Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Israel Policy Forum Fellow and Former Adviser to Shimon Peres Nimrod Novik; Interview with Lebanese President Joseph Aoun; Interview with FBI Former Executive Assistant Director Jacqueline Maguire. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired June 08, 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]
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOSEPH AOUN, LEBANESE PRESIDENT: We have to keep trying. We have to try to find, by all means, to settle this problem or to end this conflict.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: The Lebanese president makes a plea for peace as the Middle East war threatens to escalate. We bring you more of my exclusive conversation
with Joseph Aoun.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JACQUELINE MAGUIRE, FORMER EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, FBI: The FBI has been, I think, the agency that has been impacted the most by the actions of
the Trump administration.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- Michel Martin talks to Jacqueline Maguire, an FBI veteran and public critic of Director Kash Patel's leadership.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London.
For a while, it looked like the Middle East war might tip into full-scale fighting again after the first major exchange of fire between Israel and
Iran since the April ceasefire. President Trump responded, posting, Israel and Iran must immediately stop shooting.
Tehran announced it had suspended military operations against Israel, but warns that strikes will resume if attacks on Lebanon continue. Then, less
than an hour after that, the Israelis struck a number of villages in southern Lebanon. Trump even said that he calls the shots, not the prime
minister of Israel. And Lebanon has become both a potential tripwire and collateral damage.
Now, when I spoke with the president, Joseph Aoun, in Beirut on Friday, he addressed the Israeli government and the Israeli people directly.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOSEPH AOUN, LEBANESE PRESIDENT: Do you really want to live in a perpetual war? Aren't you fed up with wars since 1948? Do you want really to live in
peace? Let's sit and talk.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: We'll have more of my exclusive conversation with President Aoun in a moment, but first, let's bring in Nimrod Novik, a veteran Israeli
negotiator and former senior diplomatic advisor to then Prime Minister Shimon Peres.
Nimrod Novik, welcome back to the program. So, how do you sort of describe what just happened overnight? What do you think was the aim?
NIMROD NOVIK, FELLOW, ISRAEL POLICY FORUM AND FORMER ADVISER TO SHIMON PERES: Well, I wish more of us would heed the request of the president of
Lebanon, quite courageous, calling us to sit down and talk peace seriously.
What we are seeing right now is an exhibition of Iran's bravado, a sense of vindictiveness. The regime survived and therefore assumed that it won. It
was inflicted very heavy pain, but apparently the regime is more resilient and as long as the pain is on the population, that's all right.
And what Iran is trying to do is really reverse its historical course, where Hezbollah in Lebanon was supposed to come to aid Iran if Israel were
to strike it. Now, they reversed the direction and they are the ones who are trying to defend their remaining asset in the region.
But as our prime minister and others have already said, Israel cannot accept the situation whereby Israel cannot defend itself in Lebanon because
Iran might strike. So, here we are in a three-way chess game.
AMANPOUR: Yes, indeed. And of course, with all these ceasefires that get signed, let's say, between Israel and Lebanon, the actual fight is between
Israel and Hezbollah and they're not party to the ceasefire. So, it's all pretty difficult and strange to figure out how it's going to.
But you said you wish more people would heed the words of President Aoun and would get to that. But what about heeding the words of President Trump?
[13:05:00]
President Trump has made it very clear that he told your prime minister not to hit Iran, that's a red line, and certainly not to hit Beirut, that's
another red line. Israel seemed to agree after, you know, after the showdown last night, but nonetheless says that it will still hit South
Lebanon, Southern Lebanon. Again, how do you see this? Because who's calling the shots?
NOVIK: Well, many in Israel wonder how do we get to this point where on issues of national security decisions are not made in Jerusalem. Yes, you
pointed out the sentiment in the country. We are at a position where decisions on major issues are made in Washington, and that's a phenomenon
of the last couple of years now.
The ceasefire in Gaza was imposed by Trump. Various ceasefires in Lebanon were imposed by him. Netanyahu's apologies to the -- embarrassing apologies
to the Emir of Qatar after Israel struck Hamas militants in his capital was one. There was a series of events where the president really imposed his
will on the prime minister, and too many, it is puzzling. What is it that brought us to the point -- yes.
AMANPOUR: Well, just to ask you, that means the president of the United States appears to want and keep saying he wants and that he's close to
getting an end of war or peace deal with Iran. Clearly, the prime minister of Israel doesn't feel that way. He wants to keep having the ability to
bomb Iran. Where do you stand on that?
