Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with The Brennan Center CEO and President Michael Waldman; Interview with The Atlantic Staff Writer Toluse Olorunnipa; Interview with "End Times Fascism" Co-Author Naomi Klein; Interview with "End Times Fascism" Co-Author Astra Taylor; Interview with Financial Times Associate Editor Rana Foroohar. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired September 15, 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 Supreme Court deals a blow to Trump, blocking his restrictions on mail- in ballots. With the midterms closing in, we get the details about why this ruling matters.
Then, is a new alliance of the rich and powerful embracing the end of the world? Authors Naomi Klein and Astra Taylor say yes. They join me to talk
about their new book, "End Times Fascism," and how we can fight it.
Plus --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RANA FOROOHAR, ASSOCIATE EDITOR, FINANCIAL TIMES: If you look at historical boom and bust cycles, we're overdue for a big recession.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- from sky-high oil prices to bond market sell-offs, the global economy is taking major shocks. Associate editor of the Financial
Times, Rana Foroohar, tells Walter Isaacson about the warning signs of what's to come.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
President Trump lashes out at the Supreme Court, saying it has really let our country down after the high court blocked the president's efforts to
restrict mail-in ballots less than two months before the midterm elections. It's a ruling that has potentially saved a third of American voters from
being disenfranchised, with New York State Attorney General Letitia James saying she was truly relieved. Conservative justices Samuel Alito and
Clarence Thomas were the only two to back Trump's plan.
The president has repeatedly made unfounded claims of voter fraud associated with mail-in ballots, signing an executive order that sought to
create lists of U.S. citizens eligible to vote and instructing the U.S. Postal Service to only deliver ballots to those verified. Experts say that
this is a violation of executive power as the president pushes to reshape American elections.
So, how significant is this ruling, and how will it hold in the future? Toluse Olorunnipa is a staff writer for The Atlantic. His recent article
details the growing influence of right-wing activists on America's local elections, and he's joining me now alongside the president of the Brennan
Center for Justice, Michael Waldman. Welcome both with the view.
Michael, let me start with you. What exactly was the president trying to change about voting by mail, and what does this ruling mean for voters
who've received their ballots already?
MICHAEL WALDMAN, CEO AND PRESIDENT, THE BRENNAN CENTER: For voters, the facts are very clear. They can vote as they have before. This confirms that
they can vote if, by mail if that was their plan, and that's the way they do it. And as you said, one in three Americans votes that way. So, there
was a lot of noise and a lot of legal drama, but happily for voters, the, sort of the coast is clear. They can cast their ballot with confidence in
that way.
What was being attempted here was an extraordinary and illegal and unconstitutional effort to exert control over the election system by the
White House, by the president of the United States, in this case through the Postal Service, directing them to do what you described. It was
unworkable and illegal. It was also unconstitutional.
The Constitution is quite clear. States run elections, including mail voting. The federal government, Congress, has a role in passing laws,
national laws. The president has no role, and certainly the Postal Service acting at the president's direction cannot suddenly be put in charge of how
elections are run in this country.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And just to follow up quickly, Michael, with you, was the Supreme Court saying in this ruling that the EO itself was unconstitutional
or was it just not a, a timing applicable executive order?
WALDMAN: So, you know, that is a good question. This is one of those, what they call a shadow docket ruling. It was only one paragraph long. Nobody
signed their name to it, although, as you said Justices Alito and Thomas dissented, so we can assume at least six of the others went along with
this.
[13:05:00]
It didn't go into much detail, but it did say that one of the reasons that it upheld a lower court ruling, and I should note that the Brennan Center,
along with other voting rights groups, brought the case in front of the Supreme Court, that what it was doing was allowing this previous ruling by
a trial court to stand, and one of the reasons said the Supreme Court was the government, the Trump administration, was unlikely to prevail on the
merits.
