Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview With U.S. Treasury Department Former Deputy Assistant Secretary For Economic Policy And The Budget Lab At Yale President Natasha Sarin; Interview With Senate Judiciary Committee Former Chief Republican Nominations Counsel and Executive Society for the Rule of Law Director Gregg Nunziata; Interview with Cato Institute Director of Immigration Studies David J. Bier; Interview with MSF Deputy Program Manager in Charge of Palestine Amande Bazerolle. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired August 26, 2025 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
Trump tries to fire the Fed's Lisa Cook, an unprecedented move in Central Bank history. I ask conservative lawyer, Gregg Nunziata, and economist
Natasha Sarin if the president has the authority.
Then aggressive arrests, random deportations and the National Guard patrolling U.S. streets. Is this the new normal under Trump's crackdown on
immigration? Immigration experts David J. Bier weighs in.
Plus, protestors in Israel demand the release of hostages and an end to the war as global outrage grows over the IDF strikes on Nasser Hospital. MSF's
Amande Bazerolle tells us about the great humanitarian situation on the Strip.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook's attorney is filing a lawsuit against President Trump after his extraordinary attempt to fire her on Monday,
citing unproven allegations of falsifying records on a mortgage.
A U.S. president has never made a move like in the Central Bank's 111-year history, marking a significant escalation in Trump's targeting of the Fed.
Trump already raging against Chair Jerome Powell for refusing to cut interest rates. And now, many experts fear that the president's latest
action could spell the end of the institution's independence.
The Supreme Court has made clear that the Fed occupies a distinctive place within the government, but if it comes down to it, will this court side
with the president's executive power like it has done in recent cases? And what would it mean if a Federal Reserve governor is fired by the president
without cause?
Joining me with some of the answers, the executive director of the Society for the Rule of Law, Gregg Nunziata, also with us, economist and former
U.S. treasury secretary official, Natasha Sarin. Welcome both of you.
Natasha, let's start with you. We've never seen a president, as we've stated, fire a sitting Federal Reserve governor. What does this mean for
the independence of the Federal Reserve and the economy and the U.S. dollar that relies so significantly on that?
NATASHA SARIN, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC POLICY, U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT AND PRESIDENT, THE BUDGET LAB AT YALE: Well, it means
not great things, frankly, Bianna, because we're in a situation where in the United States we're so lucky that Central Bank independence is a pillar
of our economic security. It's part of the reason why -- if you think about why investors in the United States and investors outside of the United
States flood into investing in this country, it's because of our stability and our security. And it's because the Federal Reserve, as it makes
decisions about the long-term trajectory of the interest rates, it does so with an eye to two things and two things only, it cares about what the
inflation outlook is in the country and it cares about the labor market.
If instead, you're in a world in which decisions start to become politicized, well, we've tried that in the U.S. in the past, in the Nixon
administration, a ton of pressure was put on Arthur Burns to lower interest rates ahead of a presidential election, he did, and you had runaway
inflation from 3 to 13 percent over a two-year period. So, these are very dire economic consequences, and they are economic consequences that every
American household is going to feel because it's going to translate into higher inflation and ultimately a downturn if we start playing around with
Central Bank independence.
GOLODRYGA: And, Gregg, the Federal Reserve Act gives governors a 14-year term, that, in and of itself, signals the importance of the independence
going over multiple administrations, though they are each appointed by a sitting president at the time, but also says that they can be removed for
cause. And this the crux of the matter here right now, because the president is claiming that Lisa Cook cannot perform as an infective
financial regulator, he invoked a power in the Fed's founding statute. Does the president, given all of the information we have at our disposal right
now, publicly, actually have the authority to do what he's claiming to have already done?
GREGG NUNZIATA, FORMER CHIEF REPUBLICAN NOMINATIONS COUNSEL, SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SOCIETY FOR THE RULE OF LAW:
There are a number of significant legal questions that I think are open and unresolved today. But first, I mean, we have to look at this as part of a
broader pattern of a president who just uniquely resents any limits on his authority, and he wants to challenge those legal limits and push past them,
and he's been doing that in a variety of ways. This a new way and it's reckless for the reasons Natasha explained as he's trying to push us more
to a system that is governed by presidential decree.
[13:05:00]
Now, the independence of the Fed has been very important to our banking system. It's one of many agencies that had been independent in several ways
and had removal authorities limited on the president. For cause here is a big question. So, when we use the word for cause in the law in these types
of removal statutes, we ordinarily mean misbehavior in office or failure to show up to your job and do your duty, nothing like that is alleged here.
The claim here is unproven allegations of misconduct in her private life before she became a federal official. I think it's very dubious that
satisfies this for cause provision in the statute.
The second question is maybe a bigger one, and you mentioned in the introduction, the president and this administration has been challenging
all these independent agencies and the limitations on their removal. The courts and the -- and this administration have treated the Fed as a bit
different and may still, but we just don't know. So, it will a be very significant litigation to follow about whether Congress had the authority
to limit the president's removal ability in this case.