NOVIK: Well, look, when you enter a war on the basis of flawed assumptions and wrong analysis, you end up with a situation with no good options. The
assumption that led the prime minister, and at least to the extent that it was made public the president as well, was that this would be a Venezuela
take-two.
Very quickly the regime will collapse. The ballistic missile threat will be eliminated. The nuclear weapons threat will be dealt with for eternity.
Iran's relations with proxies, with militant proxies in the region will end, none of which have been accomplished. And one problem that never
existed emerged to top the agenda, and that's the closure of the Hormuz -- Strait of Hormuz, which affects global economy.
So, yes, you enter the war on the basis of false assumptions, and today you don't have good options. I think that the assumption that Israel, even
jointly with the awesome America, can overnight change the regime in Iran was a fantasy, and we are paying the price of expectations unmet.
AMANPOUR: Right. So, the former prime minister, Yair Lapid, who is in an alliance with former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett to contest the next
round of elections, he has said the current round of fighting serves no strategic objective for the State of Israel. Do you agree with him? And
given everything you just said about entering a war on false, whatever, false assumptions, poor war gaming, do you think it would rather benefit
Israel to try to get to an end to this war rather than keep going at it?
NOVIK: Absolutely. It is not that I'm optimistic about the substance of a possible agreement. It's not going to be a good agreement. But any
agreement that stops the fighting, opens up the Hormuz Strait, and gives the parties the time to seriously negotiate the nuclear issue. The other
issues are troubling, are very serious. Ballistic missiles, proxies, and so on. But none are as important as the nuclear issue.
The nuclear issue is complicated, and therefore requires time, and therefore a stable ceasefire. The 60 days that the president has in mind,
which probably will be extended with another 60, might give the beginning of time to negotiate a very complicated issue that took the Obama
administration two years to conclude.
[13:10:00]
AMANPOUR: Exactly. Nimrod Novik, you know, as we just mentioned, there's an election coming up in your country. Polls suggest that your Prime
Minister Netanyahu is vulnerable. Apparently one poll internally by the Times of Israel showed that parties not aligned with Netanyahu could get a
majority if elections were held today.
What do you think a new prime minister would do differently? And added to that, do you think there is any danger that Netanyahu keeps using this
confrontation with Iran as a political strategy heading into these elections?
NOVIK: I'm afraid so, because the polls also show that -- and polls of past elections show that what's uppermost in the mind of the electorate in
the days, in the lead-up to elections, affects their choices. Two, three mandates here and there, whether the issue is security or the issue is
another. And there are plenty of issues in this country.
But to your main question, when I look at the five leaders of the opposition parties, assuming that they will form the next government, I see
them as having one mind on several issues. Let me start with what they are not. They are not ready to, the day after elections, to run to Ramallah,
embrace Abu Mazen and sign a two-state agreement. That's not in the cards on our side, on the Palestinian side and otherwise.
But what are they in one mind, which differs dramatically with Netanyahu? One, they want to end the war in Gaza. Two, they want to end the war in
Lebanon. Three, they are all in one mind that we have to deal firmly with Jewish terrorism on the West Bank. Next, they all believe that the
Palestinian Authority, with all its flaws, is an essential partner.
For some of them, it is a partner for an eventual, one day over the horizon, two-state agreement. For others, like Bennett, whom you mentioned,
it is just to spare Israel the need to care for the lives and fund the lives of three million Palestinians on the West Bank. So, even though there
are not two states tomorrow morning, it's going to be a sea change that will change dramatically the dynamics on the ground and Israel's standing
in the region and beyond.
AMANPOUR: You know, you work for Shimon Peres and also in the sort of atmosphere of Yitzhak Rabin. They both came to the conclusion that there
was no military end to this. The president of Lebanon, who is a former military commander, says the same thing. It has to be negotiated. I hear
what you just said. Do you think there will be a serious attempt to work towards negotiation to end it?
NOVIK: If you're talking about the Palestinian issue?
AMANPOUR: Yes.
NOVIK: I think -- well, I believe that the two-state solution is way over the horizon. But that doesn't mean that one cannot have a sea change on the
ground by pursuing a different policy. A policy that considered, as I mentioned, the Palestinian Authority as a partner rather than an enemy. A
dynamics that put a hold on settlement expansion, settler violence and all that. Give the Palestinian Authority hope and space.
AMANPOUR: OK. I hear you. And that's a really important thing that you've just said. So, Nimrod Novik, thank you very much for being with us.
