Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Ukrainian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Heorhii Tykhyi; Interview with International Crisis Group Israel/Palestine Project Director Max Rodenbeck; Interview with U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Former Director Tom Frieden. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired June 30, 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.
Russia strikes again, targeting Ukraine overnight with a massive aerial assault. Heorhii Tykhyi, the Ukrainian foreign ministry spokesperson, joins
me from Kyiv.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We have a bigger problem of the shortage of milk.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- a harrowing report from Gaza on the death of a three-month- old baby girl from starvation. I speak to Max Rodenbeck from the International Crisis Group.
Plus --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR., U.S. HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES SECRETARY: We're all very, very grateful to President Trump or his leadership in giving us the
impetus to make this happen.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- the remaking of America's health system. Tom Frieden, former CDC director, reacts to RFK Jr.'s Plans to make America healthy again.
Welcome to the program everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour. Ukraine has once again been bombarded. This
time with one of Russia's largest aerial assaults of the war thus far. Authorities say infrastructure was hit across the country. Well, the Air
Force reporting more than 500 drones and missiles launched from Russia in one night. The U.N. says civilian casualties are on the rise as well. In
the last six months, they increased 37 percent compared to the same timeframe last year.
All the while, President Trump appears to have somewhat lost interest after being unable to force Russia to accept a ceasefire. But it is clear that
Russian President Putin has not budged from his Maximalist goals, recently proclaiming that Ukrainians and Russians are one people, and that all of
Ukraine belonged to Russia.
So, what hope is there for an end to this war? And how much longer could both countries keep fighting? Heorhii Tykhyi is the spokesperson for
Ukraine's foreign ministry and joins me now live from Kyiv. Heorhii, thank you so much for taking the time.
As we noted, 477 drones, 60 missiles launched towards six different locations across the country just on Sunday alone. What do you make of the
increase in this aerial bombardment that we've seen week after week now? It appears new records continue to be broken over the last few months in terms
of the bombardment by Russia on Ukraine.
HEORHII TYKHYI, UKRAINIAN FOREIGN MINISTRY SPOKESMAN: Yes. Thank you, Bianna. You are absolutely right in saying some of the statistics. We have
civilian casualties going up 37 percent in last half a year. We have regular strikes with hundreds of drones and missiles. And actually, later,
you can see that the scale of terror is growing. So, basically, we have every three, four days, 500 missiles and drones and more coming into
Ukraine.
So, you have two important conclusions from that. The first one is that Putin certainly demonstrates that he is not willing to have any meaningful
peace process. He just keeps on increasing the terror against Ukraine. And the second important conclusion is that Russia, unfortunately, masses more
and more means of terror. So, its war machine, its war, defense, industrial base is developing. And under our data, they are developing it faster than
at any time during the Cold War, the Soviet Union -- I mean, the Soviet Union pace of developing their defense industry.
This is a threat. And clearly, not only a threat to Ukraine. And that's why we say that when we call for partners to sanction Russia, it's actually in
their own interest. It's not only about supporting Ukraine, it's about slowing down this enormous war machine that actually poses a threat to the
entire transatlantic community.
GOLODRYGA: You mentioned sanctions against Russia. A new bill has been proposed by the E.U. Europe seems to be on board with moving further on
additional, excuse me, sanctions against Russia. Even here in the United States. Senator Lindsey Graham once again telling the Sunday morning shows
over the weekend that the United States is ready to impose 500 percent tariffs on countries buying Russian oil. And yet, President Trump seems to
be reluctant to move thus far, appearing to see -- or not even appearing, suggesting that that could impact any leverage he has over bringing
Vladimir Putin to the negotiating table.
So, what do you make of this continued hope that President Trump seems to have, at this point, almost unilaterally, because most European leaders do
think that more sanctions are in order? What do you make of President Trump's continued position that there may still be a window for
negotiations?
[13:05:00]
TYKHYI: So, I'll start with the sanctions. You're right that they need to be coordinated. I mean, we need a transatlantic pressure raised on Russia.
It'll have the most, the biggest effect if we have it synchronized, Europe, the United States, Australia, Japan, the G7 countries. So, everyone
together. Then it will have an effect.
In our view, raising the cost of war for the aggressor, for Russia, is actually something that facilitates the peace effort, not impedes it. So,
we, of course, call on our -- all of our partners to raise the pressure now. To President Trump's strategy, first of all, we really -- we do
appreciate this administration's larger involvement in trying to put an end to this war. We think it's really -- we think it's sincere and there have
been already some of the results of this, you know, renewed push from the American administration, from President Trump, for example, the exchanges
of prisoners of war. We had large exchanges, some of them are continuing right now, and we think this is an outcome of the administration pressing
Moscow.
Unfortunately, Russia keeps rejecting the peace effort. And they -- first and foremost, they reject, of course, the ceasefire. Ukraine agreed to the
ceasefire on March 11th. It's been more than a hundred years -- a hundred days that Ukraine already agreed to that. And unfortunately, Moscow keeps
ignoring this. So, this is the crucial step. We need more pressure on Russia to make them accept a full and unconditional ceasefire and this
would pave the way to, you know, meaningful peace process.
Because you need to have guns silent to have the diplomats talk and achieve results. This is, we think -- it's logical and natural. Ukraine is ready
for that.
