Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with The New Statesman Editor in Chief and "Between the Waves" Author Tom McTague; Interview with "The Welcome Table" Director Josh Fox; Interview with "No Country for Mothers" Subject and Executive Producer Reshma Saujani; Interview with Artist JR. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired June 22, 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.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KEIR STARMER, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: Every decision I've taken has been about putting the country I love first. That is why I will resign as leader
of the Labour Party.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer to step down. I asked veteran journalist Tom McTague what the change of leadership will mean for Britain
and the world.
And --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We're about to take part in the greatest mass migration in human history.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- driven from home by a changing planet. In the welcome table, filmmaker Josh Fox reports from the front lines of climate-driven mass
migration.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You have working moms, you have stay-at-home moms, and then you have work-from-home, stay-at-home moms.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- "No Country for Mothers." In a new documentary, Moms First CEO Reshma Saujani calls for a truce in the culture wars so mothers can
find common ground.
And finally, a breathtaking transformation of Paris' iconic Pont Neuf. Visionary street artist JR joins me from the banks of the Seine.
Welcome to the program everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga, New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
Keir Starmer announced today that he is resigning as Britain's Prime Minister. In an emotional address from outside 10 Downing Street.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KEIR STARMER, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: The question my party is asking now is whether I am best placed to lead us into the next general election. I
have heard the answer of my parliamentary party to that question. And I accept that answer with good grace.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Two years ago, in a landslide victory, the Labour Party promised to end the chaos of leadership in the U.K. Chaos that dates back
almost exactly 10 years since the Brexit vote first plunged Britain into political instability.
Now, Starmer leaves office as the least popular prime minister on record. Reform U.K. leader Nigel Farage, who led his populist far-right party to
big wins in May's local elections, is demanding a general election to fix broken Britain. Those are his words.
But former Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham, fresh off a resounding win in a crucial parliamentary election, seems poised to succeed Starmer as the new
Labour leader and Prime Minister. For Burnham, this could be a mixed blessing as the U.K. faces stagnant wages, high energy bills, and serious
questions over the state of its armed forces. Can he really turn this all around?
Joining me now is Tom McTague, editor-in-chief of The New Statesman. Tom, welcome to the program. So, again, just important to remind our viewers
that two years ago, Labour won its biggest parliamentary majority in modern history. Now, Starmer has lost both his country and his party.
And just on Friday, he remained defiant that he was going nowhere. Clearly, things have changed over the course of the last 48 hours. What led,
ultimately, in this change from defiance to this resignation?
TOM MCTAGUE, EDITOR IN CHIEF, THE NEW STATESMAN AND AUTHOR, "BETWEEN THE WAVES": I think it was numbers. You know, it was that old LBJ adage that,
you know, the first rule of politics is to count. The prime minister had lost the support of his parliamentary party, and he had lost the support of
his cabinet. And without either of those things, he cannot govern.
And so, it was just a fundamental question of being able to govern. He couldn't fill a cabinet. They didn't have his -- they didn't have
confidence in him. And his parliamentary party didn't have confidence in him.
GOLODRYGA: Was it the sheer scale of Andy Burnham's Makerfield win victory that flipped most MPs here, or was there a growing sense among some of the
political leaders that it was Starmer's time to go?
MCTAGUE: Yes. Look, it was a bit of both. The reason that Andy Burnham was able to stand in that Makerfield by-election just, you know, last week was
because of the resounding nature of the Labour Party's defeat in May's local elections, you know, a kind of mid-term hammering, if you like, for
the Labour Party, which wasn't just a defeat, but a kind of existential defeat.
[13:05:00]
It suggested that the Labour Party was on for a wipeout in the next general election. And so, you know, fundamentally, Keir Starmer was not able to
command the support of his MPs because he had lost the support of the country. And they were looking for somebody who was going to save the party
and save their own seats.
And so, Keir Starmer let Andy Burnham stand to return to Parliament, even though he knew that by doing so, he was putting his own job at risk. At
that point, he was essentially too weak to stop Andy Burnham from returning.
And so, when Andy Burnham then passed the test that he had set himself by winning that by-election and winning it so resoundingly, the deal was
really made. It was reached among Labour MPs who looked at that election and saw how Andy Burnham had defeated Reform, the populist party of Nigel
Farage. He'd managed to defeat them and defeat them quite comfortably. And there you have it. That's really the fundamental calculation here. Labour
MPs are looking at Andy Burnham and thinking, he's our last chance of being able to save our own skin.
GOLODRYGA: And so, does Labour, looking at all of this, want a straight handover to Andy Burnham right now, a sort of coronation, for lack of a
better word? Because I'm thinking about what we saw play out here in the Democratic Party in 2024 when Joe Biden announced that he would no longer
be running for president and the candidate then became Kamala Harris. And there was a lot of debate as to whether or not she would be better tested
if there had been a primary. At that point, there wasn't. Is there concern about that transpiring now for Andy Burnham?
