Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Former British Defense Secretary Ben Wallace; Interview with Senate Judiciary Committee Former Counsel and Society for the Rule of Law Executive Director Gregg Nunziata; Interview with U.S. Navy (Ret.) and Senior New America Adviser Commander Theodore R. Johnson. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired February 26, 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)
TRUMP: It's a very big deal.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Trump and Zelenskyy strike a deal on minerals. Does it make Ukraine any safer? With Trump's new demands on Europe and at least publicly
siding with Putin, Britain's former defense secretary Ben Wallace joins me on a new world order.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ELON MUSK, TRUMP PRESIDENTIAL ADVISER: This is the chainsaw for bureaucracy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- unelected but in charge. I speak to conservative legal scholar Greg Nunziata about the unprecedented power of Elon Musk as Trump's
enforcer in chief.
Plus --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CMDR. THEODORE R. JOHNSON, U.S. NAVY (RET.) AND SENIOR ADVISER, NEW AMERICA: The country is getting a crash course and how to politicize the
military.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- purge at the Pentagon. Retired U.S. Navy Commander Theodore R. Johnson tells Michel Martin the President favors loyalty over
meritocracy.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London.
Ukraine's president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, is gearing up to visit Washington to sign that deal with President Trump over rare earth minerals and
reconstruction. But with the country's very survival on the line, will this agreement give Ukraine what it desperately needs, security guarantees
against another Russian invasion?
For the past week, Trump has publicly aligned the United States more with America's adversary, Vladimir Putin, than with its allies, Ukraine, and the
rest of Europe. Shudders are still rippling throughout the alliance. Since Monday, the third anniversary of the war when the United States sided with
Russia, Belarus, and North Korea at the U.N., voting against a resolution that condemned Russia's invasion.
With the next German chancellor talking about having to seek security independence from the U.S., NATO leaders are already ramping up their
defense spending. Here's Britain's prime minister, Keir Starmer, before his Oval Office meeting with Trump tomorrow.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KEIR STARMER, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: Unless Ukraine is properly protected from Putin, then Europe will only become more unstable and that will hurt
us even more. Furthermore, the great lesson of our history is that tyrants like Putin only respond to strength. So, today I have announced the biggest
sustained increase in defense spending since the end of the Cold War.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Now, Ben Wallace was U.K. defense secretary during Russia's invasion in 2022. He's been a staunch supporter of Ukraine. Welcome to the
program.
BEN WALLACE, FORMER BRITISH DEFENSE SECRETARY: Thank you.
AMANPOUR: You're obviously a Tory. I mean, you were in the Tory government. This is the opposition Labour government now in power. So, what
do you make of where we actually are right now?
Everything I just led into, the U.N. vote, not saying that they're going to give guarantees to Ukraine. Trump said, again, it's up to Europe. They're
next door to Ukraine. Where is the security of Ukraine and Europe?
WALLACE: The security of Ukraine, I think, front and center, is with Europe. And I think there are two parts of the Trump message, one that I
think I can wholeheartedly agree with, which is the same message that President Obama gave, which was, back in 2014, Europe has to carry a
greater share of its responsibility and liabilities for defending itself.
We couldn't just take the U.S. for granted. And it was about time they stepped up, and the 2 percent target happened in 2014. So, he's right.
And, you know, Obama asked nicely, and politely we could say that J. D. Vance asked firmly. And --
AMANPOUR: This is in the Munich speech.
WALLACE: And that's absolutely right. And you know, we've seen just now the prime minister announced greater defense spending. I can take issue
with some of the claims, but fundamentally, we're going to have growing defense spending continuing. That is important for all of us in Europe. And
we better listen to this. If we really value NATO, we've got to step up.
AMANPOUR: Do you believe, given all your experience, that Europe can be unified, that it can take on this task, which has now become an existential
task for Europe, and that it can happen overnight? Is Trump going to give them -- none of these ships of state move like that.
WALLACE: I think -- well, you say that. I hosted the very first donor conference on Ukraine the day after the invasion. And we had 28 nations. I
then convened the following week another one, we had 34.
[13:05:00]
And then, the United States decided to convene it in Ramstein and it went bigger and bigger. And it can happen quickly. And I think the message to
all the European leaders is stop talking and do it. I mean, just -- if you really want to, change your culture, cut something else in your public
spending, and focus on lifting your defense spending. And indicate to the Russians that you aren't going anywhere and that you are going to defend
both Ukraine and indeed invest your own defense capability. That's the best deterrence of all, an indication and an action.
Putin knows us. He looks at our words and no action and just thinks we're all hot air. And so, we can do it if we want to. Now, the problem is I'm
not yet sure if we are prepared to put our money where our mouth is, both in the U.K. and elsewhere. And that is the -- that's the sign where people
like Donald Trump and Putin say, see, I told you, they don't care.
AMANPOUR: Can I just say, because I know that you've complained and you tweeted that the percentage increase that Starmer announced is very small,
like 0.2 or 0.3 percent, right? And they're going to take money from the foreign aid budget again.
WALLACE: Yes.
AMANPOUR: But the diminution, if I can say that, of the land forces happened under a Tory government, during austerity. A lot of army was, you
know, laid off or it just doesn't exist anymore.
WALLACE: Well, I wouldn't paint one government. Every government --
AMANPOUR: But it started then?
WALLACE: No, it didn't. It didn't. Labour took it from 3 percent of GDP down to 2.2.
AMANPOUR: I'm talking about numbers.
WALLACE: And up to 2.5. Well, we can discuss whether we spend our defense budget on the right things.
AMANPOUR: But this is about peacekeepers and security and what's at stake right now.