So, it certainly seems as if they were of the view, the justices, that this was in fact illegal, that it wasn't just a matter of timing. Kavanaugh,
Justice Kavanaugh, he issued what's called a concurrence, where he said, well, maybe the timing was the problem, but the others seemed to be going
considerably further, and that's encouraging.
GOLODRYGA: Toluse, we hear Michael say this is encouraging, that it tells Americans that they can vote confidently, that their vote will be counted,
but American distrust of the election process itself is growing. According to an AP poll, only 34 percent of Americans, of U.S. adults, trust
government certifications of election results, quote, "a great deal or quite a bit." According to another AP poll, only 34 percent of U.S. adults
trust government certifications.
In 2024, that number was at 40 percent. So, how much damage has already been done over the course of the last few years?
TOLUSE OLORUNNIPA, STAFF WRITER, THE ATLANTIC: There has been a lot of damage done, in part because the president has basically said that our
elections are crooked, our elections are fraudulent, you can't trust the mail, and he's tried to use the force of the federal government to enforce
his view of elections, which is one-day voting, no early voting, no drop boxes, no mail-in ballots. He's said that all of these different methods,
which many people, many millions of people use, are fraudulent or are tainted, and so it's caused a lot of confusion. And these various court
cases also have added to the confusion, even if they are not allowing the president's policies to go into place.
A number of people have already said, I'm not going to vote by mail because I'm worried about what's going to happen with the Postal Service. I'm
worried that the president is going to use some sort of executive power to try to end-run the legal system.
And so, there is a lot of confusion, there is a lot of doubt, there is a lot of questioning of whether or not people's votes will actually count, in
part because the president has used his bully pulpit, which is the biggest bully pulpit in American politics, to undermine confidence in the vote,
even though local officials are doing what they can to try to make sure that this vote will take place without any kind of malfeasance.
The president is using his power as president, his power of the bully pulpit, to undermine people's confidence in their voting system, and that
really makes it difficult for people to trust that their vote will count the way that it should.
GOLODRYGA: And, Toluse, this isn't anecdotal, right? I mean, this is based on your own reporting, that this distrust or confusion is actually leading
some American voters to not vote at all.
OLORUNNIPA: Yes, that's right. And this distrust once was on the fringes of the American political system, but now we have seen people who believe
in the president's election falsehoods make their way into power. They're working on election boards at the county level, at the state level, and
they're able to implement some of these things, even though the president and the federal government are finding themselves blocked by the courts
over and over again.
You are seeing state election officials, county election officials, being able to implement some of these things, because under the Constitution,
elections are supposed to be run at the local and state level with potential input from Congress. There's not really much of a role for the
executive branch, for the president, to enact his own view of how elections should work.
But now that he has allies, election deniers, that are working at the local and state level, he's still able to get some of his policies through, even
though the courts are blocking him. That's part of the reason why some people are saying they won't vote, or some people are saying they don't
trust that their vote will count. They're worried that even if they show up to the polls, that something bad could happen in which their votes might
not count.
GOLODRYGA: Michael, I want to play an excerpt from President Trump from earlier this summer addressing election security. He argues that his
efforts are to make sure that elections are safer. Let's play it that sound.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: Every American deserves to know that when they cast their vote, that vote will be counted accurately in a system, and
that is to make that system secure. One where cheating and interference are not just difficult, but virtually impossible. Unfortunately, the system we
have today falls catastrophically short of that standard.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: So, Michael, your center actually studies voter fraud. Does the evidence support that description we just heard from the president? And are
there any vulnerabilities today?
[13:10:00]
WALDMAN: Oh, what he was saying was emphatically not true, even the commas in the periods. And it's extraordinary to have a president of the United
States spouting nonsense like that. American elections are secure.
And one of the things that is encouraging right now is if you look at the primaries that have been going on, turnout has actually been pretty high.
And results have been uncontested. And when you actually get down into the communities, a lot of this sort of nonsense that you hear from the
president really doesn't affect how politicians on either side are addressing how it all went or are addressing voters.