And stay with CNN because we'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:15:00]
AMANPOUR: When Iran announced it was suspending attacks on Israel, it warned they would start up again if Israel strikes on Lebanon continued. As
we've discussed, those strikes are in fact continuing, which makes Lebanon the key to determining whether this about escalation or de-escalation. And
the country is suffering for it.
Two Lebanese army officers and a soldier were killed in a weekend attack by Israel. Now, the Israeli defense forces say they are investigating, but
Beirut calls the attack aggressive and barbaric. President Joseph Aoun says it was, quote, "a flagrant violation of Lebanese sovereignty and
international law."
Before that incident, I had sat down with President Aoun for an exclusive interview. We brought you the first part of that conversation on Friday.
Now, here's more, including his direct messages to Israelis, Iranians, and his own Lebanese people.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Are you prepared to keep the negotiations with Israel going under the American auspices? How is that going at all?
JOSEPH AOUN, LEBANESE PRESIDENT: Actually, I have no other choice. I'm trying to benefit from President Trump's personal interest in ending this
conflict. And as I said, it's very difficult, but we are committed to it. We have no other choice. So, we're counting on President Trump and his team
to make a breakthrough.
But we did yesterday or the day before, it was a tough negotiation until we were able to make -- to have a major breakthrough, which is a ceasefire,
and exchange of the Israeli -- of Hezbollah withdrawal from the southern part of Lebanon, South Litany sector area.
AMANPOUR: And are they going to do it?
AOUN: This different. They came up with this initiative, and we're trying to work it out. It's very difficult, but we have no other choice. We have
to keep trying. We have to try to find, by all means, to settle this problem or to end this conflict. It's in the best interest of both sides.
AMANPOUR: What is on the table? Is it a full-scale peace agreement like Jordan has with Israel or --
AOUN: No, actually, for the time being, it's a non-aggression agreement, security agreement, you name it. We need to end the state of hostility
between Lebanon and Israel forever. And this could be a path forward for just and lasting peace.
And as far as the peace is concerned, we are part of the Arab initiative of 2002 in Beirut. So, we are part of the Arab initiative, and we are
committed to it. But you cannot jump from A to Z directly. You have to go through different steps. The intermediate step is the cessation of
hostility or ending the state of hostility between Lebanon and Israel.
AMANPOUR: Would you ever meet Prime Minister Netanyahu?
AOUN: Not now, depending on where we are.
AMANPOUR: What would it take?
AOUN: Not before reaching an agreement.
AMANPOUR: To end a first phase agreement to end the war.
AOUN: Exactly.
AMANPOUR: Let me just ask you point blank right now. Is there a ceasefire?
AOUN: I'm working on it. It's very difficult.
AMANPOUR: What about these pilot zones that you're talking about? And everybody's being quite taken by the Israeli reoccupation of what's in
English called the Beaufort Castle. It's a very historic and important symbol.
AOUN: Exactly. During the negotiation, the military-to-military negotiation, they come up with the pilot zone. Actually, this concept came
up before -- during Christmas when we decided to increase our representation in Naqoura with a civilian, which was Simon Karam. They came
up with the pilot zone. The pilot zone stands for an area that the LAF will occupy, clear it.
AMANPOUR: The Lebanese Army.
AOUN: The LAF, the Lebanese Armed Forces, actually. I'm sorry. Occupy it, and then we can move from another region to another region. It's like a
trial region. It's a test region. It's not only that. We start rebuilding it.
[13:20:00]
During this negotiation, we proposed -- I personally proposed the Chateau de Beaufort area, the Chateau de area, because it's symbolic and it's very
close to one of the largest Shiite cities in the south, which is Nabatieh. So, I propose that the Israelis withdraw from it and then the Lebanese
armed forces will deploy in order to clean it, but on one condition, that we have a complete ceasefire, because you cannot send your troops while the
fire is going on, the shooting is going on, so you'll be risking the life of the troops. So, this the idea, and if it works, then we'll move into
another area.
AMANPOUR: You have said that you cannot go from A to Z overnight, and it sometimes takes years. You mentioned the FARC, the rebels in Colombia,
before they came to an agreement with the Colombian government, it took years. You mentioned the IRA before they came to an agreement, it took
years, decades, with a lot of intervention by the United States and others, a lot of real help to get there. Disarmament has always been part of these
end-of-war scenarios, but Hezbollah refuses to disarm.
Do you think there was any opportunity recently that they would have looked at this issue, because we read that there was, and then there was another
bout of fighting?
AOUN: Remember, I mentioned the root causes of its existence. In the first place, Hezbollah was established in response to the Israeli invasion of
1982. The war should have been stopped in 2000, after the accomplishment of the weapon, at that time, accomplished its mission by liberating the
country. But after 2000, Hezbollah took major strategic mistakes.