WALLACE: The most important thing for Russia is that you have an armed forces that's lethal. We can all have a First World War army with just
bayonets and rifles, but you need to be lethal. You need to be able to deter your enemy because you can inflict violence on them at, in your
defense or in offence. And that's fundamentally where we've slightly lost the way in defense reform areas. We've focused on, you know, I used to call
it top trumps, you know, that card game, you know, I've got more than you in numbers, but that used to come in our falling budgets that have happened
since 1991 under both Labour and Conservative.
Behind the numbers, we were hollowing out ammo stocks, enablers, sensors, electronic warfare signals, all the things you need in a modern
battlefield.
AMANPOUR: So, that's what I'm saying, can that be changed overnight?
WALLACE: It can't be all -- no, it can't all be changed overnight. But you can certainly make sure you start to invest. And what we shouldn't forget
is that the sad thing about Monday was, A, it marked the death --
AMANPOUR: Monday, the -- yes.
WALLACE: Monday, third anniversary of the invasion of Ukraine.
AMANPOUR: And the U.N. vote.
WALLACE: The sad thing about that was absolutely suffering, the Ukrainians have suffered at the hands of an illegal Russian invasion. But let's not
also forget, on that day, Putin sent to their deaths -- well, started to, and injury 800,000 of his young men for nothing more than ego.
And so, he doesn't actually have much of an army now, at the moment. It will take him about two years to rearm, reinvigorate that army. So, we have
some time in the land forces to continue the modernization that I started as defense secretary. And actually, contrary to what the prime minister
just said, the biggest defense increases since the Cold War came from me as defense secretary, not him. Because he's folded in all sorts of tricks,
which is all about cultural change.
But we should also not forget that we can do as much as we want to with Ukraine. And that's the question for Europe. And we keep talking about U.S.
security guarantees. For what it's worth, I don't think Donald Trump is going to give them.
AMANPOUR: No, no, he said he wouldn't.
WALLACE: You know, he's not going to give them. He's been very clear. Now, the question for the negotiations, therefore, is if Donald Trump has taken
off the table security guarantees, boots on the ground, military support, and potentially any aid, he's got no skin in the game. Why is anyone
bothering to ask him to be part of the negotiations? To lead --
AMANPOUR: But he says he's going to lead them, and he's going to make a deal with Putin. That's why he wants no skin in the game, he wants to give
it all to Europe, and you're saying that's reasonable. But he's still saying that we are America and we're going to make the deal with Putin.
WALLACE: But why would -- but you need Zelenskyy in the room, and you need Europe in the room.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, that's the question to you. OK.
WALLACE: Because we're putting the skin in, right?
AMANPOUR: Right. So, what will your prime minister be able to say when he meets President Trump at the White House? How should he conduct himself in
terms of what you're just saying? If you want us to do it, back away. Let us do it.
WALLACE: Well, I think that's right. I mean, if you want us to do it, United States, then, in the end -- well, not want us, but if President
Zelenskyy chooses that the peace deal he wants to make involves some form of security guarantees and you're not prepared to do it, and Europe is,
then thanks, Mr. President. It's been great. But by the way, we've actually given more to Ukraine than you have.
[13:10:00]
I mean, this false claim he comes out with, it's -- I mean, he's a great -- President Trump loves talking about fake news.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
WALLACE: He turns out to be the broadcaster of quite a lot of it.
AMANPOUR: And he said it again in his first cabinet meeting. Again, saying that they'd spent $350 billion --
WALLACE: He hasn't. They've spent $100 billion.
AMANPOUR: I know.
WALLACE: Europe has spent more than America.
AMANPOUR: I know. And yet, he keeps saying it. So, my question to you is, why is that? He also keeps saying that Europe will get their money back
from Ukraine, which Europe will not.
WALLACE: No, we gifted all ours.
AMANPOUR: This is what President Macron said. Let me just play it and you can fill viewers in. Let's just play what Macron said to Trump.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: Europe is loaning the money to Ukraine. They get their money back.
EMMANUEL MACRON, FRENCH PRESIDENT: No, in fact, to be frank, we paid. We paid 60 percent of the total effort, and it was through -- like the U.S.,
loans, guarantee, grants, and we provided real money, to be clear.
TRUMP: If you believe that, it's OK with me.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: I mean, did you see that?
WALLACE: Yes.
AMANPOUR: If you believe that, it's OK with me. What is to his advantage by continuing this falsehood?
WALLACE: Well, I think Donald Trump wants to say to his electorate, I've won a victory. I've got reparations. I've got our money back. I've won a
victory. Now, he should be asking Russia for reparations. The person that starts the war and inflicts the damage is actually Russia. They -- by
history, reparations are paid by the aggressor, not the defender. That's --
AMANPOUR: I mean, he's asking more from Ukraine in his original ask than America will asked from Germany and Japan after the First -- Second World
War.
WALLACE: So, I hear that the man advising him most is that buffoon, Tucker Carlson, who basically makes it up as he goes along, from what I can tell.
He's -- I mean, I've listened to his talking points. I've watched him on air.
AMANPOUR: You've watched him with Putin?
WALLACE: I've watched him with everybody. I mean, he got -- even Putin flattened Tucker Carlson. And he ended up pushing a shopping trolley, if I
think, comparing prices. Look, I think the reality is Donald Trump, at one level, wants to prove to his electorate, who's just sent him to the White
House, I got something back, right? That's what the mineral deal seems to be about. That's what, you know, all the other claims are.
But we shouldn't forget --
AMANPOUR: What's your view of that, by the way, the mineral deal?
WALLACE: I think it's extortion.
AMANPOUR: Sorry?
WALLACE: It's extortion. It's total extortion. The United States and Europe gave most of the aid on condition of gifting. Certainly, the
military equipment. And let's not forget, having gifted old equipment predominantly, we re-armed ourselves with new equipment. Militaries were
quite happy to get off their books.
AMANPOUR: Including American military, by the way.
