Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Latvian Foreign Minister Baiba Braze; Interview with WIRED Senior Tech and Politics Reporter Makena Kelly; Interview with Save the Children U.K. Senior Media Manager Shaima Al-Obaidi; Interview with "Red Scare" Author Clay Risen. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired March 25, 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]
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETE HEGSETH, U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Nobody was texting war plans.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: U.S. is saying for Europe out in the open, in an extraordinary intelligence breach, I get reaction from Latvia's foreign minister Baiba
Braze.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: They're finding levels of fraud and waste and abuse like I think nobody ever thought possible.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- Elon Musk's DOGE charges through Washington. What is breaking in its wake. Senior politics reporter at WIRED Makena Kelly tells
me why this could be a digital coup.
Plus --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SHAIMA AL-OBAIDI, SENIOR MEDIA MANAGER, SAVE THE CHILDREN U.K.: I don't have the words to describe the deaths of the suffering here.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- the reality of childhood under bombardment. We hear testimony from Save the Children Shaima Al-Obaidi inside Gaza.
Also, ahead --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CLAY RISEN, AUTHOR, "RED SCARE": Every day I wake up and there is a news story that reminds me of something from that era from my book.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: "Red Scare" author Clay Risen tells Hari Sreenivasan Boin how that historical period shaped modern America.
Welcome to the program everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
In what would mark a small but significant diplomatic breakthrough, the White House says Ukraine and Russia have agreed to stop using military
force in the Black Sea, but Russia says that will only go into effect once sanctions are lifted on its financial institutions.
Now, all this comes on the heels of a staggering intelligence breach that is sending shockwaves through Washington. American officials appear to game
out strikes on Houthis targets in Yemen on the messaging app Signal. And messages inadvertently shared with the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic,
Jeffrey Goldberg. President Trump says National Security Adviser Michael Waltz has, quote, "learned a lesson and he's a good man."
But this extraordinary security failure has also exposed America's newfound hostility towards its own allies. Pathetic, freeloading, that is how us
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth describes Europe. For those allies, the closed-door attitudes on display are worrying, especially at this critical
moment as Ukraine's future hangs in the balance and for other countries on the frontline with Russia. The fear of an emboldened Putin and an absent
U.S. is all too real.
Baiba Braze is Latvia's foreign minister who joins me now from Washington, D.C. Madam Foreign Minister, thank you so much for taking the time. I know
you met with the secretary of state, Rubio, and I want to ask you about that meeting in just a moment. But if you could respond with your reaction
to what appears to be a very limited and not much detail oriented potential ceasefire specifically around the Black Sea.
BAIBA BRAZE, LATVIAN FOREIGN MINISTER: Listen, as you rightly point out -- first, thanks for having me. And as you rightly pointed out, there is too
little information currently to really know what has been agreed or not and what are the sort of parameters of a possible deal. So, it's very difficult
to comment on some things that we don't know. So, I will restrain myself from doing that.
GOLODRYGA: The fact though that it would involve U.S. lifting some sanctions against Russia this early on into these negotiations tells you
what though?
BRAZE: Again, we don't know what is or what is not agreed or decided. And quite clearly, from our perspective, sanctions give a leverage in
negotiations to the U.S. side, to the Ukrainian side, to the Europeans. So, there is some things that it we have to remember both in terms of
negotiation tactics, but also actually on degrading Russia's military capability, because that is one of the issues that need to be dealt with
also in preventing a possible restart of the war. That currently we don't see Russia, we don't see any indication in Russia that they really are
going for peace seriously or the instruments of power, whether it's a political, religious, military, economics, or anything else is oriented
towards war.
[13:05:00]
So, we welcome very much the effort of President Trump and the administration, and we covered that in our meeting between the Baltic
foreign ministers and Secretary Rubio, that we fully support those peace efforts. And of course, we are at the beginning of the process and we need
to maintain that calm and perspective that, OK, this is the start of the process, but it's not done yet. And to achieve the sustainable peace, we
have to have Ukraine that agrees on its own to various elements of a possible peace deal, but we also need constantly to pressure Russia to
actually be truthful about the peace negotiations. So, I think those elements have to be there.
GOLODRYGA: You along with the other Baltic NATO members know firsthand exactly what it is like, to be invaded and forced to be part of a country
that, that you are not part of. Obviously having been part of the Soviet Union for so many years and now a member of NATO and there on the
frontlines there literally, physically, your proximity to Russia, it is indeed so close.
And you see the expenditure in terms of your GDP and the GDP of the other Baltic nations among the highest of NATO members. I believe you're at 3.5
percent and you forecast to even spend up to 5 percent of GDP on defense in the near future.
