Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with The Atlantic Staff Writer David A. Graham; Interview with Americas Quarterly Editor-in-Chief Brian Winter; Interview with Reddit CEO and Co-Founder Steve Huffman. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired December 17, 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)
J.D. VANCE, U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: I haven't looked at the Article. I, of course, have heard about it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: A bombshell interview, poor polls, and economic trouble on the horizon. Is this the end of Trump's winning streak? I asked The Atlantic's
David Graham about cracks in the MAGA coalition.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: We're going to start hitting them on land, which is a lot easier to do, frankly.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- Trump shows no sign of stopping the strikes. While his campaign against Maduro seems to have more and more of the region rooting
for him, I speak to America's quarterly's editor-in-chief, Brian Winter, about Latin America's revolution of the right.
Also, ahead --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEVE HUFFMAN, CEO AND CO-FOUNDER, REDDIT: We actually predate social media, both the words, social media, and the platforms themselves.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- as Reddit takes Australia to court, its CEO and co-founder, Steve Huffman, tells Walter Isaacson why he believes his platform should be
spared from the social media ban.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour today.
We want to begin by talking about the bombshell from the Vanity Fair's latest article, an alcoholic's personality, a right-wing absolute zealot,
and a conspiracy theorist. Of course, I'm talking about just some of the scorching descriptions that President Trump and top members of his team,
not from an enemy, but from one of their own, that is, Chief of Staff Susie Wiles. She claimed her words were taken out of context by Vanity Fair, and
key administration figures appear to be trying their best to prove that they aren't rattled.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
J.D. VANCE, U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: Sometimes I am a conspiracy theorist, but I only believe in the conspiracy theories that are true.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: But are the cracks beginning to show? The timing is far from ideal for a White House already dealing with a series of setbacks, from
electoral defeats to falling voter support to major concerns about Trump's handling of the economy, all potentially pointing to trouble ahead of
midterm elections next year.
So, just how much is Trump 2.0 going according to plan? Well, our next guest is familiar with the blueprint. As the author of the project, "How
Project 2025 Is Reshaping America," The Atlantic's David Graham joins me now from North Carolina. David, it's good to see you.
So, let's talk about this Susie Wiles interview with Vanity Fair, because she, out of all of the figures around the president, have been the least
likely to speak to the media publicly, and has been described as very disciplined, as well in a stabilizing force. And she really let loose with
11 interviews in total over the last year with the Vanity Fair, notable that they aren't disputing what she's saying, but just saying that it's
being taken out of context. Just talk about the political implications from this interview itself and some of the revelations that she's made that
stood out to you.
DAVID A. GRAHAM, STAFF WRITER, THE ATLANTIC: Well, I think it's really bizarre to hear this claim that it's taken out of context. You look at some
of these quotes and you wonder what the context is these might have been given where they would be perhaps less unflattering.
I think what jumps out to me from a lot of these quotes is that they are the kinds of things you have heard from pundits outside the White House,
critics on left and right, saying about the lack of discipline by the president, the lack of understanding, and about the attitudes of the people
around him.
So, I think maybe what is most harmful is the sense that people inside the White House are seeing the same thing that people outside are, and that
there's no gap. And that's not going to be reassuring to allies who are anti-voters who are starting to get a little bit of cold feet maybe about
the president in the last couple months.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And in response, the president, the entire team around him in Cabinet, have come to Susie Wiles' defense and not surprisingly have
attacked Vanity Fair and the interviewer himself. But you are the expert on Project 2025 here. Trump entered the Oval Office. As Susie Wiles says, one
of the reasons she gave this interview was to show that Trump 2.0 would be much different from Trump 1.0.
[13:05:00]
It looked maybe the first few months that there was a big difference here, that they were much more disciplined, that he did come in with planned
policies and advisors that were ideologically aligned with him and that would pursue those policies, that doesn't seem to be the case at the end of
the year here, at least his first year. How would you describe and rate this first year?
GRAHAM: So, I would say a couple things about that. One, I think the fact that we are paying such close attention to this interview is a sign that
they did do some things differently. Trump chewed through chiefs of staff in his first term. Reince Priebus was dispatched quickly. We had the short
time of Anthony Scaramucci. And Susie Wiles has stuck around for a long time, I think, because she's able to keep Trump moving on his priorities,
do the things he wants, but she's not trying to get in his way or tell him what to do. And I think that has been a lot of her success.
You know, they did have a plan, and I think they had been much more effective in this first year than we saw in 2017. I also think that their
successes are a little bit of the root of their struggles now. The priorities they pursued, both Trump's and the sorts of things that we saw
in Project 2025, are things that a lot of the ideologues in the administration really believe in, but they're not necessarily things that
are popular with voters, popular with Congress, and popular going into the midterms.
So, although they have managed to do a lot of those things, the unpopularity, I think, is starting to catch up with them, and that's what
you see in some of these electoral defeats and in Trump's own approval rating falling as well.
