Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with CNN Global Affairs Analyst Karim Sadjadpour; Interview with University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Oncologist Dr. Hussein Tawbi; Interview with Former Obama White House Health Policy Adviser Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel; Interview with Former Canadian Ambassador to the U.S. Frank McKenna. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired August 25, 2026 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
The Trump administration wages economic war on two fronts, weaponizing trade against both friends and foes.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SCOTT BESSENT, U.S. TREASURY SECRETARY: We are launching an economic onslaught against Iran's financial connections around the globe.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant unveils new sweeping sanctions against Tehran in a push to end the war. But will this strategy
work? I asked Iran expert Karim Sadjadpour.
And --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARK CARNEY, CANADIAN PRIME MINISTER: America is trying to break us so they can own us. And I promise that that will never, ever happen.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- an economic front opens against historic ally Canada. What tit-for-tat tariffs means for consumers and for Washington-Ottawa
relations. Former Canadian ambassador to the U.S., Frank McKenna, joins me to discuss.
Then, new hope in the fight against cancer. We speak to a doctor leading the trials of the melanoma vaccine at a Texas hospital. Giving renewed
optimism to patients. And to Dr. Zeke Emanuel, who's advised multiple U.S. presidents on health policy.
Plus --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ISOBEL YEUNG, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: How are you all doing here?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Doing here? Like hell.
YEUNG: Like hell?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- deported and stranded. As dozens of U.S. migrants land in one of the most dangerous places in the world, a report on the consequences
of Trump's third country deportations.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
America opens an economic war on two very different fronts. First, Iran, where Donald Trump is threatening Operation Economic Outcast. Then, Canada,
where the president is igniting a full-blown trade war. We'll turn to that later in the show.
But we begin with Iran. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant threatening a crackdown Monday on countries doing business with Tehran. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SCOTT BESSENT, U.S. TREASURY SECRETARY: In the Second World War, D-Day marked the historic beginning of a campaign with our allies to target and
drive the enemy from its positions, including those in third countries. Today, in that same spirit, we are launching an economic onslaught against
Iran's financial connections around the globe. Around the globe.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: These threatened U.S. sanctions would not only affect targeted countries that refuse to cut financial ties with Iran, they could also hit
shipping firms for simply communicating with the Iranian-backed organizations managing the Strait of Hormuz. Iran's finance minister says
the country is fully prepared to counter sanctions. But Iran's currency has already dropped to a record low against the dollar.
So, will Tehran be able to withstand the impact, or will the government be forced back to the negotiating table? Let's bring in leading Iran expert
Karim Sadjadpour. Karim, welcome back to the program. It's been a while. Great to have you on.
I want to pick up on what we heard yesterday from Scott Bessant. Because Suzanne Maloney, somebody who I know you respect and know well, another
Iran scholar, posted this on X shortly after his announcement. She said, predictably, Scott Bessant's economic D-Day rollout is all hype. The
emperor has no clothes and the Trump administration has no actionable plan to undo the immense damage to U.S. national security interests and those of
our Gulf partners from Trump's disastrous Iran war.
What did you make of his comments? Do you agree with Suzanne's rather blistering assessment?
KARIM SADJADPOUR, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: Bianna, when I speak to colleagues in the Treasury Department, what they see is the beginning of a
process to really try to subject Iran to enormous economic pressure in order to bring it to the table and force it into compromise.
Now, that strategy is now without precedent. On the only two occasions that Iran has agreed to meaningful compromise from 1979 to the present, it was
in 1988 and in 2015 to end -- the Iran-Iraq war in 1988 and the 2015 Obama nuclear deal.
[13:05:00]
And in both occasions, it was when the country was subject to enormous, perhaps existential, economic pressure coupled with a clear diplomatic
endgame. So, part of the strategy, I think, is -- has merit in the historic precedent, which is to try to subject the regime to enormous pressure. What
we don't see is a clear diplomatic strategy and a clear diplomatic endgame.
GOLODRYGA: You talk about how in the past Iran has given in only a handful of times to that you just listed here to pressure. And the country, no
doubt, is under immense pressure economically right now, in addition to the damage sustained during the military component of this war. The blockade
itself has been damaging. Iran exported zero crude in May, down from 2.1 million barrels a day. Iran's own central bank governor admitted this week
that oil exports have entirely stopped.
Though Tehran's economy minister claims that they have a two-year plan to ride all of this out. Is that bluster, you think, for his population at
home, or can they ride this out for two years?
SADJADPOUR: Well, this is a regime which has long been willing to subject its population to enormous hardship rather than compromise. And right now,
it's a regime ruled by Revolutionary Guard commanders who are somewhat insensitive to popular suffering.
