Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with The New Yorker Staff Writer Susan Glasser; Interview with Senate Judiciary Committee Former Counsel and Society for the Rule of Law Executive Director Gregg Nunziata; Interview with International Rescue Committee CEO David Miliband; Interview with "High Noon" Actor Denise Gough; Interview with "High Noon" Actor Billy Crudup. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired February 25, 2026 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
PAULA NEWTON, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: Our country is winning again. In fact, we're winning so much that we really don't know what to do about it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEWTON: The State of the Union, according to Trump. As his poll numbers sink, we look at what might be next on the president's agenda.
Then, the deadly consequences of foreign aid cuts. David Miliband, head of the International Rescue Committee, joins us.
Plus --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BILLY CRUDUP, ACTOR, "HIGH NOON": It's a beloved Western film. It feels like a part of the Americana culture.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEWTON: -- "High Noon" stars Billy Crudup and Denise Gough on bringing a classic Western to the London stage.
And a very warm welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Pauline in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
Donald Trump beat his own record Tuesday night, delivering the longest State of the Union speech in American history. The president boasted about
his accomplishments, brought out the U.S. ice hockey team, and slammed the Democrats for, in his words, destroying the country. But on future plans,
he was light on specifics.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: The golden age of America is upon us. The revolution that began in 1776 has not ended. It still continues because the
flame of liberty and independence still burns in the heart of every American patriot. And our future will be bigger, better, brighter, bolder,
and more glorious than ever before.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEWTON: Viewers all over the world were tuned in as the U.S. builds up its largest military presence in the Middle East since the 2003 Iraq invasion.
On Iran, Trump said this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: My preference is to solve this problem through diplomacy. But one thing is certain, I will never allow the world's number one sponsor of
terror, which they are by far, to have a nuclear weapon. Can't let that happen.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEWTON: As for the Democrats, Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger gave the rebuttal and focused squarely on what her party considers Trump's
weakness right now, kitchen table issues.
OK. We want to dig into all of this with our guests. Gregg Nunziata is executive director of the Society for the Rule of Law, having previously
worked, we will note, worked very closely in fact, with then-Senator Marco Rubio. And Susan Glasser, she's a longtime journalist and staff writer for
The New Yorker. I want to welcome you both to the program. And we will dig in here.
Susan, I want to begin with you. Golden age. Trump painted this as a roaring economy and as he calls it, it's the golden age of America. This
belies what the CNN poll tells us, right? It shows only 31 percent of speech watchers have a lot of confidence, a lot of confidence that he'll
make the cost of living more affordable. And 40 percent have no confidence at all in any of that.
Now, how, Susan, do you explain the gap even among a heavily Republican audience here?
SUSAN GLASSER, STAFF WRITER, THE NEW YORKER: Look, I mean, before the speech, you had Donald Trump's press secretary coming out and saying this
speech was going to be an extended case made by the president of the United States for why he and his Republican Party were best equipped to handle the
affordability crisis. And by the way, that's the term that the White House press secretary used, affordability crisis.
The problem, as quickly became evident in this epic speech, is that the president himself is not going to be able to make a case to Americans for
how he's going to handle an affordability crisis that he simply does not believe exists. And, you know, he said that in many recent speeches as
well. Just last week in Iowa, he said that he had won on affordability. And there was a triumphalist tone in Trump's State of the Union that really
undercut any efforts he might have made.
Now, he didn't really make many efforts, as you pointed out. I think Americans are looking not for kind of rah-rah rhetoric, but concrete ways
in which the administration might make new efforts, might make new programs. You didn't hear any of that. Donald Trump essentially has
governed not with Congress, but by executive fiat.
[13:05:00]
And you didn't hear him saying anything other than he still believes in the magical power of his tariffs, notwithstanding a Supreme Court decision that
threw them out. But he still believes that that should be the pillar of his economic policy, even though many Americans in both parties think the
tariffs are one of the reasons why prices are so high, and that's not true. They're so out of control in America that they're basically attacks on
Americans.
So, Trump risks seeming almost delusional and disconnected from the facts if he keeps with this course.
NEWTON: And getting to that Supreme Court ruling, Gregg, during the address, the president looked directly at the Supreme Court justices. It
was a reality show moment. He called their recent ruling against his tariffs that Susan was just talking about unfortunate, disappointing while
announcing, though, alternatives, nothing. Let's take a listen here.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Despite the disappointing ruling, this powerful country saving its saving our country, the kind of money we're taking in peace, protecting
many of the wars I settled was because of the threat of tariffs. I wouldn't have been able to settle them with a remain in place under fully approved
and tested alternative legal statutes. And they have been tested for a long time.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEWTON: I mean, the justices are sitting there, Gregg. What are the implications of the president? He uses State of the Union to say, look, I'm
going to work around this court. And I am wondering what's on your mind when you heard what he said on Friday, much more aggressive language
towards the Supreme Court ruling than he had during that speech.
GREGG NUNZIATA, FORMER COUNSEL, SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SOCIETY FOR THE RULE OF LAW: Yes, the State of the Union remarks
to the justices were really toned down from what he said at the White House earlier in the week where he said the Supreme Court justices should be
ashamed of themselves, that their families should be disappointed in them. And even suggested that those who ruled against him were influenced by
somehow shadowy foreign money or something along these lines.