MCTAGUE: Absolutely. And it's interesting that the Kamala Harris example you've just raised, because it came up in a meeting that I was having
today, actually, where people were talking about, you know, the parallels and also the differences. The difference here is that this is a, you know,
handover of power that has been imposed upon Keir Starmer, the prime minister, through at least some democratic process. You know, there has
been an election in which Andy Burnham has won and returned to Parliament.
But as you say, at the moment, it looks like it's going to be a coronation, that all of his rivals are essentially stepping aside because so many of
the Labour MPs are backing Andy Burnham. The other big difference, of course, is that Andy Burnham has three years, potentially, in the job
before he has to have a general election. So, unlike Kamala Harris, who was parachuted into this job and then suddenly had to fight in an election,
there is time for Andy Burnham to make his case.
GOLODRYGA: There's time for him to lose popularity and support as well, which has been the trend that we've seen among most Western leaders over
the past few years. Keir Starmer, obviously, the best example.
Is there concern that that could happen to Andy Burnham, despite him perhaps having a more outgoing personality, carrying vibes that seem to be
registering more with voters? A lot can happen over two to three years. What happens to the party if he then starts to lose some of his weight?
MCTAGUE: Look, I think that's a very fair observation and one that Labour MPs, you know, have privately been wrestling with over the past few months
when this has been a prospect of Andy Burnham returning to Parliament. You know, he is bound by the same manifesto promises that Keir Starmer made,
which were endorsed in the last general election.
And, you know, just to make it clear for your viewers, you know, the -- Keir Starmer won a resounding election victory, a landslide election
victory, less than two years ago. And we're in this position where his popularity has absolutely plummeted. I think, as you put it at the
beginning, he's the least popular prime minister in history.
And that is, you know, part of a longer-term trend in which almost all prime ministers, and I think you're having it across Europe and also in the
United States, where incumbent leaders are becoming very unpopular very quickly because of conditions beyond their control or certainly because of
the conditions that exist at the moment.
And so, those conditions are going to apply to Andy Burnham. And you already have a sense among some people in Britain that, hang on a minute, I
didn't vote for this guy. What mandate does he have to make decisions? And so, you're already seeing the pressure build for an early general election.
[13:10:00]
So, let us see if he can endure that pressure over the next few months and, you know, potentially years, or whether he will -- you know, the same thing
that happened to Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer and Joe Biden will happen to Andy Burnham.
GOLODRYGA: Well, there's quite a bit of a paradox, too, in that, as you noted, Burnham says that he's going to stick to the 2024 manifesto, but he
gives off a much more progressive socialist messaging in terms of policies that he supports than Starmer did. But that manifesto includes ruling out,
raising more taxes and committing to balance the budget.
So, if he's not going to borrow more and he's not going to tax more, where does that money for change actually come from?
MCTAGUE: You've got the sort of million-dollar question right there. You know, Andy Burnham is standing on a ticket of change, much as Keir Starmer
stood on that very same commitment, that same promise, that same slogan. You know, he was promising change.
But because of the conditions that Andy Burnham is inheriting, the fiscal constraints that exist here and the fiscal constraints that are self-
imposed through the Labour Party's manifesto that, as you say, he has committed to, this is the fundamental challenge that he faces.
Now, people will say, of course, you know, that there are smarter ways of acting, smarter decisions that can be made, that there are savings that can
be found elsewhere. But, you know, they're not easy, right? Because in any economy which is not growing, the decisions that you make on cuts
necessarily mean taking something away from somebody. And that is just a fundamentally difficult job. And, in fact, that is what cost Keir Starmer
such -- to such a degree early on in his premiership where he removed certain welfare provisions here. And the backlash was enormous. So, I think
it's a really, really difficult challenge for Andy Burnham.
GOLODRYGA: Right. Because what started with the landslide for Keir Starmer almost immediately out of the gate saw some own goals in stumbles. As you
noted, the scrapping of the popular winter fuel benefit for elderly voters, the freebie scandal, and, of course, the Peter Mandelson scandal as well,
roping him into the Epstein drama here in the United States that continues to unfold, Mendelson being the U.K. ambassador to the United States
appointed by Keir Starmer.
Walk us through what ultimately led to this morning's resignation. How much weight did Mendelson alone carry here?
MCTAGUE: Look, I think it was an important moment in the long downfall of Keir Starmer, but it wasn't the cause of the downfall. It was a kind of
contributing factor, I think. I think you have to think about the -- his decline in authority and popularity, going right back to the beginning of
his premiership.
He came into office in June two years ago and almost immediately faced a summer of something that we don't often see in Britain, which was rioting.
And it was rioting about -- in the aftermath of a horrible attack from an individual who killed a number of schoolgirls at a dance class. And it
sparked a set of ethnic riots and racist rioting across the country, targeting what are called here asylum hotels, where these are hotels that
have been taken over by the state to house asylum seekers who have come over, often from France, in these small boats across the English Channel.
