Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with FRONTLINE (PBS) "The President vs. The Fed" Director James Jacoby; Interview with Children's Hospital of Philadelphia Director of the Vaccine Education Center Dr. Paul Offit; Interview with The New York Times White House Correspondent Tyler Pager. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired May 13, 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.
Inflation surging, energy prices spiking, and President Trump demanding interest rate cuts. As Kevin Warsh prepares to take over the Fed, can he
stay independent? I speak with journalist and director of the FRONTLINE documentary, "The President vs. The Fed," James Jacoby.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DR. MARTY MAKARY, FDA COMMISSIONER: I work for the American people and I stand by the scientists at the FDA.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEWTON: -- turmoil inside America's health agencies. Is public trust in science under threat? Vaccine expert Dr. Paul Offit joins me.
Plus --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NICK PATON WALSH, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: This really is the craziest of stories about a Russian shadow fleet ship that
sank off the coast here in the strangest of circumstances.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEWTON: -- we have an investigation into what may have been on board. Also, ahead --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TYLER PAGER, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, THE NEW YORK TIMES: One of the things to remember about Trump is his rhetoric about China, we've seen on
the presidential campaign trail, has not always matched his policy approach.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEWTON: -- President Trump arrives for a high-stakes meeting with Chinese leader Xi Jinping. New York Times White House Correspondent Tyler Pager
speaks to Walter Isaacson about the pressure looming over this historic trip.
A warm welcome to the program everyone. I'm Paula Newton in New York sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
President Trump is in China, landing in Beijing for a high-stakes summit and the first visit by a U.S. president in nearly nine years. Now, he's
joined by a delegation of high-profile business leaders that includes Apple's Tim Cook and NVIDIA's Jensen Wang.
Both governments appear to be seeking economic opportunity from this summit, but back, home the economic headlines should be increasingly
worrying for this president. Inflation is surging, energy costs are getting higher and higher and that's thanks to the president's war with Iran. The
higher inflation rate makes it unlikely the Federal Reserve will cut interest rates this year despite the demands of President Trump. And it all
amounts to a headache for Kevin Warsh who's set to take over as Fed chair this week.
So, is he taking on a poisoned chalice? Warsh vowed in his confirmation hearing that he would be independent of the White House. On the line, the
health of the American economy and the credibility of the Fed.
For more than a year, outgoing chair Jerome Powell, himself a Trump pick, remember that, has faced relentless criticism and legal targeting by this
administration. And this unprecedented pressure campaign is the subject of a new FRONTLINE documentary, "The President vs. The Fed." Its director,
James Jacoby, joins us now from New York. And welcome to the program, James.
JAMES JACOBY, DIRECTOR, "THE PRESIDENT VS. THE FED, FRONTLINE (PBS)": Thank you so much for having me, Paula.
NEWTON: Kevin Warsh, the incoming Fed chairman, will take office amidst what Axios calls, and I'm reading the headline now, Trump's five-alarm
economy with inflation rising, wages stagnating and confidence collapsing. This is what I found extraordinary, though. Even Warsh's colleagues at
Stanford University's Hoover Institution are fearful of what he is about to take on. John Cochrane, a colleague at the Hoover Institute, told Politico,
and I'm quoting now, "Kevin Warsh is the dog who caught the car." So, James, I'm asking you, now what?
JACOBY: Yes, now what? Kevin Warsh has an unenviable position right now, that's for sure. He's coming in amid a lot of skepticism about his
independence because of all the attacks that this president has waged on the Fed, on Chair Powell. And so, there's already questions about whether
he's going to be independent of the president.
But the economic -- that's the political landscape, the economic landscape he's stepping into, as you alluded to, is frightening for a number of
reasons. The war has pushed up inflation again. We're at levels we haven't been at in several years. It's certainly higher than when this president
took office. And we've got a softening labor market. There's all sorts of reasons for concern. The markets are very worried today. There's a lot of
headlines about that, about the inflation expectations going forward, that these elevated gas prices and energy prices are going to be with us for a
lot longer than expected. So, Warsh is facing an extremely difficult task ahead.
[13:05:00]
And he's also facing a divided board, right? So, there are some appointees of the president that are on the board that might be more sympathetic to
the view that interest rates could be lower. Warsh is coming in with a theory about that, why they possibly could be lower. But then, as we know,
Jerome Powell is staying on the board. There's others on the board that completely disagree with that idea. So, it's going to be a difficult time
to find any consensus there.
NEWTON: Given all your work on this documentary and what you just alluded to, the fact that even if Kevin Warsh wants to lower interest rates, we are
dealing with some pretty tough inflation right now. If Warsh does President Trump's bidding, what do you believe would be the consequences of that, at
least over the next few months?
JACOBY: I mean, his theory is that you can lower rates because somehow the A.I. boom and the implementation of A.I. in the economy is going to create
all sorts of productivity gains that are going to increase growth in the economy without creating inflation. That's a theory. It has not been
tested. And I think he's going to have a very difficult time convincing his colleagues of doing that.
So, I'd say the likeliest scenario is that the Fed is not going to be able to lower rates anytime soon. And if they did, that, of course, raises the
risk of longer-term inflation, of inflation expectations becoming, what they say, unanchored, which could mean, you know, that that then compounds
upon itself and you get higher and higher inflation going forward.
And, you know, of course, we have to put this in the context of the midterm elections coming up, and inflation and affordability are still massive
issues for voters right now. And so, I can't imagine that they'd want to risk exacerbating a problem that is already top of mind for most people out
there.