GOLODRYGA: As you've noted, Russia appears to be on a full-time economic war footing at this point. You just talk about the number of drones, not
only drones that Russia has imported from other countries and purchased from Iran, I'll get to that in a moment, but also that they manufacture
within the country as well.
On Sunday alone President Zelenskyy said that over 1,200 drones have been launched by Russia this week. And one analyst who has been really at the
center following the number of drones Russia has used said that they may exceed 5,000 drones this month.
How concerned are you? We've spent a lot of time talking about how Ukraine has focused on its own drone production and how that's impacted the
country. And your ability to nimbly defend yourself and continue to fight against Russia inside of Russian territory. But it seems that Russia is
doing the same.
TYKHYI: So, look, this war has completely changed everyone's view of how the modern warfare develops. It's a completely drawn war right now, of
course, with artillery, with some of the other classical means but this is, first and foremost, a drone war.
And Ukraine is developing rapidly its own defense industrial production. And our goal -- our strategic goal is actually self-sufficiency. We don't
want to depend on foreign aid forever. So, we're trying to maximize our own defense industry production. And we urge our partners to increase
investment in Ukraine's technology. For example, we have the latest knowhow, the unique technology, which is interceptor drones. The drones
used to intercept incoming drones and missiles. This is something no other country has. At this moment, we already have this technology and we urge
partners to increase investment in that.
This is a win-win cooperation by the way, because this technology will be available to those partners who will be investing in it, and we urge them
to increase it.
Of course, Russia is ramping up its defense industrial base with enormous base, as I said, and this is also dangerous because you have Iran and North
Korea, two closest allies of Russia. And they're -- of course, they are also learning from this war. North Korea has troops on the ground fighting
against the Ukrainian forces. It has North Korean missiles actually flying into this city behind me. And they develop their missiles because they use
them in combat. And North Korea becomes more, you know, stronger because of this cooperation with Russia. This extremely dangerous.
And we're dealing with an alliance of regimes, which is Russia, Iran, and North Korea opposing a threat not only to Europe, to the Middle East. We
saw it in Iran recently, and Israel, and to the Indo-Pacific, because obviously stronger North Korea is a destabilization for Korean Peninsula.
So, again, this is a complex threat and it needs to be addressed in its complexity, you know, in all of these three regimes together. This is our
view.
GOLODRYGA: And President Zelenskyy said the majority of the drones used over the weekend were Russian-Iranian Shaheds. And it's interesting given
the 12-day war now between Israel and Iran, really setting Iran back in terms of any production capability that it's going to have, not only on
their own defensive weapons, but also I would imagine on drones that they would sell to Russia.
[13:10:00]
Christiane early in the stages of this war asked the Russian ambassador to the United Kingdom about Russia's relationship with Iran in terms of
purchasing these drones and the impact that war may have on that. Here's what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: What would you do without Iranian drones, Iranian -- all the stuff that they're sending you?
The Shahed suicide drones, which are causing so much destruction in Ukraine.
ANDREI KEILIN, RUSSIAN AMBASSADOR TO THE U.K.: No, no, no. The we -- it's -- it was an initial phase of the special military operation.
AMANPOUR: Are you still not calling it to war?
KEILIN: -- used the Iranian drones as process. And since that time, we have constructed a lot of facilities on our soil that is producing much
more advanced weaponry, including the -- these, as you call, Shahed -- well, unmanned blank objects, which is now in place. But it is our own
production.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: So, what do you make of those statements? Obviously, you take everything from the Russian government here in the regime with a grain of
salt. But the fact that he's sort of reiterating the points that you've made, that you and I have made, that Russia has not only relied on
purchasing material and weapons from countries like Iran and North Korea, but also really investing in their own production. Is this at all a setback
for Russia, what's transpired between Israel and Iran?
TYKHYI: Bianna, I think we need to take this threat incredibly seriously, like, I mean, all of the Western alliance and the Euro-Atlantic community,
because you're right, they are exchanging. They -- Iran has been providing Russia with weapons and providing Russia with technologies, and Russia uses
some of these technologies to ramp up its own production. This is true. But this works both ways because they enhance every -- like they're both
enhancing their technology.
For example, we now started shooting down new advanced Shahed drones, which have better cameras, which have some better electronics inside. And this,
of course, is available not only to Russia, but also to Iran. So, they're both working to enhance their means of terror, which can be used, again,
against Ukraine, against Israel, but later on against some other countries.
This is what we are trying -- we're trying to ring an alarm bell and say, people, we either stop this war machine right now, slow it down with all
available means with sanctions, with disrupting some of their access to technology, with basically defunding this war machine with cutting Russia's
oil revenues, with cutting Russia's access to markets and everything. And with some secondary sanctions on those who help Russia's war effort.
So, either we do all of this and slow down this war machine or this threat will be like greater with time, not only for Ukraine, but for some other
countries. It's cheaper to sanction Russia now than deal with the consequences later.
GOLODRYGA: A couple of moments from the NATO Summit last week really stood out to me as it relates to President Trump and Ukraine. One is obviously
President Zelenskyy's continued push and request to purchase U.S. Patriot missiles. President Trump to that request last week said that the U.S.
should, quote, "should consider them."
Is there any further development on that front? Is Ukraine expecting to see more missiles delivered in the time ahead?
