Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Harvard University Professor of Government Steven Levitsky; Interview with Harvard University Physician and Professor Dr. Kari Nadeau; Interview with "The Phoenician Scheme" Director Wes Anderson; Interview with Representative Blake Moore (R-UT). Aired 1-2p ET
Aired May 29, 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.
As Harvard University fights back against President Trump, he has hit a 30- day pause button. I ask Harvard Professor of government, Steven Levitsky, what this moment means for American democracy.
And physician Kari Nadeau tells me how freezing federal grants is impacting her own leading research.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is this supposed to be here? It was under the lunch trolley.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh, dear. We shot you. ' UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Carriers from out of town. Help yourself to a hanger day.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You're very kind.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- "The Phoenician Scheme" hip director Wes Anderson takes me behind the scenes of his brand-new movie.
Also, ahead --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. BLAKE MOORE (R-UT): The fact that we can get it enacted and build on the bipartisan support that this has had, I think shows that it has a
really strong future.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- Walter Isaacson speaks to the Republican congressman, Blake Moore, who is involved in helping pass Trump's big, beautiful bill.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London.
Graduation days are always momentous occasions, but at Harvard today, there's never been one like it, as students celebrate the end of their
academic journey, just six miles away, the school's lawyers were in court fighting back against President Trump's attempt to ban international
students. The judge there says she will order the administration not to make any changes to Harvard's student visa program indefinitely. Here's
Harvard's president, Alan Gerber, speaking today at the commencement.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ALAN GERBER, PRESIDENT, HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Welcome members of the class of 2025. Members of the class of 2025 from down the street, across the
country, and around the world. Around the world, just as it should be.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: But that's only one front in a sustained attack by this administration on Harvard, it's also frozen more than $2 billion in federal
research grants. But the latest move extends far beyond one university. The State Department is halting interviews abroad for foreign citizens applying
for student visas. As it says, it plans to expand social media vetting of all applicants.
Overnight, thousands of lives have been thrown into turmoil. For scholars of democracy targeting higher education is both shocking and predictable.
Steven Levitsky is a professor of government and Latin American studies at Harvard and the co-author of "How Democracies Die." He's joining us from
Brookline, Massachusetts. Welcome to the program, Professor Levitsky.
STEVEN LEVITSKY, PROFESSOR OF GOVERNMENT, HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Thanks for having me.
AMANPOUR: So, I want to ask you, on the one hand, it is pretty grim times facing the full weight of the administration. On the other hand, Harvard is
getting a lot of support and seems to be, you know, front and center pushing back against this. How would you describe the mood at Harvard?
LEVITSKY: The mood is very complex. It's really, really mixed. On the one hand, there is almost unanimous support among faculty and students for
Harvard's leadership in pushing back against Trump. What had been a very divided campus last year has really come together in defense of
international students, in defense of research, in defense of higher education, which is -- and so, students and faculty are very proud of
Harvard.
But there's tremendous, tremendous concern and uncertainty for the future of -- for -- of our research and in, in particular, our international
students, because we are a very international university and really could not operate as Harvard without our international students.
[13:05:00]
AMANPOUR: I want to play something that Trump said yesterday. I mean, we know that the administration claims that all this is about anti-
antisemitism, combating antisemitism. We also know that Harvard, even, you know, last year and beyond, have taken measures against antisemitism and
apparently DEI. Trump has also pulled, as we've talked about, billions in federal grants and the latest he's doing with international students.
Do you believe that is what this is all about? And then I'm going to play a little soundbite of Trump.
LEVITSKY: Absolutely I do not believe that. This is not about antisemitism. It's not about DEI. These are pretexts authoritarian
governments. We need to be very clear. This is an authoritarian government that is using the machinery of government, the state as a weapon to punish,
to bully, to silence business, media law firms, universities and other elements of civil society. So, this is part of a much broader attack on
American democracy.
Autocrats go after universities, autocrats of the leftwing autocrats, centrist autocrats, right-wing, autocrats. It's hard to find an autocratic
government that does not go after universities, and they always find a pretext. Sometimes it's terrorism, sometimes it's communism. In this case,
Trump is using antisemitism. But we know. That there are more anti-Semites in the Trump administration than there are at Harvard.
AMANPOUR: And actually, it's interesting because the Hillel organization on campus has come out and spoken against, you know, denying foreign
students because some are even Israeli students, for heaven's sake. It's just a blanket ban.
LEVITSKY: Indeed.
AMANPOUR: So, they've come out. We know that there's many Jewish groups and synagogues and others who've come out and accused, you know, the Trump
administration's rationale as being cynical, and it -- you know, they should make no mistake that it's not really about protecting the Jewish
community. But here's what Trump recently said, OK, about the money. He seems fixated about Harvard's money.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: They're taking $5 billion, and I'd rather see that money go to trade schools. And by the way, they're totally
antisemitic at Harvard, as you know, and some other colleges too, in all fairness to them. And it's been exposed, very exposed. And I think they're
dealing very badly.
