Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Representative Seth Moulton (D-MA); Interview with The Washington Post Former Executive Editor Marty Baron; Interview with "Spell Freedom" Author Elaine Weiss. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired March 05, 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)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: We are just getting started.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Trump promotes his plan for America, taking a chainsaw to government and the world order. Democratic Congressman Seth Moulton with
the response.
Then, the chilling effect as the media comes under attack. Former executive editor of The Washington Post, Marty Baron, joins us.
Also, ahead --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ELAINE WEISS, AUTHOR, "SPELL FREEDOM": This is the kind of patriotism we should be celebrating. And these are the kind of people who really defend
democracy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- Michel Martin speaks with Elaine Weiss about her new book, "Spell Freedom," the underground schools that build the civil rights
movement.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London.
Fear and volatility is driving global markets in response to the new Trump tariffs on allies and adversaries. And in his address to a joint session of
Congress Tuesday night, President Trump acknowledged that there will be, quote, "a little disturbance ahead."
The theme was meant to be the renewal of the American dream. Instead, he doubled down on his plan to break up the global economic order.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: April 2nd, reciprocal tariffs kick in, and whatever they tariff us, other countries, we will tariff them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, America must now deal with two massive wars, a possible trade war and Russia's war in Ukraine. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of
Canada not mincing words about the head spinning American pivot.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JUSTIN TRUDEAU, CANADIAN PRIME MINISTER: The United States launched a trade war against Canada. Their closest partner and ally, their closest
friend. At the same time, they're talking about working positively with Russia, appeasing Vladimir Putin, a lying, murderous dictator. Make that
make sense.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, Trump and Trudeau have spoken, and Trump also acknowledged President Zelenskyy's efforts to repair their relationship after last
Friday's Oval Office bust up. But he made no mention of reversing his suspension of U.S. military aid while the CIA director today confirmed the
U.S. had paused intelligence support to Ukraine.
Congressman Seth Moulton attended the address last night and summed up the situation by saying, Russia's stock is up, China's stock is up, and
American stocks are down. The State of the Union is not good. He's a member of the House Armed Services Committee, and he's joining us now from
Washington. Welcome back to the program.
REP. SETH MOULTON (D-MA): Thanks, Christiane.
AMANPOUR: Can you answer Justin Trudeau, the prime minister's question, make that make sense? The trade war on allies, while, as Justin Trudeau
said, dealing with a murderous dictator, Vladimir Putin.
MOULTON: It doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense at all. And I'm not proud to stand here as an American, let alone a representative of our
government, and say that to a foreign leader. We have our political disputes. They're supposed to end at the water's edge. We're supposed to be
united as a country when it comes to dealing with both our allies and our adversaries. But there is no unity in America on this point. We are selling
our allies out. And we are cozying up to dictators under Donald Trump.
AMANPOUR: But do you -- why? Why do you think that? Why -- what is the overarching plan or vision?
MOULTON: Well, I think it's a few different things going on at once here. He obviously believes it's good for our economy to put massive tariffs on
other countries. And he somehow thinks that that's going to help us. I can't find an economist who agrees with this. I know there are a lot of
Republicans in Congress and even advisers in his own administration who are very concerned about this approach. But that's what he wants to do.
And understandably, it alienates a lot of our allies. Justin Trudeau said it pretty well. It -- Canada is our closest friend, and this is pushing
them away.
[13:05:00]
At the same time, he made this campaign promise to end the Ukraine war on day one. While we're a long-time past day one, he obviously failed to
fulfill that promise, but he is willing to get peace at all costs, even selling out to Russia.
Donald Trump has had a longstanding relationship with Vladimir Putin. This is not the first time that he's cozied up to Russia. I remember there was a
time back in his first term when he actually said he trusts Putin more than the CIA. I don't know what to say when you have a commander in chief who
trusts Putin more than the CIA.
Of course, Donald Trump is someone who refused to serve himself when he was asked to serve in the military in Vietnam. He created a medical excuse. He
made something up. He lied about his medical condition to dodge the draft.
So, this is not someone who understands what it means to put your life on the line for the country, as people in the CIA do. But somehow, he finds
some commonality with this murderous dictator in Russia.
AMANPOUR: I'm going to get to that, and you, of course, have served your country as well. And I'm going to ask you about the military consequences
of what's going on for Ukraine and for Europe and for the United States.
But first, just to get back to these tariffs, because the president campaigned on lowering prices, the cost of living for people who were
concerned about the cost of living. And last night, on tariffs, he was quite specific. Just listen to what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: The tariffs will go on agricultural product coming into America. And our farmers, starting on April 2nd, it may be a little bit of an
adjustment period. We had that before when I made the deal with China, $50 billion of purchases and I said just bear with me and they did, they did.
Probably have to bear with me again, and this will be even better. That was great.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: He's obviously acknowledging the disquiet amongst many sectors of America, the rowdy town halls about, you know, various things and
especially in, you know, red states. But he's basically saying that the prices might not come down.
And just one other thing, experts have said that actually that deal with China was not very good. China got the better end of that, in his first
term.
