Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with National Security Analyst and Former U.S. Deputy Director of National Intelligence Beth Sanner; Interview with Boston University Center on Emerging Infectious Diseases Dr. Nahid Bhadelia; Interview with International Rescue Committee DRC Country Director Heather Kerr; Interview with Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget President Maya MacGuineas. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired May 26, 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]
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: Hello everyone and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
Is the ceasefire at risk? As the U.S. strikes Iran near the Strait of Hormuz, is the region moving toward another round of escalation?
Then, Russia threatens new systematic strikes on Kyiv. We have rare access to Ukraine's drone war taking the fight deep inside Russia.
Plus --
TEDROS ADHANOM GHEBREYESUS, DIRECTOR-GENERAL, WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION: The Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo is spreading
rapidly.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- an outbreak outpacing the response with more than 200 suspected dead in Central Africa. I speak to Dr. Nahid Bhadelia, an expert
on infectious diseases and humanitarian worker Heather Kerr on the ground in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Also, ahead --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MAYA MACGUINEAS, PRESIDENT, COMMITTEE FOR A RESPONSIBLE FEDERAL BUDGET: We are hitting a lot of fiscal records when it comes to our debt and none of
them are good.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- America's national debt now exceeds the size of its entire economy. Walter Isaacson speaks to Maya MacGuineas, president of the
Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, about how to stop the crisis from spiraling out of control.
Welcome to the program everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga, New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
The fragile ceasefire between Iran and the United States is facing a new test. Iran's Revolutionary Guard is warning that it has a legitimate right
to respond after U.S. forces carried out what they called self-defense strikes on Iranian missile launch sites and boats around the Strait of
Hormuz.
The strikes came just hours after Iranian negotiators sat down with Qatari mediators in Doha as Washington and Tehran pushed toward a possible
memorandum of understanding. But major sticking points remain, including the future of Iran's nuclear program and sanctions relief.
And the regional situation is growing even more volatile. Israel has launched fresh strikes in Lebanon, signaling a more aggressive posture
against Hezbollah as the Trump administration indicates continued support. So, where does this leave diplomacy and how close is the region to another
escalation?
Joining me now is Beth Saner, a former U.S. Deputy Director of National Intelligence. Beth, it's good to see you as always. So, we have the U.S.
conducting what CENTCOM calls defensive strikes in southern Iran. Diplomats just finish up meeting meantime in Qatar. How sustainable is this escalate
to de-escalate posture that the United States appears to have taken in the last 24 hours, especially when you have the supreme leader of Iran
threatening that U.S. bases are no longer safe throughout the region?
BETH SANNER, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST AND FORMER U.S. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: Yes. I don't know if I would really say what
happened over the last 24 hours and escalate to de-escalate. I don't think we've quite seen that yet. I mean, my understanding of what happened is
that the U.S. saw Iran IRGC boats that were about to be in placing mines in the Strait. The United States struck them, and then this tit-for-tat ensued
in which we lost probably a $30 million drone, at least one of those.
And that seems to have died down now. But the question is, what's next, as you say? Does this derail the talks? The chief negotiator, the head of
parliament, Ghalibaf, is now back in Iran from Doha. And, you know, the question is, is Iran going to do more than just shoot down a drone? Because
they do have the capability to retaliate more. So, this was a risk that the United States took. But in fact, I think that we do need to prevent Iran
from solidifying its control over the Strait, which adding mines would do.
GOLODRYGA: You mentioned Mohammad Ghalibaf returning back to Iran from Qatar. It's reported that a conservative lawmaker in Iran's own negotiating
team has slammed this emerging proposal as a pure surrender of the control over the Strait of Hormuz. So, if Tehran's hardliners are now already sort
of revolt-testing the framework of this deal, how stable is any agreement that the sides can reach in Qatar?
[13:05:00]
SANNER: Yes, exactly. So, I do think that, I mean, first, Mohammad Ghalibaf is a hardliner. It just happens to be that there are people who
are even more hardline in Iran, as you point out. And I think that this is, you know, one of the problems that we have when looking at this memorandum
of understanding. So, not even like, you know, the at the deal, but just kind of like, what are the terms that we will be negotiating in the next
period?
And the fact that you have IRGC and related extreme hardliners coming out against that, it poses a huge problem. And I think that this is the
problem, you know, really that came about when President Trump started to put this deal, you know, over the weekend on Friday, came out with, you
know, we're negotiating, we're getting close. And that has opened up a whole can of worms.
And part of what's happened is the reaction from the, you know, more hawkish parts of the Republican Party saying that the United States is
actually surrendering or capitulating too much, is forcing the United States to double down more on terms that, of course, Iran can't accept.
So, by putting this all out there, we're actually in a, I think, probably a more delicate and more difficult situation than we were when everybody was
hopeful. So, forget the oil markets right now. Reality is, is that this is a very tenuous period. And I think we're seeing this Camp David talk that
has been announced by the White House, that cabinet members will come together and talk about this and other things going on.