Every time they fight, they lose another $250 million. Yesterday we found another a hundred million. And I think they should have a cap of maybe
around 15 percent, not 31 percent. We have people want to go to Harvard and other schools, they can't get in because we have foreign students there.
But I want to make sure that the foreign students are people that can love our country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: I mean, there is a lot there. I just wonder what you make of the philosophy coming from President Trump or his administration. Do you think
there's a concerted -- I mean, is it a plan that will work? How do you characterize what they're doing?
LEVITSKY: I think it needs to be understood as a combination of authoritarianism and ineptitude. So, I don't know if you discerned a
philosophy there in the vomiting that we just heard, but it's -- if it's a philosophy, it's a philosophy of the week, because they come up with a
different rationale for things like trade sanctions, for a tax on university every week.
And so, I don't see a clear philosophy. What I see is an effort to attack, punish, and weaken institute -- civic institutions that the Trump
administration views as opposition or as they view as enemies of the government. Again, that's what autocrats do.
AMANPOUR: And are -- you know, you have studied autocracies around the world. You've got a particular expertise in Latin American and you have a
lot of Latin American students at Harvard. Tell me about how this fits in, what's happening now in the United States, with some of the illiberal
democracies or out and out authoritarian regimes that you've studied, and particularly in your book.
LEVITSKY: Well, some of this is very familiar. Efforts to use the machinery of government to go after, to punish and weaken opponents in
civil society are very, very common in authoritarian regimes, whether it is contemporary India or Nicaragua or Hungary or Turkey even Mexico, certainly
Venezuela, all of these governments went after universities, because universities are inevitably, invariably centers of dissent, dissent against
left-wing governments, dissent against right-wing governments. So, that's pretty common.
[13:10:00]
The assault on foreign students is, I have to say, took me by surprise. As you know very well our ability to attract -- our country's ability to
attract the best and brightest from all over the world, going back to at least the 1930s, is one of the things that's made us so rich, so
prosperous, so powerful. It's been one of the greatest benefits that we enjoy in this country.
You know, Harvard -- we -- I send students to Cuba. We send students to China. They don't even prevent -- they don't even keep out international
students. This idea of shutting down student visa interviews all over the world, the only country I can compare that to right now is North Korea.
It's insane.
AMANPOUR: Professor, I'm not an entirely disinterested party. I was a foreign student in the United States 45 years ago, and I actually gave the
graduation speech just yesterday to the Harvard Kennedy School of Graduates. More than half of whom are, as you say, internationals.
But I spoke about something, which I know that you've spoken about and even a former Harvard president, Drew Gilpin Faust, has just written about, the
apparent lack of resistance, not just -- not at Harvard but around the country to this assault that you've been discussing.
I just want to play a little bit of what I said and get you to comment on how you feel about it. And I was quoting basically the patron saint of
broadcast journalists, Edward R. Murrow, who after his distinguished World War II. Korea as a foreign correspondent took on McCarthyism and the red
scare at home. This is what I said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, always remember, as Edward R. Murrow said, that dissent is not disloyalty. Dissent is actually an invaluable part of our democratic
process. We cannot surrender to any system that deems only power approved speech or thought is allowed. The whole point of journalism and any other
academic enterprise is to investigate power, speak truth to power, hold power accountable without fear nor favor.
Edward R. Morrow said on his programs holding Senator Joe McCarthy to account, no one man can terrorize a whole nation unless we are all his
accomplices.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Professor Levitsky, I wonder what you think about that quote from Morrow, that, you know, it seems that everybody's terrorized in the
United States, or am I wrong?
LEVITSKY: I think it's a mix. So, it's a shame that Morrow's words are so relevant, so pertinent today, but I think you were right to raise them. My
sense -- I share the view that Americans have been very slow to react to Trump's authoritarianism. I think. This has a lot to do with the fact that
we have no recent experience with authoritarianism. We have no collective memory of authoritarianism, unlike, say, Germany or Argentina or Chile or
Brazil or South Korea. We didn't really know what to expect. Many, many Americans still believe that it can't possibly happen here. And so, we were
slow to respond.
My hope is that Harvard's response and the slow -- slowly more bolder responses that we're seeing among law firms and some other actors in civil
society that were turning the ship around. But the first few months we were like a deer in headlights. We didn't really know what we were facing.
AMANPOUR: And I assume that Harvard would've preferred to have a whole bunch of like-minded universities, which are also under threat, come out
and join this, you know, pushback according to basically American rule, the rule of law, constitutional rights, and all the rest of it. This is not
some weird fight that Harvard is pushing, it's a patriotic fight. I mean, it's for American values.
Are you surprised that other universities, who also have big endowments, maybe not as big as Harvard's, but have either capitulated or not joined
this fight publicly, letting Harvard take the lead?