MOULTON: You said it before I did. That's -- that was where I was going to start, Christiane. Is that deal wasn't good for the United States. It
didn't work out the way Trump sold it. And this is not going to weigh out - - work out the way he sells it either.
Prices are going to go up, not just for farmers. It's not just going to be harder to be a farmer in America as a result of these tariffs, because
they're going to have trouble selling their crops overseas. And we have a huge export market for agricultural products. It's going to be harder for
Americans who are just trying to pay the bills.
It's extraordinary how much a dozen eggs costs in America right now. Four times what it did just six months ago. And those prices continue to go up.
Donald Trump again said on day one prices are going to go down, but they've gone in the opposite direction and they keep going up. Prices are going up.
The only thing that's going down in America right now is the stock market.
AMANPOUR: I just want to quote from the Wall Street Journal because it is the business newspaper. It says the world economy could face a crash
similar to the Great Depression of the 1930s unless the U.S. rose back on its plans to impose steep tariffs on imports. This is a senior official at
the International Chamber of Commerce, which was quoted in the Wall Street Journal, puts us in a remarkably precarious position that'll cloud the
global economy in the coming months.
Do you think -- I mean, that's very, very worrying, certainly for everybody overseas. Do you think that'll affect Americans as well?
MOULTON: Oh, absolutely. And there's no question it's going to make it more difficult for consumers at home. You know, when you put a tariff on
some good that's coming to the United States, that's not paid by China or whatever other country the good is coming from. It's paid by the consumer,
you know.
So, if I bought a battery from China that costs $5, now it costs $7. Well, I'm paying that increase in cost. And yet, somehow, Trump is trying to sell
this as if the cost is paid for by China, and that goes right to our bottom line. So, the business world knows this is bad. The collective intelligence
of the stock world knows this is bad. That's why stocks are taking a nosedive. This is going to be terrible for our economy.
But to your point, Christiane, it's not just the economy at large. It's not just whether or not we have sort of a global depression. It's just every
single day, Americans are going to pay more for the things they need.
AMANPOUR: I'm going to get to maybe some pushback or whatever from Republicans and others in Congress, but first I want to ask you about
Ukraine because this is a huge, massive deal. Overseas, there is a genuine fear about which way America is going, which way it's aligning itself. It
appears against allies towards Putin.
Can I just read you what the conservative French prime minister said in his parliament this week, quoted by The New York Times on a Ukraine debate?
[13:10:00]
He said, We have brutally discovered over the past few weeks a stunning reality that the international rule of law is broken. Talking about the
United States, he says, they want to encircle us, to subjugate us, to bend us to, to the law of the strongest. And this on the part of our allies.
You know, and President Macron, who's trying to come up with a peace deal and has offered troops, et cetera, to enforce, has said, we all want peace
in Ukraine, but not at any price. Why do you -- well, first react to that view from the French prime minister?
MOULTON: Well, first of all, it's a totally reasonable view that's held by the majority of Americans. And this is important for people overseas to
understand, is that Trump is really on an island here. Now, he has a bunch of isolationist Republicans supporting him, but I was at the Munich
Security Conference two weekends ago, and I sat in a bipartisan delegation, Republicans and Democrats, as we met with our European allies and as we met
with Zelenskyy. And what you heard was unanimous bipartisan support for Ukraine.
So, Republicans are the ones who are suddenly changing their story to support the president in his crazy crusade to back Vladimir Putin in this
murderous war. The president changes his tune and suddenly you have prominent Republicans like Lindsey Graham and a whole bunch of rank-and-
file Republicans as well suddenly completely spinning their stories to justify supporting Trump.
That's not what you heard here behind the scenes. Republicans are saying something completely different in private from what they say in public.
That tells you a lot. I mean, they're just, frankly, cowards. And they're unwilling to stand up to the president and tell the truth.
But it's also important for people internationally to know that it's not like all of a sudden America believes what the president is saying and
America fully supports Donald Trump in his actions. No, even in Congress, a lot of Republicans totally disagree with the president, they're just too
scared to say it.
AMANPOUR: Well -- and in the meantime then, you've got the president suspending military aid to Ukraine, a billion dollars' worth. You've got
the CIA director confirming reports that they have also suspended intelligence to Ukraine. I mean, it was so vital during the years of this
war to have that intelligence as to, you know, battlefield intelligence. Why are they doing this?
MOULTON: I mean, Christiane, let me just start by saying, as someone who's been on the ground, serving in the infantry, you know, in the trenches, in
the mud, in my case, in Iraq, I can't imagine what it must be like for one of these frontline troops suddenly hearing that their intelligence has been
cut off, intelligence that they've relied on for two years.
The reality is that the fight in Ukraine has gone so well, largely because of American intelligence. In fact, I could make an argument that American
intelligence is even more important to this fight than American arms.
AMANPOUR: But why?
MOULTON: They're getting gets arms from a lot of places, but it's the American intelligence that's so important. So, people have to understand
just how devastating this is to Ukraine. And the only answer that we get from the administration is somehow this is Donald Trump trying to put the
screws to Zelenskyy, trying to put the screws to an ally, an ally that he just shamed in front of the international press.