GOLODRYGA: And, Natasha, the markets have been rather muted, at least overnight, in the subsequent hours this morning in open trading and that is
maybe surprising, maybe not. I'd love to get your take, given the significance and unprecedented nature of the president acting this way, as
well as you've laid out, the valuable role, the unprecedented role that a Federal Reserve Bank and its governors, they play in regulating the U.S.
economy and one could even argue the global economy.
SARIN: You know, it's hard to make too much of the market moving in any particular direction at any particular moment. It's worth noting that when
the president considered firing Chair Powell earlier this summer, immediately, there was a very strong market reaction against that type of
action, and perhaps that's part of the reason you saw it very quick move away from those types of proposals.
And so, my expectation would be that you are looking at uncertainty across so many realms in the economy right now. You're looking at threats to the
integrity of government data and the firing of the BLS Commissioner. You're looking at tariff uncertainty that comes from these trade wars and how,
ultimately, they're going to land. And now, we've inputted a new type of uncertainty with respect to these unprecedented acts of interference with
respect to the Federal Reserve and its independence.
And so, if you look at models that my colleagues and I do at The Yale Budget Lab, what they predict is this uncertainty is a very significant
drag on economic growth over both the medium and long-term horizon. And something that's important is, it's a drag on that growth that you kind of
can't roll back. So, even if you're in another administration, that takes another stance with respect to Federal Reserve independence, it's a bit of
a like genie you can't put back in the bottle. And I worry these things are going to reverberate very meaningfully and frankly, businesses should be
worried about the uncertainty and the market should be reacting quite negatively to actions like this one.
GOLODRYGA: Well, the world is definitely watching all of this play out. Christine Lagarde, who is president of the European Central Bank, said the
independence of any Central Bank is critically important. Here's what she said in a Fox interview on the matter.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHRISTINE LAGARDE, PRESIDENT EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK: In my IMF days, I have seen close hand what happens when a Central Bank stops being independent or
when its independence is under threat, it becomes dysfunctional. It starts doing things that it shouldn't do. And the next step is -- yes, it is
disruption, it is instability, if not worse. So, I think that this -- I think it's -- it should not be debated.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: And it's not just theoretical, right? I mean, we have real-life case studies of what happens when a government inter intervenes in the
independence of a Central Bank. And look at Turkey, Natasha, explain to our viewers why that is a good study and a warning perhaps of what the
president should be focused on right now and avoid doing.
SARIN: Yes, and if you look at Turkey, what you had is that you had the administration there install sycophantic Central Bank heads who did the
political bidding of the president, Erdogan, and resulted in runaway inflation in that country over the course of a very short horizon, that
reached upwards of 85 percent. I mean, we're not Turkey, and my hope is that we move away from these really dangerous paths, that we look to be
sort of tiptoeing towards.
But I think there's real reason for concern, and there's reason for concern because, in some sense, we are so lucky as a country that the dollar is the
reserve asset of the world, that people trust us, they trust the stability of our financial markets, and they trust the stability of our institutions.
[13:10:00]
And all that has taken generations, decades, centuries to build, and it can kind of be destroyed relatively quickly in short order by actions that
approach this. And so, I'm just really disheartened to see this pattern of behavior with respect to the Federal Reserve. And frankly, I'm hopeful. The
Supreme Court went out of its way to say, in a case that had nothing to do with removal authority at the Federal Reserve, that it's special, and it's
this quasi-private institution that where removal authority needs to be held sacrosanct and I really hope that carries the day, because in some
sense, that's the way you preserve the stability of our economy.
GOLODRYGA: And, Gregg, we've already said that the president is citing mortgage fraud here, perhaps a dubious case and the fact that she hasn't
even been charged with any wrongdoing yet really raises a lot of suspicious suspicions that this more of a political move for the president to just
have more control over the Federal Reserve Board. Assuming this does go ultimately to the Supreme Court, because Lisa Cook said she's not going
anywhere right now, she's hired a very prominent Washington lawyer, Abbe Lowell, here to represent her. And she said she's serving out her term and
that's what she's determined to do.
Assuming this goes to the Supreme Court, on the one hand, Gregg, you have the Supreme Court really giving a lot of deference to the power of the
executive here, but as we heard from Natasha as well, also noting the independence and how valuable and sacrosanct the independence of the
Federal Reserve is. So, how do you see this playing out?
NUNZIATA: Yes. No, I think it's good to focus again on those charges that have been alleged against the governor here. I think they are clearly
pretextual. Trump is not concerned about malfeasance and her background. He is concerned about asserting his control over the Fed and limiting its
independence. I think that's pretty apparent. It's also part of a pattern now of this administration weaponizing all sorts of investigations, in
particular, about supposed mortgage fraud against its critics in and out, inside and outside of government.
You know, I think that the court is going to be a bind on this. I think a lot of conservative legal theory around the unitary executive pushes in one
way. But the reality on the ground of the -- just the importance of the Fed pushes in the other way. And I think that the majority will attempt to find
some sort of line that they can draw around the Fed that will protect its independence while allowing the president more control over other
independent agencies.