WALLACE: Including America. And if you look at the spend America claims, a lot of it was actually in the Pentagon. And also, a lot of it was with
American companies manufacturing for Ukraine. So, the United States quite rightly recycled that dollar, made an employment with it. Europe did a
similar thing. So, I'm not sure he has a right to extort anything from Ukraine, who is, by the way, desperate and trying to survive.
America does have a record of always wanting its money back. Britain stopped paying its war loans to the United States in 2006. So, the loans
that they gave us in the Second World War was a long loan. But that's -- they just have to accept that and Ukraine is going to have to balance
whether it gets something.
Now, the worry about today is no security guarantees. What is Zelenskyy getting for it?
AMANPOUR: So, let me ask you to flesh that out, because that is the most important thing, right? Let's say you agree to a ceasefire or freezing the
conflict or whatever it might be. Everybody knows that there has to be some kind of tripwire between Russia and Ukraine again. Most people believe
Russia will try it on again, if it can. You've just said you have to be tough with Putin.
You know, I've covered many of these and whatever -- even when American boots are not on the ground, they always provided to their allies,
airpower, air defense, intelligence But Trump's not making even any of those. Do you think he will? Some of his people think he will.
WALLACE: Well, I have to reserve one bit, he may be behind the scenes talking to the world of intelligence and the world of the people that
currently could be doing some of those things in support and data feeds and space and everything else. He could be -- Starlink and Elon Musk, he could
be doing that in secret and we wouldn't know. So, I won't rule that out as a possibility. But his statements are pretty clear.
He also, at the outset of the negotiations, gave Russia everything they want. But he did say, I think today, that Putin might have to compromise.
AMANPOUR: Yes. I was going to ask you --
WALLACE: Which is the very first thing I've ever heard said.
AMANPOUR: Well, he did. If you remember, and this is why I'm so befuddled by all of this. Trump put out a tweet even before his inauguration saying
that he had spoken to Putin. Apparently, he hadn't. Maybe he had, but then his people said he hadn't. And he said, we can do it the easy way or the
hard way. You're going to have to stop doing this, or whatever he said.
WALLACE: Yes.
AMANPOUR: And either I'm going to put sanctions on -- he's talking to Putin. We're going to make it painful for you. We can do it the easy way or
the hard way. And then he pivots and gives it all to Putin publicly. And now, he's saying Putin's going to have to make concessions.
[13:15:00]
WALLACE: There are two worrying parts of fake news that get peddled by some of the camp -- Trump, you know, runs with Trump's camp is one is that,
you know, if I'd been in it never would have happened. Well, just read President Trump's own essay of June 2021. Very clear his view of Ukraine.
It's not to do with NATO.
AMANPOUR: Putin or Trump?
WALLACE: Putin wrote it. He wrote this 19-page essay, which was very clear that there was a destiny about the unification of the ancient people of
Rus. And in 19 pages, NATO is mentioned in one paragraph. And I hear all sorts of talking heads telling you, so, well, if NATO hadn't expanded.
On the record, Gorbachev is saying, is filmed saying, there were no guarantees of NATO expansion. That isn't why he invaded Ukraine. He invaded
Ukraine because of destiny and his ambition for a greater Russia. He said it himself, he wrote it himself.
And when you realize that, all the sort of fake news that people like Tucker Carlson come out with that suddenly it's because of an invasion
that, you know, NATO was about to do these things, spy camps all over, those are also the Kremlin talking points.
AMANPOUR: That's what I mean. It's their talking point.
WALLACE: It also turns out to be currently the White House talking points, right? So, fundamentally, people should recognize that we are where we are
not because of who is in the White House, whether it was Biden or Trump, because Putin has decided he wants a greater Russia. He wrote it himself
the year before in a -- well, in an ethnic nationalism essay.
And, you know, if you remember, in 2014 he invaded. And if you remember the Budapest memorandum was even before that. And, you know --
AMANPOUR: That was guaranteed -- that was security guarantees for Ukraine for having given up their nuclear weapons.
WALLACE: It's not because of NATO, it's a fake news line. And also, the fake news line is that somehow there was -- and I've definitely heard a
number of American commentators talk this, that there was going to be a peace deal in Turkey and there was Russia, and if you remember, Abramovich
got poisoned, I think, by his own intelligence services. He wasn't very well.
And I remember, at that meeting, there was the Turkish -- there was Russia and Ukraine, and then allegedly Boris Johnson rang up and stopped it. Total
myth. Total untruth. Nothing of the sort happened like that. You know what --
AMANPOUR: You were there, right?
WALLACE: I wasn't in the room.
AMANPOUR: No, but you were --
WALLACE: But, yes, I was the defense secretary at the time and very close to the prime minister. We absolutely knew. I was talking regularly to my
Ukrainian counterpart, it never happened. Russia turned up and tried to impose the same conditions as they'd done before the invasion. Ukrainians
weren't prepared to have it. Same as the Belarus talks just before then. Nothing. But these are the talking points that you've got here in the
Kremlin, and now we're hearing it in the Rose Garden.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, not only are you hearing it in the Rose Garden, I mean, what went through your mind when you watched the U.N. Security Council
vote? Has there ever been such a vote where the United States votes alongside Russia, North Korea, Belarus and other West African hunters,
including also, by the way, Israel was always also part of it, against a U.N. General Assembly resolution condemning the aggression? And this is
what your former head of the MI6 intelligence told the BBC about a new world order.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ALEX YOUNGER, FORMER MI9 CHIEF: I think we are in a new era where, by and large, international relations aren't going to be determined by rules and
multilateral institutions. They're going to be determined by strong men and deals.