NEWTON: And yet, they will continue to face criticism from the White House itself, and that may include this incoming Fed chair. Fed Chair Powell,
outgoing, in fact, he made the mistake as well of leaving interest rates, in fact, too low, and inflation really, post-COVID, got to unmanageable
levels, pardon me. It's the irony here, right? Kevin Warsh has a tall order here to try and keep this under control, given the numbers, the inflation
numbers. He's going to have to wrestle.
JACOBY: Absolutely. And, I mean, this is a Fed that's rather gun-shy about inflation, and understandably, because of what you just said, which is that
this is a Fed that made a massive mistake during COVID. We get into it in the documentary. We've done previous FRONTLINE films about this mistake of
they had left rates way too long -- way too low for way too long. They also were doing all sorts of other accommodative things for the economy during
and after the pandemic. Former Fed officials admit in the documentary that they made this mistake, and they should have raised quicker to tamp down on
inflation.
And so, this is a Fed that is singed by having made that error during and after the pandemic, where we got the highest inflation levels in decades.
That's caused all sorts of political issues in this country, certainly economic issues. So, they are going to be gun-shy when it comes to lowering
rates when there's a risk of higher inflation as a result.
NEWTON: And yet, so much already about Kevin Warsh's appointment has been politicized. In Warsh's confirmation hearing, Republican Senator John
Kennedy asked him to respond to allegations, including from Senator Elizabeth Warren, that he would be, and I'm quoting now, "Trump's sock
puppet." Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN KENNEDY (R-LA): What's a human sock puppet? Isn't a human sock puppet somebody who will do what somebody else tells them to do?
KEVIN WARSH, U.S. FEDERAL RESERVE CHAIR NOMINEE: I think that's what the senator was trying to suggest. That was the innuendo.
KENNEDY: Are you going to be the president's human sock puppet?
WARSH: Senator, absolutely not.
KENNEDY: Are you going to be anybody's human sock puppet?
WARSH: No, I'm honored the president nominated me for the position, and I'll be an independent actor if confirmed as chairman of the Federal
Reserve.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEWTON: So, an independent actor. I mean, James, we have to say this appointment was actually applauded by many people, including the prime
minister of Canada, Mark Carney, who's worked with him. His colleagues say that he has an impeccable resume and can handle this. And yet, how do you
believe he will act? And everyone says he needs to be independent. Does he have the fortitude for this in the months to come?
JACOBY: That's the big question. I don't feel qualified to prognosticate about that necessarily, but I do think that those who do know him and have
worked with him really do respect him and think that he is going to operate independently. If you wanted to take a skeptical view of it, there was
another line of questioning from Elizabeth Warren, Senator Warren, at that hearing about that litmus test question that Democrats ask these days of
Trump appointees, including people being appointed to lifetime appointments to the federal bench, of whether Donald Trump lost the 2020 election.
[13:10:00]
Warsh was asked that question, and he evaded the question, essentially. So, that, for those who think that he may not act with independence, saw
something very different very concerning in that exchange during his testimony.
But I think that he is somebody who's been on the record over and over as being someone who thinks that the independence of the bank is sacrosanct.
At the same time, he's kind of been auditioning for this job for a very long time. When Trump picked Powell back in 2017, the other frontrunner was
Kevin Warsh. He's wanted this job for a long time. He's changed his view about interest rates. He used to be an inflation hawk. Now, he thinks that
rates could actually be lower, even given all the inflationary pressures out there. So, it remains to be seen. It's the million-dollar question
going into his tenure.
NEWTON: You know, the Fed -- and as you've pointed out in the documentary, and you make clear, the Fed is unlike any other federal agency. It is
designated by Congress as an independent, within-the-net government agency, free to make monetary policy decisions.
This is supposed to be without political pressure, right? I mean, how powerful is the Fed chair in that context? And given the way this is set up
in a democratic, you know, system here, it is not all that accountable to political leaders, should it be?
JACOBY: It's a great question. I mean, the Fed was designed to be insulated from political pressure because it needs to make long-term
decisions for the U.S. economy. And we've seen almost every president try to pressure a Fed chair to lower interest rates. Every president wants
lower interest rates and has for decades now.
Famously, Richard Nixon in the 1970s pushed his Fed chair, Arthur Burns, to lower rates. Burns happened to have capitulated to the pressure. And then
we saw massive inflationary problems and economic problems for almost a decade after that happened.
We've seen this over and over. The difference with President Trump has been the public pressure. The public pressure campaign on Powell during the
first term, then ramping up significantly in the second term. We've seen criminal investigations into Powell. We've seen an attempt to fire Lisa
Cook, one of the seven governors on the Federal Reserve Board, who votes on interest rate decisions. She had these allegations leveled against her that
she'd committed mortgage fraud, and the president used that as an opportunity to try to fire her. That case has been argued in front of the
Supreme Court. We're waiting to hear their decision on this. He's waged a pressure campaign unlike any other president in history. Whether the Fed's
independence holds is a major question going forward.
NEWTON: Yes, and that is actually a startling comment to make. And we will have to see what goes on. I will point out that President Trump himself, at
least the pressure is public, right? As you point out from that historical example, the pressure didn't come to light until sometime afterwards. So,
you do wonder what goes on behind the curtain.