What were the conversations that you had that you can share with us with Secretary State Rubio about your concerns as to Russia's longer-term
aspirations? And this is an administration that has long been critical about the amount of investment European allies have been putting into their
own defense that can't be said about your nation and other Baltic countries. So, give us, if you can, share any information you can about the
meeting with the secretary of state today.
BRAZE: Listen, first of all, the Baltic states are 107-year-old democracies, and yes, out of those 107 years, for 50 years, we were
occupied, illegally occupied by the Soviet Union, and it was the United States, United Kingdom, and majority of the Western states that never
recognized that Soviet occupation is legal.
So, we continued to de facto exist and the -- continued working, also our embassies continued working here in Washington and London and other places.
So, it was that non-recognition of occupation policy or way of Samuel Wills doctrines that actually did provide also the legal basis for regaining
independence in 1990.
So, today, the meeting with Secretary Rubio was quite excellent. There is no other word for that. As he said, as we agreed, we are perfect allies. We
don't have any bilateral issues. We don't have any type of problems in our relationship that need solving. So, all the countries on the border with
Russia, starting from Norway to Finland, to the Baltic states, down to Poland, and so on and so forth, Germany have decided to raise defense
budgets.
But again, it's not just because we had the urge from President Trump's first administration, but actually, because we have clearly seen the
threat. Russia is a threat to the whole Euro-Atlantic security. It has a capabilities intent, but also it decided to attack a country in Europe. So,
we take our defense and security seriously. And we did thank President Trump and Secretary Rubio very much for their support to the Baltic states,
for their clear commitment to NATO, for their clear commitment also to urge those who are not investing in defense as much as would be needed. And
there are elements that we jointly work together to make sure we actually correct that.
But -- so, there are -- you know, I wouldn't say that it's European type of problem because European allies are also quite different among themselves,
and NATO is more than just European Alliance. We also have Tokyo (ph), we have Canada, we have other allies. So, it's a transatlantic alliance and
that transatlantic bond is very, very strong. So, we thank President Trump and Secretary Rubio for that.
GOLODRYGA: You come at a very tense time though, as I'm sure you have heard the news of this bombshell reporting in security breach of top
administration officials and cabinet members discussing war plans and strikes against Yemen over an encrypted app called Signal.
[13:10:00]
And in these discussions, as has been reported by a journalist, a reputable journalist here in the United States, who had inadvertently been admitted
into this chat group, the vice president himself said things along the lines of, I hate bailing Europe out again. The secretary of defense says
that he hates freeloading Europe. It is pathetic.
So, I know you said you had an excellent conversation with the secretary of state. We should know that he too was on this chat group. What is your
response to this type of characterization from a close ally?
BRAZE: Listen, I can't comment on Signal chat groups and, you know, conversations happening there. We all make mistakes. Sometimes that
happens. It's just that's a reality. It's not connected to Signal. It can happen in real-life. But I think everybody needs to sort of make their
conclusions and that is a lesson learned, I think, for everyone that things can happen.
The other part, again, on the European spending or spending of some European allies who are below what should be spent, there are pretty frank
conversations ongoing. They don't need to be so public always. That -- again, we have joint NATO's defense plans. Those defense plans provide for
certain capabilities that we all need for the new force structure of NATO forces for other commitments. So, that is something that we all have vested
interests in across the alliance to reach, and that is where everybody needs to contribute. So, pretty straightforward.
You saw that also at the European Union level, which is not a political military alliance, but it's a totally different type of organization, but
there have been decisions that have been made which will contribute to that. So, again, between European countries at large and the U.S., I think
our relationship both in trades, in investments, in trade off services, the strongest we have seen.
We are each other largest investor by far, by far, 400 billion or more. We have biggest trade relationship among all trade partners in the world. U.S.
trade of services to Europe is the highest that it has been. So, that relationship obviously has its ups and downs, that's normal among the
partners. It's not like we don't have those type of issues within Europe. Of course, we do.
GOLODRYGA: Well, Foreign Minister, we just --
BRAZE: But again --
GOLODRYGA: In the limited time, we do have, and I'm only raising this because these are among the top advisers and trusted members surrounding
the president himself. This is separate from the WhatsApp chat group. In a public interview, Steve Witkoff, one of his top advisers who's met with
Vladimir Putin twice, just said over the weekend when asked, if you think Russians want to march across Europe, he said, 100 percent not. Do you
share that certainty that Vladimir Putin doesn't want to continue marching across Europe?
BRAZE: Listen, as a rule, we don't comment on some comments by other officials because, again, everybody has a right on -- of their opinions.
So, that is something that I never do. But in the same time, of course, taking that aside about Russia, I already shared our skepticism about
Russia's intentions. They keep reminding that the root causes of the war in Ukraine, of their aggression in Ukraine need to be eliminated.