TYKHYI: We are in a close negotiation process on this matter. Ukraine is ready to buy those weapons. We are not asking for donations or simply aid
packages. Ukraine is ready to buy those -- these weapons. And of course, Patriots are by far the best system that you have in the modern world. It
shoots down the ballistics. We tested this on the battlefield. This piece of American weaponry is a state-of-the-art weapon that can shoot down any
of the Russian ballistic missiles. And, sorry, this has been proven by the battlefield.
Of course, we need them. Of course, we need to buy them. We are ready to buy them. We already to buy them together with some of our partners. And
these negotiations are ongoing and we are hoping for a positive outcome, especially given that we have this minerals deal right now. And we have
instruments in place to have this cooperation. So, we are -- we have positive expectations of them, but negotiations are ongoing.
GOLODRYGA: Is there a certain timeframe that you're expecting these Patriot missiles to be delivered if, in fact, this is approved in greenlit
by the White House? Because as we've been reporting, as you well know better than most, Russia it can -- appears to be moving forward with a more
aggressive summer offensive as we speak?
TYKHYI: Look, we don't set the deadlines, but of course, this is an ongoing work and you need to understand the reality we are in because we
are in the reality of a total war, a full-scale invasion of our country. So, of course, we need all the capabilities as soon as possible. We all --
we'll need them all yesterday, as we say in Ukraine. So, of course, this is a very urgent matter and -- but it's ongoing.
[13:15:00]
GOLODRYGA: Yes. As with so many weapons that you've requested, many of them ultimately delivered. I think that's an appropriate phrase, we needed
them yesterday, sort of an evergreen throughout this war.
Another moment that really stood out at that NATO Summit was at the press conference between President Trump and one BBC reporter who is Ukrainian. I
believe she moved to Poland after the war began, but her husband is on the frontlines in Ukraine, like so many families that have been divided and
separated, sadly, because of this war. Let's play this exchange for our viewers.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: Are you living yourself now in Ukraine?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: My husband is there.
TRUMP: Wow. I can see you very -- you know, it's amazing.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And me with the kids. I'm in Warsaw actually, because he wanted me to be.
TRUMP: Is your husband a soldier? No?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He is.
TRUMP: He's there now?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.
TRUMP: Wow. That's rough stuff, right? That's tough. And I wish you a lot of luck. I mean, I can see it's very upsetting to you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: I think that was a really important moment for not only the world to see, but to see how the president was responding to that reporter
and the emotion that you could sense on her face and in her voice. The president has for long counted numbers, the numbers of dead soldiers, both
Russian and Ukrainian, but to see the real-life impact, I think that takes it to a different level. Can you describe the reaction within Ukraine to
this exchange?
TYKHYI: Yes, (INAUDIBLE) personally. She's a great reporter and she was also a great person. She's really very sincere. And I think that the fact
that you had these exchanges, because she has this very sincere emotion and I think President Trump reciprocated this emotion. He felt it. He felt this
moment. And we think he's his reaction was compassionate. And actually, that's what people in Ukraine -- if you look at the social media and what
people thought of it, they saw that, first of all, she, of course, was very brave to raise this issue in this public event. You know, you need to have
some sort of bravery to raise this in front of the president of the United States.
And we think his response was compassion. If you look at it, he started asking her what -- how is -- what's with her husband? Like, how's it for
her? And we hope that this -- exchanges like this they really help show not only the people involved, but also the global audience that this is
something very urgent for Ukraine.
And this is about ordinary, normal people suffering. This is not about -- you know, our armies mostly formed of civilian people right now. So, these
are people who never wanted to fight a war. We were attacked. So, we are in existential fight to protect our lives, our homes, our families, our
country. And this just shows how sincere this is. This is not about professional army, you know. Of course it's professional. I mean, it's just
not about people who prepare to be soldiers. They all wanted to live their normal lives. Unfortunately, they have to take up arms and defend their
country.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, normal life was uprooted about three and a half years ago after Russia invaded the Ukraine on a massive scale once again. Heorhii
Tykhyi, thank you so much for the time. Really appreciate it.
TYKHYI: Thank you, Bianna.
GOLODRYGA: And coming up later in the program, is peace and Gaza on the horizon. Israel's prime minister says opportunities have opened up since
the country's 12-day war with Iran. That's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:20:00]
GOLODRYGA: Now, to Gaza and the harrowing story of a baby girl who never got a chance at life. A three-month-old died of acute malnutrition after
her family was unable to secure the formula she needed due to the severe food shortages. Jeremy Diamond reports. And a warning that contains
distressing images.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Three months ago, Jouri Al-Masri was being carried out of a delivery room, swaddled in a
baby blanket just like this one. Now her tiny body is set down on the cold, hard marble slab of a Gaza hospital morgue, drained of all signs of life.
Every millimeter of her body is a testament to Gaza's humanitarian crisis and Israeli policies that have enabled it. Her father says Jouri was born a
healthy 7.9-pound baby but needed lactose-free baby formula, which she couldn't find in any Gaza hospital.
Closing the crossings and depriving children of milk is one of the war crimes against our children, her father says. I do not know what the reason
is and what their sin is to be killed in this manner. Their only fault is being innocent babies.