But speculation at this point, I mean, I think that's where they want to go. As Natasha mentioned, they've signaled that in a couple of other cases
without yet ruling on it. So, it remains to be seen.
GOLODRYGA: And let's be clear, I mean, there have been cases in the past where it has been reported after the fact, or even in real-time, a
president being unhappy with the Fed chair and some of the decisions they're making as it affects interest rates for one example, because
obviously that impacts the president's political standing as well. But this all happens behind closed doors. We've never seen something so egregious as
the president just being so public about this and stating that he has the power to fire these in independent officials on an independent body like
the Federal Reserve.
Natasha, are you surprised that we haven't heard from Jerome Powell at this point? Because talk about the precarious position he's put in right now.
His term ends next spring. We know that the president has been very, very anxious about firing him too. He's stepped back a bit for that. But what
should Jerome Powell do right now?
SARIN: You know, it's an incredibly difficult moment for the Federal Reserve because these sorts of institutional threats are coming at the same
time that it's having to weigh a really complicated economic environment, right, because on the one hand you have a labor market that's showing
really clear signs of cooling, and on the other hand, you have the most inflationary policies in our lifetimes with respect to these trade wars and
those kind of push in opposite directions with respect to the decision that the Federal Reserve is facing over the course of the last many months and
the weeks ahead as it thinks about its interest rate trajectory.
And so, in the backdrop of a really complicated economic circumstance coming off of the heels of fighting post-pandemic inflation, not even all
the way back to its 2 percent inflation target, you have all of these institutional threats to Central Bank independence that are so incredibly
important and revered by Central Bankers, but should be revered by all of us with respect to their importance to our economic stability.
And so, I think it is indeed a really precarious and difficult moment to try and navigate. The one thing that gives me a little bit of hope at this
moment in some sense is that you have exactly the right type of well- respected leaders at the institution who are going to navigate this to the best of their ability.
[13:15:00]
But the thing that I find is really frustrating is, in fact, if all this about is that the president would like to see lower interest rates in the
economy, in fact, he has full control over the capacity to see that happen. And that full control comes with respect to rolling back some of these
tariffs and taking away some of those inflationary effects that we have instilled ourselves into our economic picture.
And so, in some sense, I'm really frustrated by the fact that they're going out of their way to threaten something as important as Central Bank
independence when they already have the tool they need to be able to effectuate exactly the economic outcome they would like to see.
GOLODRYGA: Right. And there had been reports, I think Jay Powell had insinuated that had these tariffs not been introduced, we likely would've
seen an interest rate cut much sooner as well.
Gregg, quickly, Powell finds himself in a tough spot. As we noted, he can't fire a Fed governor, but could this perhaps ricochet back to him? Could the
president say, if she is not suitable for just cause to sit in her role as Fed governor and her boss, Jay Powell, isn't doing anything about it, then
he's complicit too?
NUNZIATA: I think he's in a tough position, a lot of leaders of important institutions in our system who are following the norms and the values that
we expect from those leaders are just put in an unprecedented position by a president who's not regarding those norms. So, he wants to not interfere
with politics but he needs to protect his institution as well. So, that's going to be a delicate line for him to walk. Similar challenge, the chief
justice of the United States has with respect to protecting the independence of the judiciary.
GOLODRYGA: And listen, if anything, if Natasha, as she noted, if you're going to look for some grain of optimism here, he has really stood up to
all of the pressure that the president has lobbed his way and said that he's going to remain his position and he's not going to be pressured to
make any decisions despite all of the pressure. So, we'll see if we end up hearing from him as well. Gregg Nunziata, Natasha Sarin, thank you so much.
Good to have you both on the show.
NUNZIATA: Thank you.
SARIN: Thanks.
GOLODRYGA: And coming up later in the program, a deep dive into Trump's immigration crackdown and how one man became the lightning rod, Kilmar
Abrego Garcia. That's after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: Welcome back. The heavy hand of President Trump's immigration crackdown is in full force. Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who has returned to the
U.S. after being wrongfully deported to El Salvador, is now facing another deportation attempt this time to Uganda. This case is just one of many as
masked migration officials continue to pluck people off the streets of the country. This, as the president, signs an executive order to establish
specialized units in the National Guard, which could be deployed in cities across the country to tackle public order issues.
David Bier is director of the Immigration Studies at the Cato Institute, and he joins me now from Washington, D.C. David, welcome to the program.
So, let's start with the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Walk us through how his case has been elevated and what it reveals about due process here in
the United States under the Trump administration.
DAVID J. BIER, DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION STUDIES, CATO INSTITUTE: Yes. So, the mass deportation agenda of this administration really has three stages.
The first is take away people's legal status or protections to be here. Then it's detained without a reasonable basis, and then at the final stage
is deport without due process. We really have all three stages represented in Kilmar Abrego's Garcia's case here.
