Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with International Crisis Group Senior Director for Policy Ivan Briscoe; Interview with Senior Fellow for Latin America, Chatham House Christopher Sabatini; Interview with CNN Legal Analyst and Former Federal Prosecutor Elliot Williams; Interview with "The Last Supper" Author and Former Senior Nutrition Policy Adviser to President Obama Sam Kass. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired October 22, 2025 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: Hello everyone and welcome to Amanpour. Here's what's coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: Colombia is out of control.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: The latest country in the president's crosshairs, and he continues to escalate tensions with Venezuela. Is the U.S. headed for war
in Latin America?
Then where are the guardrails? Trump demands the Department of Justice pay him hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation. With his own loyalists
running the DOJ, what does this say about the independence of America's institutions?
Plus --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SAM KASS, AUTHOR, "THE LAST SUPPER" AND FORMER SENIOR NUTRITION POLICY ADVISER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA: Many of the foods that we love are simply not
going to be available to most people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- "The last supper," Obama White House Chef Sam Kass speaks to Michel Martin about the crises facing the U.S. food system.
Welcome to the program everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
Is Donald Trump beating the drums of war? President continues to threaten Venezuela, sending B-52 bombers to troll its coast, deploying more warships
to the Caribbean Sea and surging troops into the region. All part of his declared armed conflict with drug trafficking groups, which he's designated
as international terrorists.
As the administration continues to bomb boats, it says are carrying drugs without giving any public evidence of that, a group of independent U.N.
experts now calls them extra judicial executions. Dozens of people have been killed in these U.S. strikes. Colombia's president says it is murder.
Trump is retaliating by ending aid to the country, and Bogota has recalled its ambassador to the U.S. in response.
So, where does all of this lead and is all out U.S. Military action in Venezuela simply a matter of time now? Ivan Briscoe, who is senior director
of For Policy at the International Crisis Group, joins me with more. Ivan it, it is good to see you.
So, as we have just noted you and experts have called these killings, extra judicial executions. And they went on to say that even if these boats were
carrying drugs, lethal force and international waters violates international law. Does the administration have any legal, credible
background -- backing, rather, to make such actions?
IVAN BRISCOE, SENIOR DIRECTOR FOR POLICY, INTERNATIONAL CRISIS GROUP: It has claimed that there is a legal case for such actions. It claims that the
drug traffickers and the drug trafficking organizations are foreign terrorist organizations, and therefore, it is within its right of
legitimate self-defense to carry out attacks on any people who it believes are verifiable members of these drug trafficking organizations.
Of course, that is. Really stretching the definition of foreign terrorists. It's hard for many lawyers, I think, to believe that drug traffickers or
suspected drug traffickers are actually unlawful competence. They're not engaged in hostilities with the United States. They're just trying to sell
illegal drugs in the United States.
And of course, there's the broader question of what is the evidence that these people on these boats, on these -- the seven attacks which have taken
place, killing 32 people, what evidence that could be presented in a court of law would actually establish that they were going to traffic drugs
because obviously they've been killed.
GOLODRYGA: Is a claim of non-international armed conflict with these cartels legally persuasive in your view?
BRISCOE: I think that is a matter for the lawyers and I think the majority of lawyers would actually say on this subject that if these groups are not
engaged in hostilities with the United States that are involved in an illicit transaction, selling goods -- black market goods in the United
States, illegal goods that's not strictly speaking a -- they're not strictly speaking, engaging in hostilities within the United States.
They're not at -- in an armed conflict with United States and therefore, cannot be treated as competence or rather, it's very much stretching the
definition of combat and war to claim that they are.
[13:05:00]
GOLODRYGA: So, what does Washington say that it is doing here? Is this all about counter narcotics missions or is something bigger going on?
BRISCOE: I think we need to distinguish what's on the surface from what really is the true intention. And it's very difficult to know the
dimensions of the true intention. On the surface we have a mission destined to combat drug trafficking in the Caribbean. Trump has also said that it's
an effort to stop migrants and migrant trafficking groups, which are operating in Venezuela.
But the scale of the mission, we're talking about the eight or nine warships that the thousands of troops, the recent evidence of the B-52
bombers operating in Venezuela and very close to Venezuelan airspace, the presence of Special Forces troops, the fact that the CIA has supposedly be
told to conduct covert operations in the country all suggest that there is a broader ambition of regime change, of removing Nicolas Maduro from power.
Bearing in mind of course, that in the first Trump administration there was a maximum pressure campaign to bring down Maduro, which didn't succeed.
So, this would seem that the sheer weight of force and fire power, which the U.S. has brought to bear in the Caribbean compared to the relatively
modest goals, which it has set itself, would suggest that there is something at play which is far larger. And this is indeed confirmed by a
lot of officials and people close to the administration who seem to suggest that there is an attempt underway to try and persuade Maduro and his senior
officials to leave office.
GOLODRYGA: OK. So, we've got B-52s, F-35, special operating units in the region now. Shots have been fired. Strikes have been made. There have been
casualties here. Where's Congress been on all of this, and how can any of this be authorized without Congress's approval?