For weeks, Gaza's doctors and nurses have warned baby formula shortages are threatening the lives of Gaza's most vulnerable. Like the babies in this
neonatal unit at Al Helou Hospital.
MOHAMMAD TABASHA, HEAD NURSE AT AL HELOU HOSPITAL: We have a bigger problem of shortage of milk, especially for special formula milk for all of
the neonatal --
DIAMOND (voice-over): Israel's aid coordination agency, COGAT, said it, quote, "Does not prevent or restrict the entry of baby food." And said,
more than 1,100 tons of baby food have entered Gaza in recent weeks.
Israel lifted its eleven-week total blockade of Gaza in May but has continued to restrict the number of aid trucks and types of aid allowed
into Gaza. The result, thousands of cases of acute malnutrition among children.
Food shortages are also driving up the need for baby formula in Gaza as malnourished mothers like Fatmeh struggle to breastfeed their babies.
A mother does not even have enough to eat for herself. How can she feed her children or breastfeed them?
Fatmeh asks. I was nine months pregnant when the ceasefire began and I expected that everything would be available, especially milk. For now,
Fatmeh has formula to keep her babies alive, even though limits on aid into Gaza means formula deliveries are inconsistent.
But for Jouri it is too late. Three months after she came into this world, she became the 66th child to die of acute malnutrition during the war in
Gaza according to the Palestinian Health Ministry. Her father says he was out hunting for her formula when she died. It was nowhere to be found.
Jeremy Diamond, CNN, Tel Aviv.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: Well, now we turn to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu saying that new opportunities have opened up after the 12-day war with
Iran. One of his top advisers, Ron Dermer, is in Washington today as President Trump continues to push for a deal.
All the while, Palestinians in Gaza continue to be killed, even around aid sites. A Haaretz report alleged that Israeli soldiers were instructed by
commanders to shoot at crowds approaching distribution sites, even as it was evident that they pose no threat. The IDF says that it strongly rejects
the accusation raised in that article.
Max Rodenbeck is the Israel/Palestine project director at the International Crisis Group, having previously worked for decades in the Middle East as a
journalist and writer, and he joins me from London. Max, welcome to the program.
So, let me pick up with what Prime Minister Netanyahu has said that new opportunities have now arisen to bring the war in Gaza to an end following
the 12-day war between Israel and Iran. He's not the first to have said so. We've spoken with Israeli officials who have said as much that if this war
in Iran is a successful one, that Israel will have more leverage, and that Prime Minister Netanyahu, more specifically, will have more leverage to
bring the war in Gaza to an end. What do you make of that? Are these two mutually exclusive areas or do you think that there's a connection?
Max Rodenbeck, Israel/Palestine Project Director, International Crisis Group: There's a connection. And certainly, from the Israeli perspective,
the end of this war with Iran has brought opportunities. I mean, the -- in the past couple of years since the start of the Gaza War, Israel has one by
one eliminated a lot of threats to Israel.
And so, at this stage, having defeated or, you know, set back Iran -- you know, destroyed Iran's capacity to hit Israel, to a certain extent, Israel
has eliminated a lot of the threats to it. So, you know, at this stage, as the war in Gaza goes along, Israel doesn't really make strategic gains by
continuing this war in Gaza, it has no more threats to itself. It's not really making big strategic gains.
[13:25:00]
If it decides to go all the way militarily in Gaza, it'll be expensive for Israel. It could cost the lives of a lot of Israeli soldiers. And
meanwhile, far too many Palestinians are dying every day, as we've just seen, which is a, you know, this tragic story of the child is just one of
57,000 so far Palestinians who died in Gaza.
So, at this point, there is an opportunity for Israel to perhaps relax a little bit. It doesn't face threats right now. And so, yes indeed there's
an opportunity to make peace in Gaza that perhaps Israel didn't feel that it had before. So, that is true.
GOLODRYGA: Right. Because you're seeing the humanitarian crisis only grow in Gaza. You're seeing more civilian deaths. You have 50 hostages that
remain held in Gaza and their families constantly playing for this war to end and for them to come home. And as you noted, Israeli soldiers also
continue to be killed. And on top of that, this is a very unpopular war at this stage for the majority of Israelis. And I believe for the first time
in a recent poll for the plurality of Likud voters as well. And that is notable because that is Prime Minister Netanyahu's party.
So, when you take that into consideration, and then you also take his words over the weekend into consideration where he said the goal of the war in
Gaza is, first of all, rescuing all of the hostages, something that he hasn't said before, it was the elimination of Hamas, all of that to you
suggests what? That there is in fact a window not only for a ceasefire, but perhaps a permanent end to the war?
RODENBECK: Well, Bianna, there's been a lot of talk just in the last few days of a kind of more comprehensive deal, including the whole Middle East.
We've heard that there are sort of backroom talks between the Trump administration and Netanyahu's government about broadening the chance for
peace across the Middle East.
So, the opportunity is there. Whether it can actually be carried forward is a whole other question. You know, this Israeli government is kind of torn
between two paths, not for the first time, but, you know, either it can continue this military campaign in Gaza at some expense. And as you said,
yes, Israeli soldiers are dying too.
Just in simple numbers, you know, the number of Israeli soldiers who died in the month of June, 20 soldiers, is the same number as the number of
living Israeli hostages left to be rescued from Hamas. So, it's expensive.