As you alluded to, Bianna, this is one of the economies which is -- you know, there's probably no country in the world with a greater gap between
how it's doing economically and what it should be doing economically. You know, Iran should be a G20 nation. It has enormous oil and gas resources.
It has enormous human potential, human capacity. But it's suffering from around 70 percent inflation, collapsing currency, triple-digit food
inflation.
And so, it is possible that they can withstand this for perhaps another year or so, especially if it's not sustained economic pressure. But, you
know, at some point I think that the regime is likely going to have to compromise or face another popular tumult.
GOLODRYGA: The secretary -- the treasury secretary gave a preview of his announcement yesterday in an op-ed that he wrote over the weekend in the
Financial Times. And he wrote this, at dawn begins an economic D-Day, the single greatest financial offensive ever marshaled against an adversary.
And if, as the regime's grasp on power crumbles alongside its economy, Iran resorts to military action against U.S. forces or its Gulf neighbors, make
no mistake, President Trump will respond swiftly and decisively.
This was the secretary setting expectations before the announcement. And yet, I'd like to play for you what he said in response to a question from
our Kevin Liptak.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: You described this as an economic D-Day, but D-Day wasn't a threat of an invasion and the U.S.
didn't give a timeline to Germany. So, why not impose the sanctions today?
BESSENT: Well, we are giving everyone the opportunity to remedy bad behavior. Why would I want to blow up the global financial system? We
believe that it is important to level set and give people a cure period. But they should know that that will move very quickly and that we are
serious.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: What do you make of his response? And is that an answer that Iranian officials today take seriously, in your view?
SADJADPOUR: Well, Bianna, Iran is one of the most isolated economies in the world. The country which will play a decisive role here is China
because around 90 percent of Iran's oil exports are bound to China. I would say that, you know, absent economic cooperation with China, the Iranian
regime wouldn't be able to sustain itself economically.
So, the big question is whether the Trump administration will go after Chinese companies, sanction Chinese companies and potentially escalate an
economic war with China over this Iran fight. So, you know, that remains to be seen.
Another big question is how Iran will choose to retaliate. I think one of the lessons that Iran learned from this war is that you don't win
concessions by compromising. You win concessions from the United States by punching back.
[13:10:00]
And they have threatened to go after energy installations throughout the Persian Gulf. And so, there is a real danger that Iran chooses retaliated
against this economic warfare by bombing oil and gas installations in the Arab Gulf countries. And it's a big question of whether the United States
has the back of those countries.
GOLODRYGA: You referenced China. The secretary was asked about China twice, I believe, yesterday during that announcement and the Q&A with
reporters, and he refused to answer specifically to that question. He said that there would be one financial institution that would be sanctioned, a
major financial institution that would be named later this week. He didn't say which institution that is or where it is. But if China is, in fact,
included in these secondary sanctions, how significant would that be, in your view?
SADJADPOUR: Well, it would be significant, and it remains to be seen how China would respond. Would they simply choose to reduce their economic
trade and cooperation with Iran, as they chose to do in 2015, which helped to facilitate the Obama nuclear deal, or will they choose to retaliate
against the United States instead?
I think that the challenge that the U.S. has now, in contrast to, let's say, a decade ago, was that what was so important in the Obama nuclear deal
was there was a full diplomatic press against Iran. So, Europe was firmly on board, and Russia and China also had significantly reduced their
cooperation with Iran. This time around, Russia is openly siding with Iran. The Europeans are ambivalent about supporting the United States, and China
continues to provide Iran an economic lifeline.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, and it would be hard to see the president really clamping down on China now, publicly at least, since he will be welcoming Xi Jinping
to the White House exactly a month from today.
Karim, the latest U.S. initiatives that were just announced build on more than 1,000 sanctions that the Trump administration has placed on Iran since
returning to his second term. And if you look at the five sectors that Treasury named yesterday, gold, digital assets, technology, aviation,
shipping, and that led one Iran economist to call these lifelines for the Iranian people, not necessarily the regime.
So, if the goal here is to get the people the help they need and empower them to rise up against these dictators and the authoritarians now running
the country, do you think this actually does more harm to them? Is there any merit to this economist's point?
SADJADPOUR: Well, Bianna, I think that the point is an important one, which is that, what is the strategic goal here? Because, yes, we have seen
historically that under enormous pressure, this regime is capable of compromise. But that is when there is a kind of a clear diplomatic strategy
in mind.
If we essentially telegraph to them that the U.S. goal here is to implode the regime, there is certainly not going to compromise. They have 100
percent resolve to stay in power because their view is it's kill or be killed. But if we articulate kind of a more limited diplomatic goal to
wrestle back this trade of Hormuz from Iran to get some nuclear compromises, some regional compromises, you know, that is a potentially
viable strategy.