BRISCOE: Well, Congress -- there was an attempt in Congress to restrict the use of armed power force in in the Caribbean. But the vote went down
Pakistan lines and so it wasn't passed. And for now, Congress is not in a position to respond. The executive is taking the initiative. The executive
is not claiming that it is an explicit regime change operation, but all the insights that we've got from the officials close to -- in the
administration, close the administration are experts in -- on the U.S. policy towards Venezuela would suggest that there is this larger ambition.
But until it's made explicit or until the U.S. does engage militarily with that political purpose it's hard for Congress to make a stand on the issue.
GOLODRYGA: I want to bring in Chris Sabatini. He's a senior fellow for Latin America at Chatham House for more on this. And, Chris, I'm not sure
how much of this conversation you've already been listening to, but I do want to talk about how the president is describing what is happening and
concerns about what the ultimate goal is here, longer-term and bigger picture.
President Trump says these strikes are to stop narcotics from entering the United States, yet according to Time fewer than 10 percent of U.S. drugs
come from Venezuela. Most of it, the fentanyl comes in via the border with Mexico. The guardian notes that the CIA is directing, as we have argued and
as we have reported, is directing now secret covert operations in Venezuela.
If it's about narcotics, why do we have the CIA involved as opposed to traditional organizations like the DEA?
CHRISTOPHER SABATINI, SENIOR FELLOW FOR LATIN AMERICA, CHATHAM HOUSE: Well, first of all, it's worth pointing out that if Donald Trump is talking
about a covert operation, it's not covert. This is intended primarily to be about political signaling. What he's -- Donald Trump may not admit it, but
Secretary of State Marco Rubio has, this is an attempted regime change. It's an attempt to rattle the military and the inner circle so much so that
they will defect and throw their weight behind someone else and maybe even overthrow Maduro and on that $50 million bounty the U.S. has put on his
head.
But yes, this is -- you know, at best maybe the CIA will attempt to smash and grab, to try to take out some of the people around Maduro, probably
Nicolas Maduro. There are a few others, Padrino Lopez, who's the head of defense and the head of interior, Diosdado Cabello. But this is really
intended to -- really, it's kind a PSYOPs operation here where they're trying to scare the military and thinking they could be next, they could be
hit by a missile, they could be kidnapped by the CIA, they could be taken out. It's not about drugs. It's about regime change.
[13:10:00]
And it's worth remembering, Donald Trump tried regime change in 2019 when they cooked up this interim government led by Juan Guaido, who they claimed
was the legitimate government of Venezuela. It was dissolved three years later. This is just another attempt at it, but he's not willing to say it.
GOLODRYGA: Right. And we should note, it wasn't just the United States that recognized Guaido as the legitimate leader of the country, I believe
it was a number of other Western allies. But the point you're making is a valid one if there had been past attempts. And listen, no one's going to
cry if they see Maduro go in the sense that he's brought on so much pain for his own citizens. The country is essentially a failed state now under
his leadership.
That having been said, he does have the support of the top military brass. Perhaps it is through corruption as well. Why is it so difficult to
overthrow him at this point, Chris?
SABATINI: So, first of all, as you mentioned, the military is deeply corrupt, and that the Trump administration is correct. And they are deeply
involved in -- not so much -- they don't produce narcotics or cocaine, but they are a transshipment point for cocaine. Most of it actually not going,
as you mentioned, to the United States, but going actually to Europe. They're also involved in human trafficking. They're also involved in
illegal gold mining.
So, they're completely bought out and purchased. And of course, because the Trump administration has labeled many of these individuals in the
government as being members of the Cartel de los Soles, the Sun cartel, they also fear that if they do defect or if there's regime change, their
heads could be on the chopping block. They could be sent to prisons in the United States or even be tried in other areas.
So, they're very much in league with us. But there's another thing that's important is that a long time ago, Maduro's predecessor, Hugo Chavez,
brought in Cuban advisers and spies and basically embedded them in the intelligence services. And they're keeping an eye on these military
officers. And there have been several cases where military officers have tried to plan a coup or some sort of palace movement that could remove the
president, and they've ended up in prison or in one case, caught up and buried in a cement hole in Chile. So, there's a lot of fear there that's
shaping their own calculations.
But there's also always been this rhetoric that the military is deeply opposed to whether it's deeply split. And that may be the case, but making
it effective, making them act on it is going to be very difficult, given the levels of fear and the extent to which they're implicated in
corruption.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, those that have spoken out are either living in exile or imprisoned or are dead at this point. Ivan, we also know that Maduro has
threatened military force as well and has deployed his own military troops. At least that's what he said publicly. I mean, do you envision a scenario
where Venezuela could actually strike against U.S. forces in the region?
BRISCOE: Very doubtful, indeed. I mean, Venezuela does have a decently sized army. It's over 100,000 troops. It, of course, has these rumored
millions and millions of civilian militia, but poorly armed. It does have some weaponry, a lot of it Russian. It does have some quite an impressive
anti-aircraft defense mechanism -- mechanisms compared to other countries in Latin America. But I think if the United States were to engage in
conventional warfare with Venezuela, it wouldn't last very long. Venezuela's forces would quickly be decimated. Its main barracks are clear
targets, and the United States could, if necessary, strike them.