AMANPOUR: I was just going to say, at that time, that's when Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000.
AOUN: Exactly, from Lebanon in 2000. Removing the root causes, that's my main strategy. By ending the state of hostility and strengthening the
government institution, the security agencies, the Lebanese armed forces, and other government institutions, so that we can reason with Hezbollah and
we can present them with an alternative, that the state is ready to protect the country and to protect everybody.
They are Lebanese, you have the right to live in dignity, but under the protection of the state, otherwise, if they don't agree to turn down their
weapon or to reason or to negotiate with the government, then they will be held accountable before their people. Their people will discredit them.
AMANPOUR: So, let me talk about the people, because in conversation with people, personally, in interviews, reading about what they say, it is
clear, as we've discussed, that they are fed up. Every group in Lebanon is fed up and wants an end to this, and wants a non-state actor to stop
threatening its sovereignty as a state.
And yet, including some of your own former national security officials, your military commanders and this and that, they are very wary of a
forcible disarmament by the state of Hezbollah, because they do not want to tip this country back into civil war. Do you understand that?
AOUN: Definitely. Listen, there is a concept, the military concept, it's called preparation of the battlefield. It doesn't mean that you have to set
up your artillery, your tank. It's to shape up the environment. Before reaching that part, we have to shape up the environment. We have to
convince the mass base. We have to remove the root causes of the existence of the weapon. And then -- and we can move -- we can proceed.
And as I said at the beginning, it requires a strategy with multiple lines of effort. The kinetic part of is now 10 percent. The rest is political,
social, and economic.
In 1975, the first institution to collapse was the Lebanese armed forces. As a result, we saw the disintegration of the government institutions and
the emergence of local militias, Christian and Muslim. The normal people had to resort to their militias for security, safety, food, basic needs.
Now, it's the time for the government to replace those militias. The main is the Shiite communities, believe me, are fed up. But you need -- we need
to provide them with alternative, which is the government.
[13:25:00]
The equation is simple. Strong government institution can overshadow all non-state actors. Weak government institution, the non-state actors will
overshadow the state. So, we have -- we need to work on strengthening this government institution, whether security agencies militarily or other
institutions, and to work on removing the root causes of the existence of the weapon.
AMANPOUR: Do you --
AOUN: Other way will be, it will be a disaster.
AMANPOUR: Again, you know, we --
AOUN: It will never achieve its objective.
AMANPOUR: I want to ask you whether you think Hezbollah and Iran are somehow strengthened, and I don't necessarily mean physically strengthened,
by the Israeli-U.S. war on Iran, because everybody expected it to do exactly the opposite.
You remember when Israel, you know, had this pretty successful anti- Hezbollah, from the exploding pages to the killing of Hassan Nasrallah, their leader, and on and on and on. And then the weakening militarily of
Iran. And yet, both the State of Iran and the non-state actor Hezbollah are still firing, still doing their thing, still there. And in fact, Israel has
been flummoxed by Hezbollah's rather innovative asymmetric war. Do you think they're stronger?
AOUN: Hezbollah?
AMANPOUR: The whole lot. Do you think they're stronger since this war?
AOUN: It's not -- their strength is not measured by their capabilities only. Their strength is measured by their presence. Even if only one person
exists, it means for them it's something. So -- and when you're fighting an asymmetric warfare, it doesn't require highly advanced capabilities. It
requires some operations behind enemy lines.
We have many examples throughout history that shows the conventional forces engaged in asymmetric warfare never been able to achieve their objective.
And it's a war of attrition. It's a costly war. So, it's not the question of capabilities only, but it's a question of beliefs. It's a question of
presence. It's a question of willingness. And to do what they believe that they are doing is sacred.
AMANPOUR: Do you think they have a higher pain threshold than either Israel or the United States? Do you think Iran and Hezbollah have a higher
pain endurance, tolerance?
AOUN: You know that Iran or the Iranians are famous for, you know, making carpets. It takes a long time to make a carpet. So, this reflects their
diplomacy and strategy.
AMANPOUR: You've been on the battlefield. Tell me a little bit -- and I know you've been wounded. Tell me the state of your body after 42 years in
combat and on the battlefield.
AOUN: That's why -- because I've served for 42 years in the army and eight years as a commander-in-chief of the Lebanese Armed Forces, I've been in
combat situation many times. I was wounded twice. I've seen the hardship of the war. That's why I hate wars. That's why I prefer negotiation over wars,
because I don't want my children, I don't want the people in Lebanon to live the same hardship. And this the only way to end this conflict again,
to end this bloody conflict in a very peaceful manner.