But the other option is to reach for some kind of peace deal. A broader peace deal would be so welcomed across the Middle East. But of course, it
has to start with a peace in Gaza between Israel and Hamas. And there have been differences between those two sides. There hasn't been obvious
movement to get them together so far.
It really will require perhaps a little bit of more engagement from the Trump administration. And in some ways, it really is for Netanyahu and the
Israeli government to bend a little bit, because there isn't really much bending more that Hamas can do. And the biggest difference between these
two sides, Israel and Hamas, in the last months and months of negotiations is really that Hamas has insisted that any ceasefire or peace deal has to
include an end to the war. And Israel has been only willing to do a hostage exchange without promising to end the war. So, that has to be bridged. And
it looks like perhaps Netanyahu will be more interested in actually ending the war at this stage, with a little help from the Trump administration.
GOLODRYGA: Right. Because the idea of killing every single Hamas member versus eliminating the threat that Hamas itself as a terror organization
poses towards Israel, those are two separate things. And one may have already been achieved. And you've got the majority of Hamas leadership
already killed by Israel over the course of this war. And now, you have Hamas' main benefactor also weakened.
So, in a sense, so many of these military objectives have already been reached, and the question is, what ultimately was Prime Minister
Netanyahu's objective, a day after plan? And you write in your latest article, the Israeli government appears to be seeking precisely the
outcomes that Netanyahu ruled out in January of 2024, not only long-term military occupation of Gaza but also the large-scale displacement or even
expulsion of its civilian population.
How do some of the more curious or controversial comments and policies thrown out by President Trump impact president -- or Prime Minister
Netanyahu's thinking given your reporting?
RODENBECK: It is a good question. We've seen -- you know, there's been flip-flopping on the part of President Trump and also flip-flopping on the
part of Netanyahu. And as you mentioned, I mean, the war aims declared by Netanyahu have changed over time.
[13:30:00]
And I think in the part that you quoted from my article in Foreign Affairs, it was from a speech in May where he had changed the parameters again very
clearly. And at the beginning of the war, he'd said he just want to eliminate Hamas and, you know, to save the hostages. Later on, he's
changed. And in May, he declared that he supported the Trump plan, what he called the Trump plan. And there isn't really a Trump plan, it was more a
couple of tweets put out by President Trump back in February when he suggested that Gaza could be turned into a Riviera, you know, and which
would involve removing the Palestinian population from Gaza.
So, you know, and Netanyahu declared himself in May to be in favor of the Trump plan, which suggested that Israel's new war aim would be to
depopulate Gaza. So, that seems perhaps to have shifted again for parts of the Israeli government. The trouble is that the Israeli government is a
coalition government, and there are other parts of the Israeli government, the sort of far-right that Netanyahu relies on to stay in power who really
do still profess a desire to see Gaza depopulated and recolonized by Israel. And they're serious about this.
The problem is that they are, you know, a small part of Netanyahu's government, but they represent a small minority in Israel. And as you
mentioned, most Israelis, and the polls are very consistent over the past couple of weeks, more than 60 percent of Israel -- of Israelis want to see
this war ended fairly soon and get the hostages out. And it's pretty clear what the parameters of a deal would have to be to make that happen.
And it's not that complicated. But that would stop short of Israel completely reoccupying Gaza and expelling, you know, its population. That's
-- that isn't -- that's -- that becomes a much more complicated thing.
GOLODRYGA: And you cite U.N. estimates that's nearly 83 percent of Gaza's now either already occupied by the Israeli army or has fallen under
evacuation orders and sort of is in this free fire zone as well. What are the longer-term implications of that alone? Because clearly, that is
nothing that will benefit Gaza's and not -- and something that the majority of Israelis also oppose.
RODENBECK: Well, since -- the thing that's happened on the ground in Gaza is since March, there -- you know, if you recall, there was a ceasefire in
the winter that went on for six weeks. 33 Israeli hostages were released during the ceasefire. Gaza's lived almost normal lives for six weeks, and
Israel broke that ceasefire and adopted a policy of raising the pressure on Hamas. And that's what's happened in the last few months.
So, we've had much more pressure, you know, a lot more military pressure and pressure in terms of restricting aid, restricting food, basically, to
the people of Gaza. So, that's the policy that the Netanyahu administration has been pursuing the last three months, is to keep the pressure up on
Hamas, kind of break them by making life so unbearable in Gaza that Hamas will be forced to surrender basically.
That just hasn't worked. It's led to, you know, many, many deaths, about 6,000 deaths since March, and starvation and ruin and disaster for
Palestinians. It hasn't changed the equation with Hamas and hostages. So, that has been a not successful policy.
And right now, you know, it's gotten to the stage where, as you say Palestinians have been pushed into a really small part of Gaza. So, all the
population of Gaza is being squeezed into a smaller and smaller part of Gaza, more and more deprived and more and more, you know, deadly actually.
And the -- you know, at this point, the Israeli government really has to make a choice. Are we going to continue to pursue this policy and squeeze
Palestinians into an even tinier, you know, piece of territory and have even more people die or do we want to take a different approach? So, I
mean. that really -- that decision rests very heavily with Netanyahu right now, you know, as we speak.