LEVITSKY: I'm disappointed. Having followed events very closely the last four or five months, I'm not surprised anymore. It turns out that that,
whether it's media organizations or law firms or businesses or universities, it's really difficult to get civil society actors to join in
collective action.
[13:15:00]
Each leader of each organization may, in principle, want to defend democracy, but is also very, very concerned about saving his or her own
hide and protecting the interests of their individual organization. And so, rather than stick their neck out in defense of a principle, in defense of
another university or another organization, the first reaction, the first instinct is to kind of hide under the table and hope they don't come for
us. And that is -- that's really destructive of democracy, it puts us -- puts our whole defense -- democratic defenses at risk.
AMANPOUR: And finally, do you think there is any room at a place like Harvard or elsewhere to diversify? I don't even know what real word to use,
but that it's not just one echo chamber of one type of thought. I'm not talking about, you know, raising lies to the level of truths, but just
diverse opinions and diverse ideological views.
LEVITSKY: You know, I think that these issues of ideological diversity have been somewhat overstated. We have many, many what you might call
Reagan conservatives at Harvard, believers in free markets, believers in a hawkish foreign policy, for example. What we don't have is many Trumpists,
and it's true that Harvard leans left of center, that it's liberal, but that's true of really all universities everywhere. That's not a new
phenomenon.
The thing is that in Western democracies, politics are not cleaved by left and right as we grew up understanding them, they're increasingly cleaved by
a sort of urban, secular cosmopolitan wing and an ethnonationalist wing that is, in many cases, anti-science and anti-liberal.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
LEVITSKY: And it's true -- it is true that we don't have a lot of these anti-liberal, anti-science folks on our campus. I'm not sure that we
should.
AMANPOUR: Yes. You know, I'm going to bring that up with my next guest, also a physician and professor at Harvard University in the scientific
field. Steven Levitsky, thank you so much for being with us and explaining this moment.
So, here to help understand more the impact of all of this on academic research and work and many, many lives, is Dr. Kari Nadeau. She is chair of
the Department of Environmental Health at Harvard. Doctor, you've been listening to our conversation. What is this done materially, the canceling
of so many contracts, the removal of so much money for research, the kind of which you do?
DR. KARI NADEAU, PHYSICIAN AND PROFESSOR, HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Yes. Mr. Levitsky is correct. This has really been a terrible hit to Harvard, but in
the end, who's really hurting are the American people, unfortunately. And this has been a problem not just at our university, but many others.
Because when you degrade science, for me, as a physician, as a professor, that takes care of people's health and the public's health. When you
degrade science, you also degrade the health of the American people in the globe.
AMANPOUR: Doctor, the administration makes it sound like they're cutting fees and funds for Harvard University, that somehow this is a privilege
that Harvard has for itself. But I was under the impression that these fees and funds offer the greater good for research and health and all the rest
of it for the whole population. Is that right?
DR. NADEAU: You're absolutely correct. These are contracts that scientists, not just at Harvard but at other universities throughout the
whole country, worked very hard to be able to rigorously prove that they deserve to have these contracts through review and through a process in our
federal government.
And then, the federal government, if they choose you in the top 10 percent of the reviews that they do, then they choose to give you funds and then
there's a contract to be able to do the work. And that work is very important for the American people and for the globe. For example, every
dollar that we put into research and science from the NIH gives $5 out for the economy.
AMANPOUR: Wow. Doctor, can I ask you what you specifically do? I know that you are in the food allergy business or research science. There are others,
cancer trials and the like, which have all had funds pulled. What specifically do you do and how is it affecting your patients and trial
candidates?
DR. NADEAU: Yes. So, I think it's really important to know that when these funds are pulled, it affects so many people, not just one investigator like
me. I'll give you my story, which is really important.
[13:20:00]
From the 200 million, for example, that has been cut from the School of Public Health at Harvard, we, unfortunately, were doing a clinical trial.
So, those funds were important for active clinical studies that were meant to help people.
In my case, I was running a clinical trial throughout the country, in many states, not just at Harvard, and it also affected people in London. So, 800
infants who had a high risk for a chronic disease, like near fatal food allergies now have had a clinical trial pulled because of the lack of NIH
funding. They were in the trial for five years. They had two more years to go. And this intervention was meant to reduce their likelihood of near
fatal food allergies.
And when this type of clinical trial is ended, like you mentioned, for cancer or for Parkinson's or for others, I work in food allergy. But when
that happens, you put patients' lives at risk and you put their safety at risk.
AMANPOUR: And, Doctor, you know, I think I know the answer, but is this a tap that can be turned on and off? In other words, these patients who
you're talking about, let's say in a month or two or three or four this funding comes back, is it easy to turn it back on again?
DR. NADEAU: I think it's really important to know that it would be easy if the American people understand if the globe understands what's at risk
here. And what's at risk here are lives and people, and importantly, progress and the economy.
