Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Former Mexican Foreign Minister Jorge Castaneda; Interview with Former NATO Deputy Secretary General and Stanford University Lecturer Rose Gottemoeller; Interview with Interview with Status News Founder Oliver Darcy. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired October 14, 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 ANHOR: Hello everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
Argentina's leader, Javier Milei, visits the White House. We look at this unconventional figure, his cozy friendship with Trump, and why the U.S. is
bailing his country out. A sigh of relief in the Middle East, but what comes next? I'll speak with Jeremy Diamond in Tel Aviv. Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: I might say, loOK. if this war's not going to get settled, I'm going to send them Tomahawks.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- Trump threatens to send more weapons to Ukraine, just as Zelenskyy gears up to come back to Washington. I asked what this could mean
for the war. Plus --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OLIVER DARCY, FOUNDER, STATUS NEWS: Donald Trump has made it very clear he will weaponize government to go after critics and punish critics. And if
you are an ally, he will reward you with things like TikTok.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- consolidations, mergers, and political pressure. Oliver Darcy speaks with Michel Martin about the changing media landscape.
Welcome to the program, everyone I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
Argentina's firebrand president, Javier Milei, is at the White House today, meeting with President Trump after a huge U.S. bailout for Argentina. The
Treasury Department said it would provide a $20 billion currency swap line with Argentina's central bank, the first such move by the U.S. in 30 years.
Critics say this essentially amounts to a loan in all but name to a country that has often defaulted.
Milei's right-wing reforms have been both popular and controversial in almost equal measure, having swept to power nearly two years ago with a
promise to radically cut government. In August, voters pelted him with stones while he was campaigning. And last Monday, Milei responded in
typically unorthodox fashion, singing to his supporters at a massive rock concert in Buenos Aires.
Let's go now to Mexico's former foreign minister, Jorge Castaneda, with more analysis on what to expect from this meeting and how Milei has been
performing. It's now almost two years, Jorge, since Milei, an unconventional candidate and equally unconventional president, was sworn
in.
He campaigned on not continuing with Peronist (ph) policies, and he introduced his own austerity measures. I guess he was the original DOGE in
Argentina, cutting tens of thousands of jobs, and also firing those that were against some of those policies as well.
We have seen the inflation rate come down a bit, though it's still hovering around 30 percent. I believe the poverty rate has fallen sharply since last
year when he introduced austerity measures that plunged the country into hardship. So, how is he doing right now? It does seem to be a mixed bag,
just two years in. How would you gauge his performance?
JORGE CASTANEDA, FORMER MEXICAN FOREIGN MINISTER: I think a mixed bag is a good name for this, Bianna. He was doing rather well this first year and a
half, bringing down inflation, as you said, from very high levels, cutting spending in a very painful manner, but cutting it, and also resisting the
social protests that these kinds of spending cuts have generally brought in Argentina. He was able to do all of this without having a majority in
Congress, in either of the two houses of Congress, and he seemed to be on a roll.
But the last few months, the last couple of months since the summer, he's been getting into trouble for several reasons. The first one is that one of
the ways he brought inflation down was to peg the Argentine peso to the dollar.
[13:05:00]
For all practical purposes, there was a strict exchange rate, a fixed exchange rate, and he -- and people began to buy dollars, and he ran out of
dollars for practical purposes. Secondly, he got a real shellacking in the last elections in the province of Buenos Aires, which includes 40 percent
of the Argentine electorate, and so that was also bad news.
And now, in very recent weeks or days, not only has he run out of dollars, but the exchange rate has collapsed, the country risk has gone way up, and
he faces another shellacking in the national parliamentary elections in a couple of weeks. So, he was on a roll, but right now he's certainly not on
a roll anymore. He's actually in deep trouble.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, and the U.S., as we noted, came to its rescue with a $20 billion lifeline. Without spending too much time on the economics of it
all, let's just walk through this, because you mentioned that he campaigned on abolishing Argentina's central bank and dollarizing the economy. He has
since backed away from that policy, reportedly under pressure from his own economic team and investors who had then profited from the peso.
The Wall Street Journal has described this in an editorial as throwing good dollars after bad pesos, meaning that it supports bailing Argentina out,
but not using this strategy, which, according to the Wall Street Journal, has been done time and time again. Just explain the difference to our
viewers and whether this lifeline will actually help.
CASTANEDA: Well, the difference between this bailout and others which have generally come from the International Monetary Fund, as well as other
creditors, is that there seems to be no conditionality. Secretary Bessent and President Trump are extending this $20 billion currency swap to
Argentina without any conditions in terms of cutting spending again or boosting reserves or devaluing the dollar -- the peso, I'm sorry. So,
that's a big difference.
The problem is that this has happened so many times before in Argentina, Bianna, that there's no reason to believe it won't happen again. These $20
billion can be bought up by Argentine dollar purchasers in a matter of 10 days, maybe 20 days, if they do not believe that the U.S. will continue to
stand by President Milei, and if he does poorly in the elections on October 26th.
