the wherewithal? Does it need American help, either in the air or with air defenses, with intelligence and the like?
KALLAS: We were listening also to the defense minister of Ukraine, and actually it was quite painful to hear all the promises that they have been
given, and he was referring to, you know, Ukraine had nuclear weapons, and they were persuaded that give up your nuclear weapons, destroy your nuclear
weapons, and we will provide you security guarantees so that Russia would never attack you again. And so, they did, because they believed in United
States who gave this kind of promises.
So, he was explaining in a very painful way that, you know, what are the security guarantees that we can really believe in? And I think, you know,
what we need to answer is that I mean, the security guarantee that is the strongest and that really works is a NATO membership. It's actually also
the cheapest security guarantee because it really deters Russia.
Now, when it comes to, you know, that this is off of the table, that it was said, then we need to answer the questions that what do we really mean? And
every 27 countries, or whoever is supporting Ukraine, needs to answer that question. If you say we give you security guarantees, what do you mean?
[13:30:00]
Are you willing to send your troops on the ground? Are you willing to provide, you know, capabilities and ammunition? And if so, then in what
amount and so, that it would actually deter any future wars and conflicts? So, I mean, these are the questions that need to be answered by all the
supporters or security guarantee givers.
AMANPOUR: You seemed in your public comments pretty distressed over the last few days. You said it could be -- you know, any quick fix could be a
dirty deal. You talked about appeasement. And obviously, all the focus is now from the United States, from the head of NATO, I just had him on the
air, that Europe has to stand up. There is no option.
Do you believe Europe can? What have you been talking to your colleagues about?
KALLAS: I mean, these are two different things. Everybody around the European table, every European country by now understands that we need to
do more for our defense. We need to do more for Ukraine. We have done a lot in terms of supporting Ukraine. We are the biggest supporters of Ukraine.
We have provided like 134 billion euros, whereas U.S. share is actually smaller.
But in terms of our own defense, we need to do more because we have been in allies with the U.S. and they have been saying this, and I think it's a
valid point. We need to do more. But the other topic on the side is the war that is going on right now and whether you are offering to the aggressor
everything he wants and something on top of it as well.
If you do so, then it would invite all the aggressors or would-be aggressors in the world. OK, that works. I will also go for my neighbor's
territories, and that is actually detrimental to the world's security.
SAFADI: What applies to Europe, what applies to any conflict in the world should apply to the Middle East as well. And I think we should have the
same standards. International law should apply to all conflicts, to all people, regardless of where the conflict is and who the people involved in
that conflict is. And that's been our, really, cry over the last year and a half is that let's apply international law equally. The same standards that
apply to Ukraine should apply to Palestine.
AMANPOUR: I'm going to open to the questions.
YAEL BRAUDO-BAHAT, CO-DIRECTOR, WOMEN WAGE PEACE: Good evening. My name is Yael Braudo-Bahat. I'm the co-director of Women Wage Peace, an Israeli
grassroots movement, working very closely with our Palestinian sister movement, Women of the Sun.
We're working daily on the ground to create and maintain bridges between Israelis and Palestinians. So, I just wanted to say that everyone here
knows that the release of all hostages and the end of the war and the rehabilitation of Gaza will come only through diplomacy. And everyone here
knows that security and prosperity and freedom for both nations will come through peace. And everyone knows that for this to succeed, we need also
women and civil society involved.
So, why aren't we having one conversation and where are the women, where is civil society?
AMANPOUR: I think you raise an amazing, amazing point and we try to do this on our show. So, I don't know whether you have any comments about
this, but especially the women -- the Palestinian and Israeli women who've been working for so many years and whose voices are not Amplified enough in
the right halls of power.
SAFADI: I mean, these are the voices that resonate positively. These are the voices that need to dominate, the voices of moderation, voice of
accepting the other, voices of recognizing the rights of the other. This is the kind of voices. And again -- but that's our position in the Arab world.
We want to live in peace and security on the basis in the context of a solution that fulfills the legitimate rights of Palestinians to freedom,
dignity, statehood, living side by side Israel that is peaceful and secure as well.