And so, if this could be put back on we would be able to do those clinical studies, we would be able to follow through on what we promised the
American government when we signed our contract. We would be able to follow through on what we promised the people that signed up for these trials
across the U.S. as well as the globe. So, yes, it's possible to turn this back on and to do it right.
And importantly, there are researchers that do this right. They include international researchers, international students. They include well
experienced people that would like to do this right. And they include families and patients that also have signed up to not only try to help
themselves, but also help science pass a legacy to others.
And that can't be possible in trade schools, that can't be possible in places that don't have that level of experience to be able to work for the
American people, for the globe to try to improve their lives.
AMANPOUR: I mean, it is a dire situation and America appears to be tossing out all its preeminent science research and you know, first place in this
incredible field. Dr. Kari Nadeau, thank you for being on. Thank you for telling us, and good luck to you and all the patients.
DR. NADEAU: Thank you.
AMANPOUR: After the break, the acclaimed director, Wes Anderson, tells me about making his latest movie, "The Phoenician Scheme." We'll be right
back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
AMANPOUR: Next to a movie director who's attained cult status for his offbeat films painted in glorious technicolor. Wes Anderson captured the
world's attention with "Rushmore" back in 1998, and since then, he's made beloved modern classics like "The Royal Tenenbaums," "The Grand Budapest
Hotel," and "Fantastic Mr. Fox." Each shot with his idiosyncratic sense of style and filled to the brim with ensembles made up of some of the world's
finest actors.
[13:25:00]
And now, he's back with a new movie, "The Phoenician Scheme." Here's some of the trailer.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Quarter land sea Phoenician infrastructure scheme, my most important project of my lifetime.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Our objective disrupting, obstructing, impeding, crippling Quarter's enterprise in any manner possible.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Get the hand grenades. Today, tonight, and tomorrow. We rendezvous with every titan and pretend we agree what we already agree, but
in fact, we don't.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: And Wes Anderson joined me from New York just after the movie Premier. Wes Anderson, welcome to our program.
WES ANDERSON, DIRECTOR, "THE PHOENICIAN SCHEME": Thank you. Thank you, Christiane.
AMANPOUR: So, I know you've done a load of films, I'm not sure which this one is, but people have now come to describe your films as sort of
Andersonian, Anderson-esque. Do you accept that? Do you see that there is a vision and a visual and an aesthetic?
ANDERSON: I have to say I do. I think -- you know, and I don't know how many movies I've -- I think I've done 11 or 12 or something like that. You
know, for me, every -- when I make a new film, I'm thinking of it as a clean slate, a fresh start, new characters, new story. To me, it's a
completely different thing.
But every time I release a trailer for the next one, the first thing I hear is you could tell it was me in the first 10 seconds and I've had to accept
that that is simply true.
AMANPOUR: Is it good or bad?
ANDERSON: I think, you know, it's not exactly -- well, I think it's more like handwriting or something. It's just -- you know, my -- I can't change
my handwriting. It's just the way it comes out when I move my hand across - - when I move my pencil across the paper. And I don't -- you know, I -- even though I'm trying to make decisions to do something different every
time and surprise myself and anyone else, I sort of accept that I have a certain kind of voice that happens to be quickly identifiable.
AMANPOUR: Yes. You also have often quite a lot of the same characters, right? I mean, you go back to people like Tom Hanks and others. I'm just
saying Tom Hanks because I just kind of recognize him, but there are many others. Why do you do that? I'm really fascinated by that.
ANDERSON: Well, I always liked from the -- from when I first started making films, which is a very long time ago, I liked the idea of having a
sort of stock company, like a theater troupe. I always thought of Bergman, you know, who had these this group of actors or someone like -- well, you
know, like the -- like Powell and Pressburger in England. There are actors who appear and reappear. I always like that. And I love the start of a
movie being a kind of reunion.
The other thing is over the years I've gotten to know and work with a good number of my very favorite actors. So, there's something to be said for I
already know my -- so many of my favorites. I go back to them and see if I can lure them in again.
AMANPOUR: So, I said Tom Hanks, but in "The Phoenician Scheme," you also have Scarlett Johansson, Jeffrey Wright, et cetera. You've worked with all
of them before. Let's just talk quickly about the plot. So, it is a father- daughter story. It's quite complicated, filled with all sorts of unpredictable twists and turns. But at the heart of it is, as I say, a
father and a daughter building a relationship. And this larger-than-life father has all sons except for this one daughter. And at one point he says,
you are going to be my heir.
So, I'm going to play this clip and then we'll talk about it. The father is Zsa-zsa Korda played -- yes, as we know by Benicio del Toro. And we'll talk
about the daughter Mia in a second. Let's play this clip.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BENICIO DEL TORO, ACTOR, "THE PHOENICIAN SCHEME": I have appointed you sole heir to my estate, which you may come into sooner rather than later.
I'm provisionally manager of my affairs after the event of my actual demise on a trial basis.