And this is a cause of, you know, huge controversy here. And it started really from that moment and that real sense of sort of violent underground
anger in this country over, you know, a whole history of things. And then it really just got kind of -- he just got this terrible inheritance, in a
sense, and he never really recovered from these early missteps.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And we're looking now at seven prime ministers in a decade's time, which has led some to question whether England, the U.K., at
this point, maybe post-Brexit, is just ungovernable. The Economist magazine says no, that that's not the answer, that it is governable. It just takes a
certain type of leadership.
[13:15:00]
And you've written a cover story for The New Statesman called what Britain won't face. And you argue the country has chosen delusion over reality.
Walk us through what you mean here.
MCTAGUE: You know, the seven prime ministers in 10 years is remarkable, really, and you think, and when we talk about 10 years, we're talking about
a coincidence here. But it's not quite a coincidence that tomorrow is the 10th anniversary of Britain's referendum to leave the E.U. And this seismic
moment in our recent history, which really shook British politics up because it -- the vote cut across traditional party lines.
You know, you had people voting remain and leave in the Conservative Party and in the Labour Party. And it really destabilized British politics. I
think it's undeniable whether you are a remainer or a leaver. It is clear that it destabilized British politics because it kind of shook things up.
And there has been a fragility in the system ever since.
And I think often in Britain's history, we have looked to Europe as either an answer to our problems or a source of our problems, you know, one way or
the other. Whether we were out and we looked to go in or whether we were in and we looked at Europe to leave as a kind of easy answer to sort of deeper
structural problems which need to be addressed. And that is really what I think is going on again, in a sense.
And The Economist piece that you mentioned there, it said that, you know, we've had a lost decade since the Brexit referendum of 2016. But it argued
that if we were to try to pursue a return to the E.U., it would be, in effect, another lost decade because we would be arguing about this
constitutional question for another 10 years and not getting on to these substantive issues about how is it that we are supposed to prosper in this
world that exists today, where we have more protectionism and wars on the European continent and, you know, the crisis in the Middle East seemingly
constant. You know, how is it that Britain, a mid-sized power, can thrive in this world?
You know, similar dilemmas are being faced by countries like Canada and Australia and France, Germany. And I don't think we're yet grappling with
those deeper, deeper questions.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And these are questions, as you note, not exclusive to the U.K. Tom McTague, thank you for your analysis. Really appreciate it.
And do stay with CNN. We'll be right back after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: Now, immigration has been one of the outgoing U.K. Prime Minister's biggest political challenges. It is an issue dominating politics
across Europe and the United States. And it's likely to get even bigger.
A report by the World Economic Forum says that one out of three people on the planet who live in areas of extreme heat could be forced to leave their
homes. Filmmaker Josh Fox has a provocative proposal for how to tackle the growing crisis. Instead of building higher walls, what if we build a longer
table?
In a new HBO documentary called "The Welcome Table," Fox asks audiences to imagine a more generous response to a catastrophe that disrupts so many
lives. Josh Fox joins us now. Welcome to the program, Josh.
[13:20:00]
It is a visually compelling and powerful piece. Obviously, we've covered the immigration story and the climate crisis for many years here, but yours
is a unique way to tell it, and I want to start with the opening of the film because we see a traditional African-American gospel song called, "I'm
Going to Sit at the Welcome Table." It's sung by jazz singer John Boutte, who also narrates with you. I believe that he is from New Orleans, and
obviously we know the impact that climate change and that weather catastrophes with Hurricane Katrina had on that part of the country.
But the premise that you invite people who have been displaced due to climate crises to a table to tell their stories, how did that come about?
JOSH FOX DIRECTOR, "THE WELCOME TABLE": Well, I was thinking so much as far back as 2019 about the wall and about how Trump was separating
families. And initially I went down to the border in El Paso to talk to migrants who had been separated from their families, a woman who had lost
her two sisters and had no idea where they were, her sisters essentially ages 12 and four, kidnapped by the Trump administration.
And I started to think, well, what is the opposite of the wall? I mean, the wall is really just a metaphor. It doesn't work without the $200 billion
that they just gave to ICE for enforcement. So, I started to think about what is the opposite of that.
And then I ran into John Boutte, and he sang this song, "The Welcome Table." And the perfect metaphor arose of the fact that a table is the
symbol of generosity. The table is a symbol of collaboration, of community, of love, of welcoming. And walls are symbols of incarceration and racism
and xenophobia and these authoritarian governments that are certainly in the United States and all over the world.
So, the idea of "The Welcome Table" was to try to think about an alternative response to the human rights violations which have become the
policy so many places in the world, certainly here in the United States.
GOLODRYGA: Let's play a clip from the film of that table for our viewers.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We invite you to our table on the levee.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There's no tablecloth, but each thread of our stories weaves a tapestry.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The people at this table crossed many rivers to get here.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: People from every continent have been displaced by climate change. Meeting here for the first time to ask, where is home now?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: And in filming this piece, you travel around the world. You go to South America, you go to Brazil, you go to Europe and Italy, where your
family originally hails from. But you start the piece with a family who was impacted by the Paradise fires in California. They were displaced in 2018.