[13:20:00]
If you look at what -- how this case originated, this a person who's been in the United States for almost 14 years at this point. He is the father of
U.S. citizens. He's the spouse of U.S. citizens. He was the employee of a U.S. citizen as well, and the Trump administration took him off the street,
even though he had a court order preventing his deportation to El Salvador, put him on a plane within three days, gave him no due process and sent him
to a foreign prison where he was imprisoned and then the -- a judge ordered his return. And guess what happened? They ignored that court order for
weeks and weeks and weeks as they attempted to set up charges, criminal charges against him as part of their campaign to portray him as a criminal
gang member. And he might be, we don't know until he receives due process through the -- through ultimately the judicial process, which is his right
under the Constitution.
And so, this case is really about constitutional rights. It's about due process. It's about what procedures do we expect the federal government to
follow when they accuse someone of violating the law of being in the country illegally or being a person who they can remove. And ultimately,
those procedures were not followed and the court orders were not followed in this case. And that's the real concern going forward is, is this type of
behavior going to be tolerated by the courts or not?
GOLODRYGA: And what do you think?
BIER: Well, so far, they've really gotten away with it. Yes, there's been court orders. They -- he was ordered -- returned to the United States, but
they only returned him under the conditions that they wanted to set up rather than the conditions that -- at the time the judge ordered his
return, they set him up, they released a violent felon in exchange for testimony against him. Ultimately resulted -- it was such an egregious act
that the prosecutor who was in charge of the case resigned rather than bring these charges against him.
Now, that the judge has said, the evidence is so incredibly weak and his case is falling apart, they're trying again to deport him without due
process to Uganda. And look, this all affecting the U.S. -- his U.S. citizen family members. If we were in that situation and it was our spouse,
or if it was our father, we would want that person to have their day in court. That's all we expect in this situation. This has nothing to do with
Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the man, this about the constitution and the law.
GOLODRYGA: And trying to deport him to Uganda, it's pretty obvious that the government wants him out of the country. They are apparently saying -- that
his lawyers are saying that he was threatened to plead guilty, and if he did that, he would be sent to Costa Rica instead. Now, he's not. So, he's
being sent to Uganda. Just the legal grounds of that alone, have you ever seen anything quite like this?
BIER: No, we've never seen this type of abuse of the immigration system as a threat. Ultimately, you cannot use civil deportation proceedings as a
form of punishment or coercion to obtain a guilty plea in a separate proceeding. This totally a flagrant -- another flagrant violation of the
Constitution. And anyone -- again, if you were in that situation, if it was your father, if it was your spouse, you would want the proper procedures to
be followed, and they were not followed in this case.
GOLODRYGA: OK. So, Abrego Garcia is maybe one of the most high-profile individual cases, but it's not unique. Let's talk about what's happening
across the country and what we're seeing more and more of in terms of immigration enforcement. We're seeing viral videos of masked ICE agents
smashing car windows, raid immigrant communities.
Can you just talk about the threat of this type of behavior on a community as a whole and what this behavior signals about what may be coming in the
months and years to come? I mean, is this going to be normalized in your view?
BIER: Right. They're going to the Supreme Court right now seeking permission to engage in illegal profiling nationwide based on ethnicity,
Spanish speaking ability, occupations that you're engaged in. This the type of profiling that is always been something that free societies do not
engage in. They're asking to bring that nationwide. It's already happening, unfortunately, in cities across the United States, but there's a court
order that prohibits it in Los Angeles.
[13:25:00]
And they're saying, look, let's overturn that court order. Allow us to engage in this type of behavior everywhere. And look, we've seen in L.A.,
after the court order banned illegal profiling, the number of ICE arrest in that jurisdiction fell by two-thirds. So, a very significant part of the
mass deportation agenda is racial profiling. It is illegal profiling. And if they're allowed to engage in it, that means that our rights as U.S.
citizens to be stopped and detained on the streets by immigration agents being told we have to prove our right to be in the United States, it's
totally un-American and it's something that the Supreme Court hopefully will not green light. But if they do, it's something that we'll all have to
deal with wherever we are in the United States.
GOLODRYGA: It seems like everything is happening at such a rapid pace too. And one of the major differences we're seeing from previous administrations
in these situations is that if there is a court order the administration then at least stops doing what is being charged as being illegal until we
have more guidance from a judge, that's not the case here. The president and the administration just seem to be steamrolling these court orders and
not obeying them, if at all.
What do you make of the standing of the judicial system here and the powers that they wield? Are they holding up to all these pressures?
BIER: It's been hit or miss. In some cases, we've seen successes, in other cases, we haven't. Overall, I would say there's never been a threat to the
powers of the judiciary like we've seen right now with this administration saying, effectively, we don't have to follow these court orders, or we can
invent some justification for why we don't have to follow them.
And that is a real -- that's ultimately the whole constitutional framework unravels if a government does not have to follow court orders because
that's how we enforce the Constitution against federal agents when they violate it. And so, yes, I'm very concerned about that.
And I think if you look at this illegal profiling case, look, there was this big decline after the court order as they sort of figured out how are
we going to get around it. And now, in August we're seeing arrests at Home Depots and racial profiling again by border patrol in the L.A. area despite
the court order. So, you're absolutely right. They are ignoring it. They are figuring out ways to get around it, and that is a real threat to our
freedoms in the United States.