MIA THREAPLETON, ACTRESS, "THE PHOENICIAN SCHEME": Why?
DEL TORO: Why, what?
THREAPLETON: Why sooner rather than later, since you survived again? And why am I a sole heir to your estate? You have eight sons I last count.
DEL TORO: Nine sons.
THREAPLETON: Nine sons. What about them?
DEL TORO: They're not my heirs.
THREAPLETON: Why not?
DEL TORO: I have my reasons.
THREAPLETON: Which are what?
DEL TORO: my reasons. I'm not saying. I am saying, I'm not saying.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[13:30:00]
AMANPOUR: It's so Wes Anderson. Of course, I was wrong. I said Mia, but she's Liesl in the film. But she's Mia Threapleton in real-life. And her
mother just happens to be Kate Winslet. Were you -- how did you know that she was such a good actress? Had she had, you know, a body of work?
ANDERSON: I saw her audition a little -- you know, a little QuickTime on my laptop among a thousand other auditions for this role. And she was -- it
was -- you know, we'd given them -- each actress auditioning we'd given them a scene we'd prepared, a sort of scene that's something like what's in
the movie to play the character. And she made -- it seemed like she was -- it seemed like a documentary. It seemed like just documentary footage,
totally authentic.
And I didn't know her -- any family connection. I didn't know anything about her at all. I just saw this little clip. But I basically watched it
and thought, I think we may be able to shut down our search right now. I think we might have her.
And when I introduced her to Benicio del Toro, the two of them together had something just a chemical instantly that I saw that, well, let's film that.
AMANPOUR: So, am I right? Is it a father-daughter story? What is your vision about this film?
ANDERSON: Well, you know, I think there's something like when you're -- you know, when you're putting together a work of journalism, you're
gathering all your facts and information and impressions and observations and ordering them into something that's a story. And I think the same thing
happens when you write a fictional movie, except you're -- there's no fact checker and you use your imagination and you don't really know where it's
all coming from, I'd find. I don't know exactly my intentions for the story. It sort of reveals itself as it goes along to, and that's how it
happens for me anyway.
And this movie, I thought, was a movie about a businessman and his grand venture that he's undertaking and this sort of brutality of this very rich
man, Benicio. But somehow the story led us in another direction, and there was a layer to this character that I sort of hadn't anticipated. And it
became I think the center of the movie is entirely what you described, but it's a father-daughter story and his business plan that is wildly complex
is almost a ritual for him to get back together with her. They've been estranged for many years.
AMANPOUR: and I -- you know, I've omitted to mention, because in that scene, of course, she is wearing a nun's habit. She's a novice. She wants
to be a nun. And I assume that's because they're estranged. So, tell us why.
ANDERSON: There's a sort of biblical motif throughout this film. You know, this character, he keeps getting killed. You know, he's a -- he had --
there's the series of almost successful assassination attempts and he's confronting his own death again and again, and it begins to change him.
And so, anyway, there's a sort of biblical element to the whole -- to the film. And part of that is his daughter who -- who's been in a Swiss convent
all this time. She's deeply -- she's a devout girl, which he is not. He is an atheist. But anyway, their beliefs and their own spiritual perspectives
are a big part of the story that unfolds.
AMANPOUR: I want to play another clip, because the clips are really fun. So, in this scene, Bjorn, a Swedish tutor played by Michael Cera, he makes
an unfortunate discovery on Zsa-Zsa's private plane. Here's the clip.
MICHAEL CERA, ACTOR, "THE PHOENICIAN SCHEME": Is this supposed to be here? It was under the lunch trolley.
THREAPLETON: Oh dear.
DEL TORO: How much time does it say?
CERA: 18 minutes.
DEL TORO: Perfectly fine. We land in 10. Myself, I feel very safe.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Wes, my head is all over the place today. I've just flown on the red eye. So, I said Swedish -- he's Norwegian. He's cool. He's in control.
He's sort of --
ANDERSON: Same thing.
AMANPOUR: -- you know -- don't tell them that. Yes. Anyway, that's a really cool scene. I want to ask you though, you talked about, you know,
some of the motif and the relationships. And I noticed that the film is dedicated to your father-in-law, to the memory of your father-in-law, Fouad
Malouf. Is he an inspiration for Zsa-Zsa? And also, is confronting this sort of near death by Zsa-Zsa all the time, is it the way you are sort of
exploring death?
[13:35:00]
ANDERSON: Well, I think the answer to the second question is probably yes. I think, you know -- I mean, I -- you know, I'm 56 and I -- the number of
friends who've died in the last 15 years it's just they're one after another, and including both parents. So, it's on my mind.
AMANPOUR: It was also dedicated to your father-in-law who -- the memory of your father-in-law, who also --
ANDERSON: Yes, yes.
AMANPOUR: -- is deceased, obviously.