GOLODRYGA: Well, let's talk about his approval rating. It's down 36 percent, including on the economy. We've got losses at the DOJ, which Susie
Wiles also addresses here and don't necessarily help his case, and even some pushback in red states, most recently Indiana in terms of the
president pursuing redistricting there in that state to follow what we saw in Texas.
Is this, in your view, just a bad stretch, or did the administration come in perhaps overly zealous after they saw that there was yet another mandate
that they won this term relative and different from what they saw going into the first term?
GRAHAM: Yes, they, you know, talked a lot about a mandate at the beginning of the administration, and although Trump clearly won the election and not
all that closely, it wasn't a huge mandate by historical standards, and I think we see some natural overreach.
This happens with every presidency to some extent. Political gravity catches up and the pendulum swings back, but I think it's particularly
acute here because Trump has pushed so hard on things, and it's interesting to see where we're getting pushback. It's from judges at the federal courts
and not just people appointed by Democrats. We see Reagan appointees, Bush appointees pushing back hard.
In Indiana, we saw the Indiana State Senate, which is Republican-dominated, and again, not by moderate Republicans, by very conservative Republicans,
but ones who objected to what Trump was doing and the way he was doing it, pushing back, and I think that is a sign of how, you know, they push too
hard, they push farther than they could get, but they're trying to get as much done as they could, and this was sort of a natural backlash.
GOLODRYGA: And what's unique about -- well, there are many things that are unique about President Trump relative to his predecessors is that there's
not much room for course correction or self-awareness and recognition of when there is a problem in terms of addressing it. Instead, he doubles down
and says everyone else is wrong, he is ultimately right, and that's exactly what played out when he was asked in a recent interview about the state of
the economy in his view. Here's what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I do want to talk about the economy, sir, here at home, and I wonder what grade you would give your economy.
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: A plus.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A plus?
TRUMP: Yes, A plus, plus, plus, plus, plus. The word affordability is a con job. They use the word affordability. It's a Democrat hoax. Look,
affordability is a hoax.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: How do those comments play with Trump voters?
GRAHAM: You know, you mentioned how Trump doesn't really course correct, and I think that's part of what Susie Wiles was talking about in this
story, talking about his personality, and we see that there. The White House can send Trump out, they can announce big speeches on the economy,
they can tell him it's the most important thing, but when he gets in front of a microphone, whether that's at a speech or with a reporter, he tends to
get in this kind of defensive crouch.
This is the same thing that hurt Joe Biden so badly during his term. Voters were feeling the pinch of inflation, they were feeling insecure themselves,
they were feeling precarious, and here, you know, the president and his aides were coming out and saying actually the economy is great. Now, we're
seeing that play out again from Trump.
Even though voters can tell that they're paying more for things and they know they're not feeling good, to have the president saying that things are
going great, I think, you know, it not only makes the pain, you know, it doesn't alleviate the pain, and it seems like a little bit of an insult
telling them they can't -- you know, that they shouldn't believe their eyes. And I think that's bad for his rating, and it's one reason we see him
reaching lows that seem to be cutting into even his own supporters, not just Democrats and Independents.
[13:10:00]
GOLODRYGA: And for Republicans who are now eyeing 2026, I mean, in the president, it was interesting parsing through his words in an interview
recently with the Wall Street Journal. He did seem to acknowledge that there may be some Republicans who lose in the midterms next year. And he
explained it by saying that that is just the trend. That is what happens in second terms. That is what happens ultimately. It's not my fault. It is
just where things lie. And it's just going to take a little bit of time before my policies actually resonate with voters.
How should Republicans who are contested and potentially facing defeat by Democrats next November, how should they be reacting to this? How are they
reacting to this?
GRAHAM: You know, Trump is right about the trend. He has this tendency sometimes to sort of approach the news less like a participant and more
like a pundit. And I see him doing that there. But it's not reassuring if you're a Republican who is running for election or reelection next year,
and you see the president sort of writing it off, writing off these concerns about affordability. And I think that's one reason why you do see
some breaks between Republican members of Congress and the White House.
So, just today we saw a few Republicans agreeing on a discharge petition to have a vote on Obamacare subsidies. We saw Republicans breaking with Trump
on the Epstein files. We saw Senate Republicans pushing back on his demand and the filibuster. I think all these signs of daylight between him and
Republican members of Congress are notable in part because he's had such a grasp on Republicans in Congress. They have seemed to follow his wheels so
closely.
So, even these little cracks of daylight are a big shift, and I think they are likely to become larger as we get closer to the election and we get
more polling.
GOLODRYGA: How politically dangerous is it for Trump going into the midterms, especially without a cohesive health care plan? I mean, we
haven't -- you remember in his first term, it was just two weeks away. That was years ago. And yet, as you noted, we had a number of Republicans break
from Mike Johnson, who had been pressing them not to do so for a discharge petition here in terms of the ACA tax credits.
GRAHAM: Oh, well, you know, in the first term, Trump promised he was going to repeal and replace Obamacare. He never did have that plan. But now we're
not just at the point of that. People are going to start losing coverage, and I think this fits into the same bucket as economic concerns.