If either of those two things are perceived negatively, people will continue to buy dollars like crazy, and the $20 billion will go down the
drain like previous loans did also.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, the Treasury framed it as being a, quote, "strategic interest" of the United States with this $20 billion, what they say, as a
currency swap, not a bailout. But as you noted, there is concern about whether there will be consumer confidence and investor confidence that
follows this bailout. And if he loses momentum in these congressional elections coming up, was this ultimately a bad bet, not only by Milei, but
by the United States as well? How big of a risk was this from the U.S. perspective, in your view?
CASTANEDA: Well, it's a risk, first of all, because it's real money, not by the size of the U.S. economy or the U.S. budget or Treasury, but it
still is real money, $20 billion is not a dime. And it's very likely that this will not be paid back. Argentina has a long history of not paying back
loans in whatever form they take, a currency swap or anything else. So, there's that issue.
And then, there's the issue that there are people in the United States, among the Democrats and U.S. farmers, who are not happy about seeing
Argentina being bailed out with $20 billion, while at the same time, for example, U.S. soybean farmers cannot sell soybeans anymore to China,
whereas Argentina is making a killing by selling its soybeans to China, replacing American soybeans.
So, it is a little bit of a risk for the United States. The problem, of course, is that if President Trump doesn't do this President Milei will get
-- will be in very big trouble. And President Trump likes him. He wants to help him. He wants to help the Argentine economy. He wants to make Milei a
success story. He likes him.
[13:10:00]
GOLODRYGA: Yes, and you don't see President Trump, not that you saw many of his predecessors, as no one's really advocating for it, but you don't
see him just doling out this type of money, billions of dollars, to random countries around the world. It's clear that the two of them have a good
rapport. He has called him one of his favorite presidents. So, how much of this do you think is about politics, economics, or political ideology from
President Trump's view?
CASTANEDA: Well, a lot about it is -- it's -- I think part of it is personal chemistry, part of it is ideological. President Milei and
President Trump see things very similarly. But it also has to do, according at least to a New York Times story a couple of days ago and again today,
with some American investors, huge American investors, groups --
GOLODRYGA: Hedge funds.
CASTANEDA: -- like PIMCO or BlackRock -- hedge funds, I'm sorry, having purchased Argentine pesos and having been very close friends of Secretary
Bessent when they were all working with George Soros. And so, it may be also that this is to make sure that these hedge funds don't lose their
shirt because the Argentine economy tanks and the peso collapses.
GOLODRYGA: How does this relationship reshape the regional balance in Latin America and South America in particular? You've seen countries
recently that have veered further to the right. Obviously, you have many that have veered further to the left as well and have closer ties to China
as of late, specifically, you know, a number of these countries. This has been something China with its Belt and Road Initiative has really been
investing in.
Is this another factor in the president or in Treasury's view of helping Argentina out right now? They're politically aligned, ideologically at
least, and they're wanting to continue to be a counter against China.
CASTANEDA: I think there's some of that involved clearly, although Argentina has certainly not cut ties with China. As I said, it is now
selling much greater volume of soybeans to China than before, replacing U.S. exports of soybeans to China.
What is true is that there are two or three governments in Latin America, President Bukele in El Salvador, President Noboa in Ecuador, and President
Milei in Argentina, who are ideologically close to President Trump. He likes them. He likes Bukele of El Salvador a great deal. He doesn't know
Noboa well, but he certainly likes Milei.
And so, I think there's an issue here of the U.S. supporting its friends and not being very nice to its not friends like Brazil, which is now
suffering from a 50 percent tariff on many of its exports to the U.S. because President Trump still doesn't really get along with President Lula.
GOLODRYGA: So, in terms of who gets what out of this meeting and any sort of deliverables, it's clear Milei has more at stake here and it's the U.S.
that bailed Milei out. But as you mentioned, the increased investment and relationship in terms of buying Argentine soybeans in China and growing
pressure on President Trump from Democrats here facing a government shutdown and from farmers who are concerned about this money going to
Argentina. Do you think that there could be a deal perhaps announced where Argentina cuts back on its relationship and its ties to China in terms of
soybean sales?
CASTANEDA: Well, given President Trump's transactional approach to international relations, it's certainly not impossible that he will ask for
something in return for the bailout. And he could ask weaker ties between Argentina and China or he could also ask for much greater access for U.S.
firms to Argentine critical minerals and rare earth minerals or to Argentine gas and oil in the Vaca Muerta fields, which are very, very
significant. Very -- they're enormous. They're huge.
And so, I'm sure, I'm relatively sure that President Trump will ask for something. That's the way he tends to operate in a very transactional
manner. And if he's giving away $20 billion, he's certainly going to want something in return.
[13:15:00]
GOLODRYGA: Yes, and it's coming as negotiations over tariffs and trade with China have really hit an impasse right now over China trying to
withhold its rare earth as well. So, that would be notable if President Trump then seeks it elsewhere, perhaps in Argentina. Jorge Castaneda,
always good to see you. Thank you so much for the time.
CASTANEDA: Thank you, Bianna.