ANDERSON: Yes. And he -- Fouad, my wife's father Fouad, he -- you know, he's not -- the character in the movie is a -- is -- at least at the start
of the movie, he's someone who's -- who presents himself as completely without ethics and he's ruthless. And Fouad was not like that. He was
gentle. He was wise. He was an engineer and a businessman, but he was intimidating. The instant you laid eyes on him. He was a good person to
walk into a restaurant with because every -- it changed the mood. You've got special attention, just because they were scared of him.
And his personality somehow started to go more and more into this character because I loved him and I looked up to him and I enjoyed him from the first
10 seconds after I met him. And he died -- I guess it's about two years, two and a half years ago. But anyway, he was this very special person. And
somehow, by the end of it, I thought, this movie I have to dedicate to Fouad because he's the inspiration.
AMANPOUR: Yes. Let me ask you finally, how have your animated movies influenced your live action films? What's the sort of process?
ANDERSON: Yes. Well, I -- you know, I made an animated role doll, "Fantastic Mr. Fox" in 2005 or '07 or something like that. And I'd never
done anything like that before. We made it in England. And I had a whole new group of collaborators and I saw this process of how the movie is
prepared, how you prepare for the animators to do their work. It's quite careful.
And it changed my way of working in live action too, because I kind of saw how I could make, I think, fewer mistakes, how I could be a little more
meticulously prepared for a movie shoot, which is a giant thing in a way.
And so, you know, for me, it made it more fun to make movies using some of those techniques. And it also -- you know, I think it -- I mean, there are
side effects, which I don't know if I fully -- totally understand. I think it changed things about control in my movies maybe as well.
But anyway, I think every time -- for me, every time I make a movie, I gain some new collaborators who will come with me somewhere and I pick up some
new sort of methods and techniques that we'll see if we use again.
AMANPOUR: Yes. Amazing. Thank you very much, Wes Anderson. It's great to talk to you. "The Phoenician Scheme."
ANDERSON: Thank you. Thank you, Christiane. Thank you so much. My pleasure to be here.
AMANPOUR: And "The Phoenician Scheme" is in select American theaters tomorrow and theaters everywhere on June 6th. It's already out here in the
U.K. And we'll be right back after this short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:40:00]
AMANPOUR: It's one step forward, one step back for President Trump's agenda. A court has blocked his controversial tariffs, while his massive
budget package that he's dubbed the big, beautiful bill has passed. It passed the House last week.
Blake Moore, a Republican representative from Utah, was a key figure in shaping that legislation. And he's joining Walter Isaacson to talk about
its priorities and the critics who say it favors the wealthy and expands the deficit.
And a note that the two spoke just before the court's decision on tariffs, and also, just before Elon Musk's exit from the federal government to
attend, he says, to his ailing Tesla company.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Thank you, Christiane. And, Congressman Blake Moore. Welcome to the show.
REP. BLAKE MOORE (R-UT): Thank you. Glad to be here.
ISAACSON: Congress just passed this past week or so a big, beautiful bill, as Trump called it. But now, it's getting a lot of criticism and even Elon
Musk has come out against it, Senator Ron Johnson, a Republican in the Senate, saying it will greatly increase the deficit. Is that true? Would
this bill greatly increase the deficit?
MOORE: There was one major stipulation. I'm a member of the Budget Committee and the Ways and Means Committee, so I've been very busy the last
six months and even longer than that. The criticism that will increase the deficit is the fact that we already have large deficits. This particular
bill is actually deficit neutral and we required that from the Budget Committee with whatever sort of competitive tax rates that we allow for
there's a cost to that, but we've offset that completely with a very conservative estimate on economic growth as well as spending cuts to offset
the two.
I wish we were solving our deficit problems. That's a longer-term fix. That has to be almost a bipartisan approach. But this particular bill is deficit
neutral and the way that it's been written. To say otherwise isn't actually looking at the specifics of your assumed growth rate.
We think that this economy will do very well with tax, competitive tax rates that are made permanent, and we will see sustained economic growth,
at least the 2.5, 2.6 percent, and we think we can actually exceed that.
ISAACSON: The Congressional Budget Office said it would add about 2 trillion. Tell me what's wrong with their calculations.
MOORE: So, we've seen actually from 2017 when the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act took place, the CBO didn't necessarily, within a dynamic scoring -- if you
look at a dynamic scoring opportunity, you see economic growth swallow any particular potential of deficits that created.
Our revenues have not decreased significantly in any way since we did major tax reform in 2017. This bill, we want to actually make a lot of that
permanent because it's been very good for American families and businesses. And what -- any numbers that they're talking about there is just they are
not going to assume an economic growth factor into this where we think over time, we've proven that'd be the case.
ISAACSON: One of the provisions in the bill is something that you push, which is sometimes called the Trump accounts, but it's basically a credit
for children, bonds for children. Tell me why that's in the bill and what that would do.