AMANPOUR: And I wonder as a woman, as a ruler, as a former prime minister, et cetera, there is a huge missing piece, isn't there, of civil society, of
grassroots, even when it comes to the Ukraine, Russia thing. I mean, partly is, in Russia, nobody gets a voice because if they say something other than
the party line, they'll get carted off to jail. But, I mean, this is something that may help push leaders towards ending these wars.
KALLAS: Well, when it comes to Russia and Ukraine, you know, the difference is that Russian civilians are not dying. I mean, Russian
children and women are not dying. It's soldiers on the ground of other territory. Whereas, Ukrainian children and women and everybody's dying on -
- in their home. So, of course, we hear their voices and they want peace, everybody wants peace, but they also understand that, you know, when you're
occupied then it doesn't mean -- you know, in words you have peace, but it doesn't mean that the human suffering will stop. And that is something that
we need to work for.
[13:35:00]
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is my kid. He is one of the 76 hostages. One of the six U.S. citizens that are being held hostage. He's also a German
citizen. To the foreign minister, if I could ask, can I hear that you agree with the concept that the release of the last hostage is a precondition and
it makes sense to decouple the Palestinian issue from the release of the hostages? Thank you.
SAFADI: We've always supported the deal to -- for the exchange deal that will guarantee the release of all, that's a position that we've have held
steadily. We've worked very hard along with our partners to make sure that this deal happens and everybody gets out and Palestinian prisoners get out,
Israelis get out and we get over this situation.
So, we're unequivocal in our position about the need for ending this and making sure that we move beyond this catastrophe that has befallen the
region since October 7 and move forward to a future where no Palestinian mother and no Israeli fathers will ever worry about their kids or about
their children, not just being kidnapped, but going to school and not coming back home and not having a meal on the table.
That is our position and that's why we keep repeating. And the voices that -- you know, the lady from Israel just expressed are the voices that we
need in the Israeli government so that we can move forward and make sure that neither the Palestinian mother nor the Israeli father ever suffer this
reality.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: On behalf of Palestinian mothers and women, I want to tell everybody here that we empathize with every civilian who loses and who
suffers. But at the same time, we would like to see you also calling to ending the Israeli military occupation that has been prolonged for 77
years.
As a Palestinian mother, we as Palestinians believe in the two-state solution and we embarked on a peace process. We believed in negotiations,
dialogue and diplomacy. Yet, 35 years later, what do we witness on the ground? More entrenched Israeli military occupation, more apartheid on our
grounds, more extrajudicial killings on daily basis, more arbitrary detention. And let me remind you that 11,500 Palestinians are behind
Israeli bars. Those also have the right to return home. Those also have the right to dignity, liberation, statehood, and freedom.
AMANPOUR: And we hope, I hope that all the civilians caught in all of this, your son, your children, really, because I've spent my life covering
these wars and all these wars affect the civilians more than anybody else. So, thank you all in the questions. Thank you, High Representative Kallas.
Thank you, Foreign Minister Safadi. And what a great conversation.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Now, it was a proposal in President Trump's first term, but now he's taking steps to make it a reality. Will a new executive order spell
the end of the Department of Education? Well, as a member of the House Education Committee and a former public-school teacher herself, Democratic
Congresswoman Jahana Hayes is doing everything she can to protect the millions of students who rely on the department's programs. She was
recently among a group of lawmakers who were denied entry into the DOE by armed security guards. And now, she's joining Michel Martin to sound the
alarm on the consequences of Trump's plans.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, Christiane Congresswoman Jahana Hayes, thank you so much for joining us once again.
REP. JAHANA HAYES (D-CT): Thank you so much for having me.
MARTIN: We've talked with you a number of times on this program, beginning when you were a National Teacher of the Year. You were a teacher for 15
years, so it's logical that we would come to you when the whole -- I guess, the future of the Department of Education seems to be in play.
So, the first thing I wanted to ask you is, what do you understand about the Trump administration's goal for the Department of Education?