Why open with their story, and what did you learn from them?
FOX: Well, there's a very, very long arc of this movie across six or seven years. Of course, we had to take a break during COVID. But, you know, a lot
of Americans are losing their homes. American cities are being destroyed by climate change faster than they can be rebuilt.
There is very little stability in the future when we think about climate change. So, the American dream is burning at people's feet. And that was
one of the first interviews that I did. And I wanted to redefine what it meant to be a climate refugee, to be a climate survivor. A lot of people
don't think of those Californian Americans with children who have lost everything as climate refugees. But we have to redefine everyone.
I mean, right now we're talking about some estimates saying one out of every three people will lose their homes due to climate change, which means
that either we're going to be on the move ourselves or we're going to be tasked with welcoming those who are.
So, in terms of the fires in California, I mean, the hurricanes in the south, certainly the things that we're seeing in the northeast in terms of
incredible climate impacts, there is no geographical answer to where will I be safe? So, the question became, where is home? What's home going to be on
a planet that is ravaged by climate change? With, you know, a third of the planet on the move, what does the future look like? How do we start to
redefine what it is to be human?
And certainly, the response of these fascist governments is to wall people out or to incarcerate them, to abuse them, to detain them, to torture them.
And that can't be the answer for billions of people. So, when we look to the future, we have to ask, what future do we want, a future of that kind
of hatred and violence or a future of generosity and sharing and togetherness and collaboration, which can often be the answer to a crisis,
right?
The climate crisis is here. It's here now. This movie is documenting it all across the world, whether it's fires or floods or famine or extreme weather
or landslides. These impacts are happening to us now. They're happening in real time, and people are being displaced everywhere across the planet,
whether that's Australia or that's Europe or it's the United States.
[13:25:00]
And we have to start to think about what will we do to counteract this, to stem this tide of hatred that is coming at migrants. I mean, there's an
age-old relationship between fascists and the hatred of immigrants.
And, you know, what I wanted to do with this film is show the stories of people who are normally portrayed as being wrestled to the ground by ice.
We don't hear those stories. We don't see those stories. But these are the people in this film. Any one of us could be subject to those conditions.
And, you know, our human reaction has to be to come together and work together or else the future is madness. So, that's what this film is about.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. I want to get to the politics of this as well that you've touched on a number of times in a moment. But let's more importantly talk
about the human stories and the lives that are impacted, who you document.
In Brazil, we meet Maria Antonia. She runs an after-school program for kids who were relocated from the favela. She lost her own home in the landslide
and I believe lost her homekeeper. Somebody who had been working for her at her home in this landslide as well. She takes you to her home and she shows
you the damage that was wrought. Let's take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That was my laundry.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, wow.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There's still a refrigerator there. I'll take this --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She wanted the simplest and smallest thing. A little mosquito net for her cup of tea that she drank every morning in her
kitchen. And it somehow survived. The little things, the little things that remind you that you're a human being.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: And that was the line that I wrote down after watching the film. The little things that remind you that you're a human being. That
it's not the television sets, it's not the expensive gadgets that people typically go sifting for after tragedies like this and disasters. It's
birth certificates, it's family photos, it's heirlooms. How important was that for you to include in all of their stories?
FOX: Well, you know, this is a movie about love. This is a movie about how we take care of each other. So, this is a movie about human beings, right?
And human beings across the spectrum, you know, from many different races, sexual orientations, class, certainly in that section in Brazil, you're
seeing very, very wealthy people like Maria Antonia who have lost everything. And then you're seeing poorer people who are subject to much,
much greater risk who are living in the favelas.
You know, rain bombs are coming down out of the sky. And they're depositing a year's worth of rain in a couple of hours. And that's causing the land to
slide and bury whole neighborhoods. So, what I was first doing was following the first responders and the mutual aid workers who are those
people who are the first person somebody's going to see in that type of crisis.
And the importance that they had of welcoming the victims of these crises and trying to find a way to retain your humanity in the midst of total
chaos. And that impulse, I think, is really, really important for us to think about internally. How are we going to survive this crisis? Well,
we're going to survive by being human beings. We're going to survive by understanding that everyone here is worthy of our respect and worthy of
being taken care of.
And certainly, when we think about the broader global picture, right, it's the countries of the global south who are not responsible for climate
change, right? They're not burning a lot of coal, oil, or gas. They are the victims of centuries of colonialism and empire. And it is the Global North
which is doing all the damage to the climate.
So, a big question in this film and what we advocate in the film is for a loss and damage fund, for responsibility coming from the Global North,
which certainly would mean to welcome the victims of this crisis, you know, rather than treat them inhumanely. But it was so important to me to find
those human moments as a documentarian that are cinema, that are telling that human story.