I think of the Yalta Treaty at the end of 1945, where three strong men, as they were then, on behalf of the big countries, the strong countries,
decided the fate of small countries. I think that's Donald Trump's mindset. It's certainly Putin's mindset. It's Xi Jinping's mindset. It's not
Europe's mindset. That's the world we're going into, for a whole set of reasons, and I don't think we're going back to the one we had before.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: I mean, that's pretty categoric, and it was actually before the U.N. vote on Monday. So, he was actually being prescient rather than
reacting to it.
WALLACE: Well, I think he's right, and I know Alex very well. And we are in a new era. How long the era lasts, I think is up for grabs. You know,
fundamentally, Donald Trump won the election with 30 percent of the vote -- of the total vote. He got about, I think, 49 percent of the electorate that
turned out. You know, Donald Trump, like all of us, are here today, gone tomorrow politicians, right?
You know, whoever occupies the White House doesn't indefinitely represent the United States. We all come and go. Same for number 10, same for the
Elisee Palace. So, I think it'll be interesting to see that whether this era is continuing, and that will be a very big challenge for Europe,
including the United Kingdom and the United States that, you know, I know. But it may not be. It may be a president. We've had presidents before. You
know, America First is not a new concept.
AMANPOUR: Well, last time it raised its head was before World War II. So, it's, you know, 80 years ago.
[13:20:00]
WALLACE: Senator Lindbergh led the -- it was called the America First Committee, right? He led the committee. So, it's not a new concept. It
doesn't mean to say that the majority of Americans are now in favor of North Korea and Russia, I think. I think they voted at the U.N.
But my one worry that I think it could be of a major disadvantage to the United States in the future is the showcase of the world, whether we like
it or not, is the U.N. We are much more connected than we were in the old days of isolationism. Social media, internet, and what you say matters
because it ripples, right? It ripples around the world.
The people who would have looked at that list of voting more than anybody would be President Xi of China, President Putin, you know, the supreme
leader of Iran, the leaders of Sudan who also voted with it.
AMANPOUR: North Korea.
WALLACE: North Korea, Kim Jong un. Look at that list and go, oh, look. The only other country on that list is the United States, everybody else is
either abstained or on a different list. And I think China abstained, which I think was quite telling, where China may take the future.
And ripples matter, you know, the Afghanistan deal done by Donald Trump, which completely unfolded on my watch, was a very difficult situation.
Those ripples still spreading across the Middle East. You know, these things matter what you say in public as a serving president or politician.
And I think what's interesting is, in this day and age, it's so connected. So, it's going to be interesting. But you know, I wouldn't like to be a
citizen of Taiwan right now.
AMANPOUR: And you're a former military person yourself. And we will hope to have you back as these progresses. Ben Wallace, thank you so much
indeed, former U.K. defense secretary.
Now, all eyes were on Trump's first full cabinet meeting at the White House today, which included the non-cabinet, non-government employee, but the
enforcer, Elon Musk, who was the first to be called on to speak. This billionaire addressed the controversial e-mail that he sent to federal
workers, telling them to explain what they'd done in the past five days.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ELON MUSK, TRUMP PRESIDENTIAL ADVISER: Last week, the president encouraged me via Truth Social and also via phone call to be more aggressive. And I
was like, OK. You know, yes, sir. Mr. President, we will indeed do that. The president is the commander in chief. I do what the president asks. So -
- and I said, can we send out an e-mail to everyone just saying what did you get done last week? The president said yes. So, did that. And, you
know, we got a partial response. We're going to send another e-mail. Our goal is not to be capricious or unfair. It's we want to give people every
opportunity to send an e-mail.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: But many of the same cabinet meetings he was addressing around that table, cabinet members rather, have told their employees not to
respond to Musk's e-mail demand, given the sensitive nature of their work.
On Monday, a judge tried to figure out who exactly is in charge of DOGE, expressing, quote, "concerns about the constitutionality of its actions."
Even the government lawyer was unable to specifically explain the nature of Musk's role.
Gregg Nunziata is a conservative attorney who's the executive director of the society for the rule of law. Previously, he worked in the department of
justice and for then-Senator Marco Rubio. Gregg Nunziata, welcome to the program from Washington, D.C.
I don't really know where to start. Let's start with Elon Musk, because we hear, in the midst of all this, let me just say this, Elon Musk's business
empire is built on $38 billion dollars in government funding. That is the latest Washington Post headline. I'm sure it's verifiable or checkable. So,
what do you make of this personality unelected and with very little oversight making the demands he's doing and actually even being the star of
this cabinet meeting?
GREGG NUNZIATA, FORMER COUNSEL, SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SOCIETY FOR THE RULE OF LAW: Well, thank you, Christiane. There
are a lot of concerns from a constitutional perspective, from a rule of law perspective, as I think you hinted at in the introduction there.
First, several weeks into this administration, DOGE has a starring role, but it's still unclear exactly what it's doing, under whose direction, and
under what legal authority. If it is just a project to ferret out waste, fraud, and abuse, to modernize payment systems, which is sometimes how the
administration talks about it, I think most Americans can get behind that.
But the problem with DOGE is it seems to purport, according to Musk and the president, to be up to a much bigger project, about restructuring the
government, eliminating agencies, feeding them into the wood chipper, as Elon Musk has said. And if that is what it's doing, it runs into
significant constitutional problems, at least two big ones.
[13:25:00]
First, in our country, Congress makes the laws. Congress creates agencies and eliminates agencies. And while somebody like me, a limited government
conservative, might like the idea of reducing the size of government, that role properly belongs to Congress.
Secondly, if DOGE is wielding all this authority delegated from the president, it ought to be run by a nominated official who is confirmed with
the advice and the consent of the Senate. Both kind of Congress' lawmaking power, its power of the purse, and the Senate's power over appointments and
confirmations are key checks in our system to protect our democracy and legitimacy and the accountability of our government. And those things are
under significant pressure now.