I mean, it was a real attack on the legitimacy and the authority of the court, which is of a piece of this administration's strategy now for the
whole year plus they've been in office. The president and his top members of his staff, cabinet secretaries, have over and over again, when the
courts rule against the White House and the administration, suggested that somehow the judges were corrupt, were radicals, belonged to the other side.
This has been how the president talks about the independent judiciary, which is a crown jewel of our constitutional system, part of the checks and
balances, and the part of the government that's really doing its job to check a president when he overreaches. Congress has not been doing that, as
we saw last night. The president has very little legislative agenda. He mentioned things he wants to do. A few times he said it would be nice if
Congress passed a law, but it need not do it because he's going to just follow his own authorities to and really beyond the breaking point.
He's now talking about new tariffs on another kind of emergency statute where there is no real emergency, which will be again challenged in court
for their legal dubiousness. So, this is what we've come to see, and it's a credit to the judiciary that they've not been swayed by these attacks from
the most powerful man in the world.
NEWTON: Well, he's been doing away with a lot of these rulings really with a flourish and defying the facts in many regards. Another issue here,
Susan, would be that during his address, he claimed that voter cheating is, in his words, rampant. Let's listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I'm asking you to approve the Save America Act to stop illegal aliens and others who are unpermitted persons from voting in our sacred
American elections. That cheating is rampant in our elections. It's rampant. Why would anybody not want voter ID? One reason, because they want
to cheat. There's only one reason.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEWTON: You know, Susan, we're heading into the midterms here at the end of the year. How do these types of unfounded claims, again challenged in so
many jurisdictions and courts, unfounded, but how will they really inform voters going into these midterms? It is eroding trust, is it not?
GLASSER: Yes, absolutely. And I think it's, I'm glad you played that. I mean, you know, it's one example of many untruths that underpin almost all
of what Trump was saying in the address. And I think, you know, people have become so inert to that. It's actually important at this point to remind
people that a lot of what he was saying last night, not just about voter fraud that doesn't exist, but about economic situations that don't exist.
And that a lot of this was just simply not accurate.
[13:10:00]
But more importantly, right after that, Trump launched into an attack where he said, basically, Democrats can never win an election unless it's
cheating. And I think he's already told us that he won't accept any result in 2026, except Republicans winning as legitimate. And I think that is
something that really deeply concerns anyone who's concerned about democracy in the country. And he's willing to take actions, not just use
words to follow through on that.
NEWTON: Yes, we don't have to remind anyone here about what happened the last time he denied the outcome of an election. I mean, Gregg, that other
issue that has proven really so successful for the president was immigration. The polling shows that the president's ratings on immigration
now have dropped back to his first-term lows. He doubled down, though, on immigration in his speech. Why?
I'm wondering where you believe Americans are. And when I say Americans, that crucial pocket of voters, substantial, the independents, right, who
have clearly, in recent polls, showed that they want to move away from these enforcement tactics.
NUNZIATA: Yes, I think the whole immigration issue should remind the president, should remind all of us that policy is only part of governing.
How policies are implemented is a big part of it, too. And I think that the American people elected the president in part because they were
dissatisfied with Democratic policies on immigration and were attracted to the president's promise to enforce the law, secure the border, and even
start deporting populations that are here illegally.
The border security issue, I think, still reflects well on the president, pulls well on him. The interior enforcement, the deportations, much less
so. I think we see that Americans really wanted to prioritize the removal of people who had committed other crimes while they were here, the most
dangerous of this population, and to use more judgment with folks who are not a threat, who have been established here.
And even beyond that, even those who were eager for broad deportations really did not want to see these kinds of heavy-handed tactics, masked
agents on our streets, the militarization of urban areas in America. I don't think that's what anybody voted for, and we're seeing people turn
away from it. Even people who are at root sympathetic to the idea that we need to get a lot tougher on immigration enforcement. So, this is a real
problem for the president.
I think what happened in Minnesota and the way people responded should have been a wake-up call. This president does not do apologies well, does not
change course well. But it really could have been an opportunity last night for him to say that some mistakes were made, we're recalibrating, we're
going to do this in an effective way that will respect constitutional rights and minimize disruptions in the lives of ordinary Americans. And
then he did not do that. He doubled down and promises more of what we've seen.
NEWTON: And on those constitutional rights, Gregg, that most Americans hold dear, I want to get a sense from you again, Gregg, because you've been
very active on this on social media, that there is an increasing sense from critics of this administration that those constitutional guardrails are
being actively dismantled, including flat-out ignoring court rulings.
I'm wondering, in your opinion, Gregg, are we seeing a permanent fracturing of the rule of law under Trump, or do you have a more relaxed opinion
towards this? It is an institutional structure that through the courts will remain resilient.
NUNZIATA: Well, I'm worried. I mean, I'm profoundly worried. I think that a lot of the root causes of the problems we're seeing predate Trump.
They're sort of ways in which we as Americans have forgotten some basic civics, the way checks and balances have been eroded over decades, Congress
getting weaker and weaker, the president getting stronger and stronger. These are real problems, but I think we've reached a new breaking point
with Trump for a lot of reasons.