GOLODRYGA: Right. Because over the weekend, the administration's approach appeared to be, you know, no dust, which is the nuclear material, the
highly enriched material, and no dollars. So, pushing for a phased deal that starts there. And you mentioned the revolt coming immediately from
members of the president's own party.
You had Lindsey Graham, Roger Wicker, Ted Cruz, all calling this a major mistake and invoking what is kryptonite to President Trump. And that is
comparing it to the JCPOA, saying that this deal would even be worse than the JCPOA deal that President Obama signed and that President Trump ran
against and dismantled.
I'd like to play sound from Senator Thom Tillis, another Republican who spoke out vociferously over the weekend against this proposed MOU.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. THOM TILLIS (R-NC): Look, we were told about 11 weeks ago by Hegseth and the Department of Defense that they had obliterated Iran's defenses.
And it was just a matter of time before we had the nuclear material. Now, we're talking about a posture where we may accept the nuclear material
remaining in Iran. How does that make sense at all?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: So, given all of that and the pressure internally that the president is facing, does he have any off-ramp that's available to him that
you think would accommodate some of the concerns from Republicans, while also a deal that the Iranians would at least on face value agree to as
well?
SANNER: Yes, I think that the only option here is probably to be less specific in this MOU about what the terms of the future part of the phase
two that would talk about the nuclear program. Because right now, the United States is kind of on this zero stockpile, that 440 kilograms of 60
percent uranium would have to come out or be destroyed, is what President Trump has said.
That -- you know, maybe it's possible for Iran to agree to that, but then there's still, you know, hundreds and hundreds of kilograms of 20 percent
or lower, and that's going to make people very upset too. So, I think you have to be less clear in the MOU in order to thread the needle, but that's
still going to be tough.
GOLODRYGA: Right. And from Iran's perspective, and given what we've seen with the previous U.S. administrations that have been trying to negotiate
and make clear that a nuclear Iran is not acceptable, for Iran, it really does come down to kicking the can down the road. So, if they can agree to
anything that gets them past 2029 in the next election here in the U.S., perhaps they would take that as a win.
I do want to ask, though, another component here, and that is Lebanon, because it does appear from reporting that the Israelis were blindsided and
very unhappy with reports of this MOU as it was presented over the weekend.
[13:10:00]
And Prime Minister Netanyahu, who is facing re-election in just a couple of months, came out publicly and stated that the war against Hezbollah would
not be included in any part of this deal in terms of a ceasefire, and that he had the support of the president in backing on that front. We see that
they've expanded their operation just today north of the Litani against Hezbollah.
Just talk about the dynamics there, because Iran at the same time is saying that no, a ceasefire has to be part of any deal.
SANNER: Right. So, I think that there are three components. I'm glad that you raised Lebanon. So, we're talking about the degree of the nuclear
program that's included. We're talking about how much sanctions relief or the release of unfrozen, you know, when to unfreeze and how much to
unfreeze of Iranian assets, so money and sequencing. And then, the third part of this that is sticking points is whether and how much to include the
Lebanese war.
And President Trump put Netanyahu in a very difficult position because he basically agreed to include Lebanon as, you know, the Iran front and the
Lebanon front would both stop without prior notification or discussion with Netanyahu. Then he had a call, told him it's on the list. Netanyahu has
come back and said, well, you know, the United States will let us defend ourselves.
But what we're seeing right now is Netanyahu trying to kind of frame this in a way that doesn't look so bad, because remember, Netanyahu is Mr.
Security. This is what he's running on. And the north of Israel is uninhabitable right now. And we're seeing this expansion of the war. And
they're doing this, I think, to try to get as much done as possible in case the United States forces them to stop.
And at the same time, President Trump is humiliating Netanyahu by saying publicly, Netanyahu will do what I tell him. So, this is like a nightmare
for Netanyahu on many fronts. If the nuclear program isn't solved in Iran, his entire raison d'etre for how he has talked about his role in protecting
Israel would be off the table. And then this continuing threat from Hezbollah not being able to deal with this.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. Not --
SANNER: And the Israelis worry about. Yes, go ahead.
GOLODRYGA: No. I was going to say, not to mention that he's also campaigned on being the closest prime minister ever to a U.S.
administration. And it was --
SANNER: Yes. And it (INAUDIBLE).
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And it was quite surprising then to hear President Trump turn and tell all of these Gulf and Arab countries and their leaders that
as part of any deal, they'd all have to join the Abraham Accords. Oh, and including Iran as well. And no surprise, this was all met with muted
silence by those countries.
But, Beth, while we have you, I do want to ask you about the other hot war happening in Europe, because there is a seeming connection, and that is
between Russia and Iran. And over the weekend, Moscow unleashed one of its largest bombardments on Kyiv, some 90 missiles, 600 drones, and also
another strike using their Oreshnik hypersonic missile. President Putin even went further telling diplomats, foreign diplomats, to leave Kyiv.
Is this psychological warfare being played by the former KGB agent, or do you think this is a different front that we are now seeing?
SANNER: Yes. We will have to see whether this is indeed a different front, but I think there are several things going on here. You know, number one,
Putin has a problem. He has a problem at home because elites are starting to question what is this all about and when is it going to end?