You know, people may like some of the things Trump does, but if it's hitting their ability to pay for groceries or their ability to get care,
that's a real problem. And it's interesting to see how Obamacare, which was once seen as a millstone around Democratic next, has become so vital that
voters across both parties depend on it. And the Republicans in Congress are effectively, you know, voting to support it and to keep it going.
GOLODRYGA: Right. So, you have Mike Johnson calling it the unaffordable care act. But it does appear, at least by the symbolic measure that we saw
today from a number of Republicans, that they have accepted Obamacare, the Affordable Care Act, because if for no other reason, there isn't really
another alternative and you're going to have millions of Americans who are just weeks away from seeing their premium skyrocket.
GRAHAM: That's right. And, you know, we saw Republicans warning about this in 2010 when the Affordable Care Act was passed. They said as soon as this
becomes something voters are used to, they'll be stuck with it forever, and I think they're right.
I also think that this vote reflects the weakness of Mike Johnson, you know, where Trump has said in private that he is the speaker of the House
effectively. And I think we see that because Johnson doesn't have a whole lot of sway over his members and is a very thin margin. And when they start
getting a little bit uncomfortable with Trump's ideas, there's nowhere for them to go. There's no independent power center. And that's been a -- you
know, that's a problem for the speaker and keeping control of the House as well.
GOLODRYGA: RNC chair has warned also of a midterm disaster, but went on to say that Trump remains the party's best weapon. Is he right?
GRAHAM: It is true that Republicans tend to turn out many more voters when Trump is on the ballot. It's a little bit less clear in midterms. You know,
in 2018, we saw Democrats do very well. In 2022, Trump made himself a major story in the midterms, even though he was out of office and Republicans
underperformed there.
So, I think the Republican Party is in an interesting trap here where they really need Trump to turn their voters out, especially these sorts of new
voters, people who haven't voted Republican or haven't voted frequently. But that doesn't always work in in the midterms. He doesn't have the same
poll when he is not himself personally on the ballot. So, Republicans have to figure out how to get the benefit they can from him while not taking the
loss. And I don't think they've solved that yet.
[13:15:00]
GOLODRYGA: And to start thinking about the future of the party and who that leader is, it was also interesting in this Vanity Fair interview where
it's clear the president has his eyes set on two of his cabinet members, J.D. Vance, his vice president, and Marco Rubio, his secretary of state.
And Marco Rubio in this interview said that if J.D. Vance does want to be the nominee, that he won't step in his way. Do you see that that J.D. Vance
as the future of the Republican Party?
GRAHAM: I think many people in the White House see it that way. You know, it's clear that there is a sort of effort to line up behind Vance. I think
Vance really represents a lot of important parts of the Republican Party of the MAGA coalition. I think he's probably the most Project 2025 candidate
in the bunch. And I think it's interesting to see Rubio saying that while Vance joked
that he would give the photographer a thousand dollars if he made Rubio look bad. So, you can see Vance has his eye on it, too.
The question is sort of whether Vance has the political chops to actually do that, whether he can keep the coalition together in the way that Trump
has. Trump has managed to, you know, keep these warring factions that don't agree on a lot of things but agree on him mostly together until fairly
recently. We haven't seen Vance tested like that. And I think if he stumbles, no matter what Rubio says now, he'd be happy to take it, you
know, jump in and fill the role if Vance proves unable to do it.
GOLODRYGA: Well, I mean, it's still to be tested whether J.D. Vance can fill rooms and auditoriums the way Trump had for so many years out on the
campaign trail as well. David Graham, thank you so much for joining us.
GRAHAM: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: And do stay with CNN, we'll be right back after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: Now, another week, another series of U.S. boat strikes in the Caribbean. This time, eight people were killed in attacks that seem to be
becoming a routine part of President Trump's campaign against Venezuela's Nicolas Maduro. Despite the fact their legality is still being questioned
by experts.
Now, on top of this, Trump has ordered a, quote, "total and complete blockade of all sanctioned oil tankers going in and out of Venezuela." And
as Trump tightens his grip on Venezuela, its leader is finding himself with fewer allies in the region, most recently in Chile, which has elected its
most right-wing president in decades.
In a new piece for Foreign Affairs, Brian Winter examines what he calls "Latin America's Revolution of the Right." And he joins me now from New
York. Brian, it's good to see you. A lot to get through in this interview.
So, let's begin with that and the president really tightening the grip around Venezuela and Maduro's regime. They're ordering a complete blockade
of sanctioned tankers. If we go back to news that came out of the Susie Wiles' interview with Vanity Fair, when she was asked about what the goal
in Venezuela was, she said he, President Trump, wants to keep on blowing boats up until Maduro cries uncle.
So, is that really her admitting that this is all about regime change and not a war on drugs and narcotics smuggling into the United States?