Listen, those root causes are Russia's imperial sort of attitudes and colonial policies. If you look the way they conduct their policies in
Africa through the so-called Africa core access of resources, they're trying to sort of take it out and take to Russia the gold from Sudan and,
you know, other natural resources from elsewhere, or the objectives in Ukraine, which was actually to make sure that Ukraine doesn't have its own
independent decision making.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, that's just --
BRAZE: I think we just have to -- aware that this is what Russia wants and we shouldn't let them get it through the stocks (ph).
GOLODRYGA: And in your opinion, not a territorial dispute then as Steve Witkoff has described it. Madam Foreign Minister, thank you so much for
taking the time. We appreciate it.
BRAZE: Thank you so much. And again, we are all for peace, for lasting peace.
GOLODRYGA: That's great to hear. And we'll be right back after the short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:15:00]
GOLODRYGA: Well, now to the extraordinary site of military operations being planned out on Signal is just the latest example of this government's
unprecedented approach to tech and communication. And it's also the latest in a series of blunders, many of them at the hands of Elon Musk's,
Department of Government Efficiency.
It has set about a dismantling government teams and programs left, right, and center, and causing a lot of chaos in equal measure. Ebola prevention
was canceled and restored. Nuclear security staff were fired and rehired. So, who is behind this and what is at stake here?
Makena Kelly has been following this story closely as a senior political reporter at WIRED, and joins us from New York. Makena, thank you so much.
Before we get to the DOGE story, let me just ask you about this stunning development of the security risk that had been exposed by Jeffrey Goldberg
at The Atlantic that we just talked about with the foreign minister about a war planning being mapped out over Signal, the Signal app, an encrypted
app, but something that has never been done before in terms of these types of principles discussing such a highly secret operation. Talk about your
reaction when you first heard this story and the consequences of this type of behavior.
MAKENA KELLY, SENIOR TECH AND POLITICS REPORTER, WIRED: Sure. It was definitely a surprising development to hear. But I think just like
everything that we've seen with the Department of Government Efficiency, or at least the so-called Department of Government Efficiency these past two
months, a little over two months of this administration, a lot of things have happened, right, that we have never seen happen before. And so, of
course it was surprising, but in many ways, it was unsurprising, right? Looking at the trajectory of how DOGE has operated over the last few
months.
GOLODRYGA: And how quickly they've operated. I mean, he's planted teams in almost every single department and administrative office in the government
in just two months' time. You describe this as Musk's digital coup. Explain what that means.
KELLY: That was actually a source of mine who current -- was working at USAID at the time who called the incursion of Elon Musk's DOGE team on USA
a digital coup. I think that is an apt description of it, speaking to folks at USAID and all the agencies that we've been speaking to. When DOGE folks
have entered these agencies, it has been sudden. And it has been all encompassing with folks who are -- you know, anywhere from a 19-year-old
kid who likes to go buy big balls online, right, to people who've been working in Silicon Valley for decades are gaining what to many believe
unprecedented access to government systems across agencies.
GOLODRYGA: So, some of these employees are eager to do what Elon Musk says is a necessity here and what he set aside out for even on the campaign
trail, we should note. But others have actually stepped back and complained to you of resigning from their position. One told you -- one DOGE employee
told you that she resigned because she didn't want to, quote, "work on a complete dismantlement of government systems."
What is the ultimate goal here, in your view, from Elon Musk and why is there so much disdain for the federal workforce?
KELLY: Yes. When you talk to folks who are actually employed at agencies, like what was previously called the United States Digital Service, which
has now been rebranded to the U.S. DOGE Service, or folks who used to work for something called the Technology Transformation Services within the
General Services Administration, these are folks who have already been brought in from industry, right? Folks who have been spending, you know,
their careers in the private sector, wanting to do a tour in the public sector, in government, to use the skills that they've learned to make
government run more efficiently.
[13:20:00]
That's actually what a lot of these, you know, small little groups and organizations like USDS was created to do, focusing on efficiency. So,
there's been bodies of folks doing this for a while. When you talk about folks within the federal workforce being disdainful in what it is that Elon
Musk is doing, well, they see it's someone coming in telling them to completely rip up what they've been doing with their jobs. And this has
already been their goal for more than a decade at this point.
GOLODRYGA: And access to so much information. I mean, you report that Musk and those that work for him there have gained access to, quote, "untold
terabytes of data." What are the risks of having so much data like this floating around? Again, you say some of these employees or in their 20s,
don't know if they have security clearances. Tell us what's at stake.
KELLY: Yes. There's a lot at stake here, specifically when it comes to -- when you look at folks who -- I think Thomas Shedd at the -- at GSA is a
very good example. He's a former Tesla engineer who now is the director of the Technology Transformation Services. He's someone who has unprecedented
access to systems that operate government websites, even just at GSA, but also across government.