One, the president has three jobs in America, to be the head of his party, to be the head of the executive branch, and to be the head of state. And in
that last role, he's called upon to be bigger than partisanship, bigger than himself. He's called on to speak for all the American people and to
guard the Constitution, uphold its basic promises. And this president has shown no interest in that last role. And that's a deep, deep problem. He's
not being checked by Congress, and he is assaulting the authority and the independence of the judiciary.
And we need, as Americans, to come together and re-insist once again, 250 years into our life as a nation, on the fundamental promises of our
Constitution, on those checks and balances. And I don't think they're gone forever. I think they're being tested in a way they've not been tested in
generations.
[13:15:00]
And I really hope that Republicans and Democrats over the next couple of years can come together and start talking about how we can restore checks
and balances and really protect the constitutional rights that we all hold dear.
NUNZIATA: And, Susan, you know, Gregg just called it a new breaking point. But, you know, he is mentioning both Democrats and Republicans here in
terms of their role. Do you see certainly a corrosive influence right now on these checks and balances and on the Constitution itself?
GLASSER: Oh, let's be -- I mean, you know, yes, absolutely. I mean, I think we have to just be very clear about what's the reality in front of us
right now. You know, and again, you know, if there weren't all these weaknesses to take advantage of, Trump would not have come from anywhere,
right? He didn't create American divisions.
But, again, to be clear-eyed about what's happening right now, we have never had a president in my lifetime or in any of our lifetimes who have
done the things that Donald Trump has done to directly challenge the norms, rules, practices, and even laws that have shaped modern American
governance.
And so, you know, you can look on a variety of fronts and see that happening. You know, I would say it's the sweeping assertion of executive
authority that has gone mostly unchecked, actually, by the Supreme Court.
In fact, that Supreme Court decision last week was very notable because it was the first major decision on the substance, on the merits, not just in
terms of an emergency case where the court was ruling against Donald Trump, but it's the same Supreme Court that also ruled that a president has nearly
unlimited immunity, and that was in the middle of the 2024 election, in a way, a precursor event. Trump himself has cited that as a reason why he
basically can govern in a way that's much closer to a king or an autocratic ruler, number one.
Number two, bypassing Congress. This is really important. Our checks and balances aren't functioning anymore right now under a Republican-controlled
Congress with Trump in the White House. This has put the whole system out of whack. And the third thing I would point out is a sweeping assault on
dissent and weaponizing the federal government against those who stand up to and disagree with Donald Trump, attempting to put members of Congress in
jail for speech, attempting to put the citizens of Minnesota, American citizens, in jail, or beating them up because they were trying to bear
witness to federal government attacks on their neighbors. This is a really important thing that's happening right now, and it's not American.
NEWTON: Gregg, you know, we noted that, look, you worked with Marco Rubio. When we talk about this fracturing, this corrosive nature of checks and
balances, of the Constitution itself. You know, I've often put to people and said, look, a Democratic president could learn from this situation as
well. Then the next time there is a Democratic president, Gregg, don't you think that person as well could use some of the precedents set by this
administration?
And when I mention someone like Marco Rubio, many people believe he will run in the next election, do you have any confidence that someone like
that, as seeing that the checks and balances are dismantled, do you have any confidence, you know, he will elect to put those checks and balances,
to adhere to those checks and balances anymore when he sees what the former president did?
NUNZIATA: Well, I mean, this is the problem of ever-expanding executive power, which, you know, we've been on a course now for decades. A president
can get elected even with the best of intentions and want to use the power to its fullest. And that power keeps getting bigger and bigger. And
obviously, that opens the door to a president with bad intentions using these powers for ill. And it's really, really hard to get a president of
any party, of any ideology, of any kind of character, to decline to use powers that seem available to them.
So, absolutely, I mean, when I speak to my conservative friends all the time, talking about how this president is trying to govern by emergency
decree on a range of subjects, just imagine what a Democrat might do with that, with climate emergencies or gun violence emergencies, or whatever the
issue is that a Republican voter might care about and worry about what Democrats might do. These kinds of policy changes should rely in the hands
of Congress.
And again, it's very, very hard to get a president to refrain from using power. So, what we need is a Congress doing its job to say no and to push
back on a president when they exceed their authority. And that's just not what's been happening in our country for quite some time. And we all really
need and I hope that the lessons of this year should really wake people up to that reality across the spectrum.
And yes, I mean, Minnesota was, I think, really clarified a lot of the problems we've seen in this administration. You had violations of the
first, second, fourth, tenth and other constitutional amendments.
[13:20:00]
NEWTON: The list is long. Susan, both you and Gregg mentioned, really, Congress here and their role. When it turns to issues like Iran, the
president didn't say much in the State of the Union, only mentioning his preference for diplomacy. Congress has not weighed in on any military
action here. What is the constitutional risk of the administration continuing this buildup that we see at this hour without a formal
authorization?
GLASSER: Yes, exactly. I mean, look, you know, over decades, Congress has really walked away from the, you know, authority that it has under the War
Powers Act. Presidents dispute that. But you did see the administration briefing key members of Congress before the speech about Iran yesterday.