Again, if you go back to your documentary, just summing up what has happened with the Fed and the presidency in the last year and a bit has
been extraordinary. And we go to January, where Jerome Powell accused the Trump administration of again using those legal threats to influence Fed
policy after the DOJ threatened to indict Powell over testimony he gave on that building project at Fed headquarters. You know, Powell issued a
statement, again on video, extraordinary, saying that he's standing firm.
I mean, how did Chairman Powell's response go over at that time? And what kind of precedent does that set?
JACOBY: I mean, as you're even saying it now, Paula, it all sounds like it -- I mean, it couldn't have happened at any other time, right? This is all
unprecedented, and that's why we did a film about it to kind of lay out and trace this entire battle, because it's so -- it would have been unthinkable
that there would be a DOJ investigation, a criminal investigation to a sitting Fed chair. It would have been unthinkable that there would be, you
know, a firing of a Fed chair for unsubstantiated allegations about mortgage fraud.
Yet, this is where we are, and I think that this is the reality going forward. It's just whether this institution's going to be able to withstand
the pressure at this point, and whether Kevin Warsh is going to be able to withstand pressure, because if he starts to make interesting decisions that
are at odds with the president, this is, you know, all bets are off here, and he may be incurring the wrath of this president as well.
NEWTON: Now, there was a striking comment you got from a current Fed governor, Neel Kashkari. I want to play that clip, and it is from your
documentary about President Trump's threat to fire, as you say, Fed Governor Lisa Cook, over an allegation about mortgage fraud. I mean, let's
listen in.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JACOBY: Do you think that this is all part of an effort by the president and this administration to get his hands on this powerful economic lever?
NEEL KASHKARI, PRESIDENT AND CEO, FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF MINNEAPOLIS: I think he's been very clear about that.
[13:15:00]
JACOBY: Is there a chilling effect for other officials at the Federal Reserve, a fear that you might be next?
KASHKARI: I think that that's in the back of everybody's minds, that -- if it could happen to Lisa, why couldn't it happen to me or any of our
colleagues? So, that's always there. But it also steals our resolve.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEWTON: Two very important points there, James, and it is so indicative of what Kevin Warsh has coming up. I mean, it was an extraordinary comment
from somebody who is sitting in the room at present. I mean, what do you believe, what signs should we look for from the chair and the board?
JACOBY: Well, I think one of the things that's really interesting about Kevin Warsh is that Kevin Warsh has been a longtime kind of critic, a
conservative critic of the Fed and the Fed's power. And I think it's important to note that the Fed deserves accountability, and you alluded to
this in a previous question, that it's an extremely powerful entity.
It's probably the most powerful institution in the U.S. economy, if not the global economy. And it's not directly accountable to voters. It was
designed that way. It's accountable to Congress, yet, as we've talked about, it's made massive mistakes that have massive repercussions for the
American people. And Kevin Warsh has a reform-minded agenda coming into the Fed. Whether he gets to do any of those things that he wants to do, shrink
the size of the Fed's influence in the economy, change the way that they think about inflation, is an open question.
I think that what we need to look for for clues is that whether interest rate decisions, which are really what this president is interested in, not
really the reforms that the conservative movement has had in mind for a generation about the Fed, whether we see things like people saying things,
bringing up new information about one of the governors, right, because the Lisa Cook allegation kind of came out of thin air from Bill Pulte at the
FHFA, an obscure federal agency, and he's kind of raising these allegations of mortgage fraud, and then all of a sudden, the president is picking up on
that and using it as a grounds to fire her. Who's to say that anyone else on the board is -- that's not going to happen to them? So, I would look for
things like that. And I would look for the first disagreement with Warsh and the president.
NEWTON: Yes, which is sure to come, we don't know when that will happen. James Jacoby, thank you so much for joining us. FRONTLINE's "The President
vs. The Fed" is now streaming on FRONTLINE's website, YouTube, and on the PBS app. Thanks so much.
JACOBY: Thank you.
NEWTON: Now, stay with CNN, we'll be right back with more news in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEWTON: Now, to the ongoing turmoil within the U.S. Health and Human Services Department. The FDA commissioner out. The latest in a string of
high-level personnel changes at HHS. Now, there is currently no surgeon general and no confirmed director of the CDC.
Meanwhile, according to the New York Times, Health Secretary RFK Jr. has been driving internal research to try and prove his invalid theory that
vaccines are harmful. While CNN has learned that the FDA is suppressing studies that show vaccines are actually safe.
Dr. Paul Offit is a long-time vaccine scientist who was dismissed from an FDA vaccine advisory committee last September. And he's joining us now from
Philadelphia.
[13:20:00]
It is good to see you again as we try and parse the goings-on, and again, this is so material to so many people's health, not just in the United
States, but around the world. And so, we start with the status quo as it appears under this health secretary. No FDA commissioner, no CDC director,
no surgeon general. I mean, from where you sit, what do you believe the impact is on U.S. health care right now?
DR. PAUL OFFIT, DIRECTOR OF THE VACCINE EDUCATION CENTER, CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF PHILADELPHIA: Well, you're already seeing it. I think this
past year we had a measles outbreak that's bigger than anything we'd seen in 30 years. You saw three people die last year, including two healthy
little girls, where that equals the total number of measles deaths in this country over the last 25 years. You had 290 children die last year of
influenza, another 115 this year. We haven't seen numbers like that since the last influenza pandemic in 2009. You've had states experiencing
whooping cough deaths.
So, I think Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s goal, which is to dismantle the vaccine infrastructure in this country, and you could add that we don't have a
current advisory committee for immunization practices to the CDC. The goal is to create chaos, make people unsure about vaccines, and he's been
successful because these viruses and bacteria are now coming back and harming our children.