There is no good reason why. I can't stand here and give you an honest answer for why that Trump is doing this, other than to just simply state
the obvious, which is that he seems to have taken sides in this war, and Donald Trump -- again, not every American, but Donald Trump has taken the
side of Vladimir Putin.
AMANPOUR: I wonder if anybody in Congress -- I've tried to figure it out from the Ukrainians, from the administration, and now I'm asking you, what
do you think is the substance of what President Trump says are good and constructive, you know, conversations with Putin and the Russians? What do
you think is contained in that?
MOULTON: I can't read the mind of Donald Trump. But I think that if you step back and try to look strategically at what this administration is
doing, they very much view the world in terms of spheres of influence. They don't want America to perpetuate the sort of Pax Americana, you know, to
help keep world order. They want America to retreat, just to our part of the world. That's why he talks about renewing the Monroe Doctrine. And he's
so focused on renaming the Gulf of Mexico into the Gulf of America.
I mean, that only matters if you only care about your backyard. He seems perfectly willing to cede Europe to the Europeans and to the Russians. And
obviously, the Russians are the biggest dog on the block there. He seems perfectly willing to cede Asia to the Chinese.
[13:15:00]
So, this is a total change of American foreign policy. It's not driven by any consensus. It's driven really by one or two men, Donald Trump, and I
think Elon Musk, the presidential sidekick adviser and chief seems to share this view, but that's kind of what's going on here. He wants to have a big
rapprochement with Vladimir Putin to say, hey, we can be friends now because we're going to give you control of that part of the world, and
we're just going to focus on our own backyard.
AMANPOUR: And again, just a couple of last questions. Why do you think they -- and actually this is a lot of Vance as well, the vice president,
they're gaslighting Ukraine, basically saying that Zelenskyy wants to continue the war, where he doesn't? As he said, we want peace, but not at
any cost. We need security guarantees.
And a recent a recent article in the Atlantic by Graeme Wood says last year Russia made slow progress. Tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of
thousands of Russian soldiers were killed or wounded. In exchange for Ukrainian territory slightly larger than the State of Rhode Island. At that
rate, Russia will control all of Ukraine in about 118 years.
I mean, that's -- that -- those are the facts on the ground. And yet, the president says that Zelenskyy has no cards, he's losing his country.
Obviously, it's going to be tough without American support. But again, they're doing that and they're dissing the Europeans. You saw what Vance
did. The prime minister of Britain today opened PMQs, parliamentary questions, by paying tribute to actually more than 600 Brits who had been
killed fighting alongside America in Iraq in 2003.
MOULTON: Trump is selling them out. I mean, there's not a better answer to this. I wish I could stand here as a proud American and tell you that
there's a rhyme or reason to what the president is doing. Tell you that even though I didn't -- I don't agree with him, he's from a different
political party, I didn't vote for him, we can be united on what we're doing with Ukraine.
There are a lot of Republicans, to their credit, who stood, you know, shoulder to shoulder with President Biden in supporting Ukraine policy
every time we had a Ukraine bill come through the Congress in the last couple years a majority of Republicans, almost all Democrats, but also a
majority of Republicans supported Ukraine aid.
But what's going on right now is -- I mean, let me be frank, Christiane, Donald Trump is acting like a puppet for Vladimir Putin. He's a puppet.
He's a puppet for this brutal dictator. And Vance is playing right along. I can't tell if Vance is more a puppet for Putin or just a puppet for Donald
Trump. But that's what's happening right now. And it is unbelievably devastating to the world order.
It's very dangerous for our national security in America. Our allies think that they can't trust us all around the world, not just in Europe. Our
adversaries see a huge opening to take advantage of us. Because we're apparently just going to let them walk all over us and our allies. This is
very, very dangerous for the United States of America. It's very dangerous for our allies. It's empowering dictators.
And a lot of Americans, including the majority of members of Congress, completely disagree with the president here.
AMANPOUR: Well, we wish. Honestly, we keep trying to engage with the administration. It's proven very impossible so far, and we're hoping that
we can in the future. But let's just get to DOGE and the Democratic response.
So, Washington Post in February says 49 percent of respondents disapprove of Musk and what DOGE is doing, you know, the wholesale chainsaw firings
and the pandemonium that's being created amongst federal workers, et cetera, only 34 approve, 49 do not.
But in your narrative, you know, if the president is struggling so badly, or however you see it, why are the Democrats also seem to be struggling in
how to respond? Let me first play a little bit from the great Senator Elissa Slotkin who -- she gave the formal Democratic response last night.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. ELISSA SLOTKIN (D-MI): Look, the president talked a big game on the economy, but it's always important to read the fine print. So, do his plans
actually help Americans get ahead, not even close. President Trump is trying to deliver an unprecedented giveaway to his billionaire friends.
He's on the hunt to find trillions of dollars to pass along to the wealthiest in America. And to do that, he's going to make you pay in every
part of your life.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, it's pretty robust, but in general, as you know, the view of the Democrats is that you're sort of gob smacked and you don't quite know
what to do. And I'm not just talking about punching back. I'm talking about policy and, you know, try to reverse all these things that you think are so
negative.