GOLODRYGA: And do stay with CNN. We'll be right back after a break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: Well, as the ceasefire continues to hold in Gaza, now is a moment for so many to breathe and begin to recover. With all living
hostages now home in Israel, the long process of healing can begin, though not for family members of the many hostages who were killed and whose
bodies have still not been returned.
At the same time, there were celebrations in the West Bank and Gaza as families greeted nearly 2,000 released detainees and prisoners. 250 had
been convicted of terrorism or other serious crimes, while around 1,700 had been detained without charge.
Jeremy Diamond is live in Tel Aviv for us. And Jeremy, it's hard to digest, really, everything that we saw yesterday. The sounds, the tears, the
screams, the reunions of those hostages with their family members after two long years, 20 hostages reunited with their loved ones. You have gotten to
know so many of these families, as have I.
In the last hour, actually, I spoke to Moshe Lavi, who's been a constant advocate for his brother-in-law, Omri Miran, as well as the other hostages.
And I asked him about what the last 24 hours have been like. And here's what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MOSHE LAVI, BROTHER-IN-LAW OF FORMER ISRAELI HOSTAGE OMRI MIRAN: We are not going to stop fighting and advocating until every single hostage is
returning home. We currently still have 24 hostages -- deceased hostages murdered on October the 7th or during their captivity. And their remains
must return to Israel as stipulated by the agreement between Israel and Hamas that President Trump orchestrated and brokered.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: And, Jeremy, as I'm sure you have noted as well, it is clear how touched President Trump and his team were, not only by the hostage
families and the returned hostage plight, but also of the families of those who are deceased and who are fighting every single day, including today,
for the return of their loved ones. We know that Hamas, part of their end of the bargain was to return all of the bodies for so far have been
returned, not nearly all of the 28 that had been part of this deal. What more are you learning about the remaining 24?
JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT: Yes, that's right, Bianna. A lot of uncertainty about when or if the bodies of all 24 deceased hostages
will be returned. And that is for a few reasons. I mean, we've already been reporting for the last week or so that Hamas does not know the location of
the hostages. That's been confirmed by Israeli intelligence assessments as well. But then, of course, there is the matter of the bodies that Hamas
does know the location of.
[13:20:00]
Some of those may be stuck under the rubble and we know that there are likely going to be Egyptian forces assisting with that as well as an
international committee. The Red Cross has talked about this and has said that securing the release of those bodies, some of those bodies could take
days if not additional weeks. And then there's a question of whether Hamas is holding out, whether they have some bodies in hand and simply are not
releasing them for now for one reason or another. We really don't know at this stage.
But I can tell you from having spoken today with Ruby Chen, whose son, Itay Chen, was an Israeli soldier but was also an American citizen and whose
body is still being held in Gaza, you know, he certainly believes that Hamas does have additional bodies and hasn't released them for one reason
or another. In fact, we also just heard from President Trump directly, who posted on Truth Social that while all 20 living hostages are back and he
said a big burden has been lifted, he said the job is not done, the dead have not been returned as promised.
And that will be, you know, an important statement for families like Ruby Chen's because, you know, we saw the hostage forum today put out a letter
to Steve Witkoff, President Trump's special envoy, making sure that, loOK. the United States' diplomatic efforts on this front don't end with just the
living hostages, that they ensure that Hamas holds up the rest of its bargain and releases the bodies of all 24 deceased hostages as well. And it
also seems like the Israeli government is likely going to start imposing consequences if Hamas doesn't start releasing some of those additional
bodies soon.
Tomorrow, the Rafah Crossing between Egypt and Gaza was set to open as part of this expansion of humanitarian aid into Gaza and also to allow some
Palestinians to leave the Gaza Strip into Egypt. The security establishment here in Israel is now recommending to the political leadership not to open
the Rafah Crossing tomorrow until Hamas upholds its end of the bargain. So, a lot hanging in the balance and a lot of uncertainty about what the next
steps may be.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, and a lot of pressure from these hostage families on the Israeli government to do more to make sure that Hamas releases all of the
bodies of the remaining hostages now as well. We heard over the last 24 hours, obviously, not only about these reunions and joyfulness surrounding
the return of the hostages, but also peace in the region as well, hopefully the ceasefire that they can last.
And we've heard the phrase that the guns are down, and that hasn't proven to be exactly true. While Israel may not be operating its IDF in Gaza City
right now, we are getting reports of Hamas airing videos of street executions of those that they describe as collaborators. I mean, obviously,
this really stands in the way of setting up any sort of temporary government and replacement for Hamas, which was also part of the deal as
well. What more are we learning, Jeremy?
DIAMOND: Yes, I think that we have seen in the wake of this ceasefire a few different things. Hamas fighters have reemerged. Many of them from
tunnels beneath Gaza and are now out in the open, some of them wearing Hamas insignia, trying to kind of put on a show of force and to reassert
control in parts of the Gaza Strip from which the Israeli military has withdrawn.