But I think -- the point Chris raises is absolutely crucial. It's not going to be as easy as the U.S. thinks to cause divisions in the high ranks of
Chavismo, in civilian ranks or in the military ranks. They have common interests. They feel that if they were to break away, then their own
futures would be uncertain. It's not clear what the United States could promise them, and a huge risk to themselves and their families of being
found out, of ending up in a jail, as political prisoners or worse.
So, these are the sorts of considerations which are in the minds of those who are being asked, as it were, to break with Maduro, to somehow hand him
over and to bring an end to this government, and it's extremely difficult for them. And it's also within the minds of those high-standing officials
the thought that maybe this is a bluff after all. To what extent is the United States really willing to commit its military power to some form of
sustained intervention in Venezuela? And for that, that is still uncertain for now.
GOLODRYGA: I'd like to play sound from Venezuelan opposition leader and recent Nobel Prize winner Maria Corina Machado to Christiane when she spoke
with her last week. And Christiane asked her directly if she supports U.S. military intervention. Here's what she said.
[13:15:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARIA CORINA MACHADO, VENEZUELAN OPPOSITION LEADER: Venezuela right now is a safe haven where Hezbollah, Hamas, the drug cartels, the Colombian
guerrilla operate freely. And they are part of this liaison with the regime. And what we have done, the Venezuelan people, as I said, is already
mandated regime change. We won. And we need help to enforce that decision. And that help comes in terms of applying, enforcing the law, cutting those
flows that come from these criminal activities.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Chris, how much weight does the Venezuelan opposition play here?
SABATINI: They're important. And last year, Maria Corina Machado and her stand-in candidate organized a massive campaign and also, most importantly,
a massive effort to calculate the election results and gather the voting sheets and to prove that Nicolas Maduro won only about 30 percent of the
vote to their 70 percent of the vote. So, they really are quite fed up with this government.
As you say, the economy has collapsed. The state has collapsed. Inflation was just calculated to be at around 400 percent, the highest in the world.
So, they do want change. That part is obvious. The question is -- and for the reasons even that Maria Corina Machado said, and both you and Ivan have
said, that the problem is that there are criminal groups inside Venezuela.
So, even if there is a strike or somehow, by some miracle, there's some palace coup that provokes a transition, it's not clear that Maria Corina
Machado would become -- would be invited into the Palacio Miraflores, the presidential palace, nor is it even clear that the country could come
together.
You know, the ELN, the Colombian guerrilla group and the U.S., I just can't imagine that it would invest the sort of troops on the ground, state
building exercise that Trump criticized so heavily in 2016 if it comes to that.
GOLODRYGA: And, Ivan, what do you make now of the rupture in relations between the U.S. and neighboring Colombia as well? I mean, you've got
President Petro now saying that President Trump essentially murdered his own citizens. He recalled an ambassador. The president then pulled back on
funding for the country, threatened more tariffs as well.
I know there's an election coming up and he is term limited out. So, are they just going to wait this out? Is this more of just bluster between
these two, given that they are ideological opposites, or is there concern about longer-term implications in regards to relations between U.S. and
Colombia?
BRISCOE: It's an extraordinary development. I mean, relations now between the two governments are absolutely dire. And bearing in mind that Colombia
has long been the most stable ally of the United States in the whole of Latin America, it's most unexpected.
It was interesting to see Gustavo Petro, the Colombian president, in a very long and long-winded interview on Monday, expressing the feeling of wounded
pride, the sense that he could not submit the demands being made against him by Trump, which offended the very fiber of his being, invoking the
glories of Colombian history in the process. And this would suggest that there's no going back now for Petro.
His officials and his diplomats will try to paper over relations. There will hopefully be some ongoing security collaboration between the two
countries. But I think this has been a strong play by the United States, by Trump in particular, who from his first days in government has pointed to
Colombia as an ideological enemy in Latin America and to Petro in particular as a foe.
And I think what we're seeing with this move and this deterioration in the relationship is a new way of the United States handling its relations with
Latin America, picking out the governments it likes and denigrating and trying to isolate the governments which it doesn't like. I mean, you have
to notice it at the same time as the buildup is occurring against Venezuela, as the tensions arising with Colombia.
GOLODRYGA: Billions to Argentina. Yes.
BRISCOE: Trump is promising a multi-billion-dollar bailout with Argentina.
GOLODRYGA: Right. So, as he's rewarding friends and, you know, punishing foes, Chris, last question to you, are other adversaries, specifically
talking about China, viewing this as an opening, an opportunity for them in terms of making inroads once again with countries who the president is
publicly at odds with?
SABATINI: Yes, that's absolutely right. It's notable that after Trump slapped 50 percent tariffs on Brazil, and even before when he had the
Liberation Day of April 2nd, immediately China picked up the slap. So, China is really trying to fill the space left by a Trump administration
that is, you know, oftentimes being, you know, very punitive towards even allies.