MOULTON: Well, I think there's two things that Democrats need to do, and I'm certainly doing what I can to do that. One is standing up vociferously
to Trump. And I've not been afraid to call him out on what needs to happen and what the administration is doing wrong.
But the second thing is that we really do need to look ourselves in the mirror as Democrats and ask the question, how is it that we have lost touch
with the majority of Americans? I mean, we just got wiped out in an election that should have been the easiest election in our history. We've
never had to run against an indicted criminal before, a convicted felon. This should have been so easy for Democrats, and yet, we lost across the
board.
[13:20:00]
So, we need to do some -- make some serious reforms to our own party. And I've written about how we've become a party of preachers. We talk down to
people. We say, if you disagree with us, you're not only wrong, but you're a bad person. We actually need to lift up the voices of Americans, meet
them where they are and bring them along, widen our tent to bring in different points of view rather than be beholden to some liberal orthodoxy.
We need to have plans to actually fix some of the things that the Republicans correctly identify as problems, it's just that their solutions
aren't helpful. I mean, is government reform something that we should do? Absolutely. I think you'd be hard pressed to find any American who believes
that the federal government is efficient. The problem is that what Elon Musk is doing is not making government more efficient, he's making it
nonexistent.
But Democrats have to have a plan in response. We shouldn't just sit back and watch Republicans ruin everything. We should have a plan to reform
government ourselves, and candidly, we haven't had that.
AMANPOUR: All right.
MOULTON: We also need to have plans to address immigration, another issue that we just denied for too long. So, we need to do some serious reform
efforts at the same time as we're standing up to Trump.
AMANPOUR: All right. Congressman Moulton, thank you very much indeed for joining us.
So, as the Trump administration launches this onslaught of sweeping change, it's not just the amount of news to report, but journalists are
increasingly finding themselves under threat. The White House is exercising more control over which media outlets cover the president, and major
networks of race to resist relations.
And at The Washington Post, billionaire owner Jeff Bezos forced an editorial shift, only publishing opinions supportive of quote, "personal
liberties and free markets."
Marty Baron became executive editor of The Washington Post just months before Bezos purchased it in 2013. And he's joining me now from
Massachusetts. Welcome back to the program, Marty. We've talked a lot about you know, all the challenges of press freedom, you know, not just under
this administration, but in general. Where are you right now?
You just heard Congressman Moulton saying that, you know, even those -- potentially even Republicans who disagree with certain policies are not
standing up. There's -- they're afraid, people are afraid. How do you view the position that the press in America is in right now?
MARTY BARON, FORMER EXECUTIVE EDITOR, THE WASHINGTON POST: Well, I think we face unprecedented challenges that we've never faced in my lifetime.
That's for sure. We have a president who is working with enormous determination to continue to undermine the public confidence in the press
and to go beyond that, to actually undermine the economic sustainability of the press.
That said, I think that a good portion of the press is doing a really good job, people reporting very aggressively on what's happening in this
administration, telling the public what it needs and deserves to know, getting behind the curtain, beneath the surface, all of that, including, I
should say, The Washington Post, which despite what's happened there, the news department is producing revelatory stories day after day, working with
enormous amount of energy, and I totally applaud that.
AMANPOUR: Let's just stay with The Washington Post for a moment, because it is sort of like a poster child of some of the new controls that are
being executed. Can you tell me what you make of Jeff Bezos' directive about the opinion page? That only opinions on free market and free
thinking, I mean, I'm paraphrasing, with no opposing views must be on that page. What does that even mean in real-life?
BARON: I'm not sure what it means. I have no idea what he suggests personal liberties. I don't know of a single columnist at The Washington
Post, who's opposed to personal liberties, but apparently, he thinks so. Otherwise, why is he suggesting that he's certainly suggesting that there
have been opinions on those pages and in that section that have not been in support of personal liberties.
As to free markets, well, I think he's fundamentally a libertarian. When it comes to markets. And -- but the question is, are there not going to be any
opinions published in the opinion section of The Washington Post that call for any sort of regulation, a regulation of the environment, regulation of
tech platforms, regulation of civil -- on civil rights, no regulation whatsoever? What is he referring to? He has not actually explained that.
They've been completely opaque about what this actually means.
AMANPOUR: Have you seen it? What's the evidence in the opinion page, or has it not started yet?
BARON: So, it has not been started yet, as far as I can tell. In fact, so many of the columns yesterday, or last night and today, in reaction to the
president's speech, have been sharply critical. So, I don't know how that's going to be -- how that's going to unfold.
[13:25:00]
It was only just a couple of days ago that the editor of the editorial page, David Shipley resigned because he could not accept the dictate of
Jeff Bezos with regard to the opinion pages. So, I think it's going to be some time before we see what this all means.
AMANPOUR: So, obviously in his first term, Trump was also very critical of the media. As you know, he called the mainstream media, the fake news enemy
of the people a lot, but things have changed. And he even telegraphed it on the campaign trail, I am your retribution. And this seems to be playing out
in the press, in our group as well.
You know, you've seen the A.P. kicked out for not using, I don't know, what can I say, a new term for a historically named Gulf of Mexico. White House
now selects a pool of reporters instead of the White House Correspondents Association.