But, you know, states have a multiplicity of systems in place to make sure, for example, that only citizens vote. Voter fraud is really rare. You're
more likely to be struck by lightning in the United States than to commit voter fraud. Again, there's plenty of reason to think that voters can vote
with confidence.
And I think it's a challenge for those of us who want to have a free and fair election for the media, for election officials who are tremendously
trusted even now, to make clear to people that they should make a plan to vote. They should vote early in person if they want. If they vote with mail
ballot, they should vote with a Dropbox.
If they're going to use the Postal Service, they should vote early because of the problems and the mess of the Postal Service, not because of anything
involving this executive order or certainly vote on Election Day. And one way or another, their vote will be counted. You know, there's been a lot of
pressure on the elections for several cycles now. A lot of lies spewed like this.
And that speech was kind of a dud, if you think about it. He claimed he was going to have a big reveal and didn't. But despite all the pressure over
recent years, the system held pretty well. It's an extraordinary and unusual and unprecedented thing, in fact, to have the federal government,
the president of the United States, be trying to undermine the elections.
But now it's up to election officials and people in communities to sort of do their thing. And the only way Trump is trying to do this, but he's
actually failing. The only way he'll succeed is if voters stay home.
GOLODRYGA: Well, Toluse, President Trump, as we played in the introduction there, has called this ruling by the Supreme Court a bad decision and a,
quote, "horrible, highly political ruling." He went on to write, the court's inability and unwillingness to do the right thing for our country
will go down in a very negative way in the annals of history.
You have covered this president for years now. When he attacks both the voting systems and the judges who uphold it, what does that do? How does
that translate to his base of hardcore supporters? And the people around him?
OLORUNNIPA: Well, it's a clear signal that the president is trying to delegitimize the Supreme Court, basically say that they are doing the
bidding of those that are against the United States. He said that their ruling will go down in the history of things that have harmed the country.
And so, he is taking actions that will inspire people to not believe the court, to want to delegitimize the court, not want to trust the court's
rulings, and potentially even to lash out against the court in various ways.
And so, this is a president who has appointed three members of the Supreme Court, but now feels betrayed by that court and does not want to follow its
rulings.
GOLODRYGA: And, Toluse, your reporting also shows and lays out how election deniers have moved into the system itself, not only in terms of
those who are surrounding the president in his second term, but you give specifics in local and state elections. Georgia, obviously a history there
from 2020. What did you find today?
OLORUNNIPA: Yes. If you remember, Georgia is the place where the FBI conducted a raid of the biggest county of its election infrastructure. It
shows how both at the state level and the local level and at federal level, there are election deniers working together to undermine confidence in the
vote.
You have Trump-aligned election deniers on the state election board who have taken control of that board in the last five years and have tried to
implement a number of restrictions on voting, a number of investigations. Their efforts were actually cited by the FBI when the FBI went in and
raided the Fulton County election office.
And so, there is this apparatus where you have local state officials that are working with the federal government to undermine confidence, not to try
to help more people vote, but to put forward this idea that election fraud is happening on a broad scale and that we need federal intervention to stop
it from happening.
[13:15:00]
And so, Georgia is a key place where election deniers are in charge of the state election board. They're in charge of many of the county election
boards. They have been working for the last several years to gain power within the system, and now they are working that power in ways to try to
undermine people's confidence in the vote.
GOLODRYGA: And some of those even Republicans who supported the president and voted for the president but stood as guardrails, they're not always in
place anymore today. And, Michael, the president really seems to be going after what he claims are a number of noncitizens who are voting, and the
White House is also working to gain access, we know, to state election records and voters' personal information.
A whistleblower reports that the DHS investigators may have broken state laws now, and part of their effort, using personal information such as
birthdates or Social Security numbers to look up voter records. Tell our viewers, what authority today does the DHS actually have?
WALDMAN: Well, they do not have authority, and you're right that this whistleblower report says that many state laws were broken and that DHS
agents have quotas, basically, of how many records they're supposed to look at, and they're using fake names and data and other ways to try to get into
the state databases to get their records.