And certainly, the Iranian people, you know, it's been a terrible 2026 for the people of Iran because when they did rise up last January, they were
slaughtered en masse, and this war has just brought about more hardship for the people of Iran and an even more brutal regime.
GOLODRYGA: Slaughtered by the tens of thousands, Karim Sadjadpour, always important to remember that. Senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace. Thank you as always for joining us for your perspective.
SADJADPOUR: Thank you, Bianna.
GOLODRYGA: And still to come, a new vaccine might revolutionize how we fight cancer. This is an incredible story. I'm joined by Dr. Hussain Tabi,
who is working on the vaccine trials, and Dr. Zeke Emanuel, who's advised multiple U.S. presidents on health policy.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:15:00]
GOLODRYGA: Now, the World Health Organization is sounding the alarm, projecting that new cancer cases could nearly double by 2050. From the
patients that suffer the agony of chemotherapy to their loved ones supporting them through it. The pain is synonymous with cancer and it's
still a weight carried by millions.
But a new personalized vaccine could change that. A clinical trial led by Merck and Moderna involving hundreds of melanoma patients showed treatment
stopped cancer recurrence. Oncologists are hoping that it can also be used to fight other types of cancer.
But how monumental is this breakthrough? Joining me now are Dr. Hussein Tawbi, who is leading the Phase 3 trial for the vaccine at UT MD Anderson
Cancer Center in Texas. And Dr. Zeke Emanuel, who has advised multiple U.S. administrations on health policy and is the author of a book I love, "Eat
Your Ice Cream." Welcome both of you. Good to have you on the program, especially on such a hopeful story here.
Dr. Tawbi, you treat melanoma patients every single day. How big of a breakthrough is this? And put it into scale for us. I mean, are we going
back to when immunotherapy really started to break through some 15 years ago or is it still too early for that?
DR. HUSSEIN TAWBI, ONCOLOGIST, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER: Yes. Thank you so much for having me, Bianna. That's exactly what
we're discussing here. So, I started treating patients with melanoma almost 20 years ago and the five-year survival at that point was 5 percent. And
now, 20 years later, we easily can discuss how we can probably cure about 50 percent of those patients. So, tenfold increase in survival for patients
because of immunotherapy specifically, especially in melanoma.
So, what we're seeing now is despite immunotherapy being really, really helpful and also preventing melanoma from coming back in patients who have
their tumors resected, there's still about 40 to 50 percent of patients that will still recur and will have their tumor come back either where it
started or even in the lung, liver, or even brain, and then be at the risk of death from that cancer again.
So, single agent immunotherapy, PD-1, pembrolizumab, or nivolumab has helped decrease that risk by about 50 percent. But since then, we have
really not been able to improve upon that. I personally have led a trial, global trial, in which we added other checkpoints on top of single agent
PD-1, and that was not successful. And now, we see for the first time with the addition of a personalized messenger RNA-based vaccination that we can
break through and improve upon even what single agent PD-1 is capable of doing.
[13:20:00]
So, that is really big news. That is something that will help patients directly because it will be based on their own tumor. It does not get any
more personalized than that. But also, I think opens the door to this technology to be able to really make breakthroughs in multiple other
cancers and potentially be used in other ways to improve the outcomes of patients.
GOLODRYGA: It is. It is incredible. Zeke, I'm going to call you Zeke because you are a family friend. So, no disrespect, Doctor. But you have
worked with, as we've said, a number of administrations here in the U.S. in the name Moderna to many of our viewers is synonymous with the COVID
vaccine. I mean, that is something that the Trump administration gave over a billion dollars to in research. And it was a huge achievement for this
administration and President Trump at the time.
And now, in his second term though, under HHS Secretary Kennedy, he's canceled hundreds of millions of dollars in mRNA research. Just square that
for us.
DR. EZEKIEL EMANUEL, FORMER OBAMA WHITE HOUSE HEALTH POLICY ADVISER: Well, I think President Trump has sort of attacked everything that was COVID
related and a success in COVID relations. So, mRNA vaccines are at the top of the list. They canceled 22 research studies for about $500 million out
of BARDA. Attacked Tony Fauci, who helped them initially on responding to COVID. And has done other attacks related to the COVID response. And has
generally undermined vaccines. He's been quite hostile to vaccines, both the president and RFK Jr. It's not just RFK Jr. And I think that symbolizes
the problem.
I couldn't agree more that this is a big breakthrough. It doesn't tell you that it's going to be easy for other cancers. Melanoma is a, I won't say
it's a special case, but it is a case where you have a lot of genetic changes that make creating antibodies more easier, as it were. Other
cancers don't have such favorable circumstances, but it does show you it's possible. And it means that we are going to be developing these neo-antigen
vaccines in a lot of cases. And some of them are going to hit and we'll figure out how to make it better. That's what research is about. And that's
what cancer research is about.