But there is a different reality on the ground there now, after two years of war. There are these armed gangs that have also started to assert their
own power, as well as some of these powerful family clans in Gaza as well. And it is important to note that some of these armed groups have been
quietly supported by the Israeli government, financed and armed by the Israeli government. And we are starting to see a bit of a power struggle in
this new world of a ceasefire in Gaza between Hamas and some of these other groups.
As you mentioned, there is this video circulating now of Hamas carrying out public executions in Gaza. They claim that these are collaborators with
Israel. We don't have full information on those videos as of yet, so I want to be cautious about what we're actually able to report on those at this
point. But what is clear is that there is a power struggle underway. We have seen reports of clashes between Hamas militants and some of these
other clans inside of the Gaza Strip.
And I think this is something that could continue for some time. And it's really unclear how that situation is going to be settled. And what's also
unclear is what the timeline is for Hamas to, as it has agreed to, to give up power in Gaza and hand over that power to this international security
force and to the governance authority of some independent Palestinian technocratic governorship.
[13:25:00]
So, all of these details are in the process of being negotiated in Sharm el-Sheikh, in the Egyptian city where this ceasefire agreement was
brokered. We've just been told by sources in the region that there are working level negotiations now underway to talk about the next phases of
this agreement. We've heard President Trump as well say that he expects all parties to stick to this deal, asserting very definitively that they're
going to stick to the deal and that they're not going the war in Gaza is over.
But as you know, Bianna, there are so many details that have yet to actually be negotiated and agreed by the parties. And so, this does remain
a very, very fragile situation, both in terms of the politics that are forthcoming here, but also in terms of the situation on the ground in Gaza,
which seems to be quite volatile and does involve power struggles between different Palestinian militant elements.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, not to take away from any of the incredible achievements reached yesterday with phase one, President Trump now saying phase two
begins right now. But we do know realistically this is a difficult, long journey ahead as well. Jeremy Diamond, thank you so much.
Well, first Gaza, next Ukraine. Well, after successfully securing a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas and the release of all the living
hostages, President Trump seems to be on a diplomatic role addressing the Knesset. He said he'd like to give a peace deal with Iran. But first we
have to get Russia done.
Russia's war on Ukraine was, of course, something Trump said he could solve in 24 hours. But he has repeatedly acknowledged it's proven harder than he
expected. And now, Trump could be upping his support for Kyiv. Later this week, Ukraine's President Zelenskyy will travel to the White House to
discuss the possibility of America supplying Kyiv with Tomahawk missiles.
It would mark a major boost to Ukraine's war effort, but one that has already angered Moscow and prompted fears from some quarters of escalation.
Matthew Chance has this report.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MATTHEW CHANCE, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Tomahawk cruise missile. Even the threat of sending these U.S. weapons to
Ukraine with a range of over 1,500 miles may be enough to bring Russia to the negotiating table. At least that's what President Trump seems to think.
TRUMP: We had a very good conversation --
CHANCE (voice-over): Telling reporters en route to the Middle East he may tell the Kremlin to end the Ukraine war or face these formidable weapons
easily capable of reaching Moscow.
TRUMP: I might say, loOK. if this war is not going to get settled, I'm going to send them Tomahawks. I may send them. The Tomahawk is an
incredible weapon, very offensive weapon. And honestly, Russia does not need that. They don't need that. Yes, I may tell them that if the war is
not settled that we may very well, we may not, but we may do it.
CHANCE (voice-over): That uncertain threat hasn't come out of nowhere. For months now, Russia has been stepping up its own missile and drone attacks
across Ukraine, stretching air defenses, fueling Ukrainian calls for a powerful long-range weapon to strike back. Potentially deep inside Russia.
We see and hear that Russia is afraid that the Americans may give us Tomahawks, the Ukrainian president declared at the weekend. It's a signal
that exactly such pressure may work for peace, he added.
But in public, the Kremlin has been defiant, insisting the deployment of Tomahawks would have little impact on the battlefield. But seriously
ratchet up tensions between Moscow and Washington.
VLADIMIR PUTIN, RUSSIAN REPSIDENT (through translator): Using Tomahawks without the direct participation of American military personnel is
impossible. This would mark a completely new, qualitatively new stage of escalation including in relations between Russia and the United States.
CHANCE (voice-over): And the missiles can potentially deliver a nuclear payload, leading to warnings yet again of a catastrophic scenario. It's
impossible to tell whether a Tomahawk carries a nuclear or conventional warhead while it's in flight, the hawkish former Russian President Dmitry
Medvedev posted. How is Russia supposed to respond? He asked.
CHANCE: Well, with President Trump now basking in the glory of his diplomatic success in the Middle East, he's clearly not given up on ending
the war in Ukraine. But the hope that just one more powerful U.S. weapon, in this case the Tomahawk missile, could be the key to ending that conflict
may prove a little misplaced.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: All right. Our thanks to Matthew Chance for that report. So, what is the Trump administration's strategy here? And could Tomahawks exert
the pressure needed to get Russia to the negotiating table? Let's bring in former NATO Deputy Secretary General Rose Gottemoeller. She is joining us
now live from California. Rose, it is good to see you.