[13:20:00]
And the ironic thing about Colombia -- and Petro's always been very close to China, the ironic thing, of course, is Colombia is the major producer of
cocaine. And by cutting off intelligence and military assistance, and by putting tariffs on the country, he's increasing the likelihood of actual
cocaine that really does reach the American shores, reaching, being produced and increasing in production in Colombia.
So, you know, even -- there's even an inconsistency in his alleged policy of addressing the issue of what they call poison reaching the shores of the
U.S. by what they're doing in Colombia. But this is -- as Ivan said, this is all about partisanship. It's about ideological allies, you know, even,
you know, trying to slap pressure on the Brazilian government because he doesn't like Lula, because it was trying his political ally for
insurrection. And this is really opens wide up the field for China.
GOLODRYGA: Chris Sabatini, Ivan Briscoe, we'll have to leave it there. Thank you so much for the time. Appreciate it.
BRISCOE: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: And do stay with CNN. We'll be right back after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: All right. From those extrajudicial strikes on boats in the Caribbean to the indictments of his political enemies to tearing down part
of the White House, literally, to build a new ballroom. The president of the United States is acting with increasing impunity, rewriting the
standards for public office, and in some cases, threatening the rule of law. The latest eye-raising move, demanding the Department of Justice pay
him $230 million in compensation for federal investigations into his actions, this according to reporting from The New York Times.
Now, given the president has appointed a number of loyalists to the top of the DOJ, that presents a hair-raising conflict of interest. So, let's get
into all of this now with Elliot Williams, a former federal prosecutor and former U.S. deputy assistant attorney general for legislative affairs.
Elliot, it is good to see you. So, as I noted, the president is now saying that the government owes him $230 million for investigations into his own
conduct and that any decision to pay it has to go to his own desk. So, I guess he's saying that he gets to decide. Is that even legal? It's just
mind-blowing.
ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST AND FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Yes, as a matter of common sense, it's mind-blowing, Bianna, but let's step back
and explain exactly how it works and where it's good and where it's bad. In the United States, anybody who is targeted by law enforcement or
encountered by law enforcement can sue the government afterward if the government acted in a negligent or reckless or malicious way in prosecuting
them or searching their home or whatever else.
Now, I was very careful to use those words there, negligent or malicious, and merely being investigated, merely having your house searched by police
is not itself grounds for recovering money. The question has to be, was something improper? And it's really hard to see, given the nature of the
investigations into the former president when they took place a few years ago, how they were improper.
[13:25:00]
Now, people may not agree with them. Supporters of the president may have thought it was a bad idea to investigate him, but that they were legally
improper really ought to raise questions for everybody, and that's sort of at the heart of this debate.
GOLODRYGA: Right. His legal team filed administrative claims, not lawsuits, over two cases. That was the FBI search of Mar-a-Lago, that is
the second claim. The first was the Russia investigation. And both are now being reviewed by the Justice Department. And these officials, the FBI and
the Justice Department, Trump appointed, and also, by the way, were personal lawyers, like Todd Blanche, to the president of the United States.
So, anyone else would ask, isn't there a conflict of interest here? Is that a legal impediment?
WILLIAMS: Yes. There's two big potential conflicts of interest here. Number one, the fact that the president oversees the federal government in
the United States, which includes the Justice Department, and they are the ones deciding whether the boss ought to be paid a quarter of a billion
dollars to rectify some wrongs. So, just that notion there alone is a little bit questionable, right? Because you're paying the person whose name
goes on the check. That's one.
And then number two, just as a practical matter, all of -- literally all of the people in the senior roles in government are not just supporters of the
president or loyal Republicans, as is the president's right, they're his former lawyers. They're people who represented him in court. So, really, as
a matter of just common sense, what you have are people who represented the president making the decisions on whether he, their boss, he's now their
employer, ought to receive a quarter of a billion dollars. It's all incredibly suspect, Bianna.
The way to get around it and the way to fix it would be for the president simply to just say, loOK. I think I have a legal claim here, but let's
address it in 2029 after I'm no longer president. Literally January 21st, 2029, they could have a new Justice Department that doesn't have some of
these same ethical questions, or at least ties to the president could resolve the questions and just take off some of the stink of impropriety
that just seems to be lingering over all of this.
GOLODRYGA: So, he could address it that way, as you just laid out, just wait until he's out of office, instead, he chose to address it like this.
Let's play sound.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: Now, with the country, it's interesting because I'm the one that makes the decision, right? And, you know, that
decision would have to go across my desk. And it's awfully strange to make a decision where I'm paying myself.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: OK. So, it is rather strange. I don't think this has ever happened before, which is kind of an evergreen statement in many of these
stories that we cover involving the president. So, here he was. I would imagine he paid his attorneys at the time or was expected to pay his
attorneys at the time. So, this could be interpreted as getting money back and perhaps even then some. But this is taxpayer money. And this goes back
to a question from my previous segment, totally unrelated, but does Congress have a say here in how U.S. taxpayer dollars are spent and where
they're going?