And the fact that it's an mRNA tells you that all of this hullabaloo about mRNA vaccines being bad is it's just going to disappear. Once you can cure
cancer with an mRNA vaccine or even give people prolonged disease, recurrence-free survival, people are going to embrace this because
especially in melanoma, which as the doctor mentioned, such a deadly, terrible illness before. So, this is a really, really hopeful sign.
GOLODRYGA: Dr. Tawbi, can you explain how this mRNA vaccine actually works? Because unlike COVID vaccines, which its intent is to either prevent
infection or to minimize the symptoms of the infection, this is for patients that already have cancer.
DR. TAWBI: Exactly, Bianna, and that's very important. These are therapeutic vaccinations that are trying to prevent tumor that has already
developed from coming back. So, in some respects, we consider cancer partly a disease of the immune system. The reason that a cancer develops is the
fact that the immune system has somehow turned a blind eye on it and have not eliminated it. So, we use surgery to take the tumor out and then we use
immunotherapy with single agent PD-1 to then turn the immune system against the cancer and try to cure it. And that's in the, we call it the adjuvant
setting.
So, in the absence of tumors, sometimes the immune system does not have the means to be trained properly against it. So, what this messenger RNA
vaccine does is we take the patient's tumor, we sequence it to identify every mutation in it that is different from the patient's own body, and
then using algorithms that can predict which one of those mutations is most likely to generate an immune response.
Thirty-four of those, so -- as you heard them called neoantigens, 34 of those neoantigens are chosen to be included in the messenger RNA molecule
that's then injected into the patients. So, the patients end up being treated with pembrolizumab, still immunotherapy with PD-1, which I think is
a critical component of this. And I think really what also unlocked the benefit. And then they get injected with the messenger RNA vaccination
every few weeks, a total of nine doses.
[13:25:00]
So, with that messenger RNA, those specific neoantigens end up getting expressed. They then can be seen by the immune system and they can be
attacked by the immune system. And there's evidence that those 34 neoantigens actually do generate an immune response.
And now, we see for the first time in a randomized global trial with 1,100 patients, that there is a difference in relapse-free survival, which means
the tumor coming back, or distant metastasis-free survival, which is specifically the tumor coming back in places like the lung, liver, or
brain, where it becomes really much harder to treat and more dangerous to patients' lives.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And Zeke noted that, that melanoma is considered sort of an easier target here, but there are already studies underway to treat
stomach cancer, pancreatic, kidney, lung.
On the topic of pancreatic cancer, Zeke, I want to ask you, as we know, that is one of the deadliest diagnoses to get because most times for
patients it is just too late and they're already likely at stage four by the time they are diagnosed. We saw a major breakthrough this past spring
as well by a drug called Daraxonrasib, which doubled survival in trials. I'd like to play sound from an interview that Jake Tapper conducted with
Ben Sasse, who had been diagnosed with this terminal disease, and here's what he said about the impact it's had on him.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BEN SASSE, LIVING WITH STAGE 4 CANCER: Pancreatic cancer has been thought to be undruggable. The oncology community calls it a greasy ball. The
molecule that is pancreatic cancer is like a golf ball with hard dimples, but no crevices, no way to get a drug in.
All these molecules evidently have a chaperone molecule nearby, and this rock star researcher, who was one of the co-founders of Revolutions
Medicine, had the idea that maybe you find a way to take molecular glue and glue your chaperone molecule to the pancreatic cancer and you create a
crevice and you lock the drug in there, and then they experimented with 500 molecules and they found one, this Daraxonrasib drug, and all of a sudden
pancreatic cancer is a little bit responsive.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: So, there we could say perhaps another medical expert to help explain how these drugs work. In addition to having been a senator, Ben
Sasse there making the case to Jake about the impact that this drug has had in some of the groundbreaking technology and research.
Zeke, this drug works differently, though. This is a daily pill, so it's not the mRNA, so that suggests that there are still multiple paths to
curing cancer in the future.
DR. EMANUEL: Absolutely. We've got regular chemotherapy. We've got immunotherapies. We've now got vaccines. And we know that the
chemotherapies work by multiple different pathways. We also have targeted drugs that work on the specific genetic defect or the specific protein, as
in CML, the tyrosine kinase drugs. There are multiple pathways.
And one of the, I think, important things for your listeners to understand is, you know, 50 years ago, more than 50 years ago now, President Nixon
declared a war on cancer. It's taken that long to unravel all the different ways that cancer arises, all the different ways that cancer cells have for
fighting the immune system and proliferating and going to distant parts. But now we really are seeing the heyday of anti-cancer treatments around,
and we're seeing it in multiple different ways.