[13:30:00]
So, President Trump is coming off of what he's described as a peace victory in Gaza. And he's using, in his words, the same model to try to bring this
war in Ukraine to an end. Is that a valid analogy in your view that he's making, whatever went into the actions that got to that ceasefire in Gaza
can be done now in Ukraine?
ROSE GOTTEMOELLER, FORMER NATO DEPUTY SECRETARY GENERAL AND LECTURER, STANFORD UNIVERSITY: He certainly had to pressure the leader of Israel,
Mr. Netanyahu, to get this solution, the ceasefire in Gaza. So, I think he's looking to apply some tough pressure on Vladimir Putin. The question
is how best to do it. The Russians have discounted, as you just heard, the Tomahawk as being, you know, not a game changer in the war. On the other
hand, it is a step in the direction of supplying a bigger and more capable weapon than the U.S. has supplied up to this point.
So, is this the way to do it? I'm not sure. There could be other inducements that the president may try on Vladimir Putin, such as opening
up more economic opportunities. Those kinds of things have been very attractive to Putin in the past. So, I don't think it's going to be a kind
of unilayered response.
GOLODRYGA: Economic opportunities, you mean sort of a carrot approach that you stop this war and we can have further economic ties after the fact or
in the interim as well?
GOTTEMOELLER: No, no, I don't want to say in the interim. I do think that it would be a carrot offered to get the war over with. The president
greeted, you know, Putin in Alaska at the end of the summer, and there was a big coterie of Russian businessmen along on that trip. And Putin, I know,
was hoping to get some business opportunities, at least in the talking phase. So, I do understand that Mr. Trump has that in his mind as well.
It's a classic diplomatic approach, right? The carrot and the stick.
GOLODRYGA: Right. But I'm just wondering, because I picked up on that as well. President Trump has consistently talked about the great business and
economic opportunities that await the U.S. and Russia once this war ends and also continues to talk about the fate and the attrition of soldiers in
this war and Russians as well. Every week he throws out a number. These are two points that we don't hear from Vladimir Putin.
And I'm just wondering if the president's focus is a bit miscalculated. We know that Russia's economy is facing some hardships, but they can withstand
another few years, at least, given where they are now in a wartime footing. And he seems to be just fine having Russia isolated where it is, but still
remaining close with other BRIC countries in particular. And, you know, the troop attrition, again, seems to be a bigger concern for Trump than
Vladimir Putin.
GOTTEMOELLER: Yes, and that's very odd, because I think Vladimir Putin at this moment is playing a dangerous game. You may remember that back in
2022, there was consideration of another big mobilization in Russia and tens of thousands of Russian men fled the country. And so, Putin has been
very, very hesitant to try another mobilization. But now they are changing the law, apparently, that limits the use of 2 million reservists. And
they've got that before the Russian parliament, which is a rubber stamp.
So, it looks to me like Putin is considering doing a hidden mobilization, calling it a simple change in the reserve law. And in that case, I think
he's showing some vulnerability because that was politically the bridge too far for him back in 2022.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, we'll see if a play on words will allow this to pass with the Russian people. Remember, for so long, he called this a special
military operation before actually identifying it for what it was and a war.
You rightly mentioned that the pressure as of late that President Trump has put on Prime Minister Netanyahu to get to this deal. But one has to note
that he essentially allowed the prime minister in Israel to continue not only aggressively on the ground in Gaza, despite the concerns and really
the isolation of Israel from a number of other countries, but also taking on Iran as well to get to this point.
I'm wondering, we've seen pressure that President Trump, especially early in this administration, the first few weeks put on President Zelenskyy. Do
you think that to get to a ceasefire anywhere near where we saw in Gaza, he should also perhaps start allowing President Zelenskyy to do a bit more
before he then attempts to rein him in if he does have that oversight over him in a way that he doesn't over Putin?
GOTTEMOELLER: I really wanted to point to the effectiveness. All the attention is on the Tomahawks at the moment, but Zelenskyy himself has
talked about the effectiveness of two new Ukrainian missiles, two new drones that the Ukrainians have been launching against Russian energy
facilities. Their gasoline and petroleum producing infrastructure is quite damaged by a series of Ukrainian drone attacks, and now they put their new
missiles to use there too.
[13:35:00]
By some accounts, gasoline production is down 20 percent in Russia, and the Russians have had to import from Belarus in order to be able to supply
their drivers with gasoline. So, obviously, the Ukrainians have been very good with their own indigenous missiles at causing damage on the Russian
side as well, and I can see the president definitely encouraging that kind of activity on the Ukrainian side when he sees Mr. Zelenskyy on Friday.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. He does seem to be impressed by military wins, he's said as much with regards to some of the strikes that Ukraine has successfully
launched deep within Russia, the same in Gaza as well -- not in Gaza, in Israel, in terms of their strikes on Iran.
As far as this meeting on Friday with President Zelenskyy and President Trump, what will you be looking at in terms of any tangible deals made
coming out of it? Earlier in the segment, we talked about rare earth minerals perhaps being a deal that we see between President Trump and
President Milei in Argentina. There was a rare earth deal in Ukraine we haven't talked about much at all as of late. But what will tell you that
perhaps we've seen a shift in some strategy from President Trump with regards to this war?