BRIAN WINTER, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, AMERICAS QUARTERLY: Well, I think what we saw this week with this blockade now of sanctioned Venezuelan oil marks a
major escalation by President Trump, but it also suggests that he is trying to engineer a change of government in Venezuela without putting U.S. boots
on the ground.
[13:20:00]
He's limited from doing that in large part because his base, his own base, would not look kindly upon that. Lots of polling suggests that. We have 70
percent of the American public saying that they would not support military action on the ground in Venezuela.
So, this looks like a measure by the president to try to ratchet up the pressure on Venezuela's dictator, Nicolas Maduro, without actually taking
that next step of either airstrikes, much less some sort of limited invasion.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, he'd need congressional war authorization for that. But at the same time, does the president, as we already noted in the previous
interview, already facing pressure from voters if he doesn't follow up on this threat, the largest military presence in the region in decades, if
Maduro, who has also survived many attempts for his ouster, if he won't leave, then what?
WINTER: Well, that's frankly the question that all of us are trying to figure out. And I've wondered in recent weeks, if -- you know, if President
Trump stops short, ultimately, of forcing Nicolas Maduro out of power, it will probably have more to do with domestic political reasons within the
United States than with conditions on the ground in Venezuela.
You know, he's coming under all kinds of pressure to focus on the economy, to focus on inflation. I noticed that, you know, today, as we record this,
U.S. crude oil prices are up about 2 percent in part, apparently because of this announcement of the blockade on sanctioned Venezuelan oil. And so, all
of these things are connected at a time when President Trump is increasingly under pressure.
At the same time, I would note that this buildup in the Southern Caribbean has now reached such a crescendo that a lot of people in the national
security community say that it would be broadly damaging for the credibility of the United States and its military if President Trump did
not follow through on some kind of regime change or change of government, if you will, in Venezuela.
So, you know, quite a decision for the president. And you sense that at some point in the next couple of weeks, he may have to move definitively
one way or the other.
GOLODRYGA: And this comes as you write in your recent piece about the revolution of the right in Latin and South America. And you described this
moment as potentially a once-in-a-generation type of moment, not what we see from time to time of the pendulum swinging one way to the left and the
other election cycle to the right. What's different about this period?
WINTER: The biggest difference that we see or the biggest trend we see in Latin America right now today is anger over organized crime. And look, it's
true that this is not a new issue for Latin America. This has been a problem in the region for 50 years. But the problem is getting worse. You
know, the amount of cocaine being produced in South America has more than tripled in the last 10 years, that's according to estimates by the United
Nations. That has filled the pockets of cartels and criminal organizations all across the continent.
And virtually no country in Latin America has been left untouched, either as smuggling or as an important consumer market in themselves, which is
something else that we've seen change over the last 15, 20 years. You know, Brazil, for example, now is the world's number two consumer of cocaine.
And so, on the one hand, you have these organized crime groups that are getting worse. On the other hand, you have this idea that has spread
through a lot of countries, in part because of the experience of Nayib Bukele in El Salvador and the success that he has had in terms of reducing
homicides by some 90 percent there over the last seven or eight years.
There's a kind of an awareness in Latin America, or at least maybe a belief, that they don't have to put up with this problem anymore. That if
they can elect the right politician with the right set of policies that are tough on crime, then maybe, you know, they don't have to live with
extortion in their day-to-day lives. They don't have to live with murders happening right outside their doors.
And it's interesting, another break from the past, you see this anger over crime and this desire for change more pronounced among the working class,
people who used to vote for the left for economic reasons, but are now, in many cases, voting for some of these right-wing leaders because they are
the ones who are most affected by violence and crime in their neighborhoods, and they're grasping at anything that might offer a
solution.
GOLODRYGA: Right. And you note in the piece, Latin America has 8 percent of the world's population, roughly 30 percent of its homicides. And you
also highlight the poster leaders of this movement, and that is Nayib Bukele and Javier Millet of Argentina.
[13:25:00]
And as it relates to Argentina, it's not necessarily just or about crime, but about the economy and inflation as well. And another similarity is that
President Trump is a big fan of both of these men. Has that helped them?
WINTER: In some cases, yes. In some cases, not as much. I mean, I think that these are leaders who are clearly sympathetic to President Trump. And
in many cases, such as the two that you cited with Javier Millet in Argentina and Nayib Bukele, who are openly, you know, comparing themselves
to him and trying to take maximum leverage of their alliances.
I mean, let's remember that Javier Millet was able to use this friendship with President Trump to secure a $20 billion bailout by the United States
Treasury that ultimately was a huge factor in the victory of his party in legislative elections that happened back in October.
At the same time, though, we're seeing you mentioned the election that happened over the weekend in Chile. Chile is a country where the polling
shows that President Trump is not particularly popular. Nevertheless, they elected a leader in Jose Antonio Kast, who is, you know, sympathetic to
President Trump, but ultimately is making, you know, promises to be very tough on crime and also to be tough on immigration.