Many of the Democratic leaders who came out of that said they took away a clear impression that some military action might be imminent.
And, again, to this point about Donald Trump doesn't even seem to feel compelled to make his case to the American people. I was really struck by
what he did say about Iran in that address. Essentially, he said, we might need to go to war to obliterate an Iranian nuclear program that, by the
way, we've already obliterated. And also, we would like to make an Iranian nuclear deal in order to avoid that war that is similar to the nuclear deal
that Donald Trump pulled out of and got rid of in 2018.
So, you know, it's very hard on that basis for there to be any real public understanding of what's happening, never mind support for it. Trump has
sent a vast armada of air and sea power to the region. And I think what I'm hearing from experts is that deploying that kind of a force generally is
means that you are going to do something with it. You know, does Donald Trump have the stomach for a full-fledged conflict in the Middle East? To
me, he prefers more the quick militarized display of force and then the easy declaration of victory.
NEWTON: Yes. And again, from what we know so far, Congress will not be getting a word in one way or the other. Gregg Nunziata, Susan Glasser,
grateful to both of you. Thanks so much. Appreciate it.
NUNZIATA: Thank you.
NEWTON: Now, stay with us. We'll be right back with more news in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEWTON: Aid groups are ringing alarm bells warning that in 2026 marginalized civilians are paying the price for a war of deepening conflict
and shrinking relief budgets. And it's not just the United States slashing foreign assistance now. The United Kingdom, Germany, Canada and other
developed nations also made aid cuts which are set to take effect this year and next compounding the impact.
Now, the funding crisis comes at an acute moment, particularly in the West Bank and Gaza, where by Sunday dozens of aid groups could see their
operations restricted by Israel due to new registration requirements.
The International Rescue Committee is one of those organizations and its CEO, David Miliband, joins us now. Welcome to the program. It is good to
see you again. And we do want to start with this quickly approaching deadline for aid agencies working in Gaza and the West Bank. You know, we
just explained Israel is rewriting the rules of humanitarian aid, crucially the occupied Palestinian territories. You know, according to the IRC is
ranked second in the emergency watch list. I'm wondering how will these new rules affect the IRC's work in Gaza and the West Bank?
[13:25:00]
DAVID MILIBAND, CEO, INTERNATIONAL RESCUE COMMITTEE: Good evening, Paula. Thank you very much for your interest in these issues. Gaza is indeed one
of the humanitarian crises that we highlight in our emergency watch list, which has the top 20 humanitarian crises of 2026. In total, 250 million
people need help from aid agencies like the International Rescue Committee. And as you say, Gaza is number two.
We're waiting to hear from the Israeli authorities about how they propose to deal with our application to register. We, along with a range of other
aid agencies, have filed our papers in the correct way. We've explained what we do. We've explained how we are politically neutral and impartial,
that we treat people on the basis of need. And we've explained how we follow very carefully all kinds of protocols that are applied around the
world.
And so, we're waiting to hear whether our registration has been accepted. It's important that it is, because we are a vital part of sustaining life
and livelihood in places like Gaza. Obviously, we have an international presence in 330 field sites in 30 countries around the world. And needs
have rarely been greater. So, it's important, not just in Gaza and the West Bank, but elsewhere in these hotspots of humanitarian need, that aid
agencies are able to do their work in a professional and appropriate way.
NEWTON: And we will get to some of those other hotspots in a moment. I do want to stick, though, with what is going on, especially with the ceasefire
and the plans to obviously have some kind of a durable peace and development in the Palestinian territories and Gaza. To that end, your
former boss, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, is involved in President Trump's Board of Peace.
Now, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, we heard the board's plan for Gaza, right? It included hotel towers, housing, you know, leisure
complexes. What do you make of the plan as you've seen it so far? And what do you believe it means for Palestinians themselves in Gaza?
MILIBAND: I think the most obvious and important thing to say is that those plans are a very, very long way from the realities of daily life for
2 million people in Gaza today. Any sensible person would welcome the ceasefire that was agreed. However, it's also important to point out that
since the ceasefire was agreed four months ago, 600 Palestinians have been killed in action in Gaza. And I can report that while the worst excesses of
starvation, of malnutrition have now receded, there remain enormous needs, especially in health and other areas, that are vital to the sustenance of
life and livelihood.
We work as the International Rescue Committee in Gaza on water and sanitation issues, on health issues, and on child protection. That's a very
important part of our work. And the needs remain very great indeed, and it's vital that they are addressed. They are small steps towards the kind
of long-term vision that was established or that was set out, not just by the representatives on -- I think it's the executive committee of the Board
of Peace, not the main Board of Peace, but also by the representative of the 15 Palestinian representatives who are obviously critical to the
administration of life in Gaza.
NEWTON: In terms, though, of Mr. Blair's involvement, I mean, you make clear that there is a lot that has to happen before anything that the Board
of Peace sets out comes to fruition. What would you say to him? Have you spoken to him? And what do you make of his involvement in this? Does it
give you any reassurance?
MILIBAND: Yes, I saw Tony in Gaza -- I saw Tony in Davos. I mean, he's on this U.N. sanctioned -- I mean, U.N. appropriately mandated, rather than
sanctioned, U.N. Security Council mandated executive committee of the Board of Peace, which is about the restoration of life and livelihood in Gaza.