Even the State Department has ordered employees to cancel subscriptions to things like The New York Times, Politico, Bloomberg, and the A.P. And
Hegseth, the defense secretary, has announced four long standing members of the Pentagon Press Corps were losing their offices. So, that's just a small
sort of look.
How should the press react? What is the -- what are our options?
BARON: Well, I think that we ought to stick together, all for one, one for all. I certainly think that the organizations that are covering the White
House should essentially share all of their content, all of their material, all their video, all their notes, all their photographs. Everybody should
have access to everything so that if somebody is not there, they get access to everybody else's work all at this all at the same time. I mean,
everything that they have.
I think that, you know, certainly we've been threatened with more lawsuits than before. Trump himself, of course, is suing -- has sued ABC and reached
a settlement with some pressure on ABC, obviously on Disney, the parent of ABC. There are settlement negotiations with regard to his private
litigation against CBS, with the suggestion that Paramount, the parent company of CBS, may not be able to execute a merger with Skydance as it
wishes to.
So, I think we -- there needs to be a fund, essentially, that -- a legal fund, really, that supports various media outlets when there is a major
case, a case of major principle.
AMANPOUR: I think that's really interesting to sort of figure out a group way of defending ourselves. But also, one for all and all for one, almost
like an Article 5, an attack on one is an attack on all, and each of us try to defend the other, and as you say, share our information. We did that on
the ground in some of the most dangerous wars, like in Sarajevo, we pooled all our info and all our video, and it actually worked under that life-
threatening circumstance. It was really interesting.
So, I always love this quote, and I always love to bring it out. It was written by the great Thomas Jefferson, 1787, in a letter to his friend,
talking about the importance of a free press in -- and the importance to democracy of maintaining an informed citizenry. He says, where it left to
me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer
the latter.
I think we know which way Trump is. But my question is, what happens if the former is in -- is the dominant?
BARON: Well, look, I mean, I think we -- you move toward autocracy. That's what's happening is that you see a lot of steps that Donald Trump has taken
today, or the kinds of steps that we've seen in governments that have moved in an authoritarian direction. Exactly the same sorts of steps. So, I think
we need to be worried about that. We need to see the direction that we're going, and the direction is enormously concerning.
Of course, look, Thomas Jefferson ultimately didn't like the press either because that's nature -- that's just the nature of things is that
inevitably the press is going to write things that the president doesn't like. But the founders of this country knew that it was important to have a
free and independent press. That's why they provided for it in the First Amendment to the Constitution. That's why James Madison, who was the
principal author, talked about the need for freely examining public characters and measures. Examining. examining is the word.
Look behind the curtain. Look beneath the surface. Find out what's happening in the government. Tell the public what it needs and deserves to
know in order for them to govern themselves. They make the ultimate decision.
But ultimately, you need a press that does that and that functions independently. And Trump is working in a very determined way to try to
undermine the press in every conceivable way that he can. And we are only, well, not that many weeks into this administration. You've got about four
more years to go. And he's going to continue doing that, and that is a real risk.
[13:30:00]
And, you know, there are other measures they're taking too, one of them is to try to -- the recommendations by the head of the FCC to Congress that
perhaps they should cut off all funding to public broadcasting. That would be NPR and PBS. He's also launched investigations of NPR and PBS for
sponsorships that they have, claiming that that violates -- that may violate the federal law against commercials on public broadcasting. If they
were to lose that funding and use, lose government funding, you can only imagine they would be highly unlikely to survive.
And at the same time, the head of the FCC is threatening the licenses of stations that are affiliated with. ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox oddly enough or
obviously enough, is excluded from the -- those threats. So, we're moving in a very concerning direction, and I'm very worried about how much farther
we're going to go.
AMANPOUR: One of the things people say about the First Amendment, it doesn't just empower us to have freedom of expression and speech, but they
say it also puts a responsibility on the owners of the press to also make sure that their platforms can operate under that First Amendment privilege
and law.
Tell me about -- you had a different experience with Bezos when he first arrived. Didn't you -- I mean, you went to the White House with him. He was
-- he seemed to be committed to, you know, rigorous reporting, which I know is still going on at The Washington Post, but there was none of this
business about changing the opinion pages or this last-minute decision not to, you know, do the traditional thing and endorse a candidate. What was
your experience at that time? How have things changed with Bezos at The Post?
BARON: Well, my experience was terrific. I mean, he supported me, he supported the independence of our newsroom. He lavished praise on the
coverage of The Washington Post and on my leadership of the newsroom. He lavished praise on my colleague who was leading the editorial pages at the
time. He said they were killing it, you know, using the slang of unreserved approval. And that's the way it was for a very, very long period of time.
But more recently, we've seen him become more accommodating, making gestures and overtures to Trump to seemingly try to repair the relationship
with Trump a variety of measures, you know, donation to the inauguration, gushing -- overly gushing congratulations on his victory in November.
Purchase -- Amazon purchasing the rights to a so-called documentary about Melania Trump, paying $40 million for that, which was three times what the
next highest bidder offered, appearing on the dance during the inauguration.