And the fact that Ukraine has brought the war to Russia front and center, the humiliation of the May 9 parade looking like a joke and having to
downgrade it because of the threat of Ukrainian missiles. Putin is doing this for a domestic audience as well. Then I think this threat against
European diplomats and the United States, all foreign diplomats, but you had Foreign Minister Lavrov call Rubio, and Rubio reported on this publicly
and said, you know, yes, he said all diplomats are at risk here, but there's no sign that the United States and especially the E.U. will be
pulling out diplomats. So, that's good for now.
But I think the goal here is to put pressure on the United States, more so than Europe, but also Europe to get Ukraine to stop, to get Ukraine to stop
attacking Russia because it is hurting Putin.
So, we're going to have to see how this goes forward, but they are out of air defenses and we are really low on-air defenses. And Putin knows this.
And the Oreshnik missile is not a precision strike missile. It is a missile of terror. It is a missile of signaling because of the nuclear potential,
which of course is not being played here, but multiple warheads and multiple submunitions. It is a way of spreading terror and that's what
they're doing.
[13:15:00]
GOLODRYGA: And connecting these two in the last moment here, we're seeing Iranian Shahed drones being used in Ukraine now for a number of years.
Russian anti-jamming technology is being used in the Gulf. Do you have faith that the U.S. administration right now has a coherent policy in
addressing those continued threats?
SANNER: Well, I don't think that we, I think that this administration is struggling on how to deal with the Russian involvement in the Gulf. Let's
not forget that Russia provided the means to help Iran kill Americans, and we're not talking about that, right? We're talking about it with China.
President Trump raised that with Xi, but where is the pressure on Russia about that?
Right now, we still have not firmly put the oil and gas sanctions back on. They're kind of on, but we should see that, but what are we doing about
this? I think that these things are a disconnect, and it shows you, you cannot isolate one regional conflict from another. They are all connected.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. In the meantime, Ukraine continues to pound Russia's energy sector by those long-range drones as well. Beth Saner, great to have
you on. Thank you so much for your analysis. Really appreciate it.
SANNER: Thanks, Bianna.
GOLODRYGA: Well, Russia is threatening a new wave of strikes on Kyiv after this week's heavy and deadly bombardment. Moscow is also warning foreign
nationals, as we noted, including diplomats and international organizations to leave Ukraine's capital as soon as possible. But a U.S. State Department
spokesperson said there are no changes to U.S. embassy operations. As Russia refuses to let up, Ukraine continues to adapt.
Correspondent Nick Paton Walsh filed this report from Eastern Ukraine, looking at the deep strike drone unit.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
NICK PATON WALSH, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT (voiceover): President Trump once said Ukraine had no cards, but now
they've built themselves a new deck. We're now with perhaps Russia's most keenly sought target in the war, a deep strike Ukrainian drone unit
launching this night a wave of 200 attack drones into Russia.
WALSH: The issue here is the scale, potentially 20 drones being launched just from here and three or four other locations around here also involved
in tonight's attack. The sheer number overwhelming, it seems, much of Russia's air defenses and causing persistent embarrassment to the Kremlin.
WALSH (voice-over): Working fast in silence, knowing an error with the fuel or explosives or launch could kill them all.
WALSH: They are a key target for the Russian Shahed drones flying overhead, constantly interrupting their work, which is going to go on all
night.
WALSH (voice-over): Close to here, Russian strikes have just hit Ukrainian civilians. And in Russian Stavropol, these Ukrainian drones hit. The mayor
telling Russians there to stay indoors.
In another field, another technological leap is at work. Jet boosters used to get drones to their 120 mile an hour speed in just seconds. At their
base, one screen is a glimpse of a world order turned on its head. Dozens of Ukrainian drones roaming inside Russia, code coordinates, targets, A.I.
powered, pulsing on the screen faster than your eyes can read. Russia, often seen as the third largest military power, preyed upon by a series of
laptops.
VECTOR, DEEP STRIKE COMMANDER, DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE OF UKRAINE: It's our biggest advantage and why it's so hard for Russia to destroy this program,
because we split up. We don't have any common centers and we use dozens of places. Also, the software gives us a chance to work with thousands of
UAVs.
WALSH (voice-over): The Liutyi drone can take a huge payload over 1,200 miles. There are decoys and a jet powered drone, they say, seems to appear
like a rocket on Russian radar.
VECTOR: Those are decoys. We sent hundreds of them. Some are empty, some with a payload. The payload is small, but it's enough to destroy air
defense systems.
WALSH (voice-over): It is dizzying, the speed of evolution, adaptation, ingenuity. Ukraine two years ago, begging for old American missiles to hit
just inside Russia's borders. But now it builds itself and launches so many drones, often as deep as Russian Siberia, even Kremlin loyalists are
questioning Putin's endgame.
Now, the West wants to learn from what Ukraine had to do to survive when it didn't get the help it needed. Each leap, advantage, lasts just months
before the other side catches up.
[13:20:00]
Ukraine is ahead for now, but only because it's learned it'll likely be on its own when it's not.