And obviously, it's vital as a first step that humanitarian aid is able to flow, that humanitarian agencies like the IRC are able to do our work
there. And I think that's the first step.
Obviously, the longer-term depends on a whole series of political and economic developments that anyone would wish to see, but are still a long
way off.
NEWTON: I do want to get now to this emergency watch list. It highlights 20 countries most at risk of new or worsened humanitarian emergencies. Now,
for the seventh year running, more than half of the listed countries are African ones, and conflicts are also at record highs since World War II.
Now, the IRC is now sounding the alarm over what you describe as a new world disorder. Can you walk us through that and what it means?
MILIBAND: Yes, I'd like to do that. This analysis, based on 75 different quantitative and qualitative indicators of humanitarian need, is very much
data-based, but it also draws out bigger themes.
[13:30:00]
And the biggest theme is that the new world disorder that we're seeing in conflict zones around the world is driven by three factors. The first is a
decline in international cooperation and a real crisis of diplomacy. There are 60 wars going on around the world at the moment.
Secondly, there is a trampling on the rights of civilians caught up in conflict. Between 50,000 and 100,000 civilians were killed in conflict last
year, and you're more likely to be killed in conflict as a civilian than if you're a soldier.
Thirdly, there is increasing profiteering from conflict, and the case study of this is the top of the watch list, Sudan, the largest humanitarian
crisis this century. 30 million people in humanitarian need, and there's profiteering from conflict because of the gold trade that is an important
part of Sudan's economy.
And these three features are driving this new world disorder that we diagnosed and that is so dangerous for civilians who don't just have the
moral right to stay alive. They have legal rights, or they're meant to have legal rights in conflict to aid and also to continued livelihood because
the targeting of civilians that we're seeing in conflict is completely contrary to international law as well as to morality.
NEWTON: I hear what you're saying, and yet you know better than I that just to spend more than a year now since USAID was shuttered, other Western
countries are now following suit. The numbers are hard to really wrap your head around, especially when you juxtapose them against the progress that
had been made for so many decades on this.
Now, according to a new Lancet study, these global aid cuts could lead to 9.4 million additional deaths by 2030, including 2.5 million children aged
under five. I mean, how do these stark numbers translate on the ground? I know you've seen it for yourself, and I know you're trying to do
workarounds at IRC, but this must be devastating, especially when you see the health statistics going backwards.
MILIBAND: Yes, devastating is a very good word to use, and you're right to put this in historical perspective. For really decades now, four decades,
indicators like child mortality have been going down. Shockingly, the Gates Foundation now reports that child mortality rates in 2025 started to go up,
and that's an indicator of quite how devastating this situation is. The combination of very high levels of need, 250 million people in humanitarian
need, and aid cuts from the majority of traditional donor countries. No aid cuts from the European Union, I'm pleased to say. No aid cuts from Denmark
either, I'm pleased to say.
But you're right to highlight the other countries, including the U.S., but not only the U.S., that have reduced their aid. So, yes, it is devastating.
I think there's a couple of things that we're doing to mitigate the damage. 2 million International Rescue Committee clients have lost access to aid
entirely as a result of the cuts. For example, that's 300,000 kids in Afghanistan no longer getting education, boys and girls.
But we're trying to mitigate that in two ways. First of all, we're saying there needs to be more focus on what aid that's left in fragile and
conflict states, where the majority of extremely poor people live. Countries like Sudan, Gaza, you've mentioned, they're very good examples of
that. Secondly, we're leading the drive for aid innovation.
Just today, we're using A.I. to diagnose Mpox in the Democratic Republic of Congo. We think there's a lot more that can be done on that. We're using
A.I. to anticipate climate shocks so that we're able to prepare communities. There's innovation in the aid sector that's needed, as well as
the direction of what resources exist to where the needs are greatest.
NEWTON: I take your point about the E.U., and yet we have articulated here on this program just how significant the U.S. aid cuts have been. The U.K.
at one time, including when you served in the government, was a stable aid provider. We're a year on from Prime Minister Keir Starmer announcing
Britain's aid budget would be slashed for up to 40 percent.
I mean, the government says it needs to increase defense spending. I do want to read to you, though, a joint statement, 93 leaders from the U.K.'s
international NGO sector wrote, and they say, over the past year, we have witnessed firsthand the consequences of these short-sighted cuts, have left
more people without essential access to water, sanitation and shelter. They have also left us vulnerable to a world with more disease, conflict and
climate disasters.
I am very curious to get your take. Mr. Miliband, I covered you as a politician in the U.K. in those years. I'm not sure if you were in Cabinet
today what you would be saying about these cuts, but you know better than I do that they do resonate with people in the U.K. who they themselves
believe that these tough decisions have to be made.
[13:35:00]
MILIBAND: Yes. I would obviously be deploring the cuts, and I have done so publicly as well as privately. I think that the International Rescue
Committee is one of the signatories to the letter that you read out, and certainly it's my contention that it's not just morally right to make sure
that aid reaches those people in need. It's also strategically smart, because we know that this is a war --
NEWTON: But that argument doesn't seem to hold water with this Labour government, and I'm sure you've spoken to them.