GOLODRYGA: I guess, you know, the final question is here, how do you govern on that? Because while some elected officials, some politicians may
be speaking in very dehumanizing terms, you can't blame those that have voted for them in any country, whether it's the United States.
You just heard us talking about, I think, what's going to be the seventh prime minister in 10 years in the United Kingdom. Immigration, a big issue
for voters as well who say, listen, I want borders enforced. I want security here. I want to maintain my job. So, how do you balance that?
FOX: Well, I mean, $200 billion for ICE and the walls in America. Can you imagine what $200 billion worth of tables would do? I mean, obviously,
welcoming is not an easy thing to do. It's hard. Learning how to get good at welcoming means doing international collaboration, doing trainings.
[13:30:00]
But this is the whole core of the world conversation right now, right, where I'm here in New York City. I can't imagine a New York City that
wasn't the most diverse city on the planet is one of the most amazing places to live. Our diversity as a human race is the most interesting thing
about being alive.
I can't imagine how awful it would be to see this kind of white supremacy and neocolonialism take root across the world where people are clamping
down on borders. Why? What is the point? The point is so that we can somehow insulate ourselves in some kind of, you know, a future that is
involving being armed to the teeth, incarceration and racism. No, the obvious answer is that in crisis, we have to be generous. In crisis, we
have to aid each other.
And this movie transmits that in singing, right? If "The Welcome Table" is a song, there's musicians and songs all throughout this film because the
great musicians from New Orleans were called to welcome the people at that table. So, the movie, yes, it's about the most dire crisis that we have.
But, you know, spoiler alert, at the end of that film, we build the table a thousand feet long. I'd like to see that thousand-foot table in every city
across the world, right, we're trying to tour with that table to be -- to show that symbol that our side, the side of celebration, the side of music,
the side of taking care of people, the side of love is actually way more powerful and way more interesting and more fun than hiding behind a wall.
So, what's the opposite of a wall? It is a table.
And so, modeling that and showing that metaphor is what's happening in the film. And it happened in a kind of miraculous fashion. The people at the
table from all over the world became an instant community within four or five days. And a thousand people from New Orleans showed up at our table to
celebrate the crisis, to say we can be better than this. We can be stronger than this. And the way we do that is by taking care of each other.
We have to talk about this because right now in our media, we have such a crisis of not enough dialogue about how we beat back this tide of fascism.
GOLODRYGA: Josh Fox, we'll have to leave it there. Thank you. "The Welcome Table" premieres on HBO tomorrow. And just a note, HBO shares a parent
company with CNN.
We'll be right back after this short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: Girl boss, trad wife. Some terms you may have heard used to describe women today. But what if most women with children want something
in between? Reshma Saujani, the CEO of Moms First, is tackling this issue in her new documentary, "No Country for Mothers." Here she is with Hari
Sreenivasan.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HARI SREENIVASAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Bianna, thanks, Reshma Saujani, thanks so much for joining us.
RESHMA SAUJANI, SUBJECT AND EXECUTIVE PRODUCER, "NO COUNTRY FOR MOTHERS": Thank you for having me.
SREENIVASAN: You are the CEO of Moms First and before that Girls Who Code. And now, you've got this really interesting documentary out called "No
Country for Mothers." And this is a really interesting look at the issues that are facing motherhood today and almost going back in time as well and
showing how these challenges have been around for a while. First, what made you want to make this film now?
SAUJANI: What made me want to make this film now was I think on some of the policy issues we're really close, Hari. Like I think we're closer to
childcare and paid leave than we've ever been. But I think what's standing in the way of us passing these policies is culture wars. I think every time
women make progress, we're handed a culture war to distract and divide us.
[13:35:00]
And I thought if I can do an investigation into really looking at like what is it about American motherhood in particular that's been designed
literally since the ink dried on the Constitution, you know, to con women into thinking that they have these binary choices. If I could make women
see that and not participate in that culture war, I think that we would get miles closer to winning some of these battles.
SREENIVASAN: We saw so many women drop out of the workforce in the pandemic. It was kind of this moment that the entire world paid attention
to ideas like mental load and who's taking care of what. What made you kind of come out of that and look at this as not just a pandemic-related thing
but really more of a structural issue?
SAUJANI: Yes. So, Hari, you know, I had my second baby during the pandemic. And there's something about having a child or becoming a mother
for a pandemic baby that just evangelizes you. Because you realize that we actually, when we have choices, we often default to making the mom be the
martyr. You know what I mean? Making her be our default social safety net. So, Sai was born in March of 2020, the world shut down. I had to go back to
rebuilding "Girls Who Code" from scratch.
And, you know, when that -- when the pandemic started, it was the first time in the history of our country that 51 percent of the labor force was
women. We were flying our feminist flags high. But when the pandemic happened, they shut down schools. And they had mothers like me log on our
six-year-olds at the same time of having to show up at the office. I mean, show up at our virtual office on Zoom at the same time. And we just didn't
even think about it. Like we assumed that mothers would actually do it.