Nick Paton Walsh, CNN, Eastern Ukraine.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: And later in the program, health officials try to contain the Ebola outbreak with more than two hundred suspected dead, health clinics
attacked, and fears growing that the crisis could spiral. That's as scientists race for an effective treatment
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: The head of the World Health Organization is traveling today to the Democratic Republic of Congo, the epicenter of the fast-moving Ebola
outbreak. So, far, at least 220 people are now suspected to have died from Ebola. The disease can spread through bodily fluids.
In Ituri Province, the heart of the outbreak, protesters are demanding the release of bodies for burial and have attacked healthcare facilities,
burning tents and forcing patients to flee.
Joining me now is Dr. Nahid Bhadelia, an expert on infectious diseases, and Heather Kerr, a humanitarian worker on the ground in the Democratic
Republic of Congo. Thank you both for joining us.
Dr. Bhadelia, let me start with you because the head of the WHO just declared this a global emergency. As noted, some 220 now believed to have
died from Ebola and hundreds of suspected, a thousand suspected cases at this point. But they say this is not the next COVID-19. How alarmed should
the Global Community be a- at this point?
DR. NAHID BHADELIA, BOSTON UNIVERSITY CENTER ON EMERGING INFECTIOUS DISEASES: Yes, Bianna, dissimilar to COVID-19, as you said, Ebola virus
disease and all the species related to it, like Bundibugyo, which is causing the current outbreak, are all transmitted through bloodborne
pathogen close contact, and it's healthcare workers and family members taking care of these patients that are at highest risk.
I actually was an Ebola responder in West Africa and worked quite a few years in Uganda at the border of DRC, again, around viral hemorrhagic
fevers. The biggest concern is actually for the communities that are affected because when you talk about two hundred dead, you're talking about
over a thousand suspected, many of whom present similar to other infectious diseases like malaria or cholera. And so, these communities and the
healthcare workers there have to sort out which of these patients may end up being Ebola positive and protect themselves the healthcare workers and
their clinics, of course.
GOLODRYGA: So, then Dr. Bhadelia, if the global pandemic risk is low, just explain to us why it is still so important that the Global Community still
be focused and that governments in particular do as much as they can to try to contain this outbreak.
DR. BHADELIA: Yes, Bianna, as of yesterday already Jean Kaseya, the director of Africa CDC responded by saying that ten additional African
countries are at high risk. So, let me start by saying that even though it's not a pandemic risk, regionally, this is a huge global health security
concern because we're already behind. By the time this outbreak was discovered, it is thought to have potentially started maybe even at the end
of March, if not earlier than that. That means that we're just discovering how far the outbreak is currently spread. So, regionally, it is the impact
that it has been on DRC's neighbor.
[13:25:00]
Globally, the concern is that, yes, we may see sporadic cases that may end up being suspect cases like Italy saw yesterday, two returning aid workers.
The issue is not so much that we can't handle Ebola virus disease, particularly in healthcare systems that are well-to-do. The issue is that
the destabilization that comes from a large regional epidemic has global implications, has implications on conflict, has implications on all of our
safety. If we miss another signal, that may arise in that.
And then may I just say, as someone who has taken care of hundreds of Ebola patients, is it not enough to care that these communities are suffering and
losing entire families?
GOLODRYGA: No doubt. It is something we should all be focused on and should care about. And that is one of the reasons why, Heather, you're in
Kinshasa now. We have reported overcrowded camps, burned out treatment facilities, rampant misinformation. Just tell us what you're seeing right
now.
HEATHER KERR, DRC COUNTRY DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL RESCUE COMMITTEE: Well, the situation on the ground in Eritrea is really very, very serious. As the
doctor said, I mean, there's so many cases and we're running out of time. I really feel that we need to catch up because this -- I mean, this outbreak
started probably in January. We heard that today, that the actual index case presented in the health center in Rwampara back at the end of January,
and he died at the end of February.
So, this means this particular strain of Ebola has been out there for really quite a few -- for many, many weeks. So, we don't really know what
the spread is. So, we're very worried on the ground. And so, is the population.
As I'm sure you know, treatment units will tend to be used. Treatment units have been set on fire. There's such a lot of mistrust in the community. And
this, I feel, is where we all really have to start. We have to start by building the trust with the community and have the health and the medical
response going alongside.
And we saw this in the 2018 outbreak in Benin. And we found that once we built the trust of the community and the community leaders were the people
who were working with their communities, telling them what Ebola is and where they need to present, then things started to go better. So, we really
need to make these things go hand in hand. But yes, we really feel that things are spiraling out of control.
GOLODRYGA: And one thing that I continue to hear from those aid workers and organizations on the ground there is concern about the lack of PPP,
basic PPP, and just the lack of infrastructure as a whole.
So, Heather, let me ask you, does the DRC have enough resources at this point from what you're seeing to treat the growing number of cases?