Chile is a country that has seen a lot of immigration from Haiti, from Venezuela because of the economic collapses in those two countries and
where there's been a lot of popular frustration as well. So, Kast, for example, has said that he will build border barriers that recall in many
ways President Trump's proposals here in the United States.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, I'd like to read from a quote that Ariel Dorfman, Chilean- American writer, wrote in The New York Times today as it relates to Kast's landslide victory in Chile. The piece is called Chile's election is more
than just a swerve to the right. And here's what Dorfman wrote. What drove millions of Chileans to embrace him in this way, men and women around the
country feel that something is obscurely wrong and off balance and that this cries out for a return to the times when a strong leader enforced
discipline and security no matter the cost. This is what Mr. Kast's victory signals, the belief that democracy itself is unable to deliver where it
comes to the everyday problems of crime, cost of living and rampant immigration.
Is that the feeling that's sweeping through Latin America right now?
WINTER: Mostly, yes. The only part of that passage that I would take maybe some issue with is the phrase no matter the cost. Because, you know, Chile
and Argentina are both two of the countries, not just in Latin America, but in the world that have the strongest democracies right now. I mean, that's
according to measurements by organizations such as the Economist Intelligence Unit and others.
It's worth noting, actually, and it was very striking for an American like myself to watch the current president of Chile, Gabriel Boric, make a phone
call to Jose Antonio Kast, and they are completely on opposite sides of the ideological spectrum on the night of the election to congratulate him for
his result and then to watch Kast congratulate his opponent in his speech on election night and even silence people in the audience who were booing
when her name was mentioned.
So, you know, look, I think that there is a desire to get to the bottom of the security problem, to be tougher when it comes to policing, maybe even
use the military in ways that gives people pause who remember dictatorships like the ones that we saw under Augusto Pinochet during the 1970s and '80s.
But I'm hopeful, at least in the case of Chile, that countries will find a way to do so that respects democratic institutions.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, and the recognition of election results also a key pillar in a functioning democracy. You mentioned Boric, and I'd like to play sound
from an interview that he gave to Christian about why he think -- he thought he won at the time. And he said that it was all about people tiring
of inequality. And thus, that led to the shift to the left. Here's what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GABRIEL BORIC, CHILEAN PRESIDENT: There are two crises in parallel, the COVID and economic crisis that that happens since then, but also, the
willing of the people of more justice and equality that has not been able to be provided by just the market and just the ideas that right-wing
parties have in -- at least in Latin America that they think that or they tend to think that only if the big companies do well, we all can do well.
And I think people is really tired of that, of seeing the inequality that we have in our country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: And that interview took place in September of 2022. Obviously, the world is just coming out of COVID. It was three years ago, but seems
like a lifetime ago. Was he wrong in terms of diagnosing where conservatives were?
[13:30:00]
WINTER: The world has changed so much in the last three years, and you kind of reference that. And it's striking listening to that clip, how
public priorities have changed, not just in Latin America, but throughout so much of the Western world.
And yes, while it's true that it was really the agenda of social justice and better health care and better education, progressive priorities
essentially were top of mind in many countries, including the United States during the pandemic. And as we were coming out of it, it's certainly true
in the case of Latin America that now you see security at the top of the radar.
But look, I think there's a warning note here, which is that I personally believe that this shift right will last for a while, because it's about
other issues as well. I mean, we see, for example, the growth of evangelical Christianity in many countries, including Brazil and several
Central American countries. That is a factor pushing things to the right. There's been this backlash against immigrants in many countries, which I
already mentioned in the context of Chile.
And it's also true that there's a lot of this is related to how the left has been discredited in many countries because of the collapse of
Venezuela, which, you know, has really fallen apart in a way that Cuba never did. And even some relatively moderate leftist politicians, I would
include Gabriel Boric in that group, have seen their prestige and credit in decline because of this collapse that we saw in Venezuela.
So, yes, it's a different world and a different region. But times can change and shift. And so, we'll have to see how all this sounds in two- or
three-years time as well.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And we should know that the left still governs major economies like Colombia, like Brazil, like Mexico. But I did see your post
on X saying it's amazing how quiet the Lula government has been about U.S. actions in Venezuela and the Caribbean. In the 30 seconds or so that we
have left, weigh in on why you think that is.
WINTER: Well, this speaks to a couple of things. It speaks to the fact that few governments, even the traditional sort of old guard on the left,
which Lula represents, the Democratic left in Lula's case, they're not willing to confront President Trump directly. Brazil has had its own drama
this year with tariffs. But also, again, there's polling by Latinobarometro, a polling group based in Chile and others that show that
Nicolas Maduro is the least popular political figure in all of Latin America in country after country. And so, no one wants to be seen defending
him right now.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, also interesting in that poll is that Trump doesn't come in very high either, about 4 percent out of 10. Right. So, that is notable,
too. Brian Winter, really interesting piece. Thanks so much for the time.
WINTER: Thank you so much.