And so, conservatives, even those who are excited about reducing the size and scope of government, ought to be concerned, ought to be asking hard
questions, challenging some of what is doing -- DOGE is doing, both in the courts and in Congress. Congress needs to reclaim its role here and
Congress should conduct meaningful oversight.
AMANPOUR: And I don't know whether you're noticing and how you evaluate what appears to be a pushback in certain Republican districts, like
Congress people going home have had in some instances an earful, Republicans from their constituents complaining about all sorts of DOGE
activities. I mean, including, you know, the demand for most sensitive government data, personal data, business records, payments, Social Security
information. And apparently 21 employees of DOGE have resigned this week, saying that actions include, quote, "mishandling sensitive data and
breaking critical systems."
Where in all the experience you've had, you know, on the legal side and everything watching this, where do you think this is headed?
NUNZIATA: It's hard to know, honestly, Christiane, there's so many open questions right now, but I do think if the president is attempting to
really remake government through this largely unaccountable effort, there will increasingly be pushback. The kinds of pressure you hear being applied
to some Republican congressmen now will have an effect.
You're hearing a bit more on the Hill, from Republicans who want answers about what DOGE is doing and want some accountability and want to play a
role in this, want Congress to reclaim its rightful place. So, I hope we got there. You know, I think that Americans should want that.
And again, I think it's really important for Americans to demand accountability from their government and demand it operates within the
proper constitutional framework, even if they like the direction that the president is trying to go in. We all benefit from a government system and
from a political leadership that is held accountable and follows the rule of law and the constitution.
AMANPOUR: So, let's just, you know, use that framework in the rest of this conversation then. So, the president, apparently, Article II of your
Constitution requires a president to quote, "Take care that laws be faithfully executed." This President Trump though, this recently posted
something that's often attributed to Napoleon Bonaparte, he said, he who saves his country does not violate any law.
How does that -- OK. So, where does that go? And what parameters are there to make sure that he faithfully executes the laws of the country?
NUNZIATA: No, it's -- it was -- you know, some people like to laugh off when the president makes comments like this and say it's just trolling,
meant to have fun, maybe meant to distract from other scandals. No, I think it's important. It's important and concerning.
The president has -- all of our presidents have, since Washington, an obligation to steward their -- the public trust, to protect our rights, our
liberties, ultimately our law and our constitution. The president is a creature of the Constitution, created under law. He is not a king. He is
not above the law no matter what the circumstances are. We need to expect that.
You know, to my Republican friends who are frustrated by some of these lawsuits or norms and institutions that are restraining what the president
is trying to accomplish, you know, I say to them, you may have deep trust in the judgment of this president, but he's not going to be in charge
forever, nor will his allies be. Power goes back and forth in our country and it's important to have a structure that constrains our leaders.
I mean, the American founders, the people who wrote the Constitution designed the presidency knowing that George Washington would be our first
president and having great confidence in him and his commitments to liberty and law. Nonetheless, they knew he wouldn't be president forever. So, they
built a presidency that should be constrained, that is constrained by Congress, by the courts, and by the law.
And I really kind of beg Americans of any political persuasion and any view on Donald Trump to really commit to that now because what the laws and the
constitutional structure that we have was built after bloodshed and with difficulty and earned credibility over struggle and time. And we can take
for granted the liberties that we have in this country. And the structure that protects our freedom could be easily destroyed.
[13:30:00]
It took generations and centuries to build up the inheritance that we have. And with short sightedness, we can lose a great deal very quickly.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, this is really interesting. On the one hand, you say that in our system, presidents come and go, parties change. And the
Constitution and the rule of law and the other branches of government maintain a steady sort of ship.
My previous guest said one of the -- something similar about the, you know, throwing the alliance up in the air and questioning the entire, you know,
post-war transatlantic alliance and security of Europe. OK. It's a leader for four years. And then, hopefully, not too much damage is created and we
can get back to a solid transatlantic alliance.
Do you believe that the nation can survive what some in your country are calling, you know, teetering on the verge of a constitutional crisis, the
testing to the limits, the boundaries of executive power, et cetera, et cetera? And let me just finish by quoting Elon Musk, who basically appeared
to be calling for some kind of judicial, you know, pushback. He says, what is the point of having democratic elections if unelected activist judges
can override the clear will of the people?
NUNZIATA: I saw that statement from Mr. Musk, and it's part of a pattern now of the president and his allies trying to raise questions about the
legitimacy of federal courts and I will say, by the way, this -- you know, this comes only a couple years after Democrats, did a lot of damage trying
to raise questions about the legitimacy of a Supreme Court that was reaching rulings they didn't like.
Our federal courts have legitimacy. You can disagree with their rulings, but they are not corrupt. In fact, you know, I think in their competence,
in their independence, and their resistance, the political pressure, our courts are the envy of the world. And that is just incredibly damaging
rhetoric and ought to be resisted. I think Americans of all stripes should demand that our political actors respect court orders.
You could think they're wrong. You could work to change the composition of the judiciary over time through our constitutional system. But getting rid
of our courts, which are a bulwark of our liberties, which do stop the president and Congress and political actors from exceeding their authority,
would be just a grave, grave mistake.
And back to your kind of your original question about can we survive? I don't know. I think we ought to assume that our liberty and our freedoms
are fragile. And we should -- if we make any error, our error should be in fighting too hard for them and being too worried about the damage that
could be done.
You know, I think conservatists especially should understand that institutions can be destroyed, can be worn down over time. Ronald Reagan
used to say that freedom is just one generation away from extinction. So, we ought to be very, very concerned, and I don't think we should be ashamed
or hesitant to be too concerned about real threats to our legal system and to our constitutional order.