KERR: Well, there is a lack of PPE. I mean, quite a lot has been sent in, and it's one of the things that we've done. We've distributed some PPE to
government health workers. But, you know, so much more is needed. The response plan's being developed by the Ministry of Health and WHO, and it's
a very ambitious plan, and it requires a lot of funding. I mean, the budget for three months is $230 million, and that's got to come from somewhere.
There's many of us responders on the ground. We've got our accreditation. We're ready to respond. But we, A, need to get the equipment in, and it's
becoming harder because the borders all around us are closing. So, the only flights in from Kinshasa to Bunia are U.N. flights, which are still going.
But we need more of them so that we can get people in, but also so that we can get the aid in.
Yes. So, it's a very tricky situation, and this is taking place in a conflict zone where there are many displaced people. There are over a
million displaced people in Ituri. So, very complex situation.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And, Dr. Bhadelia, I saw you nodding your head when I mentioned PPE. It's an acronym we became quite familiar with when covering
COVID. You were one of the many experts that we had on our air talking about that pandemic.
I do want to get you to respond to something that Heather just mentioned about the criticism directed at the WHO by the secretary of state, Marco
Rubio, saying that they were late to respond and not tracking this latest outbreak fast enough. The U.S. withdrew from the WHO, as we know.
[13:30:00]
Just talk about the concern that you may have or may not have. I don't know. I don't want to put words in your mouth about that kind of statement
and about the U.S. not being part of the WHO. What does that mean in terms of reality on the ground in treating these types of outbreaks without the
U.S.?
DR. BHADELIA: Yes, Bianna. Let me start by saying WHO doesn't do on-the- ground surveillance. It is the countries and the regions themselves that do that, and then they coordinate, they inform the WHO, and then the WHO sends
in, which is a member-state organization where member-states pay dues.
As you remember -- as you mentioned, the United States pulled out of the WHO and left our member-state bill unpaid. So, we have actually withdrawn
our contributions in this member-state organization, which is what is supposed to help in these kinds of emergency situations.
The other way, as you mentioned, that our lack of presence in this area because of the dismantling of USAID has contributed is that many of the
organizations that are part of this response would have USAID funding, would have additional presence on the ground, as would our own agencies,
which would make the coordination and operation of the response faster. I do want to comment on the PPE side. I worked as a clinician in the ETUs,
the Ebola Treatment Units, for a very long time.
This is a very labor-intensive disease for healthcare workers to take care of. Many of these patients present like cholera patients. They're
completely dehydrated, and it requires a lot of oral rehydration or intravenous fluid, and healthcare workers have to balance their own safety
against the survival of their patients.
And think about -- if you step back, if everybody who presents with Ebola early on may look like malaria. You need that PPE, not just ETUs, but you
need them in every clinic where there's tons of potential infectious diseases cases presenting, and that's what I would imagine the healthcare
workers right now are facing in DRC.
GOLODRYGA: Heather, a new study in Journal of Science correlates the recent USAID cuts with the double-digit spike that we've seen in violence
across Africa. You're dealing with M23 rebels now in the middle of a hot zone. Is it even possible to try to contain an outbreak like this when
you've got an active war zone around you?
KERR: Well, it makes it much, much, much harder, and that'd be one of the things that we'd be calling for would really be to stop any military
operations, but that's very hard to make happen. And as I say, you've also got many, many people displaced and on the move, and people being on the
move when you've got an Ebola outbreak is extremely dangerous, and that's how it gets to spread to different provinces. So, I mean, it has actually
spread all the way to South Kivu, which is a long way from Ituri, and we're seeing more health zones affected in North Kivu, but you can't stop people
moving around.
So, yes, in a conflict area, having Ebola, it makes it far harder to contain than it would in an area where there is no conflict.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, that is understandable. It speaks for itself. I do, Dr. Bhadelia, want to get to this specific outbreak. This is the DRC's 17th
Ebola outbreak, I believe, the third largest now on record. Talk about what makes this particular strain fundamentally different than the ones that
you've seen previously.
DR. BHADELIA: So, the Bundibugyo species of Ebola, we've only seen two other prior outbreaks of, which means we have a lot less clinical
experience, but also there hasn't been as much investment made in medical countermeasures like vaccines and treatments. So, in the absence of that,
you know, early -- presenting, early to care is important, and ability to provide good supportive care is important. And what we know currently is
that although there are two vaccine candidates that are being moved towards a potential trial, it may take months.
And additionally, there are some medical treatments, monoclonal antibodies, as well as an antiviral. At least the monoclonal antibodies may be a little
bit quicker, as might be the antiviral. All of that, the whole point will be how do we distribute that? How do we get those trials into place? Again,
complicating factors are remoteness of this outbreak, the conflict, as you mentioned, and the distrust.
What, for me, complicates the entire thing is that we lost time. And if we don't know how big it is, when you have an earthquake, you set up an
operating center in one place, where is the epicenter. But if the epicenter, as Heather said, is multiple urban places, multiple rural
places. It's not just about the resources, it's about getting them to the places where they're needed.
[13:35:00]
GOLODRYGA: And, Dr. Bhadelia, for viewers who haven't been following this closely, Ebola kills up to 90 percent of those infected. That is just a
shocking statistic. Mechanically, can you explain to us what makes this particular virus so lethal?