And you saw, you know, four times as many women leave the workforce as men in COVID. Because in America, two-thirds of the caregiving work is done by
women. We are the caregivers. We are basically balancing two jobs at the same time with no support and no help.
And yet, we try to approach fixing equality for American women by, you know, giving them another skill set, by telling them to color code their
calendar, power post before they go to a meeting in the morning. We make them feel like that they're the problem and not the structure. And I
realize that, oh, my God, we've been getting conned. Like we've been getting conned since the ink dried on the Constitution.
This has never been about our own inadequacies. It's always been about their inability and a lack of will to solve the structural biases, like
paid leave and child care, that put us in this position in the first place. And I wanted to go solve that problem. And that's why I started Moms First.
SREENIVASAN: This tension about motherhood and womanhood and femininity and who contributes and what's valuable in a family or in the economy, you
point out in this film is that different versions of this tension have been kind of structurally architected and campaigned for decades.
SAUJANI: That's right. I mean, Phyllis Schlafly was the OG trad wife.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY, LAWYER AND ACTIVIST: I don't believe women are discriminated against. Most American women do not think of themselves as
second class citizens. They know we have a wonderful position in our country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SAUJANI: And so, the dynamic that I think or that pioneer that has always existed since I think women started working in America, which is in the
beginning of time, is trad wife, girl boss. I would argue, though, it's, you know, same con, new costume, right? She comes in like different forms.
Stay at home mom, working mom, girl boss, trad wife.
And, you know, what that does is it basically divides and distracts us. It makes women think that they only have two options when the vast majority of
women want something in the middle, right, which is a little bit of both. And, you know, as I travel the country, I didn't meet a mom that wanted to,
you know, hustle so hard that she never saw her kids or spend her time, you know, milking a cow. These are just -- they're made-up culture wars. Like
most the vast majority of American women, 99 percent of them can't afford to be a girl boss or a trad wife.
And so, what happens is we get so distracted, you know, in defending our choices that we don't realize that we're being tricked. We actually don't
realize that there's more to us that unites us than divides us. And that was my purpose of this of No Country for Mothers.
I wanted people to walk away from this film and be like, oh, my God, like those women at the Turning Point conference. I may not agree with like 90
percent of that, but 10 percent. We agree. We agree on child care. We agree that American motherhood is broken. We agree that we need more support. And
if we can walk, if we can come together on those lines like these issues aren't partisan.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I know it's hard for your generation. And I can tell you that the messaging in your generation has been tough, which is that you
should go, go, go and put work first. And that's all a great message as a woman until you have young children.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[13:40:00]
SAUJANI: You know, everyone is benefiting, right, from our division, right? It's like, for example, politicians are benefiting from us being
divided, right, from us being in these two different camps influencers or authors who are trying to sell a book are making money or getting famous
off of having us rage bait online tech companies are making ad revenue and money off of our own division.
And so, these are strategies by other people to get wealthier or more powerful or more famous and the people that lose our moms.
SREENIVASAN: At one point in the film, we hear the statistic that the U.S. is the only industrialized nation without guaranteed paid leave 40 percent
of parents have gone into debt because of childcare costs and that women still do most of the unpaid labor at home. I mean, those stats even each on
their own would be pretty huge, but all of them are happening simultaneously in a place where we think that, well, you should be able to
do both.
SAUJANI: That's right. I mean, you know people are drowning because of childcare costs like what they're one bad day away from financial ruin
right a car breaking down a health event because all of their savings goes into childcare.
And so, when you've seen States think when they have a surplus or they have an opportunity to make an investment and they look at, well, what are all
the things that I can do for a family? Where all the like ways I can give them more resources oftentimes policymakers come to the decision that if I
can lower childcare costs, you know what I mean, if I can make it affordable and available, I actually can take families out of a precarious
financial situation and put them in on the path to the American dream.
And so, childcare is the linchpin of affordability and that's something at mom's first is -- you know, you know, we've been driving towards the past
four years of taking it out of something that has always been seen as a personal problem. This is your problem as a family that you have to fix to
it being an economic issue, workers can't work without childcare, you know, and businesses don't work without workers.
And so, if you care about the American economy, if you actually care about stabilizing American families, the option that you choose is lowering
childcare costs, period.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SAUJANI: If you win in November, can you commit to prioritizing legislation to make childcare affordable? And if so, what specific piece of
legislation will you advance?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SREENIVASAN: During the 2024 campaign, I remember in my media feed seeing a clip of you asking President Trump a question and it was literally about
this, right? And what did you make of his response then? And what do you make of his most recent responses when this topic has come back up?
SAUJANI: Well, I think I said in the film, I was shocked. They weren't prepared, like they didn't even think about it and that in of itself was
like insulting. But what I will give them is he said in his response when I asked him what he would do to fix childcare. He said childcare is childcare
Americans got to have it.