NEWTON: You know, in fact, the New York Times reports that RFK Jr. is actually keeping quieter publicly about vaccines, but his work is still
going on behind the scenes. Apparently, he's pushing major research to examine, as we were saying, his long-held belief that vaccines are not
safe. But this actually comes after his FDA-blocked publication of research that showed COVID and shingles vaccines were safe.
Now, a spokesperson for HHS told the New York Times the studies were withdrawn because the authors drew broad conclusions that were not
supported by the underlying data. Scientifically speaking, this is your bread-and-butter work. Does the FDA have a leg to stand on here, or do you
believe this is purely political?
DR. OFFIT: Oh, it's purely political. I think Robert F. Kennedy Jr. believes that vaccines have merely less than infectious diseases at the
risk of causing chronic diseases, even though data do not show that at all. And he's going to do everything he can to prove his science-resistant anti-
vaccine beliefs. What he's going to do is he's going to use databases to try and cherry-pick those databases to scare parents about vaccines. That's
what he's going to do.
And the irony of those suppressing the studies about the safety of the shingles vaccine, or the safety and efficacy of the COVID vaccines, is he
talks endlessly about how parents need to be informed, and then he does everything to either misinform them or not provide information that could
inform them.
NEWTON: So, if the data is sound, who benefits from suppressing these kinds of studies?
DR. OFFIT: Nobody. The only person that benefits is Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who then can continue to go on his war against vaccines by suppressing
immunization that shows he's wrong. It's a dangerous time. And until somebody from Congress stands up, or until the president stands up,
children are going to continue to be hurt here. It's really hard to watch this. He's a Secretary of Health and Human Services who, if you read his
book, "The Real Anthony Fauci," doesn't believe in the germ theory.
NEWTON: I mean, you actually had a phone call with RFK going way back. I'm talking 2005. And you thought the phone call went well. He obviously said
one thing to you on the phone, but then afterwards he came out and criticized you. Now, since then, you've been pretty scathing. In fact,
you've called him an evil man. And you say he really is dangerous.
Can you tell us about that conversation? And how do you look back on that two decades later? Because you know what he's going to say about you. He'll
say that you have an axe to grind.
DR. OFFIT: Well, my axe to grind is that I stand up for the health and well-being of children. It's why I chose to be in pediatrics. I was in a
polio war when I was five. I remember polio. And I remember how vulnerable and alone those children were. That's why I chose pediatrics. And, I mean,
the conversation I had with him in 2004 was he called me and he wanted to know whether thimerosal, this ethyl mercury containing preservative in
vaccines, was harmful.
Now, at that time, there already had been a handful of studies looking at children who got thimerosal-containing vaccines compared to children who
didn't get thimerosal-containing vaccines. So, there were plenty of data available. The conversation went well. He thanked me. I thought it was -- I
went home that night and told my wife, I had a really nice conversation with Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Then a year later, he published an article in Rolling Stone claiming that I was just deeply in the pocket of industry. And the only reason that I said
that thimerosal in vaccines was safe was because the vaccine that I was working with at a team at Children's Hospital Philadelphia, the rotavirus
vaccine, was laced with thimerosal when that wasn't true at all. So, that was when I realized he sandbagged me. That was when I realized he was a
virulent anti-vaccine activist.
[13:25:00]
And so, I do consider him an evil man because I think what he does is he puts children in harm's way and causes them to suffer and die
unnecessarily. And what can be more evil than that?
NEWTON: But, Dr. Offit, one has to assume that he isn't actively trying to harm people. I mean, where do you think this disinformation is going? I
mean, what's the motive here?
DR. OFFIT: I don't think he's actively trying to harm people, but he's certainly doing nothing to stop the harm that's occurring. I mean, when you
have a measles epidemic like we did last year, where, you know, we had thousands and thousands of children suffering or being hospitalized and
dying from measles, where is he? He's the secretary of Health and Human Services. He can have a press conference and stand up and say, vaccinate
your children. He doesn't do that at all.
The only press conference he's had since he's been secretary of Health and Human Services is to stand up with President Trump and say Tylenol, given
in the first trimester of pregnancy, causes autism, where study after study has shown that's not true either. So, he just has these fixed, immutable
beliefs. He doesn't seem to care that children seem to be suffering because he certainly doesn't do anything about it.
NEWTON: Dr. Offit, what is -- in the context of all of this, what is happening with vaccine research itself? I mean, we went from Operation Warp
Speed to RFK taking away billions of dollars from mRNA research projects in August. I mean, how much damage do you see in that pipeline? And I ask this
as we continue to watch Hantavirus, and I know that it is isolated, but everyone wonders, well, if we did it for COVID, could we not come up with
more vaccines on that platform?
DR. OFFIT: Right. I think what people don't realize is that one of the heroes of this SARS-CoV-2 pandemic that helped us, you know, basically save
3 million lives in this country with the COVID mRNA vaccines was people like Barney Graham at the National Institutes of Health, because when SARS-
1 raised its head in Foshan, China in 2002, 2003, what he did, Barney Graham and Kizzy Corbett, another at NIH, is they started working on a
SARS-1 mRNA vaccine. Now, SARS-1 never came into this country, never really killed people in this country, so we didn't need it. But during that 20
years of research, we learned a lot.