DR. BHADELIA: Yes. It's actually -- after West Africa, we've seen that the mortality of Ebola can be very variable. The average in my Ebola treatment
unit in Sierra Leone was about 50 to 60 percent. Huge part of mortality is actually related to how quickly you come to care and how good -- even
supportive, care you receive.
So, for example, returning travelers in West Africa, Americans like me who were brought back who may have been infected, actually mortality in those
patients was less than 20 percent because they got targeted therapies. And so, huge part of Ebola mortality is tied to good care, but also access to
therapeutics.
What makes it a deadly disease is that it's a one-two punch. Early on, you can present like malaria, typhoid, cholera, as I mentioned, where patients
have flu-like symptoms, may have diarrhea. In later situations, it -- the virus not just attacks your own body's cells, but also revs up your immune
system, which can lead to later presentations, including hemorrhagic presentations like, you know, blood in your stool or vomit, et cetera. It's
not like Hollywood. Patients present like septic shock with some bleeding in their vomiting, et cetera.
GOLODRYGA: I want to end by asking you, Heather, because Dr. Bhadelia has given us her personal experience with covering past outbreaks there, what
this is like for you and the message that you would like to send to viewers who are watching this around the world about why they should be alarmed and
what more they can do to perhaps press their own elected officials to provide more funding and basic essentials like PPE, as you said.
KERR: Absolutely. No, thank you. I've worked in two previous Ebola outbreaks. I've worked in the West Africa outbreak in Sierra Leone, and I
worked up in Beni in between 2018 and 2020, a particular Ebola outbreak.
And as country director, when I came this time to DRC, I said to myself, I'm sure I won't have to manage another Ebola outbreak, or how wrong I was.
But I'm glad to have the experience to bring. And I've got an experienced team, which is really excellent to help on the ground.
So, as I said earlier, I mean, time is of the essence for this particular outbreak. The speed of it is really frightening. People on the ground are
frightened. We are really keen to do a good response. I need to keep my staff safe. That's my number one priority, as well as doing a good
response.
So, my ask is, this outbreak needs funding. In the one in 2018, you know, the money came in quickly. But that's not -- isn't the case -- and I think
it is the case this time. So, definitely asking for funding for this response.
GOLODRYGA: Well, Heather Kerr, thank you for all the work that you and your team are doing. Please stay safe. Their safety is paramount. And, Dr.
Nahid Bhadelia, thank you so much for your expertise and all the work that you've done to fight a number of these types of diseases that we've seen
over the last few decades. Really appreciate the time.
And still to come for us, America's national debt is now bigger than its economy. So, what can policymakers do to stop the crisis from spiraling out
of control? Maya MacGuineas shares her expertise with Walter Isaacson after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:40:00]
GOLODRYGA: Now, three months into the war with Iran, the U.S. government's borrowing costs are at their highest since 2007, with American taxpayers
having to potentially fork out billions of dollars in interest.
This as the national debt surpassed the size of the U.S. economy in late March. So, what does this spell for the country's financial future? Maya
MacGuineas is the president of the Nonprofit Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, and she speaks to Walter Isaacson about what policymakers
can do to reel in this crisis.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Thank you, Bianna. And, Maya MacGuineas, welcome to the show.
MAYA MACGUINEAS, PRESIDENT, COMMITTEE FOR A RESPONSIBLE FEDERAL BUDGET: So, nice to join you. Thank you.
ISAACSON: So, we've just hit a milestone. Our debt is $39 trillion. And the milestone is that's as much as our entire GDP, our gross domestic
product. How much of a milestone is that and what's the significance?
MACGUINEAS: So, we are hitting a lot of fiscal records when it comes to our debt, and none of them are good. Debt as a share of the economy hitting
100 percent of GDP is something that has rarely happened in this country. Only twice before, once briefly during COVID and right after World War II.
It's an inauspicious situation where we are now running a debt that is larger than the entire economy produces in a year. And the problem is we
are supposed to -- we are projected to race right past that and continue to borrow more with our debt as a share of GDP growing.
Now, there's nothing magical about 100 percent. It's not like that's a tipping point. It is one of the many speed bumps or reminders that the
fiscal policies of the country are really unsound. And we need to make changes to get it back into a territory where there are fewer things to
worry about. This is a big, big warning sign.
ISAACSON: Well, the markets seem rather sanguine. Why is that?
MACGUINEAS: Yes, they do. The problem is that markets and national debt actually are kind of on different time frames. If you look at the national
debt, where we're headed, we see projections of it growing indefinitely. Markets are very short-term oriented. And some of the things that make the
debt worse can actually feed markets because they like fiscal stimulus.
They like big tax cuts. They like new spending programs because those juice the economy in the short run they can help you this year, year and a half,
but they make things worse in the long run. The more that you borrow, the more it actually slows down the economy. But the market is very short-term
oriented, focusing on those things. And that's why markets don't tend to predict when there will be some kind of a fiscal emergency.