And if his laptop, you know, for instance was -- somebody -- we had somebody -- some hostile actor who, A, either was able to just grab his
laptop or B, able to hack into the system, then all of a sudden, they have this unprecedented access to so many government systems. So, that's one of
the, like, security risks going on.
And of course, there's these kids who, many of them, you know, have just gotten out of school or don't have a lot of work history, period, right,
even private sector or public sector, and these folks now who have never dealt with this data before, now have a lot of this data accessible on the
systems that they're carrying to all these agencies every day.
One source that USA described to me that some of these teenagers were showing up with backpacks full of six or seven laptops. And the fact that
the -- you know, the backpacks are open, you could see all of these laptops in there, seems like a security threat in and of itself.
GOLODRYGA: And the question of legality obviously has been raised. There are multiple law cases now before judges and justices have actually
suggested that a lot of what Elon Musk and DOGE are doing is unconstitutional. You've covered Elon Musk for a long time. Does he abide
by court rulings and decision making there? Because we know he's been attacking a lot of these judges on X and publicly, well, he'll actually
though abide by their rulings at the end of the day?
KELLY: That's to be seen. He, of course, doesn't -- if he very rarely have courts, you know, vote -- ruled in opposition to Trump. But when they do,
in cases like when Elon wanted to back out of the Twitter deal and things like that, he was not able to do so and became irate at the Chancery Court
in Delaware.
And so, looking at, you know, forward, I think a lot of what we'll see from Elon Musk in response will come from at the hand of, you know, what the
Trump administration wants him to do, because at this point, it seems like that is the only person, President Donald Trump, that Elon might even take
any advice from or direction from.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And he's his biggest fundraiser. I mean, there are many reasons as to why he would keep him around. The question is for how long
and at what point does he become just an added liability to the president.
On the surface, any American would say, sure, we want to cut excess spending and waste, fraud, and abuse, but given the tactics that we've seen
DOGE and Elon Musk use, how popular is DOGE among Americans right now?
KELLY: Yes. It seems like Elon Musk himself has been tanking in popularity. We've seen the response that folks have had with protests
outside of Tesla dealerships protesting his -- you know, his Cybertrucks. It seems like it's dangerous to be driving a Cybertruck if you don't want
it to be, you know, with a note written on it, saying something mean about Elon Musk, are you buying it?
It seems as if, you know, his popularity is tanking. Of course, that could just be a sudden, you know, response to everything that's happening now.
He's, you know, of course bounced back from dips in popularity before, but this is definitely having a lasting impression because it's not just, you
know, a change in the stock price of Tesla, right, this is real people's lives, folks who are losing jobs, careers that they've spent decades with.
And there's over 2 million folks in the federal workforce, and that's a lot of people, maybe at the end of the day driving public opinion.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, and we've seen vandalism against some of his products and cars as well. The FBI is opening an investigation into what they describe
as terrorism, actually. At the end of the day, how do you think this ends?
[13:25:00]
There had been a betting market that Trump would get tired and bored of Elon Musk, that you can't have two peoples with such big egos both saying,
you know, running the country essentially. Do you see Elon Musk growing board in bailing out earlier, or do you think this ultimately depends on
what President Trump decides to do?
KELLY: Yes. When it comes to Elon Musk bouncing, he's done this before, he's done this at a number of companies. He'll spend a lot of time at
SpaceX, and then he'll spend a lot of time at Tesla. And then his -- you know, in 2022, his new exciting thing, his new little toy was X, or, you
know, it was formerly called Twitter.
And so, right now, I feel as if DOGE is that shiny new thing for him right now. But that could change, you know, in the future, in the near future.
And so, we -- he has a way of operating. We've seen the way that his attention just changes as -- you know, changes depending on what it is that
he's interested in. And I assume maybe in, you know, the next little while he might find something else or this job, you know, working within the
Trump administration becomes a very fruitful thing for him and maybe he stays a little longer.
GOLODRYGA: Keeps that golden chainsaw a little bit longer. We'll see. Makena Kelly, thank you so much for joining us.
KELLY: Yes. Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: Well, we turn now to the occupied West Bank where the Palestinian co-director of the Oscar winning film, "No Other Land," Hamdan
Ballal, has been released from Israeli custody after being held overnight in police detention. His lawyer says that he was held arbitrarily.
Eyewitnesses say that he was beaten up by Israeli settlers on Monday evening before being detained by soldiers.
The Israeli military says that it arrived at the scene of a violent confrontation between Palestinians and Israelis who were throwing rocks at
each other.