MILIBAND: No, you're right. So, maybe I should be better at arguing or better at convincing or better at persuading, but I think that it remains a
very important argument. The world is actually more connected than ever before. We make the point in the emergency watch list that there were 57
large measles outbreaks in the world last year.
The problems that start in places like Sudan, they don't end in places like Sudan, they move, because people move. At one point about nine months ago,
a large proportion of those people trying to cross the English Channel from France, from Calais to Dover, were from Sudan. This is a connected world,
and that's why I think it would be smart as well as right to sustain aid budgets.
Of course, the development context has changed a lot in the last 30 years. The economic development of countries depends on markets. It depends on
good governance. But when it comes to the world's poorest people, it's just wrong as well as misguided not to help them.
NEWTON: I only have about 30 seconds left, but in terms of what will resonate in a country like the U.K., do you believe that the rise of reform
and the demonization of immigrants is connected to this in some way?
MILIBAND: No, I think the critical thing that we have to get across to people is how much difference they can make. I can tell you that 24 million
doses of vaccine have been delivered in six countries by the International Rescue Committee last year, at $2.20 a shot, so that's about 1.80 pound a
shot.
So, we have a very good value-for-money proposition, and I think part of the job of those of us in the aid sector is to do a much better job of
challenging the misperceptions about aid and showing how much difference it can make. I hope that fits within your 30 seconds.
NEWTON: You did a brilliant job, as I'm sure you'll have to continue doing in order to really do the advocacy that you've been doing for so many years
now. And I hear you. We have all seen firsthand what a few pennies, pennies, literally pennies, can do to the health of children around the
world. David Miliband for us. Thanks so much. Appreciate it.
MILIBAND: Thank you, Paula.
NEWTON: And stay with us. We'll be right back with more news.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEWTON: So, next, as the United States heads into a midterm election season marked by sharp polarization, battles over immigration and growing
fears about democratic norms, an old Hollywood Western is suddenly feeling strikingly modern. New stage adaptation of "High Noon" on London's West
End. This is "High Noon" that we're about to tell you.
It was, you'll note, first produced in 1952. It was seen as a parable of McCarthy-era blacklisting and public cowardice as it confronts those same
tensions today, and it confronts those head-on. Now, while Bruce Springsteen's music underscores this drama, actors Billy Crudup and Denise
Gough joined Chris John in the London studio to talk about High Noon.
[13:40:00]
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Denise Gough, Billy Crudup, welcome to the program. So, I've seen "High Noon," I saw the stage
play and it was really very, very effective. It sort of rolled into today and just grabbed us all with the relevance for today. But how difficult was
it to put what everybody knows as a movie onto the stage, particularly in the U.K., premiering here to the Brits?
DENISE GOUGH, ACTOR, "HIGH NOON": Well, we did a workshop of it first so that we could get an idea of how to make it work, but I think you should
speak to that more because as an American, I'm used to doing theater here a lot, but doing a very specific American play, American story.
BILLY CRUDUP, ACTOR, "HIGH NOON": It's a unique play in several regards, not the least of which that it's a beloved western film. It feels like a
part of the Americana culture. And Eric Roth is a screenwriter. He hadn't had the idea --
AMANPOUR: With unbelievable successful films.
GOUGH: Yes.
CRUDUP: Incredibly successful over many, many decades, still producing. He was inspired by what was happening in the world and that movie, it turns
out, was written by a man who was blacklisted and there is a correspondence --
AMANPOUR: In 1952/
CRUDUP: In 1952. And there's a correspondence between living during a time that feels lawless and where people are having a difficult time agreeing on
what the rules and what the laws are and how we can all live collectively in a civilized environment and so the Wild West is a perfect metaphor for
that, that that land was being developed by people who were coming in from all over the place and there was quite a bit of dis-ease because the Civil
War had just ended. People were heavily armed. They were still at each other's throats and they hadn't agreed upon how to collectively live a
civil society. So, there was a lot of rage.
And I think that's one of the things that was inspiring Eric. He wanted to bring it to the stage in a visceral way. Well, the first draft that I read
had an eagle flying in, as I recall, and he was testing out any kind of theatrical vocabulary that he could imagine. So, when Thea and Denise were
involved --
AMANPOUR: Thea being the director.
CRUDUP: Thea Sharrock. They're high-level theater professionals who not only understand dramaturgically how to shape a piece of material like this
because it was probably an hour longer, the text was.
AMANPOUR: Talking about the timing and the -- you have a clock on the stage.
CRUDUP: Correct.
AMANPOUR: And it counts down to high noon. And so, the play --
GOUGH: In real time.
AMANPOUR: In real time.
GOUGH: Yes.
AMANPOUR: So, we're --
CRUDUP: It's a great device.
AMANPOUR: It is. It really is. Let's just establish you are Will Kane, the sheriff, who wants to put down --
CRUDUP: Marshal.
AMANPOUR: Marshal. So sorry, you're right. Who wants to put down his weapons finally and swan off into the sunset with you, Amy, his new bride,
et cetera. You're a Quaker. You hate violence and war, and this is fundamental that your soon-to-be husband does not pick up his gun again.