WILLIAMS: Right. Absolutely. So, there's a few -- quick questions here. Number one, you exactly touched on it, this idea of who's making the
decision as to how this money is spent. And it comes from the tax dollars that American citizens paid. That's point one.
Point two, and I can't hammer this point enough as a lawyer, the idea that the mere fact that someone spends money defending themselves in court
doesn't entitle them to get that money back if they've lost in court or even won in court. You know, the legal process costs money. People pay for
lawyers and sometimes you win a case, sometimes you lose a case. But the idea that merely the fact that he didn't get prosecuted now means that
somehow people should pay him back all of the money he spent on lawyers and punitive damages, damages just to punish the people who brought the
charters against him, just doesn't smell right at all.
GOLODRYGA: So, when the president says that he could either donate this money or perhaps it could go to the cost for covering the demolition of the
East Wing, how do you interpret that?
WILLIAMS: You know, it's really -- I'm going to -- I know we have a lot of international viewers here and I'm going to use an American slang term. The
president's running this all on vibes, on just the things that feel good and seem good to him and others around him, but not really comport with the
law or traditions of the United States.
This whole idea of, well, of course it makes sense for people to just pay me my money back, I spent a lot of money, therefore I should get it back.
That's just not based in the reality of American law. And this idea that, well, it would be put to a good use still is not a great explanation. I
think in that -- you know, spending the demolition of the East Wing is being paid for by private funds. The idea that taxpayers would then be
paying the president for this legal representation, which, and then would in turn pay for this project in the East Wing also just does not
particularly sit right.
[13:00:00]
So, there's all -- there's a host of -- even if the president isn't violating the law in any of this, and I don't wish to impute any suggestion
that he is, a lot of it just raises significant enough ethical questions that it is worth at least pressing the pause button for a moment, having
ethicists and lawyers look at it and just figure out whether we as a nation are doing this properly.
GOLODRYGA: OK. So, the Justice Department insists that, quote, "All officials follow the guidance of career ethics staff," as you just pointed
out, but those same officials, including the department's senior ethics chief, were fired back in July. So, whose guidance is the DOJ going to be
following now?
WILLIAMS: The same people who are making the decisions on paying money to the president. It's -- you know, all of the -- there's really no way to
answer that question. The kinds of career officials -- and when we speak about career officials in the United States, they are people who stay in
government from one presidential administration to another, from Republican or Democratic administrations, whatever else, and they, at least in the
past, were the sense of continuity that kept the government running. Well, many of them, including the top ethics officials, have been fired. The
president simply and summarily fired them from the United States. So, it is now up to many of the people who work for the president and are loyalists
of the president to make these decisions.
You know, Bianna, to the point about the demolition of the East Wing, this major portion of the White House that's being knocked down to build a
ballroom that the president wishes to build, the head of the Preservation Commission is one of the president's own former campaign lawyers. So, there
are questions about whether the White House is appropriately destroying this government property and building new property in its place, but often
the person making the final decision is himself, not someone with a long career in the government, but just a former loyalist of the president.
So, you're hitting right on it. It's a series of places in which expertise and seniority have been removed from the federal government in lieu of
people who are proximate and politically loyal to President Trump. And we're just seeing it in all sorts of contexts across American government
right now.
GOLODRYGA: So, let's talk about something else we're seeing, and that is the number of retaliatory prosecutions. Trump's Justice Department has now
indicted several of his longtime critics, James Comey, Letitia James, even open inquiries into Adam Schiff, and now perhaps even John Brennan, the
former CIA director. What is the line, Elliot, between legitimate prosecution? I mean, John Bolton is a separate case, and it does appear
that there may be some there-there, but this is also a case that the Biden administration chose not to pursue after some investigation of their own.
But let's put the John Bolton case aside. How much of this is the president following up on his threats of going after his opponents and seeking
vindication, or are these legal prosecutions and persecutions, perhaps, you know, public figures, but there's something warranted there, in your view?
WILLIAMS: What is grossly improper, Bianna, is the fact that the president himself has called for their prosecution. One can make the argument that
the Justice Department, which is the prosecutorial apparatus in the United States, reports to the president, therefore he can direct prosecutions. And
yes, technically he can. It is within his right to point a finger and direct a prosecution. It's also within his right to declare war or send
troops to attack the United Kingdom if he wants. That doesn't mean it's a good idea to do it and that doesn't mean that it would comport with any
sense of tradition in the United States that protects the rights and the rule of law.
So, it's important that you separated out John Bolton because of the nature of the charges here. That is a former national security adviser to the
president who was found with very sensitive documents, many of them in his home and on his computer and so on.
There are several other people that the president has identified by name and called for the prosecution of, that is grossly improper. Even if the
charges against them are valid or even maybe sort of valid, possibly questionably valid, the mere fact of the president weighing in as
explicitly as he has is grossly improper and simply has no basis in American law.
And in fact, if in fact, those folks move to get the cases of them thrown out, they might win. They might succeed at getting rid of these cases,
which doesn't happen a lot in the United States.