Ballal is a Palestinian farmer who had been subject to intimidation by Israeli settlers before this latest incident. His lawyer is warning that
his release doesn't mean that the harassment is over.
Meanwhile, in Gaza, a grim milestone, more than 50,000 Palestinians have been killed since October 7, 2023, according to the health ministry there.
It has published the names of more than 15,000 children it says have been killed by Israel, including 890 children under the age of one. Israel
disputes the figures saying that the ministry records natural deaths. But for the children in Gaza, a peaceful childhood is a distant reality.
During the brief ceasefire, aid workers flooded in to help, including my next guest, Shaima Al-Obaidi with Save the Children U.S. Shaima Al-Obaidi,
excuse me, with Save the Children U.S. Now, as the war resumes, I spoke to her about what she is seeing in Deir al Balah Gaza. And a warning parts of
this interview might be difficult to hear.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: Shaima, thank you so much for taking the time to join us on this very important story. Earlier this week, the Gaza health ministry
published a list of over 15,000 names of children who have been killed in this war, all under the age of 18, among them nearly 900 children were
under the age of one. 274 were born and died during the war, 26 percent under the age of five. Israel, we should note, has disputed these figures
but didn't offer its own figures in response.
You're on the ground there in Gaza. I'm just curious what you're seeing, what you're hearing from the children.
SHAIMA AL-OBAIDI, SENIOR MEDIA MANAGER, SAVE THE CHILDREN U.K.: The mood in Gaza from when I arrived to how it is now has shifted drastically. I
think when I arrived during the brief pause in hostilities, there was a lot of hope, a lot of people rebuilding their lives. But that night that the
war resumed it all just descended like a nightmare. It came without warning. It was aggressive. It was intense. The entire Gaza strip was under
attack. Fear is definitely in the air. People are emotionally drained. They're depressed.
They were just starting to rebuild their lives and, you know, just feel excited for the future. And now, they face more devastation. There's a lot
of uncertainty. People keep saying, am I the next target? And like simple phrases like, I'll see you tomorrow, they just carry an unbearable gravity,
because no one knows if they'll be seeing each other tomorrow.
Every day since the attacks, we've been hearing bombs, we've been hearing drones, artilleries, helicopter, gunships. So, last night, for example,
there was a really loud explosion from a bomb, and it rattled the whole house.
GOLODRYGA: The night that the war resumed, I believe that was March 18th. Tell us about that day.
[13:30:00]
AL-OBAIDI: I mean, it was just the most terrifying, terrifying night of my life. I had never felt so scared. The attack came without any warning. It
was so loud. The whole house was shaking and you could hear the ambulance and the chaos outside. I was indoors. I didn't go outside. And to be honest
with you, I just froze. I couldn't move. I could not move. So, had someone told me go outside, I just couldn't have been able to get up because of all
the loud bang from that night. Oh, just it's a night that I won't ever forget.
And, you know, we woke up in the morning and there was a reported 400 people had died. 174 of those were children. It was the deadliest day for
children in Gaza since this whole war began.
GOLODRYGA: And was there any warning, any leaflets dropped, any indication in your part from what you understood and from families that you spoke to
about where they could go, any sort of heads up about war resuming?
AL-OBAIDI: No, nothing. No warning. I mean, the day before -- only the day before I was at a child friendly space, one of our child friendly spaces.
And everyone was excited that day. Some girls were telling me they were looking forward to going back to school, and it just felt like a really
nice day. As I said, the mood was very hopeful. And that night it just took us by surprise.
GOLODRYGA: These conversations that you're having with children, I'm so curious to hear about what they tell you what life has been like for them
over the past 17, 18 months. How much they know about October 7th, the start of this war, the attacks on Israel, the ceasefire that had been in
place for two months. Are they aware of the news reports about what this all is and what are the questions they're asking you?
AL-OBAIDI: So, I'm just going to start by saying that I've met children who have witnessed and endured horrors that no child should ever have to
face. I don't have the words to describe the depth of the suffering here.
I mean, children's language here is one shaped of war. You know, instead of asking their parents, when are we going to the park or where can we get ice
cream, kids here, their language is, where's the closest place we can fetch water? Where's the closest community kitchen to get food? Where are the
toilets? They are terrified.
I mean, as I said, I came here during the pause. So, I came here early in February. And my first impressions of Gaza, it took about 30 seconds to be
overwhelmed by what I saw. It was endless destruction. It felt like I was floating through a sea of rubble because there was not a single building
standing. The entire landscape was completely shattered.
And there were children. There were children playing. They were smiling. They were climbing on top of the rubble. And the environment around them
was just so far from normal. They smiled, but when I asked them about their experience during the war, I'm left speechless.