What we do see, though, is ongoing nervousness in the bond markets and with interest rates. As interest rates are gradually getting pushed upwards for
a lot of reasons, certainly one of them is all of the excess of borrowing that we have in our economy right now. That puts upward pressure on those
interest rates. And we're seeing that.
ISAACSON: Those interest rates going up, you talk about people having a short-term view, but it's especially true for the long bonds, in other
words, 30-year treasuries. Is that a signal because of the deficit?
MACGUINEAS: So, a lot is going on in our economy and our world right now. But absolutely, the deficit is one of the things that's affecting the
pushing up of the 10 year and the 30 year that we're seeing in the markets right now.
So, one thing markets don't like is uncertainty. And this is a world filled with uncertainty right now, clearly on the global stage in terms of
geopolitical risks, what's going on with oil. But also, we are seeing people worrying about the debt in the U.S. and around the world because
there are a number of things factoring into this. Our plans are to continue borrowing at least two trillion dollars a year. A lot of policies are on
the horizon that are likely to push that up even more.
And populism, the fact that the political parties now kind of compete with each other to see who can give away more to win voters' support rather than
taking the longer view, we've got to do something to get the debt under control and we're going to put in a plan. All of those are worrying markets
where they see that it's likely that we are going to have inflation over the longer run, higher interest rates, all of those things that slow
economic growth. And you can see the fiscal underpinnings of the situation is contributing to that on a regular basis these days.
[13:45:00]
ISAACSON: Well, you talk about the rise of populism, but I can remember when the populism meant being against runaway federal spending, being
against having too much debt. When did that change?
MACGUINEAS: You know, it's been a huge shift because for so long, obviously, there have been two parties. They disagree with each other. But
routinely, when the fiscal situation would get out of control, and this was at much lower levels than we have today, both parties would come together,
acknowledge the problem and put in place reforms that would gradually bring those debt -- those borrowing trajectories down. That's something we don't
see anymore.
And I think, you know, the growth of partisanship and populism has led to a lot of big shifts in our country right now. But one of them is that almost
every election feels like, quote/unquote, "existential threat." Both parties are justifying almost anything because they feel like they need to
win at all costs. And one of the shifts there has been, OK, I am going to give big tax cuts and new spending programs.
It used to be that there was kind of the generalization that Democrats liked spending and Republicans liked tax cuts. Both of those will make the
fiscal situation worse if they aren't paid for. But it's shifted now where both Republicans and Democrats prefer tax cuts. They might look different,
but they both like tax cuts and new spending programs and promises not to fix the very things we need to fix, Social Security and Medicare.
So, you kind of have an unholy alliance between the parties of doing all the things that will make the fiscal situation worse, all in defense of
winning elections. But there are none of the adults in the room who come forward and say, OK, this milestone of debt as 100 percent of GDP or the
fact that Social Security is going to be insolvent in just six years mean that we need to make changes. You're not hearing those voices. You're not
seeing that kind of leadership.
ISAACSON: Well, both parties seem to be on a race to cut taxes and do more spending. And you said the adults in the room aren't there to say no. What
can we do to stop this?
MACGUINEAS: So, there's -- none of the solutions are things we're not familiar with. There are only things we're unwilling to do. I would say the
place we really need to start is by fixing Social Security. It will be insolvent in less than seven years. And when that happens, if we haven't
made changes, there will be across the board benefit cuts of 24 percent for every participant. That's unconscionable. Nobody thinks that's a good idea.
We know the kinds of things we need to look at to fix Social Security. These are the things politicians won't talk about. But we need to gradually
raise the retirement age for younger people who are living longer. We need to talk about whether means testing in one form where we reduce the
benefits from what they're promised to be for people who don't need them as much so that we can protect them for people who do.
And there's a cap on payroll taxes. We should talk about lifting that so that taxes go all the way up the income level and the program will be more
funded. There's different combinations of those things, but we need to be talking about them.
At the same time, we have to look at all the different places we can generate savings. I would say look at defense procurement. There's a lot of
savings to be had there. Look at our health care system, which is just filled with inefficiencies through the hospitals, the insurers,
prescription drugs, all of those powerful industries are actually sort of fighting against some of the changes that we could implement, many of which
are bipartisanly supported to help make savings in health care.
And then finally, you have to look at revenues. Anybody who talks about no new taxes isn't looking at the numbers. We're going to have to figure out a
way to generate new revenues, one that can come from economic growth, but that won't do it nearly at all on its own.
We should look at, for instance, $25 trillion in lost revenue due to tax breaks over a decade. All those credits, deductions, exemptions,
exclusions. I could go on. The list is very long in a $7 trillion a year budget where we could generate savings. It's just that they're not
politically easy to talk about. And we need to create an environment where our politicians are able to be more honest about the risks of these
deficits and the realities of what it would take to fix them.
ISAACSON: Well, we've just hit this rather shocking milestone of having our total national debt equal our GDP for one year. And yet, and correct me
if I'm wrong, it seems a deficit is going to go up 16 percent this coming year. That's what the Trump administration predicts. Is that right? And is
that adding to this problem in a surprising way?