GOLODRYGA: And we've all said, and it's been pretty obvious that the one person who does have maximum leverage over Prime Minister Netanyahu is
President Trump. And we've seen him exercise that leverage even recently with this war with Iran, which the United States participated in. But just
a few days ago, we saw a very angered President Trump, publicly tell Netanyahu to turn planes around and stop their bombing as he was trying to
reinforce a ceasefire.
But some curious posts on social media since then from President Trump putting pressure not on Prime Minister Netanyahu, not public pressure on
Hamas, but on the Israeli judicial system over these corruption charges and cases that continue to hangover Prime Minister Netanyahu. I've been told by
sources that this wasn't a quid pro quo demand from the president, but this was actually him expressing some sympathy for the situation that the prime
minister finds himself in. How did you interpret all of that?
[13:35:00]
RODENBECK: I think you're absolutely right. I mean, and as you say, Bianna, there has been, you know, hot and cold -- blowing hot and cold from
Trump with Netanyahu. They have a strange relationship. You know, in some ways they're very similar. You know, they've both faced judicial scrutiny
and found it very uncomfortable to be a leader and at the same time, facing, you know, hostile courts. So, they have something in common.
They're both populous of a certain kind.
And it can be hard to read exactly where this is coming from. So, I think, you know, there's a personal sympathy with -- from Trump for Netanyahu's
predicament with his courts. And I think Trump is also -- he would like to show his, you know, solidarity with Netanyahu and to sort of bolster
Netanyahu's position in Israel, perhaps, we don't know, but one of the points of this might be to give Netanyahu more courage to face up to his
own more extreme hard right coalition partners, to actually tell them, you know, now it's time for peace. We're not going to, you know, reoccupy Gaza
and recolonize Gaza. It's just not a good idea.
Perhaps that's what's going on here. But we'll have to wait for the call to come from Netanyahu. So, that's going to be, you know, something we'll see
in the next few days. I would guess. Netanyahu is set to be going to Washington very soon for meeting with Trump.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, it's a fool's errand, and apologies for putting you in the position of having to decipher the president's social media posts, but it
was a bit curious even for him, because it wasn't just one, I believe it were multiple posts along that dimension and really expressing sympathy for
a Prime Minister Netanyahu's legal situation, if you want to describe it that way.
Talk about what could be on the horizon. Because we've spent so much time talking about the devastating war in Gaza. Now, the change in dynamics in
the region, given Israel's 12-day war over Iran really decimating the country and setting it back decades has, from some perspectives, opened up
new possibilities for new alliances. Perhaps the Abraham Accords expanding for other countries. Do you think that none of that will happen until there
is resolution in Gaza, or can you see Syria in Lebanon actually having some sort of formal relations with Israel as this war continues?
RODENBECK: I think that some of that might happen, but it won't stick unless there's some kind of resolution of Gaza, you know. I mean, there is
an impetus in the region to, you know, this is one of the most important kind of moments in the Middle East, perhaps like since the 1967 war when
Israel defeated three Arab armies.
You know, so Israel has found itself in a much stronger position. And there is room for Israel to make peace and to make concessions, you know, to try
and live in peace with its neighbors. But it's kind of for Israel to recognize the moment and to act magnanimously. You know, if the Israelis,
you know, think that they can, you know, just resolve the Palestinian issue by force on their own -- entirely on their own terms, it's not going to
create goodwill across the region. That's the trouble.
I mean, you know, and there are countries that would like to make peace with Israel for their own self-interest, and perhaps they would, but it's
hard to see the region really settling down in the way that, you know, the vast majority of its people would like to see unless there's some kind of,
you know, equitable resolution to the trouble that has been at the heart of all of the Middle East problems from the beginning, including Iran.
I mean, you know, we shouldn't forget that this war with Iran, its origins lie in the Israeli-Palestinian struggle and it's, you know, Iran taking the
side of the Palestinians in this struggle that has led to the situation. You know, so it goes back a long way. And at the heart of it all, it has
always been the Palestinian question. And, you know, it's -- maybe this is a good opportunity to deal with it.
GOLODRYGA: Max Rodenbeck, really appreciate you joining the show. Thank you so much.
RODENBECK: Thank you, Bianna.
GOLODRYGA: And still to come for us. RFK Jr. herald's a new era in healthcare with reverberations felt in America and beyond. I'll speak to
former head of the Center for Disease Control, Dr. Tom Frieden after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:40:00]
GOLODRYGA: Now, to Washington where the Senate has kicked off a marathon voting session on Trump's sweeping domestic policy bill. The bill includes
historic spending cuts to Medicaid and would reshape the Affordable Care Act.
Meanwhile, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is upending America's approach to vaccines. Earlier this month, he fired all members of a vaccine
advisory panel and replaced them with eight new members, half of whom appeared to be skeptical about some vaccines. On Thursday, the panel voted
to no longer recommend annual flu shots that contain thimerosal, a mercury- based preservative. Thimerosal has been a longstanding focus for anti- vaccine groups, despite no scientific evidence linking it to autism.
Dr. Tom Frieden is the former director of the CDC, and he joins me now from Connecticut. Welcome to the program. Good to see you. So, let's start with
the ACIP, this newly remade Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. As we noted, HHS Secretary Kennedy dismissed about 17 members of the
existing board, put in some members of his own choosing.