GOTTEMOELLER: Again, all eyes have been on the Tomahawks, but I actually think one of the more important discussions that's going on is the use of
these so-called frozen Russian assets for the Ukrainian war effort and for eventually for reconstruction. I know the prime minister of Ukraine is
evidently in Washington now with a delegation to talk about this and other topics to prepare the way for the meeting on Friday. And I believe that if
we see some U.S. movement, the U.S. has been quite resistant on using such frozen Russian assets. And so, if there is some movement on that, I would
say that that too will be a very significant change and pressure on Russia as well.
GOLODRYGA: Right. And we have seen President Trump shift some of his views and even allow NATO weapon, U.S. weapons to be delivered to Ukraine after
the sale of those weapons to NATO countries. And then they would supply them to the Ukrainians. We've also seen in the past that following meetings
with President Zelenskyy, we see either a phone call or another meeting, perhaps with President Putin. Do you expect to see that happen this time as
well?
GOTTEMOELLER: I don't expect it immediately, really. I know yesterday the President turned to Steve Witkoff and said, Steve, next we work on Russia.
So, I would expect the special envoy, Steve Witkoff, to be sent off perhaps to talk to the Russians again. And indeed, Dmitry Peskov, the Kremlin
spokesman today, welcomed working again with Mr. Witkoff, said how they found him an effective negotiator. So, they were turning a bit of a charm
offensive also in the direction of Washington.
So, I would expect that we'll see some more shuttle diplomacy from Steve Witkoff and that there won't be a lot of interaction immediately between
Putin and Trump. But I am hopeful that we'll see a much more positive meeting on Friday at the White House with Mr. Zelenskyy than we saw last
February when there was that disastrous meeting.
I do think those two men now have a much better way of working together, a modus vivendi. And so, I expect the meeting will be businesslike and I hope
productive.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, we all do as well. Their relationship has improved significantly since that nadir moment there in February in the Oval Office.
Rose Gottemoeller, thank you so much for joining us. Really appreciate it.
GOTTEMOELLER: My pleasure.
GOLODRYGA: We'll be right back after this short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:40:00]
GOLODRYGA: Now, for major mergers to the Trump administration's unprecedented cuts to funding for public broadcasters. The U.S. media
landscape has been undergoing some dramatic shifts. Former CNN media reporter Oliver Darcy is now the founder of independent newsletter Status
News. And he joins Michelle Martin to break down recent developments in the industry. Just a note, they spoke before reports that Warner Brothers
Discovery, CNN's parent company, had rejected Paramount Skydance's initial takeover bid.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Oliver Darcy, thanks so much for joining us once again.
OLIVER DARCY, FOUNDER, STATUS NEWS: It's a pleasure to be here.
MARTIN: Now, we've called you because there's just been a flurry of headlines about the media in the last couple of weeks. I mean, the
suspension of Jimmy Kimmel, the -- you know, putting Jimmy Kimmel back on the air, the talk of a merger between the parent companies of both CBS and
CNN, new leadership at CBS.
Just looking at this kind of whole menu of things that you've been covering, what are some of the most important headlines that we should be
aware of?
DARCY: There is a lot going on right now. And I think the big story right now in media is consolidation, mergers, and the political pressure that
these companies are under, and that's kind of the through line that you're seeing right now. A lot of these media companies, they want to get bigger
so they can compete with the big tech titans. And to do that, they have to do deals and those deals need to be generally approved by the federal
government. And that's given Donald Trump and his administration a lot of leverage to extract demands from these companies.
And so, you're seeing this manifest in different ways. One was Jimmy Kimmel's suspension. And that's because the FCC chairman, Brendan Carr,
threatened basically the station groups that run the ABC -- they own the ABC affiliates. And they have a big deal before the government, a $6.2
billion deal that they want Brendan Carr to approve. And so, you saw them fall under pressure and then take Jimmy Kimmel off the air for a little
bit.
You mentioned, I believe, what's going on over at Paramount with CBS and CBS News. And that was another deal that required Brendan Carr's FCC
approval. And so, you saw a number of concessions made to this administration, whether it was placing an ombudsman, who's now a, you know,
MAGA follower, he's the ombudsman of CBS News and he'll review complaints of bias, to a number of other changes that were made. And some people would
say the cancellation of Stephen Colbert's show was related to get this deal done.
And so, the through line here is these companies need to do deals, the government needs to approve these deals, and they're really then at the
mercy of the government and they are making concessions that are impacting how we, you know, consume information and how the culture is shaped.
MARTIN: So, there's new leadership at CBS. Let's talk about CBS. A person named Bari Weiss has been installed as the editor-in-chief of CBS News.
First of all, just tell us a little bit about who she is and what are her qualifications for this job?
DARCY: Yes, she's a interesting media figure. It's very difficult to put her in a political box, but I would say she is someone who is very anti-
DEI, right? She's anti-woke. I'm not really sure how to describe her other than that. She's staunchly pro-Israel. So, she's taken a number of very,
you know, passionate stances. And I think she typically ends up lining up mostly with, or crossing over mostly with, those on the right.