AMANPOUR: So, you still carry shrapnel, as you were telling me.
AOUN: Yes, exactly.
AMANPOUR: Yes. And your ear is damaged by the sound of combat in close quarters. And yet, you are the president of this country. The presidency,
as I understand it, is not the main executive arm, right? I mean, you're executive, but you have a more limited, sort of more, not just ceremonial,
but more of a moral and father of the nation capacity. It's the other groups --
AOUN: You're absolutely right.
AMANPOUR: Right? That's how it works.
AOUN: Yes.
AMANPOUR: So, what can you do --
AOUN: It's not the presidential system.
AMANPOUR: Right. It's not exactly. So, what can you actually do, you yourself, in this office?
AOUN: Actually, I have -- according -- I swear, I know, first of all, to protect the country and to safeguard its territorial integrity. And my job
is to work very closely with the prime minister and the speaker of the parliament. And we are working in harmony, we are in line with everything
we're doing. We coordinate the slightest problem or the slightest situation together. And this the job of the president. But negotiation is a
prerogative of the president according to the Constitution, Article 52.
[13:30:00]
But I'm doing it in close consultation with the prime minister and the speaker of parliament.
AMANPOUR: Which are all of different faiths. The president is historically Christian, the prime minister historically Sunni Muslim, and the speaker of
the parliament historically Shiite Muslim. And you mentioned Nabih Berri, who is the person representing also Hezbollah, right?
AOUN: Exactly.
AMANPOUR: OK.
AOUN: Not Hezbollah, the Shiites.
AMANPOUR: Sorry, the Shiites, you're right. Sorry. Are they all on board with your plan, negotiations with Israel via the United States? Are they
all on board with this?
AOUN: We are united behind ending this war.
AMANPOUR: How much do you think Nabih Berri, as the leader of the Shiites, the speaker of the parliament, can use his authority to push Hezbollah or
to encourage Hezbollah or to make Hezbollah, whatever you want to say, stop their war? And I know you talk about root causes, but it also requires
political pressure.
AOUN: No, definitely. I totally agree with you. But as I said, Speaker Berri is from the South. And he spent 40 years trying to build the South
and seeing the South being destroyed. He's a man of state. And he wants to end this war by peaceful means. And definitely as a speaker of the
parliament and the sole representative of the Shiite, he has a job to do.
But we need to understand how sensitive is his situation. I fully agree with you, but I'm in close coordination, close consultation with them to
talk, to convince, to reason with Hezbollah to lay down their weapon. He can play a major role, and he's playing it, he's doing it. But being very
careful not to be in military confrontation with Hezbollah or not to -- and he's very careful about the delicacy of the situation inside the Shiite.
He's trying to reason with them. He's trying to convince them to lay down their weapon for the best interests of the Shiite and the country.
AMANPOUR: You said a moment ago that you swore an oath to protect and guarantee the territorial integrity of this country. Now, I don't know
whether you're aware or you probably are, there are increasing calls for a sort of Lebanese federalization, splitting the country precisely along the
sectarian lines that you don't particularly want to see happening.
A Lebanese political analyst, Sami Nader, says, there are growing calls for federalism in Lebanon and even more for partition in some cases. More and
more Christians and Sunnis are now saying they want federalism, a kind of separation, they say, of Hezbollah. If you want to keep your arms, keep
your army, keep it in your region, you cannot force us to align with Iran.
How serious is that talk and how much of a solution could that be?
AOUN: Actually, it's not the narrative of the state. The job of the state is a unified country and I think that he has to go back and read history.
This the history of Lebanon and you cannot change Lebanon. You cannot change history, actually.
AMANPOUR: Here you are talking to us, and I wonder if you had a message, because this program is viewed in Israel, it's viewed in some quarters in
Iran where they have prerogative, and it's viewed in your country as well. What would you say to the Israeli government and the Israeli people right
now?
AOUN: Do you really want to live in a perpetual war? Aren't you fed up with wars since 1948? Do you want really to live in peace? Let's sit and
talk. For the Israeli government, it's the time for the power of reason to prevail over the reason of power. Military activities or military solution
will never provide you with security and safety to the northern people.
We are ready to sit and talk. Our people along the border are fed up with wars, but you need to show some willingness and commitment to end this war
for the sake of both people and on both sides of the border. We are ready, we are willing, we are committed. Are you? If you are, let's sit and talk.