And the president of the American Academy of Pediatrics said in response to that, quote, "Federal immunization policy is no longer a credible process
and it's been politicized at the expense of children." Do you agree with that statement?
DR. TOM FRIEDEN, FORMER DIRECTOR, U.S. CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION: I am afraid. So, the fact is that the Advisory Committee on
Immunization Practices has for decades been a best practice in how to develop vaccine policy. Every meeting was open to the public. Every
conflict of interest was disclosed. Very few conflict of interest existed. If there was any conflict of interest, the person who had the conflict
recused themselves. Of the 17 members, only one had any conflict, and that person recused themselves from any related discussion.
In contrast, these new members have very little knowledge about vaccines, and some of them have very strong beliefs that are simply not supported by
the science.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, and we should note that Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana who is also an MD and had been quite critical and I think raised a lot of
valid questions during the confirmation period for Secretary Kennedy, who nonetheless voted for him ultimately, he talked about commitments that
Kennedy said he would make as it relates specifically to vaccine safety, given some of his past comments. Here is what Senator Cassidy said at the
time.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. BILL CASSIDY (R-LA): He has also committed that he had worked within current vaccine approval and safety monitoring systems and not established
parallel systems. It confirmed he'll maintain the Centers for Disease Control and Preventions Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices
recommendations without changes.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: So, in firing the advisory committee, has the HHS secretary reneged on those commitments?
DR. FRIEDEN: Well, he didn't change the committee. So, I would leave that to others. But the bottom line is that he's undermined decision making that
protects children in America. And of course, all of us are very concerned about child safety. That's why for vaccines, we require a much higher
standard.
On the one hand, if you're giving treatment to someone who's very ill, that person is going to get more sick if you don't give treatment. Vaccines have
to be much safer, they have to be effective and they have to be very safe so that maybe you see a bad reaction one in a million times.
But what we've seen from Mr. Kennedy is a pattern of deception, a pattern of incorrect statements, for example, and of tremendous concern, is his
video statement to Gavi, the vaccine alliance. Gavi is an amazing accomplishment. It has saved more than 19 million lives of children in
recent years, and it takes vaccine safety very seriously. And Secretary Kennedy made a series of false statements in that video that are extremely
concerning.
GOLODRYGA: Let's play that video that the secretary made and the statements he made about Gavi.
[13:45:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR., U.S. HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES SECRETARY: When the science was inconvenient, Gavi ignored the science. I call on Gavi today to
re-earn the public trust and to justify the $8 billion that America has provided in funding since 2001. And I'll tell you how to start taking
vaccine safety seriously. Consider the best science available, even when the science contradicts established paradigms. Until that happens, the
United States won't contribute more to Gavi.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: And when he says he won't contribute more to Gavi, we're talking about $1.2 billion that the U.S. had pledged. Just respond to those
statements alone and explain that the consequence of the U.S. not continuing its financial support for Gavi.
DR. FRIEDEN: Gavi has supported the vaccination of more than a billion children. Its vaccines have prevented more than 19 million deaths. And Gavi
isn't just good for other countries, it's good for the U.S. because we can stop outbreaks there so we don't have to fight them here. Gavi needs the
resources to vaccinate the children whose lives will be saved by these vaccines.
In that same video, Secretary Kennedy cited two different things about the pertussis vaccine or DPTE -- DTP vaccine. First, he said, oh, it's terrible
that Gavi has used a certain form, what's called whole cell vaccine for pertussis. Whereas decades ago, we switched years ago to a safer version.
That's really incorrect. There are two forms, both work. It's a trade-off. One form, the -- what's called acellular version we use in this country
because it causes less fever, less headache, it's easier to take, but it's also less effective. It doesn't work for as long. It doesn't prevent
spreading pertussis to others. That's one reason we have a resurgence of whooping cough pertussis in this country.
Other countries made the opposite decision. Yes, kids are going to have more fever, more headache, but it's going to protect them better. This is
not taking vaccine safety seriously. The Gavi and the ACIP, the CDC all take vaccine safety extremely seriously. That's why if there's any signal
they might pause or reduce the number of people they recommend vaccines for.
The other thing that really, really was concerning was Secretary Kennedy, in that same video, cited a study from 2017 that he said showed that the --
what's called the DTP vaccine increased the risk of death in girls by tenfold. I was really startled by that because we do have to take any study
seriously, any safety concern, seriously.
So, I looked deeply into that study. That study, to be blunt, is nonsense. What that study showed was that the researchers weren't able to find the
same kids who didn't get vaccinated also didn't have their deaths recorded. If you look at that study, the study found that the death rate among
unvaccinated girls was about one-sixth, what the baseline death rate had been before the DTP vaccine was introduced to the country.
To believe that you'd have to believe that deciding not to take a vaccine cuts your risk of death by 85 percent compared to baseline. It's just -- I
don't doubt the sincerity of the authors, but they're wrong. And that's been carefully looked at by a series of groups, by the best specialists who
looked carefully at the data.
This is classic disinformation. You choose and cherry pick one study. You state that study and you ignore overwhelming evidence that disproves it.
GOLODRYGA: Speaking of disinformation, the same advisory committee voted on Thursday against flu shots that, as we noted, contained an old
ingredient that has been used in flu vaccines going back nearly a century called thimerosal. And it also gave credence to a long-debunked theory that
thimerosal, this particular ingredient could lead to more autism cases. And at the same time, the CDC removed information on its website that debunked
those very claims.