So, when RFK Jr. removes $500 million from the Biomedical Advanced Research Development Authority for things like the mRNA bird flu vaccine, all he
does is limit us when there is the next pandemic, and there'll be another pandemic. We've had three coronavirus pandemics in the last 20 years. Let's
assume that's not the end of it.
So, I think he has really very much hurt the research infrastructure in this country. And when you talk to people who are prominent in this field,
they'll say they think that research and development for vaccines will probably move to China and, to a lesser extent, India.
NEWTON: Now, those block studies we were talking about analyzed over 11 million patient records and cost millions in taxpayer dollars. I don't have
to remind you that. If these federal agencies suppress these massive government-funded data sets, how -- if you're a doctor on the ground,
right, you're just in rural America here, and you're trying to give people evidence-based advice as to what they should do, does this effectively
blindfold the medical community? I mean, what impacts are you seeing?
DR. OFFIT: That's what it does. I mean, we all look to the CDC or looked to the CDC for information, and now we can't really look there anymore. I
mean, the irony is that RFK Jr., when he took over office, said, well, people didn't trust the CDC. But I think now they really don't trust the
CDC. Certainly, the medical profession doesn't trust the CDC. We don't have an advisory committee for immunization practice anymore. So, where do we
turn?
And I think when you see that those kind of data being suppressed, it breaks your heart because those are the data we need to make the best
decisions for our patients and their families.
NEWTON: You know, it might seem obvious at this point, but if you're a viewer, whether it's in the United States or around the world, and you are
trying to get some information, whether it is about vaccines or other public health issues, where should you go now? I mean, so many people are
even questioning the FDA's motives or the safety of their own vaccines, especially when it comes to young children, but beyond that as well. Where
do they look to get the truth?
Because we've seen so much damaged already just from COVID and those vaccines. And you, at the outset of this interview, pointed out already
some that have lost their lives given these outbreaks that would have been unthinkable decades ago.
DR. OFFIT: Well, so I think a number of groups have stood up. So, although we lose the expert advisory committee at the Advisory Committee for
Immunization Practices, what we have are we have expert committees that, for example, advise the American Academy of Pediatrics, who put out a
schedule that is clearly science-based. Same thing's true with the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the American Association for Family
Physicians, the Infectious Disease Society of America. There are states that have formed their own expert advisory committees to help give science-
based information.
The problem is we used to have a one-stop shop. We used to look at the ACIP and the CDC. Now, it's fragmented, so we have to look at other places. But
those places do exist to provide good information to make the best decisions.
[13:00:00]
NEWTON: I have to ask you, you know, RFK Jr. came in on the mantle of Make America Healthy Again. There are certainly kernels of grievance in that
movement, and there are truth -- there's truth there, right? What kind of a development have you seen? Is there anything that is redeeming from what
has gone on in the last year and a half with this department in terms of really trying to inform Americans about things like prescription drugs,
about things like the chemicals within their foods, and about vaccines? Because there are, at times, adverse reactions to vaccines.
DR. OFFIT: Right. It's sad, really, because the Make America Healthy Again movement has many components that make sense. I mean, could we be less
reliant on ultra-processed foods? Yes. Should we not give sugared drinks as much as we do to our infants, especially through the SNAP program? Yes.
Should we sleep better? Should we exercise more? Do we over-medicate our children? I mean, do we have things in our foods that are potentially
harmful? I think that's all fine.
The problem is because you have Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as the head of this, he's sidetracked among his sort of anti-vaccine activism. And although
while it is true that no vaccine is perfectly safe because no medical product is perfectly safe, I think that previously, before he came into
this position as secretary of Health and Human Services, we were very quick to let people know what those issues were.
I mean, when the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine came out, the COVID vaccine came out in December of 2020, we had things in place that immediately told us whether
there was going to be a safety problem. I was on the FDA's Vaccine Advisory Committee. We reviewed those data in December of 2020. But we reviewed data
on essentially 35,000 adults that had gotten the vaccine for a vaccine that's about to be given to hundreds of millions of people.
So, you know there's going to be some safety problem that likely will arise. And you have things like the Vaccine Safety Data Link that
immediately picked up, for example, myocarditis, inflammation of the heart muscle is a very rare consequence of the mRNA vaccines or clotting
associated with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine that ultimately drove that vaccine off the market.
So, RFK Jr.'s sort of conspiracy theorist mindset that we're all hiding data is wrong. And he can't point anything specifically that shows that
he's wrong. So, because he can't, he always sort of says, well, there's a big conspiracy to hide the truth, and big pharma is hiding the truth
without any real evidence other than this sort of vague hand-waving and innuendo.
NEWTON: All right. Dr. Paul Offit, we will continue to watch this space carefully, especially given what's at stake for all of us. Really want to
thank you for joining the program.
DR. OFFIT: Thank you.
NEWTON: Now, to an exclusive report. An investigation has found that a Russian cargo ship believed to be carrying two submarine nuclear reactors
destined for North Korea sank in unexplained circumstances off the coast of Spain back in 2024. Correspondent Nick Paton Walsh traveled to the
Mediterranean to get to the bottom of this mystery, and here's what he found out.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
NICK PATON WALSH, CNN'S INTERNATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT (voiceover): A mystery in the Mediterranean. The possible torpedoing of a Russian ship
to stop the Kremlin handing submarine nuclear reactors to North Korea begins in a quiet Spanish port.
WALSH: This really is the craziest of stories about a Russian shadow fleet ship that sank off the coast here in the in the strangest of circumstances,
his Russian captain confessed to investigators here that it was carrying two nuclear reactors, possibly for a submarine.