So, there was one mother that was telling me how her 12-year-old boy had to pick up the remains of a dead baby after an explosion, had that baby flying
onto a tree. And this boy suffers from nightmares since that day. I met mothers that were telling me about the desperate measures that they had to
take to feed their children.
Now, families, particularly in the north of Gaza, had zero access to food. There was no water, and there was one mother that was saying that she was
feeding her children animal feed. It was either that or they starved to death. Others only had grass to eat. And there was another mother that was
telling me that when she was moving from the north to the south after receiving an evacuation order, on route, they were seeing dead bodies. And
now, her children, all of her children were exposed to that. And not only that, they were seeing the dead bodies being eaten by dogs, and now the
kids wet themselves. They can't control it. They're afraid of going outside. They think that there are dead people outside.
[13:35:00]
But with all of those, there's just so many tragic stories and experiences of families here. They've seen things no one should ever see, but they all
hang on to hope. The children here, during the pause, they were so excited that the schools were going to reopen and they were saying, we are going to
rebuild Gaza. And they find the to smile. And all of them tell me that they love life. That they have the one life and we want to just live it.
GOLODRYGA: The fact that you see children smile during that brief moment of pause and playing on whatever makeshift playgrounds they can find is
something that just -- it sticks in the mind. What do these children tell you they fear most now?
AL-OBAIDI: Well, during the pause I met some teenagers. So, I spoke to a lot of teenagers during the pause and their biggest fear was that the war
would restart. Their biggest fear is that the war would resume, and it's just -- it just weighs heavy. That it's -- this fear is now a reality. It's
happening. The war has resumed. Children are dying in mass.
Gaza -- I cannot tell you -- I cannot begin to describe the level of needs here. The situation, the humanitarian situation is catastrophic. So, since
the start of this month, no humanitarian aid has been entering Gaza, no commercial goods.
So, our local partners had done a survey to identify what the biggest needs for children were. And they found that those who live in the north of Gaza,
they needed water, they needed food, and they needed shoes. But in the south of Gaza, the top three were shoes, clothes, and wheelchairs. Children
with disabilities are facing huge challenges. And we're back here again. We're seeing more injured children and we're seeing health professionals.
They don't even have the bare minimum painkillers to treat the injured.
GOLODRYGA: I was going to ask you about that, the state of the healthcare services there and any support, medical support. You talk about the
psychological support that these children will need for years to come, but the urgent medical care is it there? Is it available?
AL-OBAIDI: Quite honestly, no. No. Medical supplies are not getting into Gaza right now. There's a block in aid. Nothing has been able to get into
Gaza. The medical supplies that we do have in our healthcare clinics, they -- I mean, they will run out, they will, in a matter of weeks unless the
situation changes.
I am very, very scared. I am terrified. I haven't worked in a context like this. This is my first time in Gaza. I had spoken to a lot of families that
were describing -- they were describing the fear that they had lived through during the war, 16 months of it. They've lived through 16 months of
the terror that I felt on March the 18th.
GOLODRYGA: Shaima Al-Obaidi, thank you so much for taking the time and please do stay safe.
AL-OBAIDI: Thanks so much.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: I will be right back after this short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:40:00]
GOLODRYGA: Now, turning to the White House where a 73-year-old legal statute is being used to defend the Trump administration's immigration
crackdown. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 was passed amid anti-communist fears during the early Cold War. Now, that period of history
is the focus of the new book, "Red Scare: Blacklist, McCarthyism, and The Making of Modern America." Author and reporter, Clay Risen joins Hari
Sreenivasan discuss what past political hysteria tells us about the present.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HARI SREENIVASAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Bianna, thanks. Clay Risen, thanks so much for joining us. First, I guess for our audience that
might not have paid attention in history class the Red Scare, why did it happen? What was it? Just set the table for us.
CLAY RISEN, AUTHOR, "RED SCARE": Yes. So, the Red Scare was a period from roughly the end of World War II, 1946. Went for about a decade, 1957,
although it's hard to put dates on these things. But it was a period of rampant, sort of unchecked anti-communist hysteria. There was a real reason
for it.
Look, there were Soviet espionage in the United States. There was the Cold War, obviously, but it got out of hand in a pretty dangerous way and scary
way where even teachers and postal workers were being called into question for their loyalty to America.
SREENIVASAN: So, what were the kind of underlying tensions that made Americans want to believe that there was going to be, well, Soviet
infiltration? We were literally allies with the Soviets. And why did it turn so quickly?
RISEN: Yes. Well, there -- I think there are two reasons. One is sort of a long simmering conflict between the progressive America that came out of
the New Deal in America that was oriented more toward pluralist vision, very much embracing of women's rights and civil rights, but also an active
government.