You know, when Bezos just made the decision not to -- that The Washington Post should not publish an endorsement for president, something that was
announced only 11 days before the election last November, he said that all of us need to work harder to establish our credibility.
You know, appearing on that day is -- did not look to me like working harder to establish the credibility of The Washington Post, nor did it send
a signal of independence. It sent a signal of dependence. Dependence on the good graces of Donald Trump.
AMANPOUR: I just want to go -- you know, take a last question because it is all about the owners, right? And what they're prepared to do to defend
their press platforms. So, you know, we've talked about Bezos, you've talked about the others who are under threat. And of course, at the L.A.
Times, their billionaire owner is -- you know, has been intervening as well.
We've seen how Musk and Zuckerberg have removed all fact checking and stuff from their social media platforms. But I just want to read you what the
former New York Times journalist Andrew Rosenthal wrote for the Columbia Journalism Review. So, he said, I was editorial page editor at The New York
Times for about nine years. My boss was a rich man, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., who correctly felt it was his right to take a part in the opinion coverage.
We had debates and we had arguments. Some of them long and quite energetic. Some I won and some I lost, but never in my wildest imagination did I
believe Arthur would ever wrap himself in the American flag and order us to produce an entirely one-sided opinion report. He never did.
I don't know what the question out of that is, but it seems also these billionaires need their platforms as well, for some reason.
BARON: Well, I think Christiane, that's what's so concerning about this latest maneuver by Jeff Bezos. Look, he can decide what the editorials
should say. He's the owner of the newspaper. If he wants the editorials to reflect his own political point of view, well, that's his prerogative,
absolutely.
[13:35:00]
But to say that no other opinions are permitted, that they are not welcome in this territory that -- of the editorial territory that he controls is --
first of all, it's against the heritage and history of The Washington Post, which has always welcomed the wide variety of opinions over the last
several years, actually beyond that. They've increased the number of conservative voices on -- in that section and on those pages.
And, you know, that is -- the whole idea of that was to celebrate and honor free expression. And that is the most -- you know, Bezos talks about
personal liberties. The most fundamental personal liberty that Americans have is the right to free expression. And they -- and newspapers have
traditionally honored that by allowing a wide range of views on -- in their opinion section.
And now, to say, no, we're not going to have a wide range of views. You can go to, you know, find those things -- those sorts of things elsewhere.
We're going to have only essentially one point of view, the view that it's aligned with my own personal ideology, day after day after day, that's the
only thing you're going to see.
My view is that is -- you know, here you have a newspaper that portrays itself and always has been a defender of democracy, but that is a maneuver
that is highly undemocratic.
AMANPOUR: And I think -- isn't it your paper that used to say democracy dies in the dark? Anyway --
BARON: They still say that.
AMANPOUR: They still do.
BARON: They still say that.
AMANPOUR: OK. Well, that's good. That's still a commitment. Marty Baron, thank you so much for being with us.
The Trump administration has been vocal about freedom of speech, as we've been discussing, but the recent string of event cancellations at the Jimmy
Carter Presidential Library suggests otherwise. One of them was for the award-winning journalist Elaine Weiss, whose new book, "Spell Freedom,"
focuses on four brave activists who laid the foundation of the civil rights movement. Other events on climate change and homelessness were also pulled
from programming, a move which Weiss believes is a result of budget cuts and new leadership in the National Archives. And she joins Michel Martin to
discuss the relevance of her latest work in today's America.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, Christiane. Elaine Weiss, thank you so much for joining us.
ELAINE WEISS, AUTHOR, "SPELL FREEDOM": My pleasure.
MARTIN: You know, you've written a number of books, and they all kind of have something in common. Would you say what it is?
WEISS: Well, I tried to explore the untold stories in American history, not totally unknown, but sometimes not recognized for how important or how
instrumental that part of our history was. And so, I wrote about women in World War I and how women, American women won the vote, and now, how black
women and black men in the deep south regained their right to vote.
So, I guess the thread is I do like to write about women in history because I think they've been a bit neglected and I like to write about how change
happens in a democracy.
MARTIN: So, let's just start with the story of where this story starts. It starts with Brown v. Board of Ed., that famous Supreme Court decision that
outlawed segregation in the schools. Why do you start there?
WEISS: I start on the day, May 17, 1954, that the Brown decision is announced because it's certainly not the beginning of the struggle for
civil rights in our country, but it becomes a galvanizing moment when realized that for the first time, the American -- the highest court in the
land in America has decided that, indeed, separate is not equal.
And while it specifically talks about desegregating public schools, it's recognized right away that this is the opening for attacking Jim Crow
segregation on all levels. So, it's a really important moment.
MARTIN: Well, so the focus of the book is so-called citizenship schools. So, first of all, tell us what citizenship schools were and what -- and why
in the wake of Brown were they important?
WEISS: Citizenship schools were a very innovative and courageous way of trying to get ordinary, often poor and unlettered black citizens to be able
to register to vote. Again, the Brown decision only dealt with desegregation, it did not deal with voting rights. And we'll see for the
next 15 years that desegregation moves very, very slowly. And it becomes obvious that nothing's going to really happen until black people in the
south can regain their right to vote.