If you are not, we'll never live in peace and safety and security.
AMANPOUR: And what would you say to the Iranians and the patrons of Hezbollah?
AOUN: We seek good relationship with Iran based on mutual respect, non- interference, but remember, Lebanon is a sovereign state. It has sovereign government. You want to talk to us, you are most welcome, but you not
interfere. If you are ready to help us, you are most welcome, but you're not allowed to interfere into internal affairs.
[13:35:00]
There is a huge difference between helping us or interfering into our internal affairs. Our interests maybe do not coincide with your interests.
The people of Lebanon are paying the price. The people of Lebanon are being killed. Their houses or homes, they are being destroyed. To serve your
interests, not to serve the interests of the country. It's about time to realize this reality. You are not allowed to interfere into our internal
affairs. Other countries are trying to help us. But you are not trying to help us. You are destroying the country for the sake of your own interests.
AMANPOUR: And what would you say to your own long-suffering Lebanese people?
AOUN: I know you're fed up. I know you believe in this country. And you deserve to live in safety and security and stability. You deserve to live
in a country free of war. You deserve to live in a prosperous country. You deserve to live in a country free of corruption. And it's my duty and I'm
committed to it. And my job is to serve you.
And I have full confidence in you. And I have full confidence in the willingness and the resiliency and the creativity of the Lebanese people to
make Lebanon great again.
AMANPOUR: Is that a plea to Donald Trump to come and help?
AOUN: No, actually, really, honestly, he's committed and his calls -- his personal intervention are indicative of his commitment and willingness to
understand because he cares about the stability of the region. And he knows that stability in the region -- Lebanon's stability is very essential for
the stability of the region itself.
AMANPOUR: Well, we do understand that he did call on Israel very clearly in conversations we hear heated to not pursue this -- you know, to pull
back. But do you think the war in Iran contributes to the stability of the region?
AOUN: Definitely, the stability of the region was affected by this war. Before the war, it wasn't that stable. I mean, Lebanon wasn't stable. But
after the war, during the war or after the war, the whole region is affected. You see that we saw the bombardment of the Gulf countries. We saw
the bombardment of different Arab countries. We saw what's happening here in Lebanon. So, hopefully that will end very soon because it will have a
spillover effect into regional security environment.
But what President Trump did really, it takes the courage and wisdom. True strength is not in the ability of waging war, but it's in the courage and
wisdom of ending this war through negotiation. So, that's what President Trump is doing now, and we are counting on him to end this conflict as soon
as possible so that we can, the whole region becomes stable and secure.
AMANPOUR: President Aoun, thank you very much indeed.
AOUN: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: The stakes are extremely high, and we'll be right back after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:40:00]
AMANPOUR: Now, pushed out for not upholding President Trump's agenda. That's what several former FBI officials say got them forced out of the
Bureau. Under Trump loyalist director Kash Patel, the FBI has seen dozens of employees purged to allegedly root out political bias. One of them is
Jacqueline Maguire, who served for 25 years and she joins Michel Martin now to explain why she left and how changes within the FBI are making the U.S.
less safe.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, Christiane. Jacqueline Maguire, thank you so much for talking with us.
JACQUELINE MAGUIRE, FORMER EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, FBI: Thank you.
MARTIN: You spent some 25 years at the FBI. You served in leadership roles that included special agent in charge of the Philadelphia field office and
executive assistant director of the science and technology branch. Before we get into the reason that we invited you to speak with us today, your
sort of your current role in relationship with the FBI, I did want to ask, is there something at the Bureau in your service that you're particularly
proud of?
MAGUIRE: Oh, just being an agent and being able to, you know, serve the public. I don't think any FBI agent forgets their graduation day from
Quantico. It is a special day. I still get chills thinking about it. I had, you know, my family there and to take the oath of office. You take the oath
of office on your first day at the Academy. You get sworn in, but then you do it again. Most often the director of the FBI at the time is at
graduation and he swears in the new class of FBI agents. And you take your oath to swear allegiance to the Constitution.
So, I think that's just -- as long as my career was and as many opportunities and experiences, I was fortunate to have, I would go back to
the very beginning and say, I'm just most proud to have become an FBI agent.
MARTIN: And you swear an oath to the Constitution, right, not to a particular administration, not to a particular figure?
MAGUIRE: Yes, I think you may have picked up on my emphasizing the oath to the Constitution, to swear allegiance to the Constitution of the United
States. In my career, I served under -- it's five different presidential administrations, both Republican and Democratic administrations. And it
didn't matter who was in the White House at the time. It didn't matter, you know, what administration was in place. We serve the American public and we
uphold the mission of the FBI.