But first, I want to ask you, because you've been talking so much about the film, was there pressure to step into Grace Kelly's shoes or to Gary
Cooper's shoes? I mean, he won an Oscar. How did you feel?
GOUGH: So, for me, when I watched the film, I thought -- well, when I first read the script, I thought I'm not sure this is for me and then we
did the workshop on it and I realized that what Eric was looking to do with the Grace Kelly part was to flesh it out a little because in the film she's
Grace Kelly and I'm not Grace Kelly. I'm 25 years older than Grace Kelly for one thing.
And so, I didn't really think of the pressure of being compared to her but I wanted to make sure that doing a play like this that I brought a woman of
now somehow. And so, being able and encouraged to flesh her out in the way that I was part of the reason why I wanted to do it and working with Billy
who wanted that too. I don't think you wanted Grace Kelly, maybe you do now, after working with me for a while.
AMANPOUR: So, when it was first written in 1952 and you said that the writer was blacklisted, this was during the McCarthy era where Senator
McCarthy was essentially going after, it was the Red Scare, it was destroying people's lives, all this nonsense about this person's a
communist, there's a communist under every bed or red under every bed and all the rest of it.
Why is that relevant today? How does it become relevant today? Because it is about cowardice and a lack of willing by the general population there to
confront, you know, an evil who's coming back into town and then it's left up to you, the marshal, to do that much to your chagrin.
GOUGH: But it's also to me about community and what we're willing to do to protect our communities. And so, I think the relevance of it now, like I
think great writing reflects the time that it's written in, but then great writing is also timeless.
[13:45:00]
So, whatever -- what the blacklist and communism of the time of the film, now I feel like this idea of community, what we're willing to do for the
people that we love, and also the greater community, the global community, we're seeing this stuff everywhere. And we're living in a time now where
artists are even saying things like art shouldn't be political and all of this, people are censoring themselves out of fear.
And so, to me, doing this play and certainly playing a woman who I see as a non-violent activist, essentially, and a woman at the beginning of the idea
of feminism and seeing what she has to go through. I think I believe that art, theatre, all of that has the capacity to ask an audience, what would
you do if you were in this situation?
So, you know, somebody once told me that fiction, reading fiction is like an empathy gym. And so, for me, theatre is like sitting in community,
empathizing. And as artists, we are able to elicit empathy for imaginary characters. And so, there's something to it.
AMANPOUR: And I wonder -- yes, yes.
CRUDUP: If I could add to that, because that is speaking more to the point that with respect to the communists and blacklisting and stuff. Hynum, when
viewed from a certain vantage point, the movie itself isn't about courage. It isn't about one man standing. It's about capricious, cowardice and
people capitulating in the face of a violent threat.
And so, that's -- those are some of the themes that we started to see, particularly in America, which felt both very familiar and also terrifying
that the things that we thought that we had sort of graduated from in some ways had returned with such a vehemence. And there's some portions of the
play that are about what happens when politics and retribution get hand in hand. What happens when you get a very powerful person who's interested in
vengeance first and employs people around them. And that was what was happening in the '50s as well. And people were closing up their stores.
They were turning on their neighbors. They were adding to the lists. And so, the -- I think those sorts of correlations are important too.
AMANPOUR: So, then let's go straight to the denouement, and that is that in this case, the retribution was going to be enacted on you by this guy,
Frank --
CRUDUP: Correct.
AMANPOUR: -- who you as marshal had jailed, convicted, all the rest of it. And he had been expelled from the town. And then he was going to come back.
So, you felt, because nobody else was going to help you, that you had to prevent him taking retribution, right?
CRUDUP: Well, he had essentially incarcerated him first, based upon the law. He was a law enforcement officer. So, he was a person who was devoted
to the rule of law.
AMANPOUR: That's important today.
CRUDUP: He fought in the Civil War. He was a veteran. It's an important part to understand, too. Many of the marshals of that territory, they were
hired because they were really good with weapons. And the people who owned the towns, who were the sort of town fathers, they wanted people to enforce
the laws that they made. So, they would hire a marshal who would enforce the laws that they made.
So, Will is devoted to the rule of law, as he sees it in America, and uses his capacity as an agent of law enforcement. That is to say, he's got
tactical awareness. He can negotiate a situation. And if he has to, he can fight. And those are the crucial parts of law enforcement. But he's going
to use the law all the time. So, this guy, Frank Miller --
GOUGH: Lawless.
AMANPOUR: Criminal.
CRUDUP: -- lawless. Doesn't think laws apply to him. And Will's like, you can't live in this territory and behave that way. And eventually, he comes
for his deputy. This isn't in our story. But he kills Will's deputy, and Will has to go after him. And then a jury convicts him of his crime. Again,
part of the rule of law. And he is sentenced to hang. The politicians up north free him for reasons that we don't understand. So, all of these sorts
of events feel like they have a modern correlation.
AMANPOUR: For sure. I mean, for sure. And if we didn't hear it once, we'll hear it again, rule of law. It's under threat right now in the United
States, certainly. But -- so, that's what the sheriff, the marshal does. But you, as the wife, and you've just been married, you are really
struggling. You're prepared to give up your new husband for this principle, until you're not.