GOLODRYGA: And the president, obviously, going further now, threatening to deploy the National Guards to -- the Guard to other cities. D.C. is unique
in that it has the home rule. But you're looking at Democratic cities from Los Angeles that, that have already been a case study and the president
deploying the National Guard now, he's threatening to do the same in Chicago and New York City and setting up these specialized units with armed
patrol throughout these cities as well.
What do you make of the effectiveness of the governor's responses thus far, and how far do you think the president is willing to take this?
BIER: The administration is quite clear, they want to take over these Democrat run cities and run them how they want to run them. And that means
our rights are under threat. If you look at what's happening in D.C., we're seeing checkpoints, general crime checkpoints with the Supreme Court has
already said are unconstitutional, demanding that people prove that they're in the country legally. Unlawful and illegal searches and seizures of
people as they're walking down the streets. I mean, this the type of government that we see in authoritarian countries, not the type of
government run by civilian -- individuals, civilian law enforcement, enforcing civilian laws. That's what -- how free societies address crime.
We hire cops who are trained in the Constitution and trained to protect our rights to go out there and police and protect us against violent criminals,
that's what we should be doing. Look, I don't downplay crime. Crime is a serious issue, but we absolutely need trained law enforcement, not military
policing our streets.
GOLODRYGA: And the president, in response to being accused of acting like a dictator, says, I'm not a dictator. I'm just a man with great common sense.
But you look at the crime data and statistics, which this administration is also questioning right now, but that's for a separate discussion. Some of
the highest homicide rates actually are in Republican states. Why do you think they're only targeting Democratic states? I have an idea as to why,
but I'd love to hear your view.
[13:30:00]
BIER: Well, I think they really are turning this into a partisan debate. They're trying to focus and highlight the failures of the other party. And
there certainly are failures, there are reasons to criticize those mayors in those cities. But at the end of the day, this about how free societies
function, and this not how they function.
We need to have civilian control. We need civilian law enforcement protecting our rights, not the military taking over cities. And it
shouldn't be done in a partisan manner. We should be focused on crime everywhere, not just in Democrat cities and places run not by Republicans.
GOLODRYGA: David J. Bier, really appreciate your time. Thank you for joining the program.
BIER: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: And coming up for us after the break, orphaned elephants getting a second chance. You bring your report from an annual sanctuary in
Zimbabwe. That's coming up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: Welcome back. A day of nationwide protests is trying to bring Israel to a standstill. The day of struggle is seeing highways blocked with
burned tires as protestors and hostage families call for an immediate ceasefire deal to end the war and free all of the hostages. CNN's Jerusalem
Bureau Chief Oren Liebermann joins us with the details.
Oren, you have been there at Hostage Square where hundreds if not thousands have been coming out throughout the day protesting to bring these hostages
home, to end this war that it is unbelievably approaching its two-year mark in a matter of weeks right now. I know you spent a lot of time today
speaking with those who have turned out, there's family members of hostages, they're concerned citizens from all over the country and from
various political backgrounds as well. Tell us what you're hearing from them.
OREN LIEBERMANN, CNN JERUSALEM BUREAU CHIEF: Bianna, as you were tossing to me here, one of the speakers is now on stage in Hostage Square here,
yelled, enough, and got that repetition from the crowd. That gives you a sense of the anger, the frustration. Now, you might be able to hear some of
the applause for what's being said on stage.
Another massive protest. It looks like well over a hundred thousand here. Organizers have said it's somewhere in the 130,000 range. So, not the
biggest we have seen, but on a Tuesday night in Tel Aviv, this still a crowd. And there is tremendous determination here, tremendous energy that
we've seen not only here, but across the country throughout the day. Organizers called this a day of disruption. And began early this morning
with protesters going out under some of the major roads, highways, and intersections across the country, blocking traffic during the morning rush.
In some cases, they laid out on the streets or they sat on the streets. And others, they lit burning tires on the streets to block them.
Police say the disruptions were cleared fairly quickly. But you saw the effect it had on the country and certainly, the media coverage, such a
demonstration got again on a Tuesday morning, and that energy has continued throughout the day, culminating in the crowds you see here behind me.
It's worth pointing out, this isn't Hostage Square, that's a bit down the road. And that just gives you a sense of how many people have come out here
to show their support for the families of the hostages, the families of the bereaved, and the calls on the government, and this the crucial part, that
they're all out here, to reach a ceasefire deal and to do everything in its power to bring the remaining hostages home. 50 still held in Gaza, 20 of
whom are still believed to be alive.
[13:35:00]
What's worth noting here is that in the middle of all this, earlier this afternoon, there was a two-hour security cabinet meeting in Jerusalem. At
no point was there a discussion, according to two Israeli sources familiar with the plans, about the ceasefire deal that's currently on the table. One
that would bring a 60-day ceasefire in exchange for 10 living hostages, 18 deceased hostages, and a proposal that Hamas agreed to more than a week
ago, which is very similar to the proposal Israel agreed to a month ago, that is also fueling a lot of the anger here. The question of why isn't
Israel saying yes to this? Why isn't Netanyahu saying yes to this? And instead, suddenly demanding a comprehensive deal for an end of the war, all
of the hostages and Israel's maximalist war goals?