And then, on the other side, a conservatism that reacted very strongly against that for a variety of reasons, some of which were pretty
conspiratorial, and that simmered for a long time. The Great Depression was on. Roosevelt was popular. And then, as you said, the war started and we
were allies with the Soviet Union.
But pretty immediately after that, things changed dramatically so that the Soviets became our Cold War enemies. But part of that message coming from
President Truman and from Congress was that this war has to be fought domestically as well. That we have an obligation to be 100 percent security
minded.
And so, anyone who even has the iota of possible questions about their loyalty, they have to be excluded from -- eventually from society, not just
from -- you know, from sensitive jobs, but we saw people kicked out of teaching jobs, of not giving fishing licenses because they were, you know,
suspect in some way. I mean, it got out of hand in ways that are funny or would be funny if they weren't so scary.
SREENIVASAN: Yes. So, what was the kind of domino effect? I mean, you know, sometimes when you look back in history, in hindsight, you say, how
did these people let all of these things happen? But was there kind of an incremental increase in the -- or I should say decrease in the civil
liberties? What happened?
RISEN: Yes, there absolutely was. You know, one of the things that happened very early on is President Truman, who did not really believe in
the threat of Soviet espionage as a big threat. He knew that there were spies, but he didn't think that it was a problem, and he didn't think that
communists were about to take over the country.
But because of that, he thought he could sort of, yes, essentially buy off FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, buy off his critics in Congress with what was
termed a loyalty program, where they essentially investigated anyone who wanted a job in the federal government and anyone who worked in the federal
government. But the process was very poorly constructed.
And very quickly, people were being hounded for tiny little blips and anonymous tips that would come into the FBI. Ultimately, tens of thousands
of people were thoroughly investigated. And this had a knock-on effect with the rest of society, because as soon as the president said, this is of such
concern that we're going to check everybody, then other industries followed suit. And very importantly, a lot of political opportunists saw the moment
and used this fear that was boiling up as a way to go after their enemies to raise their own profile.
[13:45:00]
Ultimately, Joe McCarthy, a senator from Wisconsin is the best example of this and lent his name to the era. But there were many other people like
him, both before and during his reign of terror.
SREENIVASAN: You know, the second half of the book title is "The Making of Modern America." So, what were the consequences? What are the kind of long-
term impacts that the Red Scare had in shaping the America that we live in today?
RISEN: Yes, I think there are a couple. I mean, one is that it really put in place the red -- the left right divide that we know today. It didn't
create, it had already been there. But it gave this sharp underline to this idea that the left is always going to be suspect for certain things that it
may or may not have done, affiliation with radicalism.
And it also created on the right a certain often fringe elements that trafficked in conspiracy theories, was not just opposed to big government,
but truly believed that the government was evil. And so, while there was always -- you know, there's bipartisanship and healthy competition in the
middle for decades after, there was always this undercurrent of tension and -- that popped up occasionally, whether it was under, you know, the
Goldwater movement or Buchanan in the '90s. So, I think that's an important context.
But the flip side is that we also, at least for a period, reasserted our commitment to civil liberties. And I think a lot of the achievements of the
Civil Rights movement in the '50s and '60s and the women's rights movement and various other pushes for equality and for civil liberties came out of
the experience of the Red Scare and the commitment, at least on parts of the left, to make sure that we didn't go back to that.
SREENIVASAN: Even just in reading your book, I was several times kind of surprised by how this sort of authoritarian and in some ways fascist
tendencies wrap themselves in the American flag. I mean, the idea of a House un-American committee is so un-American on his face, right? But
you're just like, what? How did we believe that this was the key to becoming more American is to act less like Americans?
RISEN: Yes. Well, I think there's always been a strain of thinking, particularly on the right, of what Americanism is, right? And it's always
debatable. It's always debated. But there is this line about a sort of purity of thought, purity of belief and association. And that the values
that are inherent in the Constitution and often celebrated by many on the right, not all and -- but largely on the left, over dissent and over
debate. These things are inherently difficult for some people to wrap their heads around when they have a -- that kind of narrow commitment to
Americanism.
And so, you find situations throughout modern American history when that perspective, that idea that there is one line to walk in terms of what
Americanism is, when that's empowered it becomes very easy to decide who stands outside from that.
SREENIVASAN: A lot of people are looking at this book now. It's like, wow, it's an interesting history book. And they're finding it relevant in
different ways with what's happening today. And I wonder if that is too much of a stretch, if they're right to be concerned and see these
parallels. Are we projecting what we want on and want to use the word McCarthyism? What are some of the things that you've seen in the last month
and a half or so that you might feel like, OK, this is an appropriate analogy, this is a reasonable parallel that we should be concerned about?