WALSH (voiceover): The incident is shrouded in silence, but concerns the most serious of issues, weapons proliferation between two nuclear powers
and force being used to stop it. The Ursa Major ship loaded up near St. Petersburg in early December 2024 on paper bound for Vladivostok with a
cargo of two huge cranes and over 100 empty containers. It made another stop loading two large manhole covers. It set sail a shadow fleet ship used
by Russia in Syria.
The Portuguese navy followed it from above. You can see the blue covers here until just before it ran into trouble in Spanish waters.
WALSH: It was way further out to sea when the ursa major on 22 December 2024 suddenly slowed. And Spanish rescuers noticed this and they radioed
towards ask if anything was wrong. The ship insisted it was fine and could deal with the situation.
WALSH (voiceover): But about 24 hours later it made a sharp deviation and issued an urgent call for help. The boat was listing, this video shows,
filmed from a nearby tanker, but probably not going to sink too fast. The captain of the ship would later tell investigators he'd seen a 20 by 20-
inch hole in the hull, the damaged metal facing inwards. He said it had been followed by three explosions on the starboard side of the boat,
killing two of his crew.
WALSH: So, the Russian military arrive in force and they tell everyone to stay two nautical miles away from their ship, the Ursa Major. But the
Spanish know they need to conduct rescue operations. So, they send this ship to pick up 14 Russian survivors who are brought back here and that
includes the Russian captain who it seems starts to help investigators piece together some of what's happened.
[13:35:00]
But it's hours later that day that the mood Changes over the major ship and the Russian military fire flares over it. And then a series of explosions
follow which Spanish seismic sensors picked up, and they send the ship to the seabed floor.
WALSH (voiceover): Moscow demanded their crew back. But the Russian captain told Spanish investigators something remarkable that the ship was
carrying components for two nuclear reactors, likely for a submarine, he said, adding he could not be sure if the reactors had fuel in them. There's
no evidence of contamination. He also told investigators he thought he would be diverted not to Vladivostok, but to North Korea's port of Rason.
Russia was in North Korea's debt at that time, after they sent 10,000 troops to help fight Ukraine two months earlier. And in December 2025,
North Korea would claim to have built this, their first nuclear powered submarine.
WALSH: Everything may have been on the bottom of the sea, but the Russians weren't done yet. And according to a source familiar with the
investigation, about a week after the incident, a Russian research vessel called the Yantar, linked in the past to all sorts of allegations against
Moscow, sat down over the wreckage for about five days. And four more explosions followed, possibly the Russians destroying what was left of the
wreckage.
WALSH (voiceover): In the months after, the U.S. may have shown interest in the site, twice sending a rare WC135R constant Phoenix, usually secretly
sniffing out traces of nuclear activity in Russia's Arctic or over Iran over the path of the Ursa Major, weaving low at 5,000 feet. One had flown a
similar route 13 months earlier, perhaps suggesting its routine. The aircraft's U.S. base declined to provide any details. Spanish lawmakers
have urgently sought answers, but got fewer.
JUAN ANTONIO ROJAS MANRIQUE, SPANISH OPPOSITION POLITICIAN (through translator): When someone doesn't clearly and fully provide the
information that you request, you at least suspect that they are hiding something, of course.
WALSH (voiceover): So, why did the ship sink? The Spanish investigation said the first impact was likely from a projectile called a super
cavitating torpedo that fires air in front of itself to reach very high speed. Others suggested something simpler.
MIKE PLUNKETT, SENIOR NAVAL PLATFORMS ANALYST, JANES: It sounds like a limpet mine. It sounds like a shaped charged explosive that was placed
against the hull by somebody or something.
WALSH (voiceover): The Russian owners immediately called the sinking a targeted terrorist attack. They the Russian, Spanish and British militaries
did not reply to a request for comment, and the Pentagon declined to. There are few Western militaries operating there capable of noticing, tracking
and stopping a cargo like this. All sides, it seems happy for this secret to stay on the sea floor.
Nick Paton Walsh, CNN, Cartagena, Spain.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
NEWTON: Nick Patol Walsh reporting there. Stay with CNN. We'll have much more after a quick break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEWTON: Now, as we've said, it's been nearly 10 years since President Trump first visited China in 2017. And it's fair to say in that time, a lot
has changed between the war in Iran, tariffs, Taiwan, and tech leaders. Many are wondering what issues Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping will
prioritize during this historic trip.
[13:40:00]
New York Times White House correspondent Tyler Pager joins Walter Isaacson to discuss which global issues could influence this meeting and what Trump
might be hoping to achieve.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Thank you, Paula. And, Tyler Pager, welcome to the show.
TYLER PAGER, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Thanks so much for having me, Walter.
ISAACSON: Inflation this week shot up 3.8 percent, exceeding expectations. Some of that's fuel costs. Some of that is tariffs. Both those things are
going to be on the agenda when President Trump meets this week with President Xi Jinping in Beijing.
Let's start with the fuel price thing. To what extent is it going to be President Trump's goal to get the Chinese president to help open the Strait
of Hormuz and bring down fuel costs?
PAGER: Well, Walter, it's certainly going to be top of mind for the president when he arrives in Beijing. And you'll remember that the
president, President Trump, that is, originally postponed this trip. He was supposed to go to Beijing in April and he pushed it back to May because the
war had broken out. He was hoping to arrive in Beijing with this conflict behind him. And obviously it's not.