Talk to us about this ingredient and the concern that this may raise for you and for millions of Americans who are hoping to get a flu shot this
season.
DR. FRIEDEN: The biggest concern here is about process and unscientific, non-transparent, inaccurate process was used to make a recommendation.
Actually, it's up to the CDC director to accept or not the ACIP recommendations. However, there is no -- there is no CDC director at the
moment that would probably be RFK Jr. acting.
But the content here, let's just be clear, thimerosal has been removed from most vaccines. There's no evidence that it contributed to autism. In fact,
if you just look at it, there was a lot of thimerosal before. There's less now and autism has increased. What do you conclude by that?
[13:50:00]
It was not a cause. It is not a cause. Currently, it's used in about 4 to 7 percent of all flu vaccinations in the U.S., primarily in places like
nursing homes and mass vaccination clinics, large-scale vaccination programs, because it's more efficient, it saves money.
So, this will cost more money. It will make nursing home residents more, more difficult to vaccinate, harder for nursing homes to do the work that
they need to do to save the lives of nursing home residents. That's manageable. What's not manageable is undermining a process that has worked
for six decades, saved millions of lives in the U.S. and tens of millions of lives around the world.
GOLODRYGA: President Trump's former FDA Commissioner, Dr. Scott Gottlieb, is very worried about what all of this means in terms of average American
families wanting to go to their doctors in the coming months to get vaccines, which they typically get annually and just won't have access to.
How concerned are you? How credible it is that scenario that because of this we could actually see fewer vaccines available to millions of
Americans?
DR. FRIEDEN: That's a real risk. It's a risk for the flu vaccine, for COVID vaccines, for other vaccines, for several reasons. One, the CDC
through the Vaccines for Children Program, a great bipartisan program, provides about half of all the childhood vaccines in America. And the VFC,
as it's called, has to cover vaccines if and only if the ACIP recommends them. So, if the ACIP no longer recommends them, kids -- families may have
to spend hundreds of dollars for shots.
It's also concerning because doctors rely on the ACIP and the CDC for fact- based cutting-edge information that takes into account all of the science, all of the data up to the moment. And there's no private body that's going
to be able to replicate that. It involves the deep expertise of literally hundreds of scientists who have spent their lives studying these issues.
They're not simple issues. They're complicated, but the bottom line is simple. The bottom line is a vaccine schedule that every doctor in America
has used for decades. And it's based on science. If we lose that, we're losing a protection for our children. And globally, we're losing one of the
best buys we've ever had to save lives and keep our own children and families safer.
GOLODRYGA: And if I could go back to Senator Cassidy and his concerns now, especially as it relates to ACIP, he was calling for that meeting last week
to be canceled because, as you noted, there is no CDC director in place right now. And he also questioned the credentials of the appointees, the
new appointees, and the lack of experience, studying new technologies such as mRNA vaccines. And he believes that there may be a preconceived negative
notion among some of these panelists about vaccines in general. How important is experience in immunology for these panelists to have?
DR. FRIEDEN: These are complicated issues. Even for an experienced public health specialist epidemiologist, doctor pediatrician, you really have to
be a sub, sub, subspecialist to grasp the key details. That doesn't mean they aren't transparent and clear. I think what really gets me is Secretary
Kennedy has repeatedly, repeatedly, including in his confirmation hearing, stated untruth is about how conflicted the prior ACIP was, and it wasn't.
There was no serious conflict of interest with the 17 members who were discharged. Only one of the 17 had any conflict, a distinguished pediatric
infectious disease specialist who had done research on vaccines and who recused herself from the discussions of those vaccines.
So, essentially, zero conflict of interest. Compare that with the people currently. Two of whom have sued vaccine manufacturers, several of whom
could make a lot of money from those suits in the future. And one of whom has been the past president of one of the leading anti-vaccination groups
in the U.S.
We don't want a stacked jury. We don't want people who are either pro-vax or anti-vax. We want people who are pro-child, who look objectively at the
data, who understand the data, and then will make a decision to keep our kids and our families, our seniors safe.
GOLODRYGA: I think it's safe to say that you do not believe that any of what we've just discussed and all of the changes thus far in terms of
vaccines would be the formula, the correct formula for better health, the title of your book. We'll have to have you back on to talk about that
formula, which you are endorsing at another time. But this is really an important subject matter. So, I'm glad that we were able to spend some time
discussing it with someone who has your level of expertise. Tom Frieden, thank you.
[13:55:00]
DR. FRIEDEN: Thank you very much. Look forward to continuing the conversation.
GOLODRYGA: And finally, for us, parts of Europe are on high alert as severe heat waves continue to grip the continent. Western Turkey
firefighters are battling wildfires for a second day. While temperatures in southern Spain reached a record breaking 46 degrees Celsius. The U.K. is
also bracing for what might be one of its hottest June days.
Just after Climate Action Group, the herds reached the streets of London this weekend. Dozens of life-sized puppet animals are on their way from
Africa to the Arctic Circle with organizers hoping the 20,000-kilometer migration will ring the alarm bell for our environment. I don't know if
these temperatures don't do it, I don't know what will.
But that is it for now. Thank you so much for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