MOORE: Yes, this is not a new concept. This has actually been a bipartisan discussion for many years. And an organization has named this something
called Invest America. So, you can see it already existing in a lot of spaces named that. This became part of this bill because we want to make
sure we're investing in America's youth and we want them to be able to take advantage of compounding interest.
Any business savvy individual knows that if you invest early, you're going to get a better yield later on. It's very similar to like my -- like a 529
account just for education, but we're expanding it out so they can use it for later in their life as well.
It's a very simple investment into each child born for the course of the next four years, a thousand dollars. They're going to get an account that's
associated with let's call it the S&P or other types of investment opportunities. And they're going to watch that grow. They can add to it,
family members can add to it. Companies are going to be able to say, hey, we want to help contribute to this account that you have and we'll see it
grow over time.
We have real -- I have real concerns with, you know, the -- within the next decade the Social Security having some significant issues with the trust
fund that's associated with it. We want there to be an investment earlier in folks' lives to be able to take advantage of that later when they
definitely need that.
[13:45:00]
ISAACSON: As you say, this is a bipartisan idea, these baby bonds. I think Senator Cory Booker pushing at one point. Senator Josh Hawley, a Republican
from Missouri, has also been pushing it. It's not something that's traditionally been part of the Republican Party lexicon. Do you think
there's a shift in the Republican party now to things like this?
MOORE: I think this bears out that there -- that's proof the case that we're thinking more about the next generation. So, I wouldn't say it's a
significant shift. We always believe in, you know, investing early and watching it grow over time. And I'm -- I love that we have a catalyst right
now.
Look, this is, like I mentioned, a bipartisan concept. The -- getting included into a largely Republican reconciliation bill, I don't expect any
Democrats to vote for this bill just because that's the way Washington works. We didn't -- you know, Republicans don't vote for Democrat
reconciliation bills and vice versa, but the fact that we can get it enacted and build on the bipartisan support that this has had I think shows
that it has a really strong future.
ISAACSON: The major cuts in this big bill that just passed the House we're in Medicaid and SNAP, you know, food stamps, food security. Are you worried
that the bill looks like, and in fact, does put a whole lot of the burden on the poor in making these cuts?
MOORE: No. What we're doing with respect to Medicaid in these programs is, you know, we don't often get a chance to vote on improving these types of
programs, right? These are -- this fall into what you call the mandatory spending budget side and those don't have an annual bill that you vote on
this every year. This is an opportunity to be able to say, hey, we want to make some reforms to Medicaid, to make sure that it's a stronger program,
especially for those that are among the traditional population. Those that are in -- those are children in poverty, single mothers, disabled folks,
elderly folks that are in a certain lower income level, like that's the traditional population we want to preserve.
And what we're doing with this bill is simply saying, hey, we want to make sure we're cleaning up the roles. So, illegal immigrants are not able to
take advantage of this because this is a program designed for U.S. citizens. And second, we want to establish the expectation to have a work
requirement or a volunteer requirement as a part of this benefit.
And you know, what I'm hearing from folks is, hey, there's going to be some concerns because there's some paperwork burden and there is an
administrative burden, but that's an administrative burden problem. That's not necessarily the policy idea to say, hey, we need to -- folks to be able
to work less than 20 hours a week, show how they're doing that and then, they have access to this program.
We hope that very, very few people will lose their Medicaid coverage from this legislation. And we just want to make sure that we're doing it in a
way that's responsible, that adds work requirements there. That that is the concept that is very popular and we just want to make sure that the
administrative and paperwork process is such that we could get through this OK. But it is not some massive cut that is going in this bill. This a way
to strengthen the program for those that need it most.
ISAACSON: President Trump has said that this could be improved in the Senate and he takes some things, and one of the things he's talked about is
that you actually could help with the deficit issue by raising taxes a little bit more on the rich. This his own formulation. I think what he said
was -- this on May 9th, he said, I would love to do it, frankly. What you're doing is you're giving up something on top in order to make people
in the middle-income and lower-income bracket save more.
Do you think on things like carried interest credit for people in private equity, things like that, there are tweaks that could be done to raise
taxes more on the wealthy?
MOORE: So, you bring up carried interest. The big concern with reducing or addressing carried interest, there was -- we made changes to it in 2017. I
thought have had survivability. The more you do it, the more opportunity to take away for investment, more invest. Let -- if you have less investment,
you have that less economic growth. And it goes down this whole road.
Ultimately, I've never been able to have a Democrat colleague of mine tell me what is their fair share. They always say, oh, the wealthy aren't paying
their fair share. No one's been able to explain that to me. What is the --
ISAACSON: No, but I'm actually talking about Trump's proposal that whether you want to do it on carried interest, which he said he might be willing
to, or Steve Bannon on his podcast just saying there are things that could be raised.
MOORE: Yes, there's always going to be opportunities, the things that can be raised. Look, we've actually gotten criticized a lot from some of the
wealthier individuals in our economy because of what we've done in this tax bill. Like I said, we prioritize middle and lower-income Americans already,
with most of the provisions.