And then, you know, most recently during Easter, you know, the question is raised again and he kind of says the federal government can't afford to pay
for childcare. I got to focus on protecting the country, i.e., I have to focus on investing and putting money and resources into foreign wars. And
so, like my reaction to that was like, wow, like you got billions for bombs, but pennies for moms and kids.
And it was something that I thought was pretty remarkable in his, in admitting that he is pretty much saying to American families, sorry, not
sorry. Like I know the math ain't mathing, but like it's not my problem. And I think that, you know, the administration is going to pay a big price
for that in the ballot box because you know, they're saying that at the same time you see key people in his administration complaining about the
declining birthrate and making it seem like that's our problem or that if I give, you know, medals to mothers or build fertility highways, right, or if
I just take away DE and I or, you know, have few women become engineers, if I actually have less educated women and give those opportunities to men
that those women will go have babies. And he's so wrong -- they're so wrong about that.
SREENIVASAN: Where should the solution come from? Should it be a federal policy or as the administration says, this is a state-by-state issue?
SAUJANI: I think it's got to be both. You know, you are seeing -- I think states like New Mexico, Vermont here in New York, you know, is very
involved with Governor Hochul, you know what I mean, and getting us closer towards universal childcare. So, I had a very intimate look on like how
this happens.
I think states are having to do it because the federal government has refused to fix it, right? Childcare is broken because it's a market
failure. Parents can't pay more and childcare workers can't pay less, right? And so, you need to have either a government or a private sector
option.
[13:45:00]
We know with healthcare that it's not a private sector solving this is not good for anybody. And so, I think states have had to use their surpluses
because of the lack of investment from federal government. And so, I think if it continues this way, you know, if the federal government continues to
say not our problem, I think it's going to force states to do it.
But unfortunately, similar to abortion, I feel like, again, an issue that is not partisan. This is, you know, 77 percent of Americans, irregardless
of who they voted for, feel like we need to do something about childcare, period.
SREENIVASAN: One of the moms had an interesting anecdote about what the costs are if your child is accused of acting up in school.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SAUJANI: And that's like reported the incidences against black boys, black girls in particular. The impact of that is you do as a parent and have to
leave your job and --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Right. And a lot of times many of us are not in jobs where we have those liberties --
SAUJANI: To do that.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Many of us are hourly workers. A simple thing can lead to a domino effect of disaster for our family.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SAUJANI: There's a reason why, you know, last year with the jobs number 500,000 women left the workforce and they were mostly women who had
children under the age of five because that's a time where your kids need, as you know, your kids need a lot of attention. They get the flu. You can't
plan it. Like there's so many unplanned emergencies, events, things that happen and it's always on moms to be the ones to go do it.
And you then have a lot of employers who already are assuming that we're less engaged the minute that we have a child in our jobs. And so, we are
disposable and it's why you have the motherhood penalty and you have women making, you know, six percent less in income the minute that they become a
mom. We don't live in a country or in a society or in workplaces that have a lot of grace from others, period.
And so, it has disastrous economic costs. And the problem is as many policymakers think we're living in the 1950s where someone even has the
ability to live at home. I mean stay at home and not work. It's just not possible. You know what I mean? Like people are drowning. You need to have
two incomes in which I always said we should be building and solving these problems from the perspective of single moms, right? If I can create a
society that works for her, it will work for everybody, but we don't think that way about this.
SREENIVASAN: You share a lot about your own family, your struggles on having a child and how you're raising these two boys now, but I wonder like
as we've talked about the struggles of how we define womanhood and femininity, there seems to be this other conversation also happening
simultaneously about what it is to be a boy, what it is to be a man, what it means to be masculine.
SAUJANI: You see this happening a little bit on the right now where the way they kind of take down men is by telling them they're too feminine,
that they're weak. It's almost like the worst thing that you can say to a man is call him a woman. Isn't that interesting, right?
And so, I think we're in this moment of real traditionalism where we're trying to box women into categories and we're trying to box men into
categories and it's the same con. It's the same fight. It's like give us choice. I thought what was so powerful was the couple at the end in the
film that we're -- you know, we're more conservative and he was basically like, hey, well, we're, I stay -- I'm the one who does most of the child
care. That's what works for our family.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, you know, if the man -- I stay home now during the day, you know what I mean? Does that -- is my gender role like different
now? Do I feel like less of a man or something? Not at all.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SAUJANI: And I was like, exactly, right? Like let people decide for themselves what works for their family and stop trying to put people into
boxes.
SREENIVASAN: The film is called "No Country for Mothers," it's screening around the United States now. Executive producer and the CEO of Moms First,
Reshma Saujani, thanks so much for joining us.
SAUJANI: Thank you for having me.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: And finally, one of the most iconic sites in Paris has been transformed. The Pont Neuf, the oldest standing bridge across the Seine has
been encased in fabric wrapped by the artist JR. If that seems familiar, that's the idea. It's a tribute to the late artists Christo and Jeanne-
Claude who wrapped this same bridge in fabric 40 years ago. This time, JR has turned the project into something more elemental while battling the
real-world elements.