I think, just like the case of melanoma, you're going to see multiple different agents using different mechanisms coming together to treat and,
let's hope, cure a number of the cancers that have really been resistant over time, like pancreatic cancer and melanoma. And that's the future for
patients, which is we're going to try different things that have been used in the past, and some of them are going to work.
And that has got to be the most exciting moment. You know, scientists say this a lot, but this -- in my 40 years in cancer, this is probably the most
exciting moment we've been at.
GOLODRYGA: That, and I know you're also very excited and optimistic about the role that A.I. will play in medicine in the country, in particular, an
example you give is in addressing the shortage of medical staff, of doctors, nurses, in rural and even urban areas, that A.I. could really step
up and play a role here.
[13:30:00]
We only have time for one more question, and unfortunately, it's not an optimistic one. I'm going to ask you, Zeke, about measles, and it had just
been reported today that Pennsylvania health officials said two unvaccinated people have died in the state from measles, the first measles
deaths reported in the U.S. this year, the first in Pennsylvania in 35 years. This isn't an isolated case, an episode, Zeke. You know we've seen a
spike in measles cases here in the U.S. and around the world.
What needs to be done? What do our government, our elected officials, our health officials need to do and say right now?
DR. EMANUEL: Look, we need to get a lot of those people who have not been vaccinated, vaccinated ASAP. There's no two questions about it, that that
is how you control measles. We know this because when we introduced the measles vaccines way back in the '60s, it took a few years to get up to 95
percent of the population at risk of vaccinated, and then the number of measles cases dropped like a stone and became basically just a few hundred
cases a year.
And all of these attacking vaccines, childhood vaccines, criticizing them with no scientific basis is the problem. Some people believe the vaccines
are bad, a big majority, not a big majority, but a sizable number, 10 to 20 percent of the population says I'm uncertain, I can't delve into the data.
Those are the people that really need to get their kids vaccinated. Otherwise, we're going to have a lot more of these cases of totally
unnecessary hospitalizations and the most tragic cases, totally unnecessary children dying of measles, totally avoidable situation. Prior to this
recent outbreak last year, we hadn't had a death in 15 years. It's just -- it's so tragic.
GOLODRYGA: It is. It had been all but eliminated here in the US, and sadly, we're reporting deaths. Dr. Zeke Emanuel, you heard it here from
him, his advice to you, get your vaccines and then you can eat your ice cream. Dr. Hussein Tawbi, thank you for all of the incredible work that you
are doing as a Houstonian, someone who grew up in that city. I am so proud to call myself a fellow resident there, former resident, my family's
watching this right now, all the incredible work being done at MD Anderson, appreciate the time and all that you do.
DR. TAWBI: Thank you for the opportunity to be here. I'm absolutely happy to be part of this effort at UTMD Anderson and really change the future of
cancer and making cancer history. So, thank you so much for having me, Bianna.
GOLODRYGA: Thank you both.
DR. EMANUEL: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: All right. Up next, the U.S. and Canada are falling deeper into a trade war since failing to reach a deal last week. The tit-for-tat
tariffs are spiraling and the feud between the nations is escalating. On a social media website, President Trump suggested renaming Lake Ontario to
Lake America and declared Canada entitled and unreasonable. But Canadian leaders are standing firm and united with the finance minister laying out
more reciprocal tariffs on U.S. goods today.
And speaking yesterday, Ontario Premier Doug Ford was defiant in the face of U.S. threats.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DOUG FORD, ONTARIO PREMIER: No, I don't respond to a dictator like President Trump, a bully like President Trump. As I said before, he's the
type of guy in school that would take your lunch money one day, take your toque off your head the next day and then steal your running shoes. But I'm
not going to take any advice off a guy that's the king of bankruptcies. And he's actually tariffing his own people, taxing his own people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Well, Doug Ford was on with my colleague, Wolf Blitzer, earlier today. He said that it is time for cooler heads to prevail and for talks to
continue. And perhaps he said, he admitted that things went a bit too far, even from what he said yesterday.
But what does all of this mean? The most important question for consumers. Frank McKenna is a former Canadian ambassador to the US. He joins me now
from New Brunswick, Canada. Ambassador, welcome to the program.
You know, we talk about one segment about all the progress being made in one field and that is science. When it relates to trade negotiations and
diplomacy, it seems like we are taking massive steps backwards. Just talk to us about your own personal feelings about the state of relations between
these two countries.
FRANK MCKENNA, FORMER CANADIAN AMBASSADOR TO THE U.S.: Well, thank you, Bianna. And I was excited to hear the comments about advances in science.
What's happening on trade is really an unforced error. It's totally unnecessary.