RISEN: Every day I wake up and there is a news story that reminds me of something from that era from my book. And I hear from readers a lot. The
book was not intended to be that way. None of this was, I don't have a crystal ball, I wouldn't be writing books if I did. But there are so many
parallels, and some of them are superficial. Some of them are people deploying McCarthyite tactics here and there, which people have done for a
long time. McCarthy showed what worked. Others --
SREENIVASAN: So, give me an example of that.
RISEN: Well, so for example, I mean, just last year, Senator Vance, when he was senator, during the debate over -- or the debate, the sort of witch
hunt around Haitian immigrants, refugees in Ohio who are supposedly eating dogs. And he was challenged with evidence showing that that was not true.
And he said, well, it doesn't really -- I'm paraphrasing. He said, it doesn't really matter whether this or that accusation is true. The larger
point is true, which is that immigration is a problem for the United States.
[13:50:00]
And so, you know, all of these falsehoods are in service of a higher truth. And that was an argument that McCarthy used all the time, and his defenders
used. He would say, well, maybe I got this accusation wrong against this person, but it's still true that there are communists in the government.
And so, I need -- I'm making mistakes, but I'm trying to get to the truth.
And that's very dangerous, right? Because, of course, he never did find communists, but people let him do this because he claimed to be fighting
for some higher truth. Now -- but that -- a lot of people have used that tactic.
I'm reminded, you know, right now we have this issue -- or at least in the legal community, you have a lot of large firms that are very worried about,
you know, asserting -- defending clients who are accused of this or that by the Trump administration, they're afraid of speaking out. That happened all
over the place in --- during the Red Scare. Lawyers were very hard to find. If you were accused of being disloyal to the United States or accused of
being a security risk, you could not just turn to your lawyer, you could not just go to any large firm. There were very few people who were willing
to stand up and say, I will defend you. I will take this on. You know, for the same reasons, they were afraid of losing clients. They were afraid of,
you know, earning the attention of guys like Joe McCarthy.
SREENIVASAN: So, I wonder if there were turning points that you can identify now with the benefit of history that said, OK, this moment started
to turn the tide and then these two other moments really helped.
RISEN: Yes, I think -- look, geopolitics had a big part to play. Joseph Stalin died in 1953, the same year the Korean War ended. The Cold War kind
of -- you know, if it was simmering, it kind of went back to just being, you know, a little calmer. And so, people were willing -- Americans could
kind of relax a little bit.
But it also mattered that throughout the Red Scare, people stood up. Not everybody. And oftentimes with great consequence. But the Hollywood 10
stood up to the house on American Activities Committee and went to jail for it. Dozens of other Americans did the same thing and went to jail. But it
mattered over time that people stood up.
Edward R. Murrow stood up Joe McCarthy and very famously produced a documentary, a 30-minute show, that helped tank McCarthy's popularity,
showing that he was a bully and that there was nothing else there to him except that. Earl Warren, the Supreme Court justice, drove the court to
systematically dismantle elements of the Red Scare, the tools, the architecture of the Red Scare.
And while all of these didn't happen at the same time, it took time, it eventually helped remove the threat, sort of lower the fear. And look, the
House on American Activities Committee was around for a long time after that. Red baiting was a tactic throughout the 1960s and I'd say continues
to be today. But the fear was removed. And I think it took all of those different actors willing to stand up for it to finally come to an end.
SREENIVASAN: Seeing what you're seeing now and researching what you've researched, are you optimistic, pessimistic? Kind of where are you on
seeing parts of history repeat itself?
RISEN: I mean, I can look back optimistically and say, I see all these similarities between then and now. And I can also say, well, it ended, and
it ended in part because the American people decided in a very -- I mean, that's reductive, but, you know, eventually we came to our senses and said
that civil liberties abuses are ridiculous. There's no communist threat.
And you can see points in American history where this has happened. And so, one could say, well, the present moment will chill out. And damage will be
done, but we'll get over it. This was Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower's fundamental belief, is that Americans are pragmatic. They're not given to
demagogues for a long period of time. So, I can say that optimistically.
Pessimistically, I can look at all the differences between -- and I think this is one of the things that history is really important for. People look
for parallels, but they also need to look for differences to say, here's why today is different than things we've experienced in the past. And I
hope people who read the book will go through it and say, oh, but now it's like this.
[13:55:00]
Now, the challenge to the legal community is coming from the president himself. And that changes the game. And that leaves me less optimistic
simply because I don't know how this ends, and I don't know if the will of the people will even matter when push comes to shove.
SREENIVASAN: The book is called "Red Scare: Blacklists, McCarthyism, and The Making of Modern America." Author Clay Risen, thanks so much for
joining us.
RISEN: Thank you very much.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: And that is it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can always catch us online, on our website, and all-over social media. Thanks
for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