A recent storm damaged the structure, forcing a delay to the opening. But now the bridge is finally open and its creator, JR, joins us from there.
What a beautiful shot, JR. And let's talk about what we see behind you.
JR: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: Welcome to the program. You were two years old, if I'm not mistaken, when Christo and Jeanne-Claude wrapped this bridge.
JR, ARTIST: Yes.
GOLODRYGA: Why did you decide, and you never had a chance to see it, obviously, at the age of two. Why did you decide to create your own piece
some 40 years later?
[13:50:00]
JR: Because actually I was close from Christo. We knew each other and his nephew, Vladimir, asked me if I would do something 40 years later. If not,
I would have never take the liberty to do it.
And so, well, I had the blessing from the family, I was like, you know what, this is actually a great challenge. What would I do 40 years later?
And that's how I started walking in the cave of the Pont Neuf.
GOLODRYGA: And you said that your gesture is similar to theirs, but your interpretation is, quote, "completely different." So, what is the
difference that you are drawing?
JR: Well, first of all, the way I, you know, took over the bridge is very different. I'm elevating the bridge by 60 feet above, so 18 meters above
the bridge. And I created this set of rocks formation that people see as mountains, some others see as glacier, that really change during the day.
And, you know, it's kind of this illusion of like having mountains in the middle of Paris.
But the most amazing thing is that if you walk inside, you enter inside a cave, a cave that's 120 meters long, where you enter into the dark. It's
almost intimidating. In the middle of Paris, you lose all your sense of where you are. The sound around you is made by Thomas Bangalter, who's one
of the two guys from Daft Punk, who created no music. He created a vibration that you feel, you don't really hear it, you feel it.
And there's even a sense that is made by Sarah, who created this whole sense throughout the whole parkour that is based on the geosmin, which is
the first, like, smell of earth that brings us back to the origin of humanity also.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, and it is a cave interior made of 80 arches of fabric filled with 20,000 cubic meters of air. And a passerby told the AP that
Paris feels suddenly ancient. Again, was that your goal? How do you feel when you hear that, that reaction?
JR: I think, you know, in a moment where everything is accelerating and we're all on our phones calling down, how do you come out of that state?
And one of the way to do it is like bring extraordinary into our life, bring things that are bigger than life that makes you stop.
And if you look around, what you actually see is people stopping. They just walk and then when they see this, they stop from what they're doing. They
have to question it. And that's what is art is doing. It weighs question. It doesn't necessarily bring answers, but people can explore it. And then
through that journey, it's more of an inner journey.
So, I think there's many things I wanted to do here. But what I definitely was the most amazed of, and that's the beauty of public art, is that it
brought millions of people to come through it because it's totally free. It's open 24/7 for two weeks, like Christo and Jeanne-Claude's work in the
past. And it's amazing to see people being transformed by art, being questioned by art all day, all night in Paris right now.
GOLODRYGA: Do you, as the artist, as the designer, do you see something different each time you walk through?
JR: Yes. You know, it grows on you, this cave. You go in and it's like something that you know and yet that you don't know because we all come
from the cave. It's the only myth that we all believe in, that this is our origin, wherever you go in whatever continent you go around the world,
people will say we come from the caves, you know, and it's pretty interesting that when you bring people in and everybody knows it's an
illusion, you know, it's fabric, it's air. They all know that this is an image trick and yet they all want to believe in it.
And so, there's something that I see each time I go, it's the flow of people, of people like they enter with their phone and then quickly they
take it down to actually look at what's around them. And so, I made the light dark enough so that you actually want to be focused when you look,
you actually want to experience it.
GOLODRYGA: And yet, visitors are invited to use their phones to see the augmented reality part of the installation. So, is this a useful way to use
a tool that you think, and so many would agree with you, has been such a distraction for people over the last 10 years, 20 years?
JR: Yes, exactly. I think, you know, the fact that we use technology is something that we -- you know, we all have to acknowledge and accept and
embrace. This question is which technology do we use? And in a moment like now where an artist like me can use any technology I want, I wanted to find
one that help us go and see through the screen.
So, augmented reality was the one that actually helped staying in the present because you're still interacting with people around you. And -- but
it's a question that I've always asked myself in each part of the -- each project that I'm doing because I actually always love the connection
between people, the fact that it brings people physically together.
[13:55:00]
And that's really one of the DNA of my work. Wherever I'm doing it. And also, it's a work that's done by hand. Everything is made by hundreds of
artisans. Everything is hand-stitched. Everything is very fragile. That's why when there was a storm couple weeks ago, we lost part of the top that
we had to re-stitch by hand we actually kept the marks of the cracks.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. That's why we're talking to you, the individual artist JR, but we know that you love working as a collaborating force which you have
throughout your career and that applies to this project behind you as well. Artist JR in Paris, thank you so much for joining us. It is fascinating.
Can't wait to see it.
JR: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: I wish I could be there. And that is it for us now. Thank you so much for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