So, the way the citizenship schools began was to teach literacy, to teach people who had never been able to have an education because education was a
tool of control in the South and like the white establishment did not want black people to be well educated.
[13:40:00]
And so, very few were -- actually, especially in rural areas, were literate, and they couldn't pass the literacy tests, which were required of
black people to register to vote. And so, this taught them, at the very basic level, how to hold a pencil, how to sign their names by tracing it
over and over, and then learning their letters, learning to sound out words, learning arithmetic. And this was all designed to get them through
the very basic onerous literacy tests.
But it was more than that, it taught them to be citizens. It taught them the Constitution. It taught them what their rights really were. And it
taught them that they were first class citizens as much as any other American, and they deserve all the protections and privileges of
citizenship.
And these -- this isn't like brick-and-mortar schools. These are informal community classes taught by your neighbors, and they teach their neighbors
in their kitchens, in their garages, in beauty parlors at night with the curtains closed because it was still dangerous to be teaching literacy to
black people with the intent of having them register to vote. There was danger involved.
MARTIN: You know, so I think some people -- I think some people, at least one hopes that some people know that it was illegal in most places to teach
enslaved people how to read and write. But after the Civil War, you know, after the period when slavery was, you know, more or less abolished, right,
why is it that so many black citizens remained illiterate? Why is that?
WEISS: Because, again, it was a matter of control. So, of course, black schools in the south were segregated. And for every dollar spent on
education of a white person, just pennies were expended on educating a black student. And the facilities were deplorable, there were shacks
without blackboards, without -- often without seats, with no plumbing, with no toilet facilities, with cast off decade's old textbooks.
And often, if you were in a rural area part of the arrangement of your family being a sharecropper were that children were also required to go
into the fields. And so, their education was very interrupted. So, you'll see that people will have maybe first or second grade education decades
ago. And that's about it. And some had none.
MARTIN: Septima Clark is one of the people who you feature, you know, in the book. And she may be one of the only people that many people will have
heard of. She was an educator. How did that happen? How was she able to get enough education in order for her to be an educator? And I'm going to ask
you how she fits into the story of the citizenship schools.
WEISS: Septima Clark born and raised in Charleston, daughter of a former enslaved father. She grows up quite poor, but a family that really valued
education, and she loved reading and writing in school. And her parents scrimped to pay the tuition to some private elementary schools. And then,
she is able to go to the Avery Institute, which is the premier private high school in Charleston, which had trained many of the black leaders in the
city for decades.
And she becomes a teacher at age 18 and is able to be a teacher for the next 40 years and uses that education in the civil rights movement. So,
that's how she is able -- she can vote. She joins the NAACP when she is 18 or 19 years old, she joins the executive boards of the NAACP in her cities,
and she is dedicated to breaking down the walls of Jim Crow society, and that she is one of the people who are educated and realize that those who
aren't are at such a disadvantage and they can't participate either in modern life or in the life of their country.
MARTIN: So, tell us about the Citizenship Goals. Who started them? Whose idea was this? Tell us about him.
WEISS: It was the idea of Esau Jenkins, who's this marvelously creative man on one of the sea islands off the coast of Charleston. And he has a
fourth-grade education, but he's gone back to night school. And he's a businessman. He's what we might call a social entrepreneur. He is doing
good. And he has this idea that his neighbors on the island are always going to be neglected and subjected to the power of the white society and
an injustice in the courts unless they have political power.
[13:45:00]
So, he has a business running a bus, a jeepney bus back and forth from John's Island to Charleston every day, taking workers who live on the
island and are domestics or factory workers in town. And on the bus, he trains them, he has the Constitution typed up by his wife. He hands out
these sheets and he drills them on aspects of the Constitution so they could answer, because you not only had to read, you had to interpret the
legal aspects of this arcane language. And he drills them on it, and then he accompanies them to the registrar office to see that there's no
shenanigans.
But he realizes he needs help on this, and he finds that help with Septima Clark, who he actually knows, because they both live in Charleston and
active in the NAACP. And he brings this idea to a place in Tennessee called the Highlander School, which is a social justice training center.
And there, they get the idea to take the -- his -- the sense of teaching the Constitution of the state, getting them through the literacy test, but
broadening it to basic literacy so they can actually read. Most of them were memorizing this. And then it's the first citizenship is established
behind the shelves of a grocery store on John's Island.
And it's in a room where there is no windows. They don't want white people to know that they are teaching blacks to read and write in order to vote.
MARTIN: But you also tell in the book about what the consequences for other people when they did try to vote. So, talk a little bit about that,
if you would.
WEISS: Well, there was just a whole system of suppression of the black vote. And I'm not talking about what we would call suppression today. It
was violent. If you even attempted to try to register to vote, by the time you returned home, the registrar would have called your employer and you'd
be fired from your job, would've called your landlord, or the man who owned the property where you were sharecropper, you'd be evicted, your loans
would be pulled, your truck would be repossessed. The pharmacy wouldn't fill the prescription for your sick baby. Night riders would come and shoot
into your home.