We have, between Canada and the United States, a binding trade agreement that the president negotiated and was signed off in 2020.
[13:35:00]
And he declared it was the best most modern trade agreement in the world. And the problem we have, of course, is that it's been breached repeatedly.
Section 232 central tariffs on a number of commodities coming from our country like steel, aluminum, autos, et cetera. And now, these new section
238 tariffs that have never been used before in a hundred-year history of the United States since that statute was enacted being used to tariff
Canada on a number of our products. So, Canada has responded tit for tat.
Truthfully, what we need to do now is to let our blood cool and stand back and reflect on what we have. What we have is the biggest most successful
commercial relationship in the world and the most successful military relationship. There are no troops from the Canadian U.S. border and we have
a mutual defense agreement through NORAD to defend North America. And we need to fall back to basics.
Our friendship, our -- the fact we're the biggest buyer of your goods, you're the biggest buyer of our goods. We need to get back to basics and
understand that we have a choice between destroying hundreds of thousands of jobs in both countries or building thousands and thousands of new jobs
in both countries by working together. That's where we need to go from the rhetoric, the inflamed rhetoric of the moment.
GOLODRYGA: So, given that, and I know that it really puts Canada in a bind because it was the president who announced these additional tariffs, though
he's blaming Canada for walking away from a deal that was just, it appears, hours away from being finalized last week.
Do you think that it was the right strategy then for Canada to respond and deliver on their threats for tit for tat, dollar for dollar tariffs given
that it is a smaller economy? No doubt that this will impact American consumers, but it is Canadians who dollar for dollar could likely feel more
of the pain here, no?
MCKENNA: Yes. No, that's a terrific question. Tariffs are just bad news. They represent a tax. And we've been reluctant to put tariffs against other
countries because we're taxing our own consumers, which is what the United States is doing with the tariffs which they've put on. So, we know that.
And we realize that it's difficult to win a war with a giant like the United States of America. It's not a fair fight. We're a small country.
They're a large one. It's an asymmetric fight. The United States is very powerful. But, you know, we're going to win this fight, and we're going to
win this fight because what's also asymmetric is our resolve.
We are fighting for our country, for our sovereignty, and Canadians are united, almost unanimously behind our prime minister, who's at the height
of his popularity. And he is strongly supported in carrying on this fight. The United States, on the other hand, is deeply divided. It's deeply
polarized, deeply divided, with the majority of Americans being opposed to these tariffs and many people, even in the president's own party, calling
for a reversal, as well as industry and union leaders.
So, we will suffer pain. There is no doubt about that. And I hate to see that happen, but we're prepared to take that pain. On the other hand, the
United States is going to take pain, too. As they enter into the midterms and as they enter into affordability issues writ large, and as they try to
deal with a foreign war, which is continuing to fester, they're going to be going through pain as well.
We have a chance to down arms and stand back and avoid all of this pain and create a really constructive relationship like we always had around
Fortress North America if we can let our blood stop boiling and get back to the table and talk constructively about how we can go forward.
GOLODRYGA: And getting back to the table, what's really important in all of these negotiations is clearly understanding what the other side wants.
And I'm wondering if you, or is it the view of the Canadian government and Prime Minister Carney, that this is really an issue that comes down to
sovereignty or economics? Because we have heard President Trump consistently refer to Canada as America's 51st state. You heard him talk
about now Lake Ontario and turning that into Lake America and saying repeatedly that Canadians would fare better if they were part of the United
States.
Mark Carney said that one demand was that Canada align its tariffs with other countries. With that of Washington, I don't know that I've ever heard
of that kind of demand. Do you think it comes down to your country's autonomy and sovereignty?
[13:40:00]
MCKENNA: Yes. Look, I think that's a really important part of this. There's absolutely no doubt that we're a proud country. We value our
sovereignty. We're distinctive. We're different from the United States. We admire the United States enormously. Our best friends, neighbors, allies,
trading partners are America. But we are our own country with a very distinctive identity.
And some of the demands that were put on the table go right to the heart of our sovereignty. Our ability to make trade deals, tariff deals, tariff
calls, whatever you might want with other countries in the world. That would make us a vassal state of the United States of America. No country in
the world should be or would be prepared to give up their sovereignty in such a fashion. So, it's highly irregular and highly inappropriate to make
that kind of a demand of a trading partner.
And so, yes, part of -- the dispute is economic, but part of it goes to right to our identity as a sovereign nation as well. And that's something
that we cannot compromise on.
GOLODRYGA: One of the retaliatory measures that Doug Ford said should be on the table relates to energy and oil trade, natural gas, that would be
seen as sort of the nuclear weapon for Canada to use here as they are the largest. The United States imports the largest amount of gas and oil from
Canada. Do you think that that would be a wise move at this point, or at least to threaten that seriously, given what I would imagine would be a
significant retaliatory blow from this administration?