Now, she does criticize the excesses of Donald Trump, but if you were to read the free press, you would believe, I think, that --
MARTIN: The free press being this outlet that she started when she broke with the New York Times, what was The Free Press supposed to do?
DARCY: So, The Free Press is supposed to be a place -- the way she brands it is that it's a place for, like, contrarian thought, where they ask tough
questions, where they talk about things that people are really secretly talking about, but are too afraid, I think, to say, you know, in the pages
of the New York Times or on cable television, and that they were going to be the home to real debate and a wide ideological spectrum of views. And
that's how she's branded The Free Press.
And so, I actually think that's where she gets, where it's, she likes to, I think, pretend that there are two equal extremes in this country, one on
the left and one on the right. And I think that's not accurate.
MARTIN: I just want to mention that her new boss, David Ellison, comes from a family with its own clear ideological ties. I mean, David's dad,
Larry, the -- you know, of -- a tech mogul, the single largest private donor, friends of the IDF, which he has every right to do.
[13:45:00]
But was she brought in to reflect the worldview of these new owners or was she brought in to do something else?
DARCY: Yes, I think that David Ellison, who's now the chairman and CEO of Paramount, I think he very much likes the -- what she -- what he thinks
that Bari Weiss stands for, and he likes her pro-Israel views, I'm sure. But I also think that there is this perception of CBS News as being too far
on the left amongst the ownership now. And I think Bari Weiss has brought in to move the company to the right.
And they would say, they would probably dispute that, but they would say, we want to move it to the middle. But, you know, they're moving it in more
pro-Trump friendly waters, is I think the best way to say it.
MARTIN: For the record, Paramount Skydance CEO David Ellison issued a statement about her appointment saying, Weiss will, quote, "Shape editorial
priorities, champion core values across platforms, and lead innovation in how the organization reports and delivers the news," unquote.
The other interesting thing here, though, is that David Ellison, benefiting from his father, Larry's fortune from Oracle, to acquire Paramount, which
owns CBS. The father-son duo are now eyeing Warner Brothers Discovery, which owns CNN, this program airs on CNN, and HBO. So, how would that work?
DARCY: I think that's definitely the plan. My understanding from talking to people familiar with the matter is that they're preparing a bid for the
entire Warner Brothers Discovery portfolio. So, that includes the Warner Brothers Studio that makes the films. It includes HBO and HBO Max, the
streamer. It includes Turner Sports, which is, you know, TBS and TNT, and if you're watching baseball right now, you're probably watching on one of
those channels. And it also includes CNN.
And so, the idea would be that they would merge, you know, Paramount Plus with HBO Max, that they would have CBS Sports merge with Turner Sports, and
that they would have CNN merge with CBS News. And so, what that would look like? Well, you could see a reality where you no longer need a CBS News
Forum bureaus because you can rely now on CNN's news gathering muscle to power CBS News.
And so, I think what would happen immediately would be layoffs because there would be synergy so that, you know, you would eliminate the
duplications. But ultimately, it seems like Bari Weiss would control the editorial output of not only CBS News, but also CNN. And that would give
her an enormous amount of control over how we absorb information, you know, today.
And I think Donald Trump would certainly love nothing more than the Ellisons and Bari Weiss to be in control of CNN. Because as you know, that
has been perhaps is, you know, the one news outlet he has liked to beat up on the most over the last 10 years.
MARTIN: And to add a further wrinkle, TikTOK. you know, that platform, very popular with, you know, lots of people for all kinds of reasons, both
news, cooking, dancing, the whole thing, kind of a worldwide kind of super player, was forced to change hands because of U.S. fears that China could
use it to shape American public opinion. And now, it's likely that Larry Ellison's company, Oracle, is also likely to have a stake in TikTok as
well. So, that would be a lot of landscape media, sort of real estate controlled by this family.
DARCY: When you're friends with Donald Trump, he gives you gifts. And TikTok is a nice gift for the Ellisons. Now, to be fair to them, they have
been in business with TikTok for a while. Oracle houses the servers for a number of -- for U.S. TikTOK. there's this whole thing called Project
Texas. We won't get into it, but remember, they wanted the data out of China and in the US. So, Oracle, which is the company that Larry Ellison
knows, which is how he's actually so wealthy, has been working with TikTok on that for a number of years.
But certainly, this is a benefit of being friends with the president. So, Larry Ellison's a Donald Trump supporter. He's an ally of the president.
You see him at the White House occasionally. And I think that Donald Trump would love nothing more than to hand over the keys to a lot of these media
companies to an ally, right? I mean, he would like TikTok to be in his court.
He, for a long time, felt like the tech companies were against him. And for the first time, now he has Mark Zuckerberg under his thumb. You see Tim
Cook over at Apple handing the golden plaque. You see Jeff Bezos basically moving in his direction. Elon Musk obviously controls what was Twitter, now
it's called X. And all of a sudden, the tech companies are now in his court. And I think he very much enjoys that because he understands the
power of the tech companies and the power of the media companies. And if they can no longer be antagonists but allies, that's a huge win for Donald
Trump as he really works to reshape this country.