MARTIN: And so, now you have decided to become part of a newly launched FBI support network. What is this new organization?
MAGUIRE: This new FBI support network, which comes under the umbrella of the Justice Connection, is to provide resources based on what is going on
in our world, in our country right now. So, the Justice Connection is an organization that was set up in January of 2025 when the new administration
came in, the Trump administration came in, and started firing and forcing people out in the Department of Justice.
So, this group, the Justice Connection, was formed, and it's made up of former Department of Justice officials. And they were providing resources
since that time, since January of 2025, to people who had been forced out, and that included FBI personnel. The resources include legal resources, pro
bono representation, mental health resources, career resources, and also just that general support to make sure, with all that was going on, that
they were not alone.
But because of everything that has happened over the past year, and everything that's happened at the FBI, the FBI has been, I think, the
agency that has been impacted the most by the actions of the Trump administration. And we realized that the FBI really needed its own
dedicated group under a Justice Connection. So, that's where the FBI Support Network has come from.
MARTIN: You served through five presidential administrations, including President Trump's first term. What is different about this moment than in
previous administrations that you've served under?
MAGUIRE: There are always different priorities of new presidential administrations and different focuses, and that's OK. I think the
difference now is that really the guardrails have come down. I think this current administration is no holds barred on taking action without any
sense of consequences. Not consequences for people, because those are -- that's happening. People are personally affected by this. But the
consequences for the mission and the work of the FBI, the consequences, honestly, to the American people, and to our national security, and to our
safety overall.
[13:45:00]
Because, again, the mission of the FBI is to protect the American public and uphold the U.S. Constitution. And the actions that this administration
and the current FBI leadership are taking really distract. And the FBI is supposed to be and needs to be nonpartisan, apolitical. People need to be
focused on investigations, no matter where the facts lead. And there's always going to be someone who doesn't like where the facts lead, but
that's OK. That's showing that we're doing our job correctly because it doesn't matter what the outcome is. We want it to be a fair outcome. And
now, I think the things have been turned upside down and --
MARTIN: Give an example. Give an example of why you say that.
MAGUIRE: An example, I think, is using the power of the FBI, its investigative power to go after those who are disliked or those who have
partaken in activities that this administration dislikes. So, you have folks in the FBI agent, analyst, or professional staff who swore an oath to
uphold the Constitution.
They have conducted investigations that have been approved at higher levels. They were assigned those investigations. They took action that was
approved by the courts, and now they're being fired. They're being, you know, acted against by people who are really betraying the same oath.
MARTIN: So, people are fired because they were assigned to investigations. Presumably, President Trump is one of the people that they investigated.
And your contention and that of others as part of this group is that because they were assigned a task and they fulfilled that task, they are
now being retaliated against for doing a task to which they were assigned.
MAGUIRE: That's exactly it. We could look at a number of personnel who've been fired over the past year, whether it's prosecutors at the Department
of Justice or agents, analysts, and professional staff in the FBI. That's a great example of the investigations of President Trump and those people
because of their participation in those investigations. And at times, even because they're rumored participation in those investigations, they've been
fired, and they have been retaliated against merely for just doing their job.
MARTIN: In early 2025, you were among a group of other senior executives who were pushed out of the bureau. Did you ever get a rationale for it?
What was the stated rationale?
MAGUIRE: That is exactly the question I asked when we were told at the end of January 2025 that we would be fired if we did not resign or retire from
the bureau within a few days. And the response was that we could not be trusted to uphold the president's agenda.
MARTIN: Agenda, not constitutional requirements, but the president's agenda. You were specifically told you could not be trusted to uphold the
president's agenda. How do you respond to that? And is there any legal recourse to that? I mean, do you -- do FBI agents have civil service
protections? I mean, is there any process required, or were you at a level where you're essentially considered at will, once you're a senior
executive, are you considered a political appointee?
MAGUIRE: I was not a political appointee. I was a career public servant. I was a career FBI official that served for 25 years, as were all of my
colleagues. So, those are all great questions. You know, the response at that time was honestly shock because we had never seen anything like this.
We had seen it going on the previous few days at the Department of Justice where attorneys were being fired.
But I think the shock of that being the answer of the reason why that we couldn't carry out a president's agenda and my response right away was I
don't carry out anyone's agenda, I carry out the U.S. Constitution. I carry out the mission of the FBI.