HAYES: I think the challenge and the reason no one has an answer to that question is because they are circumventing all procedure not coming before
Congress, not laying out a plan, not helping the American people to understand what the future of public education looks like for them. And
that is a problem. I mean, outside of the fact that Congress is a co-equal branch and we have oversight responsibilities, the fact that one person can
unilaterally just reform or change or reimagine the future of public education in this country with no input from Congress, from experts in the
field, is dangerous.
MARTIN: First, Candidate Trump, now President Trump, again, has said he wants to close the Department of Education. That's actually not a new
position for a Republican president to take. Republicans have -- many of them have criticized the Department of Education since its founding. What
do you understand about their chief objection to the department, other than the fact that, you know, it was founded under President Jimmy Carter at the
request of the teachers' unions?
HAYES: I don't really understand their objection, but it's very clear to me that they don't have a full appreciation for what the department does.
Many of the concerns that I've heard about curriculum or instruction, or even the choice of instructional materials are not things that are handled
primarily by the Department of Education.
[13:40:00]
What the department does handle is civil rights complaints, discrimination, making sure teacher preparation is done properly, special education, the 7
million children who receive services through IDEA and have an IEP in place. The department oversees things like that. So, many of the objections
that I hear coming from my colleagues are things that are handled at the state and local level by boards of education.
I think what they also fail to give an answer for is, IDEA, which I just talked about, which is the program that covers students with disabilities
or special needs, that's a legal requirement. So, even absent the department or pulling back the funding, states and local communities will
still be obligated to provide those services. And what they're not sharing with people is how will these things be paid for, who will oversee
implementation of them who will make sure that these things are done properly?
There really is no plan. I think that is part of the challenge. And for the pennies that we're talking about, because these are pennies when we're
talking about the Department of Education, this is a department that has not had full investments since it was created and the test scores reflect
that. But the answer is not to take a hammer to it and tear everything down, it's to say, what do we need to do to make sure that students have
access to every opportunity that they should have?
And what this department should be doing, this administration should be doing is looking at all of the other factors that impede learning, things
like kids coming to school hungry, not having safe and secure housing, gun violence, all of the things that make kids absent or truant from school,
health care, all of those things, if you really want to have an honest conversation about making sure our kids have every opportunity for
education, we would be talking about those things and not stripping resources from the communities that need them the most.
MARTIN: I know you and a number of other congresspersons actually went to the Department of Education building in Washington and tried to gain access
to, presumably to talk to people about what's going on there. You were refused entry. But what do you understand just from what your sources of
the department are telling you about what steps the Trump administration has taken so far in pursuit of its stated desire to shut it down?
HAYES: Well, my understanding is that the actions that they're taking are illegal. The Department of Education, although Jimmy Carter was the one who
proposed it, was created by an act of Congress. So, it can only be dismantled by an act of Congress.
I think it's very important to note that not only was I and members of Congress denied access to the public access entrance of the Department of
Education building, but the Department of Homeland Security had officers there waiting for us and not allowing us to enter.
So, this is really an attack on the co-equal branches of government, on our oversight responsibilities. But beyond that, the president has the right to
say, I'm not happy with this department and I want it to change, but there's a process by which that happens. And you come to Congress, you have
oversight hearings, you lay out the facts, you present the data and the information to the American people, and then you present a plan for
changes.
This -- I mean, we've seen it at other agencies across the board where they're firing people unilaterally and then having to call them back, where
they're shutting down arms of departments and then realizing that these are the people that handle our most important or specific areas. I say, I argue
that our children are just that important, that they're just that specific, that we don't get a do over, we don't get to shut down programs that they
need right now and then revisit them in a few months when we find out what's in its place or what hasn't been replaced is not working.
And this department, this agency, President Trump and Elon Musk, who appears to be making all the decisions, really don't have an understanding
for the communities and the children that are going to be impacted by these harsh decisions, and it feels like they just don't care.
MARTIN: You know, what's interesting is that we know, for example, from reporting, a number of news outlets have reported that people from the
Office of Civil Rights, for example, have been fired. We know, for example, that people in the Office of Civil Rights specifically have been told not
to take on new cases, not to acknowledge any of the cases that are pending, a number of which have to do with complaints of discrimination around
access for students with disabilities. Does that comport with what you've been told about what's going on at the department?