[13:50:00]
MARTIN: OK. But in fairness, haven't really rich people always had kind of an outsized role in what kind of information that we consume?
DARCY: I think what's different here is that Donald Trump has made it very clear he will weaponize government to go after critics and punish critics.
And if you are an ally, he will reward you with things like TikTok. And so, what does that mean? It means that if Jeff Bezos is competing with
government contracts for things like Amazon Web Services or Blue Origin, which is a space company against SpaceX, and he wants those, well, he
better be friendly with Donald Trump because if he's not, those contracts are going to Elon Musk or those contracts are going somewhere else, to
Microsoft maybe, whoever's friendly with him.
And so, you're seeing these billionaire tech owners for the first time really just overtly bend the knee. And this did not happen during the first
administration where there's a lot more hesitancy.
MARTIN: I do feel like I need to mention, I'm sure many people probably know this, that Congress recently approved major cuts to the Corporation
for Public Broadcasting and rescinded federal funding for PBS and, you know, NPR, obviously places that I'm affiliated with and local stations,
which are now at risk.
But you recently testified before Congress about some of these issues. And you said, you talked a little bit about your difficulties as a small
publisher protecting yourself from defamation lawsuits. And you said that chilling a speech is one of the first signs a democracy is beginning to
decay, which are pretty strong words if you think about it. So, what led you to that conclusion? Why do you say that?
DARCY: Well, I think it's obvious that when aspiring authoritarians are seeking to seize power, they do not want to dissent. And so, they seek to
chill speech. And you see this manifesting in a number of ways in this administration, whether it's Donald Trump and his, you know, FCC chairman
going after a late-night comedian to make fun of him, you know, celebrating the cancellation of Stephen Colbert, certainly pressuring them to cancel. I
mean, Trump called for Stephen Colbert to be fired. They canceled him. You know, pressuring them to take Jimmy Kimmel off the air, pressuring them to
take other comedians off the air.
Republicans, we should be clear, are the ones that defunded NPR and PBS, whether it's filing lawsuits like Donald Trump has against outlets like the
New York Times or even the Wall Street Journal, which is owned by his ally, Rupert Murdoch. You know, his tweets that attack and stir up hate against
news organizations. You're seeing an unprecedented assault on speech in this country right now, and it's led by the man in the Oval Office who is
seeking to punish critics and make sure that they do not have the ability to criticize him or to speak their truth about him.
MARTIN: Here's the thing, Oliver, and this is one of the things that critics of the media say. They say Americans aren't watching, aren't
listening, and don't believe us, right? Only 28 percent of Americans expressed a great deal or fair amount of trust in newspapers, television,
and radio to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly. That's down from 31 percent in 2024 and 40 percent in just in 2020. This is according
to a recent sort of Gallup poll.
So, what do you think is causing this drop? I mean, conservatives say it's that because, you know, the media is too liberal and it doesn't really
paint a fair picture and it's not fair. What do you say?
DARCY: I think what's caused the drop in confidence amongst really Republicans has been the war that Donald Trump and his allies have waged
against the truth for the past 10 years. And it's actually gone longer than that. It's been basically since Rush Limbaugh, you know, rose to power on
radio and there has been this relentless attack against mainstream outlets saying to a large part of the country that journalists are lying to you,
they are misleading you, and you should not trust the, quote, "experts."
And I think we really saw that heightened during COVID where do not trust the experts, do not trust the scientists, they are misleading you, they
want -- you know, they have nefarious incentives. Now, are there a number of other reasons like perhaps a fragmentation of media because of social
media and algorithms and a bunch of other things? Yes, but that is the elephant in the room.
And if you look at the polls, the group of people that do not trust the media the most according to this Gallup poll are Republicans. I think they
have like 8 percent trust of media. And that is a stark difference compared to Democrats.
MARTIN: So, before we let you go, Oliver, obviously big topic. Where does this go next? And what are you going to leave us with? What should we do?
DARCY: You know, that's a -- I try not to be so pessimistic, but it's difficult to look at the environment that we're operating in and not feel
like there is no actual reversal here. I think the one good thing is because -- and we touched on this, but because it has never been easier to
start independent newsrooms, I think that's the one bright light.
[13:55:00]
And my hope is that some of these independent newsrooms can pick up the torch that is being set down by their, you know, much larger legacy news
organizations and carry that forward and do some good investigative work and really do reporting.
But certainly, I find it incredibly alarming that at a moment when you want news organizations, I think to be stronger than ever to hold this
administration's feet to the fire, to spotlight abuses, they are actually at their most vulnerable points and they are shrinking pretty rapidly at
this point. And I think that is a very alarming trend for our country and for our democracy.
MARTIN: Oliver Darcy, thanks so much for talking with us once again.
DARCY: Thank you so much.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: And that is it for us for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. And
remember, you can always catch us online, on our website. and all-over social media. Thank you so much for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