That is driving a lot of this here. You see everybody here pushing to take the deal on the table and get this process rolling to bring the hostages
home. Organizers say, this isn't ending tonight. Just a couple of Sundays ago, we saw one of the most massive protests since the start of the war,
and they promised that energy, that determination, and frankly, having talked to some of the protestors here, that anger will continue, Bianna.
GOLODRYGA: And those protestors behind you, waving Israeli flags, holding up photos of those hostages that remain held in Gaza, both alive, believed
to be alive, and those that have died and been killed over the course of these two years now and the family of Nimrod Cohen, who is one of those
hostages, agreed to release footage of the moment that he was kidnapped there by Hamas terrorist on October 7, 2023. His family has been very
active in coming out to these protests as well.
And it's important to note, Oren, that the Netanyahu government has said that these types of protests only embolden Hamas and give them more power.
Those protestors who come out and these family members of hostages know that the blame lies with Hamas. But they, I know, are also telling you that
Israel can go after these Hamas terrorists later. Right now, is time for a deal. Just talk about how they're responding to the messaging from their
own government.
LIEBERMANN: I think they're furious and frustrated about that. First, they view that as their right to come out here and protest. Their priority. And
by the way, a priority that repeated polls have shown is part of an overwhelming majority of the country is to bring the remaining hostages
home. And despite some statements here and there from Netanyahu about the hostages, his agenda when it comes to the war is driven first by his war
goals, which he says are the demilitarization of Gaza. Hamas having no governance role there. Israeli security control over Gaza. Many of these
cross red lines for Hamas, which means his goals make it impossible to bring the remaining hostages home.
But his agenda also driven by the far-right members of his coalition, and they want to see an expansion of the war. They have dismissed, or at least
brushed aside concerns about the hostages, even when they come directly from the Israeli military's chief of staff who warned that the planned
invasion and assault on Gaza City risks the hostages, they have pushed that aside and wanted a larger scale war. And that's the direction Netanyahu is
going in.
It's worth going back to Yehuda Cohen, the father of Nimrod Cohen, why do they release videos like that, videos that the Israeli government has set
are propaganda videos? It's to make sure this issue, the issue of the hostages, the importance of them, for Israeli society doesn't vanish from
the public eye, and that's why they put those out, to make sure that even if it's not number one on the government's agenda, it remains number one on
the people's agenda.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. Time and time again, the country will not be able to heal until all of these hostages are brought home to be either buried or
reunited with their loved ones. Oren Liebermann, thank you so much.
Well, as protests surge within Israel, international condemnation of the country is growing after the so-called double tap attack on Monday, that's
when Israel struck a Gaza hospital only to strike it again as medical workers and journalists rushed to help those injured 20 people were killed
in the attack, which Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is labeling a tragic mishap. The IDF says an initial inquiry concluded six of those
killed in the attack were terrorists. CNN has not independently verified the claim.
The U.N. European Commission and humanitarian organizations across the world are denouncing the strikes, among them, Doctors Without Borders, also
known as MSF. The group worked frequently with photographer Mariam Abu Dagga, who was killed in that second strike. And joining me on this Amande
Bazerolle. She has worked in Gaza for MSF as recently as June. She is joining us from Paris.
[13:40:00]
Amande, welcome to the program. Thanks so much for taking the time. We should also note that a U.N.-backed panel has declared famine officially in
Gaza City. Israel has disputed that and accuses the organization of lowering the threshold to meet that famine mark. But in terms of bringing
adequate amounts of food and medicine resources in, you were there in June, Israel says that aid has increased since then. But what are you hearing
from your colleagues that are still there?
AMANDE BAZEROLLE, DEPUTY PROGRAM MANAGER IN CHARGE OF PALESTINE, MSF: So, today, yes, the aid have increased if you come from the full blockade that
was put in place by the Israelis authorities from March. So, like they have opened a little bit the tap, but definitely not enough, regarding food and
regarding drugs for the hospitals.
So, we are really struggling because there's a lot of impediment in administrative issues always and then security to be able to collect all
the cargoes in Kerem Shalom, which is the entry gate to Gaza. Because we are in a war zone. So, we are not moving freely in that war zone. So, we
are only following the routes that are given to us by the Israeli forces. And usually, pushing us close to the people who are desperate to get
anything because they've been lacking of food, they're been lacking of anything since months. So, there's a big problem of looting at the moment
for the -- mainly for the food that is entering into Gaza from humanitarian aid.
GOLODRYGA: Is it food specifically? I mean, in terms of which supplies are most critically running low right now, we said everything from medicine to
food, to other medical supplies that are needed at hospitals, just if you can put into terms, what is most critically low right now?
BAZEROLLE: Yes, absolutely everything indeed, because like the people are suffering from a lot of things, from famine. So, that mean that we need
some special food, which is therapeutic food to be able to bring with a number of patients that we have among children, among lactating mother,
among pregnant women that are the most vulnerable ones.