The bottom line is the various agencies of the federal government do not have the legal authority to be demanding these records from states, to be
demanding these sensitive, often voter files, and certainly not to be using those to try to force purges of voting rolls, kicking people off the rolls.
There have been 14 court rulings so far this year. All of them have said that the Justice Department, in its efforts to get these voter records, has
no authority to do it.
Why do they want this stuff? Why are they hoovering up all this data? It's getting really close to the election. We have thought that they wanted it
to effectively force purges of the voter rolls, in other words, to get states to kick voters off the rolls, including you want to have accurate
rolls and lists of who's eligible. But when you do that and you do it badly, you wind up kicking a lot of eligible people off the rolls.
And it may still be that that's what they're trying to do, but it's getting really late. And federal law says you cannot have a big purge of voter
rolls 90 days before the election. So, what would they be doing this for? I think the point you made earlier, all of this at this point is to sow
doubt, to sow distrust, to foster confusion among voters and to give the opportunity to say, oh, this was all rigged. Oh, there was something wrong
with the election.
It is increasingly difficult, though, to see that Trump's really serious effort to try to take over the election system is failing. And when the
story of this two-year period is written, I think it's going to be not that he didn't try, but that he was blocked.
GOLODRYGA: Well, and it also seems that his efforts are not finished yet, despite this ruling from the Supreme Court and their concerns about what
may happen after the midterm elections and what may happen in 2028 as well.
Michael, final question to you. Michael Ludwig, who, as you know, is a retired, respected conservative jurist, warns of what he calls a battle for
America's democracy. And he lays out a scenario that on January 3rd, Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson may rule that the midterm election
was fraudulent and refused to seat Democratic members it accuses of, quote, "stealing the election."
How realistic do you think that scenario is? What could stop it from happening?
WALDMAN: You know, I respect Judge Ludwig tremendously. That is very, very unlikely to happen, in my view, because for starters, the decision about
who wins these elections is not in the first instance made in Congress, but in the certification of elections in states and counties, where there are
strong laws to make sure that who the voters voted for wind up being the people who are sent to Washington.
The Congress has the power to seat its own members, but it isn't up to Mike Johnson. It's up to the clerk of the House. Mike Johnson has a two-seat
majority right now. And so, that would, just to give you one reason to, you know, be cautious, but also not think this is something that's going to
happen, that would mean every Republican, including all the ones who had just lost, would have to go along with this.
GOLODRYGA: Yes.
WALDMAN: And then on January 3rd, there are the Democrats. And you want, under that scenario, say, Hakeem Jeffries, if he's the leader of the
Democrats, would say, well, that's all very interesting, but actually, we won the election. I'm the Speaker of the House. It would require an
enormous amount of stuff that is very unlikely to happen, and more to the point, it would be outrageous.
[13:20:00]
I honestly think that it should be really clear this would, were Mike Johnson to do that, he would go down in the history books as a villain, and
I don't think he's going to do that. But we need to make sure that the protections are in place.
GOLODRYGA: He's a constitutional expert. So, walking into a constitutional crisis, I don't know that he would even go that far. But those are the
warnings from Michael Ludwig. Michael Waldman, Toluse Olorunnipa, thank you. Great to have you both on the show.
And do stay with CNN. We'll be right back after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: Well, now, the Trump administration's Environmental Protection Agency is rolling back key regulations in the Clean Air Act, erasing limits
on emissions from coal and gas power plants. And it's an astounding move after the U.S. recorded its hottest summer ever.
From a disregard for the climate crisis to the existential threat of A.I., it's easy to despair over our future. But rather than finding solutions,
our next guests say a new far-right movement is emerging in response and embracing end-times fascism. In their new book, co-authors Naomi Klein and
Astra Taylor argue that America's rich and powerful are preparing for the end of the world, and they themselves are frenetically accelerating. And
they're joining me now from New York to discuss their book. Welcome both of you.