GOLODRYGA: Well, that's exactly --
WILLIAMS: But it also doesn't happen a lot that you have a president of the United States dictating.
[13:35:00]
GOLODRYGA: Yes, that's exactly one of the arguments James Comey and his attorneys used in -- just this week in trying to get that case dismissed.
You mentioned the president's post on Truth Social. This apparently was meant to be a direct message, a DM to his attorney general. Instead, he
posted this back in September, Pam, I have reviewed over 30 statements and posts saying that essentially same old story as last time. All talk, no
action, nothing is being done. What about Comey, Adam, Shifty Schiff, Letitia? They're all guilty as hell, but nothing is going to be done. He
goes on to say, we can't delay any longer. It's killing our reputation and credibility. They impeached me twice and indicted me five times over
nothing, justice must be served now.
How is justice being served by following through on exactly what he demanded his attorney general do?
WILLIAMS: Yes, a few things. One, if the president wants these people to go to jail, he basically ruined -- possibly ruined any chance of that
happening by that comment and those comments. It's just improper. Interestingly, the line, they impeached me twice and I think in effect
saying, therefore it's OK for me to do this, that's actually an admission of wrongdoing right there. The fact that he has acknowledged that at least
part of the basis for his recommendation of these prosecutions is the fact that he was prosecuted before, just admitted that he's brought in -- or is
urging the attorney general to bring in other matters into her decision over whether to bring these charges.
And I think that very line, within that whole statement, but that one line is going to be the one that if Comey or Letitia James do succeed in getting
rid of these cases, it's that statement. It's -- you know, the -- a proper prosecution ought to be based on just the facts and the law. If they broke
the law, of course they can be investigated, not they prosecuted me before, therefore we should prosecute them now.
GOLODRYGA: But that seems to be exactly their defense. Finally, I'll just close with this. The White House responded to exactly these questions by
saying it is ultimate hypocrisy to accuse President Trump of what Joe Biden actively did throughout his presidency, engaging in lawfare against his
political opponents. So, there they are stating it out in the open, what they did, we're going to do. And we don't have time to go through the
differences between some of these cases.
But, Elliot Williams, thank you so much for explaining as much as you already did for our viewers here in the United States and around the world,
because these are certainly unusual and fast-moving developments. We appreciate the time. Good to see you. We'll be right back after this short
break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: Well, now the U.S. government shutdown is impacting people who work in some of the country's most critical industries like food and
agriculture. Farmers are thrust into uncertainty now while millions of families are at risk of losing food stamps. This comes on top of other
tumult in the sector caused by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s new health policies, the ongoing tariff war and climate change.
Chef Sam Kass worked in the Obama White House as a senior policy adviser on nutrition, and he spoke to Michel Martin about all of this and his new
book, "The Last Supper."
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, Bianna. Sam Kass, thanks so much for talking with us.
SAM KASS, AUTHOR, "THE LAST SUPPER" AND FORMER SENIOR NUTRITION POLICY ADVISER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA: It's great to be here. Thanks for having me.
MARTIN: Just to remind people, you were a longtime chef for the Obama family, a senior adviser for nutrition policy in the Obama administration,
executive director of Michelle Obama's Let's Move campaign, which is all about kind of healthy eating, fitness, especially aimed at kids.
[13:40:00]
You've got a new book out, "The Last Supper: How to Overcome the Coming Food Crisis." As briefly as you can, what's the coming food crisis?
KASS: Well, you know, food and agriculture is on the front lines of climate change. And, you know, we're seeing issues play out around the
world and certainly throughout the country in terms of the -- you know, the impact that climate is having on our food system and our ability to feed
it, you know, ourselves. And, you know, things like coffee prices are up this year because of drought. Last year, chocolate prices were up 200
percent.
We've seen collapses of Georgia peaches over the last few years or snow crab fisheries in the Pacific Northwest that have been closed because of
complete wipe out of those crab populations. You know, our very way of life is really under threat. And I think a lot of times we talk about it like
1.5 degrees or, you know, climate change, nobody really knows what the implications of that is. But when you start to get down to the role of food
and the impact this is having on food, you start to understand it's really our way of life that we're trying to trying to fight for. And so, we have a
lot of work to do.
MARTIN: If you were to stop 10 people on the street, do you think that they would know that there's a problem, that they would say something not
quite right or not?
KASS: I think right now, sadly, the answer is no. I think we've done a really bad job at trying to connect these issues around climate change and
the environment to people's lives and help them understand why they have a real stake in solving these challenges. You know, like as a kid from
Chicago, 1.5 degrees warmer sounds good. In fact, I would probably advocate for like, let's make it five degrees warmer. You know, I don't think we
have connected these issues to the realities that we -- you know, people are going to start to feel them. And we have a lot of work to do there.
And that's especially true when we understand that, you know, food and agriculture is the number two driver of emissions globally. It's the number
one driver of biodiversity loss and deforestation. It's the number one use of fresh water, you know, on the planet. So, what we're eating is actually
driving a huge amount of the problems that we face and also sort of on the front lines of the impact. And so, yes, we have a lot of work to do to get
-- you know, harness the power of eaters to start pointing our system in a better direction.