And so, regardless of the other topics that both leaders wanted to address, it's going to be unavoidable that the leaders are going to have to work
through this conflict and the impacts it's having on both countries and the global economic system. So, it'll certainly be top of mind. What role Trump
asks Xi Jinping to play or vice versa obviously remains unclear.
But we've already seen China play an important role in getting Iran to agree to an earlier ceasefire. So, we know that China can exert pressure on
Iran and whether or not the president, President Trump, asks him to get involved is unclear. But it's certainly going to dominate the conversation
in Beijing.
ISAACSON: Who needs the Straits of Hormuz open more, China or the U.S.?
PAGER: It's a great question, and they both do. I mean, for President Trump, it is a huge domestic political problem and an economic one because
of the way in which the entire world relies on the Strait. For China, it is a key waterway for them to get oil and gas into the country. So, both
leaders have huge political constituencies that they need to get the Strait reopened.
And for President Trump, it is a conflict that is dragging him down politically with his own base and with the rest of the country. But it's
also distracting him from other things he wants to do. As we, you know, I'm sure we'll talk about Cuba and other foreign policy objectives the
president has. The U.S. military is heavily tied up in the Middle East right now, which is constraining his ability to do other things.
ISAACSON: Well, let's also talk about tariffs, which I assume are a component of the bad inflation numbers we just got, which means, by the
way, that the Fed's not going to lower interest rates like he wants. Part of the tariffs are for China. I think it's up to 30, sometimes 40 percent
tariffs with China. Are they going to try to lower it at the summit?
PAGER: I mean, I think that is a huge agenda item for the Chinese and something that is certainly going to be discussed. The president, you know,
put these tariffs on from the first term and President Biden continued them. And so, what Trump's mindset is, is that he wants to strike a new
deal. He said that the tariffs are up because the U.S. had been ripped off by China for years.
And so, I think one of the deliverables we could see from this summit, we've seen some early reporting about this, is increased economic
investment and economic partnerships between the U.S. and China and private companies. We saw that there's a long list of high-profile CEOs traveling
as part of the U.S. delegation.
And so, I think that is an area where we could see some progress in terms of new trade deals and lowering of these tariff barriers. But as always,
with President Trump on the world stage, he's unpredictable. And so, we'll just have to sort of wait and see what sort of deals are ironed out and
whether they are memorandums of understanding or really the beginning of negotiations or the final conclusion of negotiations and real trade deals
being announced. It's oftentimes the rhetoric obscures the real the real deals.
ISAACSON: Well, you just talked about the CEOs traveling with them, a whole bunch of them. You wrote about it in The New York Times. It was a
very long list of Tim Cook, Elon Musk, some others. Why is he taking over all these CEOs and what does he plan to announce with them?
PAGER: Yes. I mean, I think we're waiting to hear exactly what is going to be announced as part of this trip. Oftentimes we get that information just
before it's announced or when he announces it himself. But it's clear that the -- you know, the Trump administration wants to increase foreign
investment in the United States.
[13:45:00]
Trump has been very clear that he wants foreign countries, foreign companies to build factories and move manufacturing back into the United
States. How plausible that is, is up for debate. But it's clear that these high-profile CEOs going to China is part of this effort to try to increase
investment in the United States. It's been a huge talking point of the president.
You often hear him say the United States has never been this hot. Everyone wants to invest in the country and countries. Foreign leaders are realizing
that is a way to get on Trump's good side is by announcing investment deals in the U.S. But that's very different with China.
And there are some prominent conservatives, prominent Republicans who are raising concern and alarm about Chinese foreign investment in the United
States. This is something that Trump and other Republicans have talked tough on and limiting Chinese access to U.S. markets. This is obviously a
shift in in policy if Trump does allow increased or really robust Chinese investment.
So, it's unclear exactly what is going to be announced. But just sort of the murmurs of increased Chinese investment is raising alarm among a
bipartisan group of experts, lawmakers here in the United States.
ISAACSON: Well, let me drill down on a very specific type of Chinese investment, which is sort of the ones that fall involve national security
restrictions we've placed. A lot of the China hawks in the administration want those restrictions. Might Trump lift some of those national security
restrictions?
PAGER: We've seen him toy with that. And that is a concern of, as you said, national security professionals and China hawks. But I think one of
the things to remember about Trump is his rhetoric about China, we've seen on the presidential campaign trail, has not always matched his policy
approach. For Trump what matters most is cutting deals. And he has used anti-China rhetoric in part to try to create opportunities to strike what
he thinks are better deals for the United States when it comes to trade and commerce.
So, there is great trepidation within some of even Trump's own allies that he is going to lift some of these restrictions, as you just outlined, as
part of this negotiating process. Again, it will depend on exactly what he announces and says.
But I think the relationship with China and the United States is sometimes so based on rhetoric, particularly as it relates to Taiwan and the status
quo of how the U.S. talks and recognizes Taiwan, that even a slight rhetorical shift could change policy. And with Trump, who often goes off
script, off the cuff, there are some, even in his own administration, that are proceeding cautiously as they wait and see what he might say in
Beijing.
ISAACSON: One of the things I just don't understand about Trump, it seems the simplest thing is, does he want more trade with China or does he want,
as, say, Vice President Vance seems to want less trade with China?
PAGER: It seems that he wants more trade with China, but I think it sometimes depends on the political circumstances and climate that he's
existing in and the broader economic conditions. The president has made pretty clear that he sees all these other countries investing in the United
States and trading with the United States as a positive thing.