AMANPOUR: Do you think -- as I say, there's some pushback and Republican Congress people are feeling it in their constituencies. And a new CNN poll
says a majority of Americans, 52 percent said Donald Trump has overstepped in using the power of the presidency. Why do you think, and at what point
do you think fellow Republicans, elected Republicans, you know, Senate, Congress, et cetera, will also join what you're talking about? I'm not
talking about a resistance. I'm talking about a defense of the structures of America's democracy.
NUNZIATA: I think it really needs to come from the people. And this is -- you know, in my organization, the Society for the Rule of Law, we're a
membership organization made up of mostly conservative lawyers who are concerned about these things, we're trying to bring this message to the
American people. It requires the voters to understand this and to demand it, and you know, including, you know, Trump supporters who want the best
for this country and want the best for this administration.
We have to treat the rule of law and the Constitution as foundational, as a key treasured inheritance of the American people that we're willing to
fight for even if it seems politically uncomfortable for our side in the moment.
And this is -- you know, this is not just a problem on the right. This is a bipartisan problem with Americans in recent decades really prioritizing
their short-term wins for their political team over these bedrock principles. I mean, I really would --
AMANPOUR: Sorry. I don't mean to interrupt. But before I go, we've got a minute left. I've covered the U.S. military all my career just about. And
so, it was really alarming to watch the purges at the Pentagon.
[13:35:00]
And so, I want to ask you from a legal perspective. Is it legal? And certainly, people like Pete Hegseth have questioned in public, you know, C.
Q. Brown, General C. Q. Brown's promotions, was it the color of his skin? We'll never know. This is before he became defense secretary. And now, the
JAGs have been fired. So, two Osprey women and the black chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, is that legal?
NUNZIATA: It's going to depend on the context. There are a lot of different questions with different individuals. But here's what I would
say. I think that it's entirely appropriate, we have a long running kind of argument in this country about how much authority the president should have
over the executive branch and over independent agencies. There are legitimate arguments for the president to exert more.
But what the president doesn't have is the right to a military or lawyers or civil servants who just do his will. He is entitled to people who will
follow lawful directives, but those people serve the country first, not him personally, and they take an oath to the Constitution, not to him. And I'm
very worried about the president getting rid of professionals who take their charge seriously and replacing them with people who are primarily
distinguished by service and flattery to the president. Our founders very much didn't want that and we should resist that.
AMANPOUR: Well, thank you so much and giving it to us from a conservative perspective.
NUNZIATA: Thank you, Christiane.
AMANPOUR: We appreciate that. Gregg Nunziata, thank you very much indeed. And as we've just discussed, as well as the unprecedented purges of federal
agencies, the Pentagon is still reeling from the recent firings of its top military leaders and lawyers, including Navy Admiral Lisa Franchetti and
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General C. Q. Brown.
Theodore R. Johnson, a retired naval officer who served for two decades, says that this was, quote, "strictly a political move," targeting those who
support diversity and inclusion. And he speaks to Michel Martin now about the potential impact of these decisions.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, Christiane. Ted Johnson, thank you so much for talking with us once again.
CMDR. THEODORE R. JOHNSON, U.S. NAVY (RET.) AND SENIOR ADVISER, NEW AMERICA: Thanks for having me. Always good to be back.
MARTIN: You were a commander in the Navy. You were a White House fellow. You've written books, many articles, and so forth. But what many people may
not know is that you were a speech writer for the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. So, for people who don't know what the Joint Chiefs of
Staff do, what do the Joint Chiefs of Staff do? Why do they matter?
JOHNSON: The chairman is essentially the highest-ranking military officer in the country and is the president's military adviser for all things
related to the use of the military. The Joint Chiefs are made up of each of the top admirals or generals in the forces, the Air Force, the Navy, the
Army, the Marines. And so -- and we've added new forces. I think National Guard has a seat now, the Space Force.
And so, these Joint Chiefs are responsible to man and equip the forces. They're responsible for building ships, training sailors, soldiers,
marines, et cetera. The chairman then advises the president on the employment of that force, operationally and administratively in terms of
shaping.
MARTIN: So, they fired the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Charles Q. Brown Jr. He was a four-star general, a fighter pilot with more than
four decades of service. He's fired the first woman to lead the Navy as chief of naval operations.
The first thing I wanted to ask is, as a person who's been so close to those positions and actually served in the military for a long time, what
was your reaction when you heard this?
JOHNSON: It's unconventional to say the least. Chairman, Joint Chiefs, these folks are not political appointees in terms of they work for one
party or another or aligned to one party or another. They swear an oath to the Constitution. They are used to serving across administrations, no
matter the party, no matter the person. And so, it is expected that when a new president comes in, that president will make the senior advisers in the
military in other places his own.
That's not the shocking part here. What's shocking is the rate at which he's firing folks, the number of folks he's firing, and then the reasons
that they're being fired. It was said that the first woman to lead the Navy, the chief of Naval operations was essentially a gender-based hire. If
you look at the folks that have let go, I think of the five three or four stars that have been let go in the last few weeks. One is a black man,
Chairman Brown, and three are white women. And it makes you wonder when the Pentagon and the White House are pushing such heavy anti-DEI policies. It
makes you wonder why the folks that are let go at the top of the military happen to be either people of color or women.
MARTIN: I don't think it makes you wonder. I think they were pretty clear that's why. I mean, one of the reasons that Pete Hegseth, who's been
appointed now as defense secretary, was selected by the president, was that he articulated this anti diversity, equity, and inclusion message. And he
said that he wanted to return the military to a so-called warrior ethos.
[13:40:00]
Question I'm asking you is, do they have a point? Were these DEI hires? And what difference does it make operationally into our -- into readiness?
JOHNSON: They do not have a point. And look, General Brown was appointed by Trump to lead the Air Force before taking the role of chairman. If he
was a DEI hire yesterday, last week, he was a DEI hire five years ago, 40 years ago in the military.