MARTIN: You know, one of the things I'm curious about, though, is people who produce food directly, you know, farmers, ranchers, people who work in
the agriculture space, people who produce the food.
KASS: Yes.
MARTIN: They're on the front lines. So, what I'm curious about is these are also some of President Trump's strongest constituencies. How do you
understand that?
KASS: There's some deep, inherent contradictions to the interest of producers around this country, one that, you know, is hard to fully
rationalize, if I'm honest. You know, I think there's a real libertarian, independent, you know, tradition in rural America and in agriculture. I
think the -- you know, the GOP has captured that and politicized a lot of these issues as sort of liberal elite issues.
So, when you talk to growers around climate change, they think, you know, you're talking out of the side of your head and think that you're, you
know, kind of crazy, but they're definitely concerned about the changing weather. And a lot of it has to do with language.
And right now, you know, growers are being absolutely battered by not only climate change, but also tariff policy, you know, the health care policy
and loss of, you know, rural hospitals. I think the support is being put to the test in a very real way. You're going to have -- you're going to see a
big bailout coming from the administration because that's how serious farmers are hurting, particularly loss of foreign markets. China's not
buying any soybeans. It was our biggest export market by far. They're now moving to Brazil because of the tariff policy of this administration.
So, you know, I think -- and we can't forget, you know, what's happening on the immigration front. I mean, I don't think most producers in this country
expected to see ICE agents running through their fields, chasing after people who are just, you know, doing some of the hardest work there is day
in and day out. And for many people have been working for, you know, some of these farmers for 20 years. So, I think some of that support is starting
to crack a bit, but, you know, it's going to take more pain, I think, to really move that voting bloc in a different direction. But right now, the
policies of this administration fly in the face of what's best for American agriculture.
MARTIN: So, is there a way that people might be seeing this in their own lives, even if they're not sure that that's what they're seeing in foods
that people like to eat, you know, every day here? Could you kind of make it more real of people just --
KASS: Yes. I mean, well, first of all, food prices are just steadily going to -- are increasing and will continue to increase. And I think that's
going to be the first thing that we start to see foods that we've taken for granted, like a cup of coffee in the morning, which, you know, for me, I
can't survive without a couple cups, if not more, every day are going to start to, you know, increase in price meaningfully.
And so, many of the foods that we love are simply not going to be available to most people, you know, like, for example, last year, you know, in Spain,
wine producers, coffee producers had to lay off basically all of their workers, the big ones, because they had no grapes to harvest. And you're
seeing, you know, growers in Champaign having to buy land in England, because they don't think they're going to be able to produce, you know,
champagne in Champaign.
These kinds of disruptions are going to happen all over the country and all over the world. So, foods that we've taken for granted, like salmon on the
West Coast, those fisheries are all closed because there's just no salmon. There have been heat waves happening in our oceans that are decimating
these natural ecosystems. In fact, just yesterday, I think a couple days ago, a landmark report came out saying we passed the first global tipping
point around coral reefs. 80 percent of coral reefs have been affected by bleaching. Basically, these reefs are dying and because of, you know,
temperature warming. This is -- maintains life, you know, and food for over a billion people on the planet.
MARTIN: You know, what's interesting about your book is that you write about your initial reluctance, you know, to work with big companies like
Walmart and McDonald's. But you say that you ultimately found these collaborations fruitful, that they have business reasons. This is not a
nice to do, this is a business imperative for some of these companies.
So, that makes me wonder whether there's a similar opportunity for this so- called make America healthy again or MAHA movement that is -- has become very visible and present in the Trump administration and in the Republican
Party broadly. I mean, the health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., obviously being the sort of the chief spokesman and sort of avatar of that
movement.
I mean, just it has to be said for people who perhaps have not followed this as closely is that many people sort of in traditional, you know,
science and public health are deeply concerned about Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and this movement more broadly. They find it anti-intellectual, completely
divorced from reality, divorced from scientific fact, rife with misinformation. But having said that, given your experience, do you see any
synergy there? Do you see any opportunity? I don't know where else -- how else you sort of put in any sort of overlap of interests that might be
fruitful and productive.
KASS: Yes. I will say I held out some hope in the beginning. You know, I think his narrative and critique of what's wrong holds a lot of truth. It's
a critique that we were laying out when we were in the White House and one that has been, you know, uttered many times over the last few decades. And
I think that gave a lot of people, including a lot of friends of mine who care a lot about these issues, you know, supporting a president they
otherwise wouldn't because they believe that this administration could do a lot on the issue.
And it was shocking but encouraging to me to see members of the Republican Party start saying that the health is an issue and we should do something
about it given that they fought us tooth and nail on literally everything we tried to do when we were in the White House. So, that, you know, gave me
some hope. I will say, unfortunately, those voices that you referenced, I've come to absolutely agree with. I think RFK is the greatest threat to
public health this country has ever faced. His absolute lack of integrity of using of science and focusing on the issues that matter on the food
side.