Naomi, let's start with you. As I noted, your book is titled End Times Fascism. Briefly, what does that mean, and what makes the politics you
describe in this book specifically fascist?
NAOMI KLEIN, CO-AUTHOR, "END TIMES FASCISM": Well, thank you for having us, Brianna. We are describing a phenomenon of a turn to the hard right,
which we are seeing around the world. We just saw it in recent elections in Germany. We're seeing hard right parties soaring in the polls in France.
There is a hard right government in the United States. Your previous guests were just talking about a willingness to overthrow long-held democratic
norms.
So, what makes this specific and why we call it end-times fascism is that it seems to be taking collapse for granted and finding ways to both profit
from collapse and also to protect the in-group. So, there's a focus on fortressing, whether borders or homes. There's sort of several tiers of the
bunkering, a kind of a mass market version at the border, but then an elite version for the very rich, who, as we know, are building luxury bunkers
around the world.
GOLODRYGA: Well, to that point, Astra, you write, quote, "The most powerful people in the world are preparing for the end of the world, and in
they themselves are frenetically accelerating." That was the introduction quote that we had as well.
So, you identify tech billionaires, religious fundamentalists, and ethno- nationalists. What is the strongest evidence that you were able to find that they share an acceptance of catastrophe rather than trying to take
advantage for their own wealth and their own power?
ASTRA TAYLOR, CO-AUTHOR, "END TIMES FASCISM": Yes, fascism is always an alliance. And so, you just named the three main groups that we see as core
to this ideology, which is not a monolith.
[13:25:00]
And it's not dominant across the entire right, but it does describe some of the most powerful people in the world, both in politics and at the helm of
corporations.
I mean, I think just this week, leading up to the publication of our book, we've seen a kind of attention or mention of apocalypse in the mainstream
media. We had Vice President JD Vance talking about possibly ushering in the end times. And we've had leading figures from Silicon Valley warning
that their technology might cause mass human extinction.
So, we're seeing a sense that, you know, we're entering a very perilous period in human history and a sense among these elites that they're
welcoming this chaos, right? As Naomi said, they're building bunkers. Their solutions are to build borders, build walls, rather than addressing the
roots of the crisis.
So, Dems fascism is a response to very real material crises, climate change, incredibly concentrated wealth, wars, and rogue, potentially
dangerous artificial intelligence, which is compounding these crises. Nuclear weapons. And so, those material conditions are creating a more
dangerous world and a unique manifestation of fascist threats.
KLEIN: And you asked why -- what is it about it that deserves to be called a fascist? And what we're arguing is that once you can no longer deny the
reality of climate change, for instance, all that is really left to deny is the humanity of your fellow humans. It requires -- if you're not going to
get at the root causes of what's driving the crises, if you're not going to try to solve them, and indeed if you are going to actively make it worse,
like doing things like deregulating carbon at the EPA, then what are you going to do about the people who are getting hit first and worst?
And it's not a surprise, nor is it news, that the people who are most vulnerable to disasters, to shocks, are the people who have the least
money. And in our very unequal world, that overwhelmingly means black and brown people.
So, we are seeing supremacist and fascist ideas surge as a way to rationalize allowing people to die, to drown, to die on their lands, to
starve. Of course, we've also seen attacks on the aid programs that help the most vulnerable people in the world, like USAID, led by the wealthiest
man in the world, Elon Musk, when he was head of DOGE.
GOLODRYGA: Astra, how do you interpret the latest concerns over A.I. and sort of its development outpacing what its own creators can control, and
the fact that you have the heads of these companies, which I don't know what's in their hearts, but when you look at what they laid out as their
vision, it was for A.I. to make improvements in humanity, in healthcare, in education.
Now, this week, they're, however, saying that without some sort of controls, without slowing it down, there is a not zero percent chance of
something catastrophic happening, and asking for some regulation or guidance or at least unanimity on this issue. And you have an
administration or a president calling this a hoax.