GOUGH: I think for me, the -- because she's so clearly, all the way through, has her belief system. But then she sees Frank Miller and sees in
his eyes what's -- because he tries to tell her about vengeance and what vengeance means. And she has a deep belief that we make these choices. And
it's not natural.
[13:50:00]
But then she's faced with the reality of when you stand in front of someone that, you know, is going to tear a community apart. Not just him. A
community. A whole world. A world that I've seen, that Amy has seen, will build. At the beginning, there's a whole speech about what he's done for 17
years and the pride she has in him for that. But understands that you can't commit to your whole life doing that. And she sees throughout the play, all
these people abandoning him. And then she sees -- she meets Frank Miller. And in that moment, she has to make the biggest decision.
And I always feel at the end of the play, it's kind of devastating. It's not -- it's devastating what this woman has to give up. And some people
cheer. The nights that they cheer, I think, don't cheer at this bit. It's so sad.
AMANPOUR: I know. OK. So, listen, you just talked about politics and how some believe that creatives shouldn't bring their politics to the public.
Obviously, you've seen at the Berlin Film Festival, big debate, rather bitter debate about politics and talking about -- and using your platform.
Do you shy away from espousing your politics as an actress?
GOUGH: Listen, it goes to what I've said about it's a transference of skills, my job. And what I'm skillful at is getting people to empathize
with imaginary characters. So, if I can transfer those skills to things that have meaning for me, and I have deep meaning and connections to
certain things that are happening in the world that I feel, you know, I'm not just my job, I'm a person. And I don't think about things as being
political or not political, it's about who am I as a human. And I can't say nothing.
It's not my fault that I'm given platforms, that I'm here. This is -- I find it sad that artists that I really respect and admire find themselves
not able to speak up because of what might happen. I find that really frightening.
AMANPOUR: So, that is frightening. Now, just to say, you -- one of your great public things has been "Andor." You've been in "Andor," which is so
famous.
GOUGH: Yes.
AMANPOUR: You've been in "The Morning Show." You've been in J. Kelly. You've done tons and tons of theater. But you're both very front and center
in today's creative environment. So, I just want to ask you, lastly, because of your role as, you know, the head of this news organization, you
probably saw what the FCC, Brendan Carr, tried to do to CBS and Stephen Colbert, try to prevent them from interviewing a Texas state senator for
whatever reason.
Anyway, Colbert basically called them out. He said, listen, I don't care. I'm out of here in May. Anyway, you've already fired me. And he went
against his own company, CBS, the company. As Cory Ellison, what do you make of that, or as Billy Crudup?
CRUDUP: Well, I'll tell you, to Denise's point before, it's true. I'm just a dancing monkey, of course. That's part of being a performer. But I am
also a citizen. And I'm a grown person and a parent. And I try to participate in my civic life as much as I do in my work life.
So, if I'm given an opportunity then to speak about the correlation between my work and my life, I'm inclined in my personal ideology to join in that
conversation. I don't think I'm necessarily right or brilliant or everybody should listen to me. But the conversation is happening between us right
now. So, I don't believe that there's any particular reason other than you might not agree with me that I should shut up. So, that's how I sort of
feel.
When I feel impassioned about a point of view and what's happening in my neighborhood or what's happening to my community or what's happening to my
child's future, those sorts of things ignite me. And I'm given an opportunity to talk about it. I want to talk about it.
Cory is going to have a fascinating time because Cory loves a challenge. And if Cory has to try to navigate his own capability to produce as a
capitalist under the threat of a wannabe dictator, that'll be exciting.
AMANPOUR: So, this is for another season of "The Morning Show."
CRUDUP: I'm just suggesting how Cory might think about that.
AMANPOUR: But there is another season coming.
CRUDUP: There is another season coming.
AMANPOUR: OK.
CRUDUP: I will, I'm sure, suggest this, but they don't really listen to my suggestions.
AMANPOUR: Denise Gough, Billy Crudup, thank you so much indeed. "High Noon."
GOUGH: Thank you.
CRUDUP: Thank you.
GOUGH: Thank you very much.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
NEWTON: And "High Noon" is on London's West End until March 6th. And finally, for us, a new Olympic flame burns. The 2026 Winter Paralympic
torch has officially started its relay, departing from Stoke Mandeville in the U.K., the birthplace of the Paralympic movement back in 1948. The flame
was lit by Great Britain's four-time Paralympic medalist, Millie Knight, alongside Andrea Macri, the vice captain of Italy's Para ice hockey team.
[13:55:00]
Now, the torch has now touched down in Turin and is expected to reach Verona on March 6th, just in time for the opening ceremony. The Games will
host more than 600 athletes from 50 nations with medals in 79 events, up for grabs.
Now, be sure to tune in tomorrow for a trip down Penny Lane. A new documentary, "Man on the Run," is an intimate look at Paul McCartney, maybe
as you've never seen him before. Now, he grapples with the Beatles' breakup, his musical future, and even life on the farm. I spoke with its
award-winning director, Morgan Neville, about all this and more. And trust me, you don't want to miss it. That's on tomorrow's show.
And that does it for us. 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 on social media. I want to thank you for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