So, what we're seeing, the country is getting a crash course in how to politicize the military 101. Now, what Trump and Hegseth would suggest is
that the politicization happened when all these DEI initiatives flooded the Pentagon and that's the politicization? And what they're trying to do to
roll that back, and that is also incorrect.
It is one thing for a force to make adjustments to its training, its reading materials, etcetera, to account for differences in our histories
and in our -- how we, you know, look and that sort of thing, it's another thing to look at a career of four decades of service and say you are
nothing but a DEI hire and the military has no use for you.
So, you know, anti-DEI policy is one thing sort of just outright racial intolerance is another. There's a distinction there. And I think what we're
mostly seeing is a president politicizing well qualified military officers in service of political and electoral agendas and not some rejection of --
or not a blaming of DEI for putting unqualified people at the top of the military's leadership.
MARTIN: He also dismissed the top lawyers called the JAGs for the Army, Navy and Air Force. What does it mean that he fired all these top lawyers?
JOHNSON: I think it is akin to what he's done with the inspector general - - inspectors general at the different agencies. He's getting rid of the oversight and many of the executive branch cabinets and now we're seeing in
the services. Top JAG officers are not legal advice to help the military stay out of trouble. They're not legal advice to tell the president, here's
how you can break the law without getting caught. They are there to protect the service. They're there to protect the country and the lives of those
that they're charged to defend, to protect.
And so, their client is not the president. Their client are the sailors, airmen, marines, et cetera, and the services themselves. And what we've
seen from Donald Trump, certainly since inauguration this year, is that if you are not working for him, then there is not much use for you, even if
your job, such as the Justice Department, et cetera, is to protect the people. He wants people in those seats that are there to serve him, to
carry out his orders. And even in spots, perhaps where they may be up for question.
MARTIN: When Pete Hegseth talks about restoring a warrior ethos to the military, I mean, obviously, you don't speak for him. But what do you think
he's talking about?
JOHNSON: A few years ago, Senator Tom Cotton made a remark saying you know, these young men and women in America, they join the force because
they want to kill the bad guys. And I will tell you, after 20 plus years of service, I met very, very, very few people who joined the military because
they wanted to engage in violence.
OK. That said, if you put on the uniform, you know that you can be, you may be exposed to violence. And people in uniform are willing to carry out
their duties in that situation, but they don't join to engage in violence. Most folks who join the military do so for economic stability, access to
housing and education benefits, a fairly meritocratic promotion process, pay equity and equality is all there.
So, they're joining for the stability while also doing something that they can be proud of, their families can be proud of and serving the country.
They do not join -- and again, the vast majority of folks do not join to pull bullet in someone's head or to blow up a city.
So, if the warrior ethos, and this is what I fear, if it's being mistaken for those who enjoy engaging in violence, the military doesn't have a place
for that. Certainly not a military is large and it's precise as we can be with trying to attain our objectives. And instead, what we're seeing is
this sort of nostalgia for a carpet-bombing military that indiscriminately destroys enemies with no thought to collateral damage. And again, that's
not the military that we are today. It's not who we've been for some time.
MARTIN: Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth also said that -- reflecting the mass firings. He said this is a reflection of the president wanting the
right people around him to execute the national security approach that we want to take. So, if that suggests that this is the normal course of
business, the administration wanting to have it as its advisers, people who share the president's vision for how they want to pursue national security.
Is that right?
[13:45:00]
JOHNSON: Yes, president absolutely has that right. And every president should want generals, admirals in place that will execute the nation's
agenda. They're not -- and protect their interests. The question is on the one -- on the word there, that's -- it's a very basic one, but the right
person, how they define right is not the way the military defines right. To them right is connected to -- again, to loyalty. Right is connected to any
-- all avoidances of anything that could potentially be touched by something DEI or diversity related.
And so, now, we're not talking about qualifications. Now, we're talking about what people believe about, you know, our history. We're talking about
people's belief that diversity is a national and a military strength. We're talking about people who believe the military should not be politicized.
People who believe in the oath to the Constitution and not to the White House or to a president. Those are also the right people, but they're
persona non grata in this administration, in this Pentagon.
MARTIN: So, all of these roles, to this point, have been held by highly trained people with a lot of experience. And I wonder how deep the bench
is. How easy is it going to be to replace these people?
JOHNSON: So, in terms of talent, qualifications, resumes, et cetera, the military is the most replaceable institution in the country. When you are
promoted or when you retire, there is another person in your seat very, very quickly. There is no shortage of qualified people to do all of the
jobs, the nation requires. Even if Trump and Hegseth were to let the top folks go in each place.
So, the bench is deep, but I fear they're not looking at the deep bench. They're looking at the loyalty bench to see who might serve.
MARTIN: What happens to the people who were dismissed?
JOHNSON: It's remains to be seen. You know, if you're a four-star and you're dismissed, you're probably going home and you and we'll enjoy
retirement, whatever comes next. But it's more difficult when you're -- say if you're a colonel or captain, if you're a one or two-star, because a
dismissal doesn't necessarily mean your career is over, even though your reputation may be stained.
And even if it is over, you don't get to go home the next day. And so, now you have to walk around in uniform, in a job that requires your rank, and
stay in that position, either to fill out that tour of duty and then do another one or wait until you can be out processed. Nothing will be smooth
from the point of firing forward, but it is not as abrupt as it is in the civilian world. So, there's a couple of different paths, but most of them
do not include upward mobility. Most of them include a holding pattern until you leave.
MARTIN: That seems like that would be a real hit to morale.
JOHNSON: Absolutely, because it's -- it is a testimony to unfairness to consider people for promotions or firing in this way. And so, never mind
the morale of the three- or four-star that gets fired, their pension is going to make sure that they live comfortably for some time. But below
them, you know, if I'm the next -- if I wanted to be chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff one day and I've been in the military five years and I've
seen Colin Powell do it and now I've seen Chairman -- General Brown do it and I see General Brown got fired because he was called a DEI pick despite
his record of superior performance.