GOLODRYGA: And now, to East Africa, where a violent opposition crackdown is sweeping Uganda, head of the country's general election next month. The
U.N. is condemning the authorities' tactics as repressive. Correspondent Larry Madowo traveled to the capital of Kampala to speak to singer turned
politician Bobby Wine, who is once again seeking to remove the current president after 40 years in power. Here is that report.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LARRY MADOWO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: This is the man seeking to remove President Museveni from power after 40 years. He has incredible support
among the young people. As Bobi Wine arrives, so goes a crowd. There is nothing like it.
MADOWO (voice-over): Bobi Wine wants Ugandans to sing a new tune. The musician turned politician is running for president for a second time.
Nearly twice his age, President Yoweri Museveni is also running for a seventh term. When the former general came to power after a civil war in
1986 Bobi Wine was just four years old.
ROBERT "BOBI WINE" KYAGULANYI, UGANDAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I believe that General Museveni largely views Uganda as his personal property, as his
family property, and he views us as slaves.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It is our time to change our future.
MADOWO (voice-over): Bobi Wine accuses security forces of using violence to stop him from campaigning. At the stop in Northern Uganda, supporters
formed a protective shield around the candidate as military officers whipped them. One of his closest aides was wounded.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Look at what the police and the military are doing to us for no crime whatsoever.
MADOWO (voice-over): The Electoral Commission condemned the incident that is now under investigation. He says more than 450 members of his party and
supporters have been imprisoned during the campaign, others tortured or disappeared.
KYAGULANYI: For some people have been shot dead at my rally, and I know the regime has me as the main target.
MADOWO: Why won't you be allowed to campaign freely?
[13:35:00]
KYAGULANYI: Well, I believe it is fear. It is fear the General Museveni knows that he has no support. Every time I go out to campaign, I know that
somebody is going to be beaten, somebody is going to be killed, run over by the police, shot with live bullets, and all that.
MADOWO (voice-over): The U.N. Human Rights Chief has condemned widespread arbitrary arrests, detentions and the use of unnecessary or
disproportionate force against the opposition. CNN filmed hundreds of police, military and special forces at Bobi Wine's rallies in the capital
Kampala. They blocked him from using some roads, beat up some supporters and tear gas bystanders.
MADOWO: Everywhere Bobi Wine goes, there are dozens of police officers, soldiers. It always ends up in a scuffle. Right now, they're blocking his
way from coming into a rally venue. And that's tear gas. Before he's even inside, we're hearing that sound like live shots, tear gas in every
direction. Tear gas in every direction. It's really become a chaotic scene. And this happens at every Bobi Wine --
MADOWO (voice-over): Police told CNN that they were forced to use tear gas here to disperse people and clear a busy intersection. They have repeatedly
denied that they're specifically targeting Bobi Wine or his campaign.
RUSOKE KITUUMA, UGANDA POLICE SPOKESPERSON: We all benefit from coming out of this election with the most minimal damage on individuals and property.
MADOWO (voice-over): There are six other candidates running for Uganda's top job, but January's election is largely a rematch between the president
and the pop star.
MADOWO: In a free and fair election, can you beat President Museveni?
KYAGULANYI: If 2021 was a free and fair election, I would be president already.
MADOWO: Will this be a free and fair election?
KYAGULANYI: This is not an election to begin with. This is war.
MADOWO (voice-over): Uganda's electoral commission has asked law enforcement agencies to exercise restraint and stick to the law while
dealing with candidates.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We know --
MADOWO (voice-over): Larry Madowo, CNN, Kampala.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: And we'll be right back after this short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: Next to Australia, where the world's first social media ban for under 16s has taken effect and not everyone is happy. Tech company Reddit
filed a lawsuit against the government on Friday, arguing that the law is threatening free speech. In response, the nation's health minister slammed
the company, saying that it's prioritizing profits.
Steve Huffman is the CEO and co-founder of Reddit and he tells Walter Isaacson about the purpose of his platform and why he believes Reddit
should be exempt from the ban.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Thank you, Bianna. And, Steve Huffman, welcome to the show.
STEVE HUFFMAN, CEO AND CO-FOUNDER, REDDIT: Thank you for having me. I'm very excited to be here.
ISAACSON: You founded Reddit about 20 years ago, just out of college. What did you intend it to be?
HUFFMAN: Look, that's a great question. 20 years ago is a long time ago. There were really two things in our head at that time. One was, I think
quite simply, we wanted to build a place that was controlled by users, run by users, where you can find new and interesting things online. So, at the
time, having a scrollable feed of interesting things that came from users was actually novel.
[13:40:00]
The second was, we wanted to create a place where humans were the editors. Whereas traditional media is controlled by editors or other gatekeepers, we
wanted a place where people could talk about what was important to them. But our aspirations back then were truly smaller than they are today. And
so, it's funny to reflect back on how much things have changed.
ISAACSON: When I go on the subreddit for New Orleans or for science, the ones I like, tell me what am I getting?
HUFFMAN: So, Reddit today is a vast collection of communities. We call those communities subreddits. And communities, just like in the real world,
are groups of people that have similar values, maybe a shared vocabulary. There's a really sense of belonging, or sometimes, hey, a sense of I'm not
a part of this community, that boundary is really important.