HAYES: Yes, absolutely. This department is being very selective about what they prioritize. I mean, right here in Connecticut, one of our premier
institutions for training teachers, Sacred Heart University, lost almost $3.5 million grant, which would have trained 80 special education teachers
that would have gone into Title 1 school districts where they are so sorely needed.
[13:45:00]
That doesn't seem to be a priority of this administration. And that funding was rescinded because of what they call DEI initiatives. Well, diversity,
equity, and inclusion does include students with special needs. It does include students from different religious backgrounds. And any effective
teacher needs to have every tool available to them in their toolkit to go into a community and a school like that and be able to teach.
This department is being incredibly selective. One of the first executive orders by this president was on trans athletes in K-12 education. They're
focusing on these things that affect such a small part of the population. There's less than 3 percent of students in the entire United States who
identify as trans in our K-12 public education system, but this has been a priority.
MARTIN: I was asking you about workers in the department being fired summarily, many of them saying that they don't know why.
HAYES: I've gotten e-mail and text from people that I know at the department that they were dismissed without cause, they don't know why,
terminated effective immediately. That's not how you make implement reforms in an organization. You first have to learn what it is people do and make a
decision on if that job is important, not just fire everybody.
We're going to lose so much institutional knowledge and talent from the Department of Education because people are just being fired unilaterally.
And I'm hearing about this from people in every part of that agency. One of the things that I've seen is that in order to usurp the power of Congress,
it's just like a rolling blackout, where funding is rescinded, where people are being fired, where arms of the department are being shut down.
So, it's not just the lights are going off like they did at USA ID, but it's a rolling blackout where one by one, people are let go, funding is
rescinded. There's a pause on different things. And before we know it we're going to blink and say, what happened to the Department of Education, and I
think that's why myself and so many other members of Congress have been so vocal right now, so that the American public knows what's happening and is
paying attention.
MARTIN: Congressman, you know, the Trump administration says that the department hasn't proven its case if you compare student achievement in the
United States with, say, our peer competitors around the world, you know, reading proficiency is not at the highest level, math proficiency is not at
the highest level. And we obviously know that the COVID crisis made an impact, but some of these numbers were falling before that.
HAYES: Right.
MARTIN: And so, when you look at that, many people say, well, you know, if the department isn't getting the job done, maybe it's try time to try
something else. What do you say that?
HAYES: So, we've just seen our NAEP scores and the department collects this information. But every state has their own Department of Education.
So, the way they're teaching these standards is going to vary from state to state.
I would argue that in a lot of our states that perform really low, many of our red states, they haven't made the investments in public education that
some of our partners around the world have. And then, even in different countries where we're talking about the quality of education is much
higher, they have things like universal health care, universal child care, you know, birth to three initiatives. Families have paid family leave so
that when their children are sick, they can be home with them.
So, a lot of the barriers that you face as a public education teacher we need -- we can't just talk about the outcome without looking at all of the
barriers to success that students come to school with. So, I would welcome a conversation about how we improve the future of public education, but it
has to include all of those things, because absent those things, we're not comparing apples to apples.
MARTIN: And what about the argument that giving the states more autonomy would at least make parents feel more invested in their local schools? I
mean, you can't deny the fact that there is a lot of dissatisfaction with public schools. That's one of the reasons there's been a charter school
movement, for example. There's been this push to kind of use public resources to support more privatized sort of educational structures. What
do you say to that?
HAYES: Parents need to understand exactly what the department does, because when you talk about local autonomy, local school districts are the
ones who run our schools, local boards of education, state boards of education. So, the problem is also a local problem. In our high poverty
areas that rely on tax dollars to run their schools.
I'm in the State of Connecticut where we have huge equity gaps. I have exclusive boarding schools in my district, some of the highest performing
public schools and also some of the lowest performing public schools. But if we base it on a system by which we're only pulling from local tax
dollars, and you have a community that's already depressed, then their school system is not going to be as good as maybe the suburban one a couple
miles down the road.