I see Colin Powell basically be kicked out of the Republican Party and told that he considers melanin and race more important than values because he
chose to support Obama over McCain in 2008. Why would I stick around in a service that automatically assumes that my race is the most important thing
to me, even more than my word to other people, my word to my family, my word to the country? It hurts morale up and down the chain and beyond the
people who are immediately affected.
MARTIN: What about if you're a Trump supporter? I mean, there are military supporters. I mean, I'm just -- I am curious about what that looks like for
them.
JOHNSON: It's a wild time, but I will tell you I still have -- I have friends that are Trump supporters. And these friends are really guys that I
served in the military with -- that we've stayed in touch via, you know, social media, that sort of things, and who are still serving. And I will
tell you that they love the removal of DEI from the military from, you know, DEI programming and these sorts of things.
They do not like the claim that diversity has made the force weak and the suggestion, the implication that folks of color or women who are serving
are less capable or less qualified. So, you know, Trump supporter, that label, does not mean that they believe everything Trump and Hegseth have
said about people that they have served with. There's sort of a recognition reform is necessary, maybe some books shouldn't be on the chairman's
reading list, you know.
[13:50:00]
So, removal of that isn't removal of -- isn't the same thing as removing all things diversity, recruitment, considerations of the diversity of force
and leadership from the military. So, they're able to hold the two together, but there are some -- there are unhappy campers, even among Trump
supporters in both the Pentagon and among us retired ranks.
MARTIN: You know, after the killing of George Floyd in 2020, the recently dismissed chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Charles Q. Brown Jr. spoke
out in a video about his experiences as an African American pilot in the Air Force. Do you think that that is one of the reasons why he was fired?
JOHNSON: I do, though I think it was more of a messaging firing more -- rather than one for performance or competence or even this was strictly a
political move. There's just no doubt about it. And it's -- again, this was a man that was appointed by Trump to lead the Air Force.
And look, look at what happened to the previous chairman, General Milley from the Army. Trump appoints him chairman. He sort of swindled into
walking across Lafayette Square when Trump stands in front of the church and holds the bible while Black Lives Matter protests are happening and
Milley apologizes for that, saying, I shouldn't have been there, that unnecessarily politicized both my office, the advice they give the
president and the Pentagon, the military as a whole.
And so, they -- he's retired now, but they have removed his clearance. They've removed the security detail. They removed his picture from the wall
of former chairman in the Pentagon, and they've even threatened to take away a star. And when it comes to military retirement, that is something
military members, active and retired guard very, very closely. And I think that -- if it becomes a habit that they start messing with veterans'
benefits or military retirement, they may overplay their hand on this one.
MARTIN: What difference does it make that the force has been more diverse, that the top leadership has been more diverse than we've been used to
seeing historically? Does it matter if the leadership is diverse?
JOHNSON: Absolutely. And it's because the country is diverse and we have an all-volunteer force. And so, if you don't care about diversity and you
just want, you know, fit and eligible white men to populate the service. Good luck finding a million tomorrow who will volunteer at every level of
service that can meet the force's requirements.
If you don't have people at the top of the military who are leading a military that is extremely diverse, you will find yourself very soon with
the military that can't meet its recruiting goals because it feels unwelcoming to a large segment of people you must recruit from in order to
meet the nation's objectives.
So, a diverse nation with a diverse military requires diverse leadership, period. And if you don't want diverse leadership, you are signaling that
you don't want a diverse military, and you're signaling that you would prefer service only come from one group of people. I don't think that this
is the Pentagon's line here, but I'm suggesting that this is the kind of -- this is the reason why diversity is not just the strength, but a necessity
at every level of the military, from the first person out of boot camp to the most senior admiral in the military.
MARTIN: So, when do you think we might see the consequences of this, if your analysis is correct?
JOHNSON: Yes. So, I think it will be when recruiting -- not the -- not just the numbers not stacking up, but who is joining, changing. Right now,
white men join at the highest rate of anyone in the country. Second, black women. I don't know if in two or three years, under this kind of
leadership, if black women will look to the military for the same financial, educational, housing benefits that the military offers, if they
feel like they're going to be unwelcomed, or if every promotion, every move they make, it's because they're the DEI choice, or the racial quota choice,
or they're put in the back office, or not even given the opportunity, because their race or gender alone means that doors are closed and that
they can't get through, and there's no one on the other side who looks like them to help them navigate the system. So, we will see a lowering in
recruitment and who gets recruited.
The other thing the American people I think will take notice, and as much as we are loathed to disparage active duty service members, all the polls
still suggest that the military is the most respected institution by the public, I think those numbers will also dip if the military's leadership is
deemed to be political and unfair and essentially practicing -- you know, exercising people's loyalty instead of their competencies and capability.
MARTIN: Ted Johnson, thanks so much for talking with us.
JOHNSON: Thank you. Thanks for having me.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: These, of course, are very worrying developments, indeed backtracking on equality and indeed on competence.
Finally, more than 1,000 musicians have banded together to release a silent album. It's to protest plans here in the U.K. to relax the country's A.I.
copyright laws.
[13:55:00]
Among them are Kate Bush, Annie Lennox, Billy Ocean, and Hans Zimmer. The proposed changes would allow tech firms to train their A.I. models on any
material they can legally access. Creators would then have to take the initiative to opt out individually.
The album "Is This What We Want?" contains 12 tracks whose titles together say the British government must not legalize music theft to benefit A.I.
companies. A government spokesman said the current copyright and A.I. environment was holding back the creative industries from realizing their
full potential.
That is it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest, of course, on our podcast. Remember, you can always catch us online, on our
website, and all-over our social media.
Thank you for watching, and goodbye from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