So, whether in New Orleans, which is a community for people who presumably live in New Orleans, you're going to find a very distinct personality from
what you would find in the science community, where the science community, one of their rules is no jokes. Reddit is a very funny place, but not in
the science community. And I think --
ISAACSON: Yes, we have the opposite rule in the New Orleans subreddit.
HUFFMAN: Exactly. And that's really important. And there's also an important part of Reddit, which is every community has its own rules, in
addition to our platform-wide rules.
ISAACSON: You know, it sort of may be confused with social media, but when I'm on it, it doesn't look or feel like social media in the traditional
sense, like a Facebook or an X.
HUFFMAN: That's right. And so, Reddit -- we actually predate social media, both the words social media and the platforms themselves. And so, we've
grown up in our own image. And so, social media is organized around what I call the Fs, friends, followers, family, famous people, whereas Reddit is
organized around community. So, you may be on the platform with your friends, but you don't know who your friends are. And so, the incentives
are completely different.
On social media, people try to get credit for what they're saying. And it causes people to say things that are either potentially embellished or just
simply not true. And on Reddit, no matter how popular you are on Reddit, you can't take it with you. It doesn't make you more popular in real life.
And so, the incentives are actually more natural. People are helpful, they're funny, they're interesting. And I think that it's actually a better
reflection of how people are.
If you look at social media, I think it's easy to have a negative view of the world. And one of my sadnesses is I don't think that's actually true.
And when I look at Reddit, and I think one of the great things that I'm so thankful for in life is I've had a front row seat to see how people behave
when nobody's watching.
ISAACSON: Sometimes people refer to you as, you know, for free speech, but you've said you're not exactly a bastion of free speech. Contrast that with
something like 4chan or 8chan or other services.
HUFFMAN: Well, there's some nuance here. We believe in free speech. And I think it's an essential law in our country. You know, in the United States
where we're based, it's literally the first law, right? It's the First Amendment. But Reddit is not a country. We're a very, very large community.
And one of the defining qualities of any community, big or small, is a boundary. This is allowed, this is not allowed.
And so, we start from that position of if it's not allowed, it is allowed. But that evolves over time. And so, I mentioned the things like violence,
hate, harassment, bullying, those are not allowed on Reddit. And of course, there's a lot of nuance to those rules. But at the end of the day, we're
building a community where people have to want to be. And people don't want to be in a place that makes them, you know, feel unsafe.
But again, like there are viewpoints represented on Reddit that you may not like that I don't like. But if they present those viewpoints in harmony
with our rules, then everything's allowed from that point of view.
ISAACSON: I was kind of surprised to realize that almost half the population in the United States, I think 190 million people every week, go
to Reddit, and you do it without an algorithm serving up what's good. How do you make it that way without using an algorithm to keep people engaged?
[13:45:00]
HUFFMAN: It's all through the voting. And so, the users vote up, you know, what they think is interesting. And I think the funny thing about Reddit is
-- we have this joke, but it's not a joke. We call it come for the cats stay for the community.
So, at first glance, Reddit, you know, it's funny, it's got some posts, it's a scrolling feed, like you've seen 100 other times online. But if you
go just a little bit deeper, and start to read the comments on these posts, eventually, users have sometimes profound experiences. But if you want to
know what people really think -- and it's not all super deep, like, what should I watch tonight? What game should I play next? Right? Let's gossip
about sports or pop culture. Reddit's take on all of these things, I think, is funnier and more interesting, and also often surprisingly deep. And so,
there's a richness there. But that just comes from people.
ISAACSON: Do you think that you have to worry about things like A.I. slop?
HUFFMAN: Oh, of course. There's a, there's a paradox here. Reddit's content was used to create every LLM you've heard of. And then in turn,
those LLMs, which are very powerful, and of course, we use top to bottom in our business as well, are also used to create just lousy content, A.I.
slop.
ISAACSON: And so, you're talking about artificial intelligence companies, large language models, scraping the Reddit content to train their models.
What do you do about that?
HUFFMAN: To some extent, there's no avoiding it. And so, we've done agreements with Google and OpenAI to put guardrails on that content, right?
Here's what you can use it for, here's what you can't use it for. Because we want to uphold, you know, our privacy commitments to our user base.
And look, Reddit is the most human place on the internet. In the world of AI, our positioning is, no matter how useful the A.I. tools become, people
will always want to talk to other people. And so, that's what our product is. But that also creates a lot of value, which is if the A.I. wants to
know something, well, it kind of has to get it from Reddit, because that's where people talk about what they know. And so, balancing this has become
very important. And it's very important for our platform to be for humans.
Now, I can give you an example of good uses of A.I. Translation, right? Translating our content into other languages, helping non-native speakers
speak better in another language. All of these things are very powerful. But for a long time, long before A.I. existed as we know it, we've worked
to ensure the integrity of Reddit systems, and particularly the voting systems. So, we want the viewpoints on Reddit to be represented by actual
humans. So, there'll be a lot of change along the way, but that part is sacred to us.