Trump doesn't seem to share as many of the concerns that Vice President Vance and others do, at least publicly. One of the most striking things
about Trump's relationship with China is when you ask him about it, whenever you bring up China, the first thing that the president almost
always says is, I have a great relationship with Xi Jinping. That is a very different rhetoric than we saw from the president on the campaign trail in
2016, in 2020, in 2024, when he railed against China and painted it as a threat to Americans' economy, American livelihoods. But that's not always
been the policy approach that he's taken.
So, in part, it's a difficult thing to answer your question because Trump's posture and rhetoric around China is constantly evolving.
ISAACSON: I think even his supporters would say that President Trump's not actually perfect at carefully calibrating nuances of what he says. He
sometimes just says things without filtering them. What are you worried about or what are they worried about when it comes to describing issues
like we will not or we will support Taiwan independence?
PAGER: Yes, I think there are concerns within the U.S. intelligence community, lawmakers on Capitol Hill, diplomats around the world who are
fearful that the status quo about the way in which the U.S. interacts with China as it pertains to Taiwan will shift. Because it is largely based on
status quo, based on precedent, and based on public statements that have been made in the past. Trump doesn't often really care about precedent.
[13:50:00]
And so, if he shifts the U.S. policy towards being more lenient towards China's position on Taiwan, China obviously wants to reunify with Taiwan
and take control of it. That is -- it will be very interesting to see how the president, President Trump, handles Xi Jinping on this issue. And --
ISAACSON: Wait, wait, explain more lenient. Does that mean we might slow down arms sales to Taiwan?
PAGER: I mean, it's -- I think that's unclear, right? What exactly -- I mean, a bipartisan group of lawmakers on Capitol Hill are trying to make
clear the U.S. position on Taiwan through congressional legislation and resolutions. But I just pose that as more lenient because it's unclear what
Trump is going to say. And any shift in rhetoric, because the words are so precise and they matter so much as it pertains to the U.S. position on
Taiwan, and the difference between the U.S. position on Taiwan and China's position on Taiwan, if Trump is not careful with his language, diplomats
have raised that China can interpret that as a change in the U.S. policy on Taiwan.
ISAACSON: Do you think he could make a conscious tradeoff decision to be more lenient on Taiwan, as you put it, in return for helping to open the
Strait of Hormuz?
PAGER: I am wary of not making any sort of predictions when it comes to Donald Trump's foreign policy. But I will say that is a concern of people I
have spoken to in recent days ahead of this trip.
ISAACSON: You mentioned earlier in this conversation that he might want to move on to other things. He's kind of mired in Iran at the moment, but he's
sort of eyeing Cuba every now and then. I think what happened in Venezuela maybe emboldened him on Cuba, but maybe what happened in Iran gave him
pause. What do you think his thinking on Cuba is now?
PAGER: Yes. Well, Walter, I absolutely agree with you that the operation in Venezuela certainly emboldened the president to go ahead with an attack
on Iran. Obviously, there were other factors there that played a role, but the military success and speed at which they were able to capture Maduro
and start working with an interim government absolutely set the tone for the president to engage in other military action around the world.
Cuba is clearly a place that Trump wants to exert more power and control over. I think they have been slowed in their ability to do so because of
the military buildup and commitments in the Middle East. But the president has said in recent days Cuba is going to fall, the regime is going to
collapse, and he wants to expedite that. We know that he's been frustrated that the pressure campaign in the U.S. has been building up against Cuba
has not led to a full collapse of the regime yet. The exact timing of when we're going to see even more pressure exerted on Cuba is unclear.
But what is clear, Walter, is that the president is committed to exerting more pressure on the regime and trying to force its collapse. But the
sequencing of that, I think, at least from Trump's perspective, has been in part delayed because of the lengthy military conflict with Iran.
ISAACSON: Let me read you a headline on one of your stories. It's Trump's ultimatum to Iran was almost up. Then he found an off ramp. Sometimes
that's referred to as TACO, Trump Always Chickens Out, that he makes these, you know, extreme things and then has to walk them back. Is it possible he
will just scale back his demands to simply be open the Strait of Hormuz and declare victory?
PAGER: You know, never put anything off the table or rule anything out with Trump. The Iranians have seemingly made that offer now in recent
weeks, saying let's reopen the Strait, let's end the military blockade and kick the can down the road in terms of nuclear negotiations. Trump has so
far rejected that offer.
If -- well, could things change? Absolutely. We have not seen them yet, but I think after the China trip, there will be a moment of reckoning. If the
Strait does not reopen, end the war, there's not some sort of negotiated settlement, Trump will have to make a decision about whether or not he's
going to resume military activity or find an off ramp and end the conflict.
ISAACSON: Tyler Pager, thank you so much for joining us.
PAGER: Thanks so much for having me, Walter.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
[13:55:00]
NEWTON: And finally, for us, a rare safe haven for baby bonobos. The nursery on the outskirts of Congo's capital is home to 11 orphan bonobos,
each of them cradled, fed and cared for by their human foster mothers. Over the course of four to five years, they've been rescued from poachers or
found trapped in the homes of locals, raising them for the bushmeat trade.
And although they're legally protected from hunters, the population of the endangered species has now dropped significantly in the last four decades,
with only about 20,000 left in the wild today. Now, so, as the world's only baby bonobo sanctuary, this nursery is doing amazing work to help these
animals survive.
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 all-over social media. Thanks for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