In one town in East Tennessee there's an organized effort to go register to vote. All of the black families are evicted. 200 people live in a tent camp
for two years. So, the repression was violent and cruel and ubiquitous.
MARTIN: There's a really interesting -- there's another interesting character, Myles Horton.
WEISS: Yes.
MARTIN: Who runs this, the Highlander Folk School. Now, he's a really interesting character. He's white. He's not African-American. He runs this
school. He is not beloved by the powers that be, you know, because of it. But -- so, to tell us his story. He doesn't just -- he doesn't start out,
actually, as a way to educate black folks per se.
WEISS: Right. So, Myles Horton is born and bred in the Cumberland Mountains of Tennessee, grows up poor. His family were sharecroppers and
also teachers and he begins to understand that the power to change life in Appalachia, where he grows up is really with the people. He -- you can't
rely on the laws or the powers that be to change it.
And so, he gets -- he studies theology and sociology and gets the idea of this starting a school. It's not really what we would call a school, it's a
training center, a place where, from the beginning was integrated, which is against the laws of Tennessee. He very proudly said that Highlander School
was the only place in the south where blacks and whites could tea and pee together. They could live together. They ate together at the same tables.
All of this totally illegal by Jim Crow laws.
And he's very proud. He calls himself a radical hillbilly. And he's focused at first on the labor movement and it becomes -- Highlander becomes a
training center for union organizers. But then he realizes, around 1950, that race is the real determining factor that's keeping the south behind.
And he says, we've got to tackle this before we can improve anything. And so, he shifts the emphasis of the training center to race relations and
desegregation.
[13:50:00]
MARTIN: So, it's a fascinating story, you know, that you tell, pointing out how they organized and taught themselves and taught their neighbors so
that they could not subvert democratic systems, but actually participate in them fully.
Now, you'd think that would be an inspiring story that people would be very interested in hearing, but I understand that last month you had a book
event scheduled at the Jimmy Carter Presidential Library in Atlanta, which is overseen by the National Archives, and this event was suddenly canceled.
Why?
WEISS: They said the event was canceled. They explained to my publisher that there were staffing difficulties, because there were -- because like
most federal employees, staffing has been slashed by this administration.
But the thing that was concerning was that, although it had been approved and was all the way up on the website, and was announced my event in mid-
March it clearly needed to be reassessed by the new administration, and the president had fired the archivist of the United States just a couple weeks
before. And all the top leadership of the National Archives, which runs the presidential, is responsible for the Presidential Libraries had been pretty
much forced out.
So, there was a very new administration at the National Archives. Programming had to be re-approved, and there were three events, book events
at the Carter Library in March that were canceled, that had been approved before. And --
MARTIN: Do you know what the others were?
WEISS: Yes, these were -- one was a book about homelessness, and the other was a book about climate change. And mine's about race and voting rights.
MARTIN: So, do you think it's related to the content of the book, basically?
WEISS: I think that is a logical conclusion because this is happening in many government agencies right now under the new administration.
MARTIN: Well, I can tell you, I think I have it here. It says the press office didn't answer directly whether it had discussed the events with the
Carter Library, but in the statement, it said it, quote/unquote, "entrusts leadership at each Presidential Library to make programming decisions." And
it says that programs and events must always advance and uphold NARA, the National Archives' core mission to preserve the records of the United
States and make them available to the public on this issue. Leadership at the Carter Presidential Library is empowered to make their own decisions
about scheduling events and programs.
So, what does this bring up for you?
WEISS: It was disturbing to me, because I realized I was probably not alone. And I'll be fine. The book talk has been rescheduled at another
library in Atlanta. And I think the other authors also will be rescheduled.
But this speaks to a larger issue. And we're seeing that with the administration trying to assert control over many of our cultural and
scholarly and scientific organizations. And I think this is disturbing. And there's an emphasis right now with the -- in the Arts Endowment and in the
Humanities Endowment to promote patriotic education and what they would call patriotic expressions of American history and American arts.
And what I would say is, I think the story of the citizenship schools and the incredibly brave thousands of black Americans who participated in these
and taught them and raised up their neighbors to demand their rights as American citizens is the most patriotic story I can imagine.
And I think this is the kind of patriotism we should be celebrating. And these are the kind of people who really defend democracy. These are the
people who defend democracy, lift it up to its highest, highest ideals, the ideals that we talk about a lot as American ideals, but they were holding
us to the line and saying, OK, act on them. And I think that's the most patriotic thing an American can do.
MARTIN: Elaine Weiss, thanks so much for talking with us.
WEISS: Thank you. A great pleasure, Michel. Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And finally, tonight, it's a big week for Brazil. The Rio Carnival, the biggest and brightest in the world, has started. Fresh off
Sunday's Oscar win for Best International Feature Film, "I'm Still Here," which has been a source of national pride.
[13:55:00]
And revelers are dressing up as the lead actress, Fernanda Torres. The parades and street parties will run until Saturday. And Torres noted that,
quote, "It's the peak of fame in Brazil to become a costume at the carnival." And when asked on the red carpet at the Academy Awards what gift
she wanted to receive from her family, she replied, the Queen of Carnival. Looks like that dream came true.
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 London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