ISAACSON: And so, A.I. companies training on your content, or for that matter, our content, because we're all Reddit users, or any other content,
should the A.I. companies be paying for that right to train on the data?
HUFFMAN: I think there's a lot of nuance there, depending on, you know, where the data is coming from and how it's used. But broadly, yes. You
know, our view at Reddit is commercial use requires commercial terms. At the same time, we give our data away to universities, to researchers. So,
we try to be, I think, reasonable and permissive. But if the data is being used commercially, then yes, I do think commercial agreements are
important.
ISAACSON: What about this backlash against social media in general, which may or may not include Reddit, but say in Australia, they're saying 16-
year-olds should not be allowed to be on things like that. What do you feel about that movement?
HUFFMAN: So, I get the spirit of the movement, which is we need to do a better job, I think, protecting kids online and be more intentional about
it. Now, I don't think that particular law is going to accomplish its goals, and I'm not sure Reddit should be included in it at all. And I think
we're inadvertently preventing emerging adults from being able to be online. And so, I think there are better solutions.
And so, at the end of the day, we always advocate for internet rights. We've long been an advocate of child safety online. Look, Reddit's not for
kids at the end of the day. We call them emerging adults. So, the tail end of high school into college is where we start to, you know, pick people up.
[13:50:00]
But I think there are better solutions using the phone OS, using browsers, having much more nuance in kind of where people are online.
ISAACSON: President Trump's administration has been talking about making visitors to the United States, or maybe people who want visas, whatever it
may be, show their social media for the past five years, social media, the media on Reddit's anonymous. Would you ever cooperate with the government
and so they could look at people's postings?
HUFFMAN: Well, that's kind of the point of the way we do things at Reddit is it's anonymous. I want people to be able to be themselves on Reddit and
know that if we were to get hacked or their account were to be taken over, or, you know, we get a subpoena, that there's just only so much information
we can share. And that's kind of the point of Reddit. It's to let people be free to be themselves.
And I say selves in a plural sense, because we all have different selves. I'm me as the CEO of Reddit. I'm me as a father on Reddit. I'm me as a
video game player and sports fan and tool enthusiast. All these different personas are important. And I've gone through medical things here or there
on Reddit that will stay that way, private. And I think that's important. That privacy promise is really important. And so, yes, we would take issue
with that both directly and I think more philosophically on people's ability to have private lives.
ISAACSON: Section 230 prevents platforms from being held fully accountable or liable for what people post on them. And from all different sides of the
spectrum, I remember President Trump a while back tweeted out repeal 230. And now, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse this week has called Section 230 a
vessel of evil.
Explain whether you think Section 230 should continue to protect your company from things that people post that may be libelous or threatening or
fraudulent.
HUFFMAN: So, let me clear up a few things about Section 230. So, it's known as the law that created the internet. And it was created because a
platform prodigy was actually punished for making a moderation decision. They remove some bad content, some harassing content, and then they were
punished for that. And it was bipartisan legislation to say this platform was actually trying to do the right thing. And we should allow platforms to
do the right thing. That was the creation of the law.
And Section 230 doesn't prevent companies or protect companies from civil liability. So, if somebody is wronged and feel they're wronged, they can
sue us. Now, what it does is it protects us from frivolous lawsuits.
So, people go on Reddit. And let's say they say something like they don't like a product, they don't like a restaurant. What happens without 230, and
we see these cases all the time, is instead of suing the speaker, it doesn't protect the speaker from libelous or slanderous behavior, instead
of suing the speaker, they sue the company. And what Section 230 says is we can create a platform for people to speak their minds. And we are protected
from our users who speak their minds in a way that somebody doesn't like.
I will point out that both Democrats and Republicans have come after Section 230. And every couple of years, their reasoning switches. So, I
forget where it is right now. But somebody says we censor too much and somebody says we censor too little. And then in a year, they switch sides
because the other side is in power.
And so, it's always about they want us to censor more or censor less. And Section 230 gives us the ability to try to do a reasonable job in the
middle. I think we've done a very good job at that.
ISAACSON: Steve Huffman, thank you so much for joining us.
HUFFMAN: Thank you, Walter. It was really my pleasure.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: And finally, for us.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Mourners gather to lay flowers at Sydney's Bondi Beach, honoring the 15 victims and those injured during Sunday's mass shooting,
the worst Australia has seen in almost 30 years. With the makeshift memorial taking place during Hanukkah, menorah candles were also lit to pay
tribute.
[13:55:00]
At St. Mary's Cathedral, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese spoke at a multi- faith service, praising the selflessness of everyday Australians as they grieve for the light and laughter that so many have lost.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANTHONY ALBANESE, AUSTRALIAN PRIME MINISTER: The courage, decency, compassion and kindness of Australians that is central to the character of
who we are. Our nation is stronger than the cowards who seek to divide us.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: May all of those who lost their lives, may their memories be a blessing. And that is it 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.
Thanks so much for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