And again, I want to be very clear. Priorities change, right? Focuses change. Threats change over the years. We saw that. We saw that way back at
the beginning of my career after 9/11 and the refocus of the FBI on national security and counterterrorism. But those weren't agendas. Those
things were done for the safety of the American public.
MARTIN: You wrote an essay for The Times -- for The New York Times back in March. You wrote that the bureau remains strong because of the people who
serve in it, even as many experienced employees have left. Do you know how many people have left? I know that it's been estimated that some 10,000
lawyers in federal service have left. Some people in the FBI service are also lawyers. Do you have a sense of how many FBI agents have left?
MAGUIRE: I do have a sense from the statistics that are put out by the Office of Personnel Management, OPM.
[13:50:00]
And roughly, I believe the numbers are about 1,100. I don't have an exact number in front of me, but I think about 1,100 agents have left over the
past year. Now, that includes retirements. But it also includes people who were fired. It includes people who were forced out, like myself. And it
includes people who left because they could not tolerate and could not continue on in that situation and under the leadership of the current
administration.
I know that of that number, I believe it's about 400 of those people were in supervisory positions. So, people like myself as executives, people who
were supervisors of squads or supervisors at headquarters divisions. So, I think the impact has to be assessed not only by sheer numbers, but also the
experience. I believe that the average number of years that those people who left last year had was 21 years. 21 years of service in the FBI, 21
years of experience working against the threats that the FBI addresses.
MARTIN: One of the things that occurs to me when I travel is that many people are sort of insulated from the consequences of a lot of the things
that we talk about on this program and other news programs. Is there something you could point to that can demonstrate to the public what the
consequence of losing these experienced people actually can be?
MAGUIRE: Sure. I think the consequence is distraction from our major threats. And I think a perfect example, we went to war with Iran. And right
around that time, and I mentioned this in my piece in the New York Times, the current director fired people who were working the Iran threat in
Washington, D.C. And that is concerning that there is no consideration of the impact. There is no justification for these actions being taken.
So, my fear is that these distractions, these actions are really going to impact the FBI's mission and then impact the safety of the country.
MARTIN: I do want to mention that we did approach the FBI to ask their response to the creation of the FBI support network. We do know that they
received our request, but as you and I are speaking now, they have not offered any response.
To this whole question of weaponization, the current director of the FBI, Kash Patel, repeats -- has repeatedly argued that the bureau needs to
rebuild public trust and address what he considers misconduct and bias within the agency. In fact, their argument is that people like him and
people like the president's order, his supporters, they have been the targets of the weaponization of law enforcement assets. They are the
victims. And that all they're doing now is addressing what they consider misconduct directed toward them. And I just don't know, how do you answer
that?
MAGUIRE: I guess we could say that both beauty and weaponization are in the eye of the beholder these days, right? Because the weaponization
argument, you know, again, 25 years in the FBI, I never experienced weaponization the first time. And I've said it over the past year, the 1st
time I believed I experienced politicization or weaponization in my job was at the end of January 2025 when things became political.
So, I think there is a lot of subjectiveness in the view of what is so called alleged weaponization. You know, over time and over history, we
could look back and yes, there have been instances right where people were wronged by the criminal justice system and those people should be afforded
the opportunity to clear their names, to, you know, write those wrongs.
Luckily, I think we could say, well, significant and impactful on our history. Those cases are not the majority, and we can't just go around
calling cases that we don't like, because they were, you know, targeted. They were targeting friends of ours. You know, we can't call those
weaponized cases.
I think the best way to avoid that is let the FBI be apolitical. Let the FBI do their job to follow the law, follow the facts without fear or favor.
And that is exactly what we're seeing right now. The fear of employees of not knowing if what they're going to do is going to be the right thing or
the wrong thing.
[13:55:00]
And Kash Patel or anyone else in the administration's eyes. We have to do that without favor, without favoring one side or another.
MARTIN: Jacqueline Maguire, thank you so much for talking with me.
MAGUIRE: Thank you very much.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And finally, make way for mother. Lesley Manville has won her first ever Tony Award for her Broadway debut as Jocasta, the infamous
female lead in the timeless Greek tragedy Oedipus Rex. She won best leading actress in a play bringing Robert Icke's adaptation of the Sophocles
classic to life with Mark Strong, who plays Oedipus.
I spoke to them in New York when the 2,500-year-old piece had its Broadway revival, and they told me why, despite its age, the tale still feels like a
modern political thriller. And you can watch our full conversation this Friday on this program.
That's it for now. Remember, you can always catch us online, on our website, and all-over social media. Thank you for watching, and goodbye
from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