[13:50:00]
You can continue to go down that road, but I've never heard anybody be able to say, what is the fair share? Like top 10 percent of earners pay over
approximately 70 percent of the entire tax bill. I mean --
ISAACSON: Well, wait. How would you answer that question?
MOORE: At what point is the fair share? There's already a significantly progressive tax code that the wealthy pay and a very large amount of our
taxes. So, you can always increase it, but at what point will you actually decrease investment and more economic growth? That's an important
consideration.
ISAACSON: Well, what's your answer to that question?
MOORE: My answer is we found a really good approach to what we've passed out of Ways and Means Committee right now. And I hope that we can keep
largely this intact for -- going forward.
ISAACSON: One of the things that Elon Musk has criticized this bill for is that it doesn't do anything to try to enact some of the DOGE, the
Department of Government Efficiency, cuts he tried to make. I understand on a bill like this, it's not something you can do with, you know,
discretionary spending that easily. There's all sorts of technicalities or rescissions. Bill may have to come down the pike.
But are you confident that they're going to be the cuts that were done by the Department of Government Efficiency or has that all gone by the
wayside?
MOORE: Thank you for highlighting that in this particular bill, this reconciliation bill, there's a lot of rules and things that have to go
within a parliamentary procedure and a lot of things within the discretionary side that can't qualify for it. Things even to Social
Security can't qualify for it. So, there's limitations on what you can do in this particular bill.
But a rescissions package, we're -- you know, we're very, very hopeful that the White House will work with us on sending us over a rescissions package,
because that actually is a simple majority vote. You do not need a 60-vote threshold in the Senate. I think a lot of my Democratic colleagues are just
sort of checked out anything associated with the Trump administration, they're not going to support even if it's a smart type of reduction in
spending. Hopefully, that changes over the next few months. We'll have to see how that plays out.
Most of this work will be done in the appropriations world, and that is what comes next. As soon as we get this bill done, we have an appropriation
cycle that we're already working on. Hopefully, we can find significant change. And even if we don't rescind those, like pull that money back, you
can actually hopefully transfer it to next year's budget. There's a savings associated with that.
Because a lot of times, you know, government agencies will have extra money towards the fourth quarter and they'll use it up just because. Now, if you
constrain that, you can actually transfer it into a more productive use of that money next -- in next fiscal year.
So, there's all sorts of ways to do this. I'm hopeful we will actually see some of rescission package coming up as well.
ISAACSON: You've been an advocate of a more targeted approach to tariffs. Give me your impression of the tariff -- things that are happening now and
whether the on again, off again, I can never -- I have to get up in the morning trying to figure out which ones are on, off, being delayed.
MOORE: That's right.
ISAACSON: Well, you say that. Is that a problem for the economy when we don't get up in the morning and know exactly what's on and off on tariffs?
And is there a better way to do that?
MOORE: So, absolutely. I love this question, being able to engage on this. I'm a member of the trade subcommittee on Ways and Means, and I was -- I
recently shared my thoughts with the ambassador over the USTR and I said, look, think of the good work that the first Trump administration did with
respect to 301 tariffs largely directed at China, and those -- that work that we -- that President Trump did then existed through an entire Biden
administration without any changes. That's how you know you've done smart, good, sound, long lasting policy.
And it wasn't even codified in legislation. This was codified in executive order that President Biden looked at and said, hey, we're not going to
touch this either. I said, that is a great opportunity to enhance and look at that area where you could improve on that and also deal with de minimis
because I think de minimis has been taken advantage of.
That's when you allow anything under $800 to come in tariff free. And people gain that system. So, there -- that's a lot of some of the work that
I've been talking about. I'm great if tariffs are used to help us get non- tariff barriers out of the way, get into better negotiations with some of our allies, our trading partners across the world. But no, I don't like the
turmoil and the constant back and forth, constant back and forth. I hope that's just for a moment.
Long-term high tariffs is economic policy moving forward, that would be very difficult on our economy, that would -- that eventually would raise
prices. But we have been taken advantage of. And so, we need to do some of this type of stuff. And I'm hopeful, and I'm confident that the Trump
administration can get to the right spot and hopefully, sooner than later.
ISAACSON: Congressman Blake Moore, thank you so much for joining us.
MOORE: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
[13:55:00]
AMANPOUR: And finally, tonight, a tribute to an African literary giant. Ngugi wa Thiong'o, the trailblazing Kenyan author and activist who gave
voice to the struggles of post-colonial Africa has died at 87. Living in self-imposed exile due to fears for his safety, Ngugi wrote his landmark
novel "Devil on the Cross," on prison toilet paper while detained for a year without trial simply because of a play he wrote. His works, including
"Weep Not, Child," inspired generations and challenged the legacy of colonialism. A fearless storyteller who will be remembered for his
unwavering belief in the power of words.
That's it for now. Thank you for watching, and goodbye from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