MCKENNA: No, this is not the time. It's always fun to speculate, but no, it's not the time to look at that. It is a nuclear option. It does allow me
to remind you that 66 percent of our exports to the United States are essentially raw materials or semi-processed materials, which are turning
the jobs in the United States in the manufacturing sector.
So, we are really a raw material provider to the United States of America. Over half your aluminum, 25 percent of your steel, most of the foreign oil
that comes in is from Canada, potash, et cetera. So, no, I don't think it's the time to go there.
But I want you to understand the implications of that. We fuel some of America's biggest refiners. Four million barrels a day go. We could put an
export tax on that. Potash, 80 percent of the potash used by the farmers comes from Canada. We could put an export tax on that. We could put it on
steel, aluminum, on copper, nickel, all kinds of other commodities. I don't think that's a place that we should go to.
What we need to do is to find ways to dial back the rhetoric and find ways to connect better rather than escalating the fight. But America should
understand why these weapons are so potent, because contrary to what the president has said rhetorically from time to time, the United States does
need Canada. We represent an enormous warehouse of goods going into the United States to be converted into jobs. And I think we're so much better
together. I can't understand the impulse to try to tear us apart.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. Minus the energy and commodities there, we actually would have a trade surplus with Canada. That's important to note as well. Two
historic allies and very close friends, both in terms of ideology and location. Physically as well.
MCKENNA: Yes.
GOLODRYGA: We'll see. Hopefully this can get resolved. Frank McKenna, former Canadian ambassador to the United States, thanks so much for joining
the show.
MCKENNA: Thank you. Thank you for having me.
GOLODRYGA: And coming up, the U.S. has made deportation agreements with over 30 countries, but the details remain scarce. CNN's Isobel Yeung
travels to the Central African Republic to speak with some of those who've been deported there.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:45:00]
GOLODRYGA: The Trump administration has quietly signed so-called third country deportation deals with more than 30 nations, some reaching into the
millions of dollars. One of those countries is the Central African Republic, considered among the most dangerous places in the world. Just
months ago, it received its first ICE deportation flight carrying more than a dozen migrants who have no ties to the nation. CNN's Isobel Yeung
traveled there to see how they're doing.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ASENA (PH): I was so scared. I was crying, and I said, I'm not going out.
ISOBEL YEUNG, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Asena (ph) thought she'd find safety in the U.S. She says she fled Turkey after facing death
threats. But then she became one of thousands that the Trump administration has deported.
ASENA (PH): First, my hands, and with my belly like this, and my foot.
YEUNG: So, they handcuffed you and shackled you?
ASENA (PH): Yes. Yes.
YEUNG: And you still didn't know where you were going?
ASENA (PH): I don't know where I'm going to. So, I said, where we are going, tell me? And he said, I don't know, maybe Central Africa. And I was
in shock.
YEUNG: Have you ever heard of Central African Republic before?
ASENA (PH): No.
YEUNG: So, we are here in Bangui, in the Central African Republic, trying to find out what happened with this ICE deportation flight that took place
this summer going from the U.S. to here. We know that this flight happened in the shadows of secrecy. As far as we know, no one apart from U.N.
agencies has managed to meet with these migrants. So, we're here trying to track them down.
YEUNG (voice-over): At 8:58 p.m. on June 11th, 18 migrants from all over the world were brought to Alexandria Airport, Louisiana. They say they were
handcuffed and shackled. Several claim they were severely beaten.
Two of the migrants say they were forced into a full-body restraint, like the one seen here in a demo video. A U.S. official called the allegation a
flat-out lie and denied anyone was beaten. The maker of one such restraint said it's a last-resort tool intended to promote safety and prevent
escalation.
Nearly 20 hours later, after a refueling stop, the plane touched down in Bangui, Central African Republic.
YEUNG: Maybe I can just start with, where are you from originally?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm from Georgia.
YEUNG: You're from Georgia?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Egypt.
YEUNG: Egypt.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Afghanistan.
YEUNG: Afghanistan.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Iraq.
YEUNG: Iraq.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Jordan.
YEUNG: Jordan. So, all different countries.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.
YEUNG: How are you all doing here?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Doing here? Like hell.
YEUNG: Like hell?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. No internet, no electric, too much of mosquito. Everybody have malaria.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translation): The police detained us and then demanded money from us. Since that day, we have not left the building.
YEUNG (voice-over): The U.S. State Department warns people do not travel here for risk of kidnapping and terrorism, and advises those who must to
leave behind a DNA sample so they can be identified by their family.