MACGUINEAS: Yes. So, deficits are likely to continue to grow for a number of reasons. One, there's new spending on invasion, the invasion of -- the
geopolitical situation that we see around the world and the situation that the U.S. is in. That is going to cost a lot. Two, tariff revenue, which was
bringing in important level of revenue, has been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. So, we'll be generating less in revenue than we've
been hoping for.
[13:50:00]
And three, now we're likely to see a number of reconciliation bills coming out of Congress, which my deep concern is they will borrow more, not less.
Reconciliation is a process that used to be used to reduce deficits. Boy, should we go back to that. But the reconciliation bill that we just saw
that moved tax cuts forward, those in the past that have moved spending programs, they have not improved the fiscal situation. That would be a
great thing that we could return to.
But the pressure is that we will generate more borrowing than already planned through additional spending that we're seeing right now and the
loss of the tariff revenue unless it's replaced. So, yes, these deficits are likely to be $2 trillion or more for all the coming years. It's another
reminder, just like debt at 100 percent of GDP, that changes absolutely have to be made.
ISAACSON: Well, you've just been saying we're not very good at disciplining ourselves these days, either party. Is there some outside
force that can discipline us, such as really bad rising interest rates or inflation or the market?
MACGUINEAS: You know, it's so sad that it probably will have to be something like that. One of our board members always said we're going to
fix this problem. The question is whether it will come from leadership or crisis. It is becoming increasingly likely that there will be some kind of
crisis, that this is forced upon us by bond markets getting skittish, by foreigners not wanting to lend to the U.S., by interest rates continuing to
grow or another bout of high inflation. All of those things would be improved and avoided if we got our deficits and debt under control now.
There's another outside force that I'm starting to see more signs of, which is younger people who are really concerned about their future. They have
the pressure of what does A.I. mean for jobs? How is hiring out of college? But on top of this, we know that Social Security will be insolvent in six
years. All of the plans are going to protect retirees. So, younger people realize, oh, I'm going to have to fix that, along with inheriting tens of
trillions of national debt.
And I think we're going to see young people starting to say all this borrowing so we can go on a spending spree as a country today but push the
bills on to younger people in the future, that's not fair.
ISAACSON: Wait, wait, wait. Let me push back on that.
MACGUINEAS: Please.
ISAACSON: Do you have any signs that younger people are saying that?
MACGUINEAS: I do. We've been hearing a lot recently of younger people starting to say that, well, unfortunately, you see it on social media,
which is not my favorite place to hang out. But, yes, there have been signs of that. There have been organizations that are starting to come up that
are thinking about this. And in Congress, a lot of the younger members talk more and more about some of these issues, that we need to think about the
future and the long run.
So, I will say I don't think 20-year-olds are going home and talking about the fiscal situation of the country as their number one issue. They're
worried about the high cost of student debt, the inability to borrow and get a mortgage.
But what is linked is the fact that the more we're borrowing today is all pushing those costs to be higher. Part of this affordability challenge that
we have is that the borrowing today is pushing up interest rates and prices, many of which are affecting younger people. So, yes, we have
started to hear a lot more from people who are starting to worry about that on an intergenerational angle.
ISAACSON: So, we have $39 trillion in debt, 100 percent of our GDP. We have to pay interest on that debt. And I think about 20 percent of the
budget now is just going to interest payments. And that's more than education, transportation, research and development combined. What does it
say about our country when we spend more paying for past borrowing than we do for our services?
MACGUINEAS: Walter, I think this is honestly one of the most troubling signs that we're seeing, that we are spending a trillion dollars on
interest payments a year, some of which is leaving a good deal of which is leaving our economy and going abroad to foreigners who have lent to us.
But interest payments are larger than national defense. There has been a study that showed no country ever remained a superpower when it was
spending more on interest payments than national defense. It's more than we spend at the federal level on all spending for children. Talk about
focusing on consumption from the past instead of investment in the future. Really troubling.
And on top of all of that, interest payments are the single fastest growing part of our federal budget. And it's the one thing we don't control, right?
So, we can't bring them down unless we bring the deficits down and that in turn brings those interest rates down. But this is something that is the
result of people saying, oh, deficits, don't worry about them. Nothing will happen in the past. And now, that sort of catching up with us in these
interest payments that are squeezing out all the other important priorities, the budget.
And I would say at a time where it's incredibly important to have a flexible, flexible budget. We know that risks around the world are growing.
We know that that's expensive.
[13:55:00]
We know that A.I., whether it's the greatest thing that's ever happened or a terrible dystopian thing or most likely something in between, is going to
have transition costs while we have to figure out how to adapt to it. That's going to require partnering with the federal government to help. But
we don't have the fiscal flexibility right now in our budget because we've made so many promises and we owe so much in interest payment right now. So,
it's going to have a profound effect as interest keeps us from having the budget that we need for the modern moment.
ISAACSON: Maya MacGuineas, thank you so much for joining us.
MACGUINEAS: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: And that is it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. And remember, you
can always catch us online, on our website, and all-over social media. Thanks so much for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