And then, yes, in terms of drugs and supplies, medical supplies, we are, at the time, when there has never been as many injured in Gaza today since the
very beginning of the war, like we count like 13,000 injured last month. We already had more than 11,000 this month. All the hospitals, the very
remaining hospitals and with Nasser, including that was just what hit by those strikes, is receiving way above the number of patients that they can
deal with.
We are like 300 percent occupancy rate at the moment in the hospital. There's people absolutely everywhere that we are trying to deal with
because we don't have the capacity with the number of injured that there is today in Gaza. So, definitely we don't have the stocks to deal with those
patients. So, like the food, the water, the -- everything is essential because nothing is entering, insufficient quantities today in Gaza.
GOLODRYGA: Since lifting the blockade, Israel has insisted that the real problem is aid distribution. They're often blaming Hamas for interference.
How do you respond to that? And I guess since you're not there right now, how are your colleagues who are there in real-time responding to this?
BAZEROLLE: I would like to remind first that there was never any evidence of the mass looting that was the reason for the blockade. And then, there's
a very -- USAID has even had a report discrediting that theory. So, today, we are in a situation that is manmade, that is built on the lie. So, that's
the first thing that I think we need to remind everyone.
And then, yes, it's -- the situation is absolutely appalling, very difficult. The people are liking food. The thing is like they're allowing
and helping the entrance of commercial food, which is fantastic, but like no support for the humanitarian aid that is entering. There is no security
that is given by the Israeli forces for those for those cargo. So, they are never rich indeed. They cannot reach the destination for distribution.
There is like a self-distribution, as we call it, of people who are desperate to get anything, but that also some criminal looting of people
who are making money out of it. And I'm not able to say who are those people?
But definitely, because of the of the lack of everything, we are creating a market for it. And if we open the gate and we overflow the market with
humanitarian aid, we would not be in that situation today.
[13:45:00]
GOLODRYGA: Yes. That is something in an argument and a point that has been made by many critics, including within Israel, that aid should have been
flooded in nonstop because then you wouldn't have seen a lot of the looting in the spikes in food prices over the last few months. Your colleagues,
just tell us about how they're doing, their conditions both mentally and physically.
BAZEROLLE: Honestly, I don't recognize them. It's people who have the most strengths that I've never seen, the resilience, but today, and especially
in the north, with the announcement of that offensive that's going to come, I can see -- because I talk to them every day and I can see that my
colleagues, they don't know what to do. They don't know how to protect their family there, that it has always been a very difficult but they don't
know if they need to go south, if they can stay there. They're all afraid to die, but they just think like they're going to die anywhere regardless
where they're going, because nowhere is safe in Gaza today.
So, they're really struggling. Honestly, taking care of patient today is what they -- keep them running, but then at the same time, like, the number
of the suffering of the people it's a huge toll on the mental health of absolutely everyone, including the medical staff today in Gaza. And the
lack of food, they all lost a lot of weight. And thinking again that they're the people who are receiving your salary, and if there is something
to buy, they can afford it. But the problem is for months and months there was nothing.
So, everybody is lacking the basic treatment. So, they're really in a very bad state and all of them are really asking for help, for food, and to get
out of hell.
GOLODRYGA: You know what's interesting is we're hearing a lot of condemnation and public statements saying that more is needed from European
countries and capitals. The Trump administration has been rather muted. President Trump just yesterday said that he thinks that this conflict will
come to the fighting will end within the next two to three weeks. We'll see if that's the case.
But both within Israel and I know among aid organizations, there is a bit of disappointment that they view President Trump, who was early on in his
administration, very eager to see a ceasefire hostage deal, in fact, he saw a number of hostages that he rightly so takes credit for coming home and a
ceasefire being in place for a significant period of time, they say that without him once again leading the charge, that there may not be a
resolution here. And we're seeing this from both sides, both within Israel and also among aid organizations and Palestinian civilians too. Are you
hearing that?
BAZEROLLE: Of course, we are wearing the same and we can see it. It's also because no one took the stand when it was needed, like it's been 22 months
today and people seems only to realize what is the situation in Gaza and what has been the situation in those last 22 months. It's -- if -- they
have taken actions before, but we are in the same situation as in Ukraine when no one did anything. And now, it's very difficult to come back from it
and to have any kind of pressure on the Israeli authorities.
So, we expect again from President Trump that he will like try to end that war and get all the release of all the hostages that are still in the hand
of Hamas today.
GOLODRYGA: The strike yesterday at Nasser Hospital, the IDF coming out immediately saying that they are not targeting journalists or civilians or
aid workers, then an unusual rather quick response from the prime minister himself, calling it a tragic mishap. Today, we're getting a bit more
information, the IDF of saying they killed six terrorists, but clearly, there's a lot of pressure on Israel and their role here in whether the
intentional or unintentional deaths of journalists in particular.