I mean, food dyes, which has been the main thing they focus on, literally is irrelevant. I mean, I'm not a champion of food dyes. I'm happy to get
them out of our food. But Fruit Loops with or without dyes are still not something we should be feeding our kids. And it just literally has no
outcomes in health. The other main thing, seed oils, is just a joke. It literally flies in the face of every major scientific review of the issue.
And he's promoting fast food, cheeseburgers and French fries fried in beef tallow, which is just like pure insanity.
And then you -- and that's sort of like the facade. And really what's going on is an attempt to undermine our vaccine policy and saying insane
statements like circumcision and Tylenol use is leading to autism. I mean, this is just straight lunacy. And I think we should all be deeply alarmed.
[13:50:00]
MARTIN: So, wheel it around. What are you encouraged by? Is there anything that you're encouraged by when it comes to health, food and climate?
KASS: Oh, absolutely. I mean, I think it's important to remember that we're in a pandemic. I think that the exciting thing that gets me out of
bed every day with some optimism, even in the -- you know, in what I would say is a difficult time in this space, is I think food and agricultural
systems are really the only system on planet Earth that can actually solve or mitigate the worst of climate change in the time that the science says
we have.
You know, most -- a huge percentage of the carbon that is now in our atmosphere used to be in our soils. And we have, through the right
practices and new technologies, the ability to bring a lot of that carbon back into our soils, which improves soil health, improves our yields. And
we can start paying growers to farm in a better way and solve this incredibly existential problem we face.
MARTIN: You mean using farms for carbon capture?
KASS: That's exactly right. That's exactly right. And I'm working with a number of companies and different technologies that can do just that and at
massive scale that could really move the needle. We get caught up in a lot of, you know, sexy sounding technologies like direct air capture that sucks
carbon out of the air. But none of that is scalable in time. It's way too expensive. You just can't have a big enough impact.
There's a billion people growing food around the world. If you start to incentivize them and harness them to farm in a way that's actually pulling
that carbon back into the soil, we can totally bend the global emissions curve, grow food in a more sustainable way, make farming more -- much more
profitable for producers who are just always on the edge, especially right now.
And that's all possible. We have the tools. They're making so much progress. We just need more cultural support for it, meaning like eaters
have to start supporting it. We need politicians to believe in science and start enacting policies that help push these practices in a different
direction, you know, in agriculture. But we have a huge opportunity before us to actually use this system that is right now driving the problem to
actually solve the problem. And I couldn't believe that, you know, more firmly. The kind of doomsday scenarios that you hear people saying are
totally avoidable if we take decisive action now.
MARTIN: So, what decisive action should people take? I mean, sort of two aspects to this question. First of all, one of the things that you do with
the book is make it personal. You know, like if you like this, if you like coffee, as you do, if you like chocolate, as I do, as I think all decent
people do, what should you do? What should you do?
KASS: On the personal front, and I will say that, you know, no individuals can fix this right just by our own decisions, but we do have an important
role to play. I think, you know, there's a few simple things to do. One, I'd say three things if I had to boil it down most simply. I think from a
like your own footprint standpoint, red meat consumption is the biggest driver of emissions in our food system by a lot. It's sort of the biggest
thing. And I say that as a meat eater.
You know, I'm a former chef. I love meat. I eat, I still eat it, but I've reduced significantly the amount. I think that's something that all of us
can do. Even just cutting it out like once a week than what you normally do would be a meaningful impact if everybody did that.
Two, I think brands that are starting to promote more regenerative or sustainable food products, we should support them. I know there's plenty of
greenwashing out there. But if the big companies see that -- you know, when they market products in that way that people will buy them, that is a very
strong signal that we care about that.
Then it will be up to the advocates to hold these companies accountable to make sure they're doing what they say they're doing. But from a purchase
standpoint, that is a really powerful signal that right now, frankly, we're not sending as a country on hold.
And third, vote. There's literally nothing more important than us voting for people who believe in science, who believe in climate change, who care
about our kids' future and what we hand down to them. I don't care -- if it's a Republican who cares about these things, great. I'm all for it. In
fact, frankly, we need more than anything Republicans who stand up for basic science and believe in climate change, which, by the way, the party
did, Reagan and Bush all totally accepted this science. It's been a very strange, pretty recent change. We need to restore that. And so, whoever
your party is, voting for people who prioritize this is critical.
MARTIN: Sam Kass, thank you so much for talking to us.
KASS: Such a pleasure. Thanks for having me.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: And finally, Reverie in the World War II tunnel.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[13:55:00]
GOLODRYGA: That's the strings ensemble that played over the weekend in one of Taiwan's most well-known wartime attractions, the Kinmen Tunnel. The
shelter was built during the height of the Cold War to shield boats from Chinese bombardment. And as part of an annual two-day music festival, it's
lit up the bright hues and enveloped by gorgeous melodies from Mozart to traditional Taiwanese and Chinese tunes. A sold-out event, the festival
director hopes that these performances can carry a message of peace to the world. Just beautiful.
Well, that is it for us for now. Thank you so much for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