YEUNG: A lot of the migrants have told us that they are terrified to be here. And you can understand why. I mean, this is a country where there's
been an ongoing civil war that's still taking place. But even here in Bangui, there's very high rates of violence, very high rates of
criminality, and very high rates of, you know, these armed groups operating here.
YEUNG (voice-over): I asked the police about the migrants' claims that they are part of the problem.
YEUNG: Some of the migrants here that I've spoken to say that, when they go outside, the police stop them and ask them for cash and threaten them.
[13:50:00]
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translation): No, no, those police officers are checking who those people are. I don't believe they're asking them for
money.
YEUNG (voice-over): Very little is known about what terms the CAR government agreed to with the U.S. But what we do know is that, on May
18th, just one month before the first deportation flight, State Department diplomats traveled here to meet with the President.
For the past decade, the U.S. has given just a few million dollars per year to the U.N. Migration Agency IOM's operations in CAR. But this year, that
figure shot up to $85 million. An additional $50 million was committed to the CAR Humanitarian Fund.
We asked the IOM about the money they're receiving. They did not respond to our specific questions, but told us that IOM has a longstanding presence in
the CAR and they're receiving funding from a range of donors. But this is at a time when the Trump administration has been slashing billions of
dollars in foreign assistance.
YEUNG: We have been trying to get a hold of any U.S. officials to talk about what's been happening and why and how they've sent these migrants
here, because they are ultimately the ones responsible. I mean, the State Department have emailed back saying, as a policy, we do not discuss
diplomatic negotiations or funding mechanisms. And the U.S. Embassy staff have not been replying to us. But we're going to try and knock on the door
just to see if they answer.
So, we just have some questions about the migrants that were brought here.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All questions have to go to them. I'm not authorized to answer any questions.
YEUNG: All right. And is there anyone else we can contact at the U.S. Embassy?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: At Bangui PD at state.gov the email I gave you.
YEUNG: Who are just going to ignore us and pretend that email never came. All right. Thank you.
YEUNG (voice-over): Eventually, the State Department did get back to us. They did not reply to any of our detailed questions, but said, the U.S.
will use foreign assistance to support countries that help us achieve our immigration priorities. It's a tacit admission that the money is tied to
the deportations.
The U.S. government does have a responsibility towards these migrants. Most of those we spoke to here have protection orders from American judges,
stopping the government from sending them to their home countries, where they're likely to face persecution, torture or death.
FIDELE GOUANDJIKA, SPECIAL ADVISER TO THE PRESIDENT OF CAR: Hello, hello.
YEUNG (voice-over): Fidele Gouandjika is a special adviser to the CAR's President. He also hosts a local radio show.
YEUNG: As you know, nothing happens in this country without a little sweetener. It's a little bit difficult to believe that zero money was given
by the U.S. to Central African Republic. I mean, this is one of the most corrupt countries in the world, as you know.
GOUANDJIKA (through translation): I do not believe the government could be corrupt. I would not want to think for a single second that the Americans
or Donald Trump are acting as corruptors.
YEUNG (voice-over): For Gouandjika, what's happened to these migrants is a sign of American cruelty.
YEUNG: When a powerful country like the U.S. comes knocking and asking for this help, is it difficult for a country like yours to refuse?
GOUANDJIKA (through translation): What saddens me about the United States, a superpower with all the resources could keep these migrants there and
they send them here to us instead. The United States is a superpower, but it is a power without a good heart.
YEUNG (voice-over): Perhaps most concerning of all are those who have nowhere left to run to, like this young pro-democracy activist from Iran,
who says she faced possible execution for partaking in protests. Initially, she was overjoyed when she arrived in the U.S.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I was too much happy. The America, one of the best country in the world. And I say, it's OK. Now, I'm safe and I can make a
new life here. I know if I was in Iran, they going to kill me.
YEUNG (voice-over): Earlier this year, Trump himself encouraged Iranians to keep protesting, promising help is on the way.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Every time I think they're going to protect me, but American not protect me. When they send me here, really, I lose my hope
again.
YEUNG (voice-over): Isobel Yeung, CNN, Central African Republic.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: Our thanks to Isobel for that report. And finally, for people in Japan and in many countries, this summer has been unbearably hot. But
what about our friends covered head-to-toe in fur? Well, a Tokyo-based apparel company has come up with an air-conditioned jacket for dogs. That's
right.
[13:55:00]
The idea was inspired by the fan-cooled jackets worn by construction workers in the blistering heat. Built-in fans circulate air over an ice
pack at the neck to cool the dog's entire body. And as each summer feels hotter than the last, it's an innovative way to keep our dogs feeling and
perhaps even looking cool. Hey, maybe we'll want one of those as well. You never know. It is a hot summer.
All right. That is it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. And remember, you can
always catch us online, on our website, and all-over social media. Thanks so much for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