And I know one of them, Mariam Abu Dagga, is someone that has worked very closely with MSF, a photographer, who has collaborated on many stories with
the organization. I believe we have some photos of her as well. She was killed in this attack. What does she mean to your organization and to some
of the storytelling about the everyday work that you and MSF does?
BAZEROLLE: Yes. She was a very dedicated journalist and she was always eager to come and to work and to document what is happening in Gaza today,
but also, the daily life of the people, to be able to testify what's happening. Recently, she was in our maternity world and she had some very
kind words to all the women who had delivered in such a difficult time. And she was supposed to come with us and to work on another story on the water
delivery.
[13:50:00]
I know that all our team is, of course, very, very sad. And it's not the first person that we are losing. Unfortunately, all of our colleagues have
lost a lot of loved ones. And -- but I know that everywhere, it is not just us on the social media, everybody is really mourning this and the one of
all the other journalists that have died in that incident, but also since the beginning of a war.
GOLODRYGA: Do you have plans returning back to Gaza? I know you spent time both in Gaza as well as in Israel.
BAZEROLLE: Absolutely. I have, of course, like it's very important also for the continuity and because all my colleagues that I've known for 15 years
actually, because it was also my first mission there. So -- and there's all the people that are so dedicated to their loved ones and to their
population. And I'm planning to go soon.
GOLODRYGA: What is your message to those who are watching and they've seen this war now, again, as we've noted, about to enter its second year.
Hopefully, God willing, it doesn't, and it ends before then. But when they ask, why do you do it?
BAZEROLLE: Oh, wow. It's -- oh, my God. I was not ready for that one. It's -- there's -- sorry. It's important to be with other people. It's important
in any conflict, Gaza. But we've been through -- we are assisting in so many other conflicts as MSF. There's lack of resources in many countries,
which was not the case in Gaza. Today, we are in a war that is really manmade. And the lack of access to healthcare when there was a very high
standard of healthcare is really something that we want to ensure that we can continue to assist the people, it's Gaza, but it's everywhere.
And I've been to Ukraine, I've been to Liberia, I've been to Pakistan. So, it's like anyone who needs some support, MSF is trying to give some help
and some relief when we can.
GOLODRYGA: And I know you make relationships along this way -- along the way, covering all the tragedies in these wars. You're not traveling there
to make these relationships, you're traveling there to save lives. But how important are those relationships that you build and the trust?
BAZEROLLE: It makes absolutely everything. Like we -- like it's very few international personnel that we have when we travel, but it's also the
people that we meet along the way that are not only our colleagues, it's some patients, you know, I still have in my mind in Central Africa some
patients when we were on the attack of Benge (ph) as well. And that will stay with me forever. Like, the look and the smile of the people, the
little relief or the time when they feel safe.
When they arrive in the facility, and finally they feel safe. And they -- and that's the feeling that you should have when we enter a hospital. And
that the feeling that you should have when you go to Nasser Hospital today, and it's not the case anymore.
GOLODRYGA: Amande Bazerolle, thank you for joining us today. Thank you for answering even some of the more personal complicated questions. Really
appreciate it.
BAZEROLLE: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: And finally, a small glimmer of hope amid the darkness. Young elephants in Zimbabwe are getting a second chance at the life they deserve.
Isabel Rosales explains how rescuers are helping the orphaned animals return to where they belong.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ISABEL ROSALES, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Excited for their next meal, these elephant calves are taken care of day after day at the wildest
life animal sanctuary in Zimbabwe. These calves are orphans, the sanctuary says, because their parents died in human wildlife conflicts, like poaching
and car collisions.
Established in 2013, the Zen Nursery became a vital part of the sanctuary and the first elephant nursery in the country, nurturing young and
vulnerable orphans until they're about three years old.
Here, they're able to play, stay well-nourished and roam free in the bush, shielded from any harm that might come their way in the wild. The founder
of the sanctuary, Roxy Danckwerts, says, while they're difficult to hand raise, she's potentially saving them from a difficult introduction to life.
ROXY DANCKWERTS, FOUNDER, WILD IS LIFE: They're persecuted in many ways, and I wanted to try and highlight that within Zimbabwe to just create
awareness and just get people to really care.
[13:55:00]
ROSALES (voice-over): In the nursery, the elephants gradually acquire survival skills to live in the wild and are eventually introduced into a
conservation area to join herds. Danckwerts hopes to do more than just save the animals, but also return them to the wild.
DANCKWERTS: People didn't really believe that elephants could be rescued and rewilded, and I was very insistent that we rewild these Ellies (ph)
that we don't, you know, keep them in captivity. Captivity is not great for elephant.
ROSALES (voice-over): Praised for their work by the International Fund for Animal Welfare. Each day, wildest life gives these Ellies (ph) someone to
count on to help them grow until it's time to head back into the wild.
LUCKMORE SUFULI, COMMUNICATIONS OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL FUND FOR ANIMAL WELFARE: We've managed to rescue over 50 elephants, and I thought we are
proud to be part of this achievement.
ROSALES (voice-over): Isabel Rosales, CNN.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: Our thanks to Isabel for that report. And that is it for now. Thank you so much for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