[13:50:00]
My argument is that 49 million children rely on public education. About 1 million children take advantage of private charter school vouchers. We
don't have 49 million private charter school slots, and education should not be a for profit endeavor. So, we want to look at our structure of
education, how we're making those investments, but to just say parents are dissatisfied, we have to take it a step further to say, and what are you
dissatisfied with?
Because most of the autonomy over that decision making is done at the local level. The Department of Education doesn't go in and tell a local school
how to operate. It doesn't tell them what they have to do. It makes sure that federal civil rights law is followed. And that there are certain
things that are adhered to, but most of those decisions are already made at the local level.
MARTIN: I guess the real question is, do the Democrats have an argument around this that both is getting through and that makes sense to the
American people?
HAYES: I think it's going to be about more than just the Democrats. It's going to be about everyone stepping in and parents speaking up and teachers
and local community leaders. It's going to take all of the people who care about this topic, really amplifying their voices, talking to people in
their community, paying attention to not only what members of Congress are saying, but how people are voting on these issues.
The Democratic Party alone or elected leaders are not going to be the ones who are going to be able to fix this by themselves. It's going to take
everyone who literally has a kid in these schools, cares about the future of public education, wants to know how their tax dollars are being spent,
wants to -- some accountability for an unelected billionaire making all of these unilateral choices right now that are going to dramatically and
negatively impact the lives of people in communities.
I mean, all of this was laid out in Project 2025, and we see literally, page by page, everything coming into reality, but this is not something
that, you know, 435 members of Congress are going to amplify on their own. It's going to be where the American people learn that, wait a minute, this
is the teacher at my school or this is the after-school or the before school program that my child attends. This is the summer program in my
community that is funded through the federal government.
It's going to take for all of those people, and they're everywhere, in rural communities, in urban communities, suburban communities to say, wait
a minute, I didn't vote for all of this.
MARTIN: OK. But to that end, though, you mentioned Project 2025, which was a project by sort of an outside, you know, interest group that during the
campaign, then-Candidate Trump disavowed it, but he has now, you know, appointed or selected one of the authors of Project 2025, for example,
Russell Vought, to be the head of the Office of Management and Budget. It's a very influential position. Their argument is that people did vote for it.
They knew exactly what the game plan was. It was laid out in this document. It was not a secret. That's what people voted for. So, they are, in fact,
proceeding with a mandate that they say they have. What do you say to that?
HAYES: Well, I think it goes back to your previous question. A lot of people I don't think truly understood, OK, wait, this is going to affect
me. I think people were all for the idea of getting rid of waste, fraud, and abuse in government, but when you start to boil it down and say, wait a
minute, this is my Medicare, this is my Social Security, this is the school in my community.
And one of my frustrations with this work is I remember when I first got elected, people said, if you're explaining, you're losing. And we have to
meet people where they are. Not everybody understands these departments in and out. Not everybody understands.
I just had to tell people within the Democratic caucus that the Department of Education does not oversee Head Start. They didn't realize that. I said,
no, that's the Department of Health and Human Services. So, we really have to explain to the American people, this is what that means. This is -- you
know, it looks like a line item in the budget, but this is what it looks like in your community.
And I think that the American people are smart enough to know that there's a difference between rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse and cutting
programs that are essential to their schools and their communities. And I think we just have to take the case to the American people and explain to
them in specificity, you know, down to the school and the program that will be affected so that people truly understand there's a difference between
voting for cuts to the federal debt or cuts to the federal workforce or the federal budget, and what they get in their community.
But again, all of that is happening at the same time my Republican colleagues are proposing additional tax cuts to the wealthiest individuals.
So, I mean, this argument is flawed because it's not to help the American people, it's to shift money from the people who need it most to wealthy
billionaires and elites.
[13:55:00]
MARTIN: Congresswoman Jahana Hayes, thank you so much for talking with us once again.
HAYES: Thank you. And thank you for having me.
(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. Remember, you can
always catch us online, on our website, and all-over social media. Thank you for watching, and goodbye from Washington.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