TAYLOR: Yes. I mean, they have been telling us that the tools that they're building are either demons or gods for a long time. It's either going to
bring about, you know, paradise and cure cancer and solve climate change, or it might destroy humanity. Dario Amodei from Anthropic and Elon Musk
have said, you know, perhaps there's a 20 percent or 25 percent chance that their inventions will cause the end of human life as we know it.
I don't think we have to take their predictions literally, again, like you said, we don't know what's in their hearts. But it's clear that they're
building tools that they don't understand and can't control. And it's also clear they're willing to risk everything on this technology and on the
profits they think it will amass and the power it will amass as well.
We're quite alarmed both about the potential of this technology, but also the things that are happening in the here and now, like the immense carbon
footprint of these tools. I mean, they are bringing back coal plants and demanding enormous amounts of electricity, often using very dirty methane
gas turbines, natural gas turbines to power these data centers. And those are the kinds of harms that we need to pay attention to.
We also need to look at what they're doing and less what they're saying. So, now somebody like Sam Altman is saying, oh, we're on Team Human. Don't
worry. It's a very interesting moment where you have to assure people that you're on the side of humanity. But they are also lobbying aggressively to
deregulate. You know, there are super PACs like Leading the Future, which Greg Brockman from OpenAI is a core player in. And they're actively
lobbying against the regulations that they say that they need.
[13:30:00]
So, we need to be very skeptical about what these folks are saying and look at what they're doing and what kind of politics they're actually spending
real money on.
KLEIN: But you know --
GOLODRYGA: Naomi --
KLEIN: Yes, sorry.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, go ahead.
KLEIN: Well, I was just going to say that our book does have something of a scary title. But the subtitle is "And The Fight for the Living World."
And as Astra and I -- sorry, as Astra and I were writing the book, we started to see this surge of resistance to the A.I. rollout, it's called
the data center backlash. But it's really not just a national movement in the United States, but a global movement of people coming together in their
communities and not just saying, you know, we don't want this noisy, polluting data center in our backyard, though they don't want that, but
really asking core questions about really do we need this technology to be our teachers, our doctors, our friends? And what does it really mean to be
on Team Human? And what -- how do we want -- how can we live more human lives and how can we also protect the natural world?
You know, we've seen uprisings against extreme wealth everywhere from Venice when Jeff Bezos staged his extravagant wedding to Albania and the
Flamingo Revolution right now. So, there is really an uprising of people and we call it, you know, the fight for the living world. This is the true
pro-life movement that we've been waiting for. And it's been spreading so quickly that we had to race to keep up.
So, this ended up becoming actually quite a hopeful research process. I think the antibodies are starting to kick in.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. You offer hereness, drawing on a Yiddish word, doikayt, building a shared future where we live. Astra, you wanted this book out
before the midterms. Who are you trying to persuade to your argument in some of the conclusions that you've drawn in researching this book?
As you know, the top issues for voters, the economy, security, and when you look at other countries, let's say even Hungary, they did elect a
conservative government, though one that's different from the former, because in addition to the economy, corruption was a big issue. So, how
does your argument factor into what's top of mind for voters in America today?
TAYLOR: Well, one thing we're trying to tell people is believe your eyes and ears when people tell you who they are, when people are saying that
they're willing to risk the apocalypse to take everybody's jobs or to let it rip and burn all of the carbon. And we should take seriously what an
enormous existential threat that is.
We also think that you mentioned the issue of affordability and corruption, that those are really unifying issues in this moment. Those are issues the
majority of Americans really care about and want action on. And they would help address, again, those root causes that create the conditions that
allow fascism to flourish, that make people feel insecure and maybe look for strongman or be more susceptible to blaming scapegoats.
So, we think this election is absolutely critical and that so much is on the line. And that's why we wanted to get this book out, to remind people,
as Naomi said, we're in a fight for more than just liberal democracy. It really is a fight for a livable planet and a future for all of the people
who aren't here yet.
GOLODRYGA: And so, Naomi, I do want to end on then reading a passage from the book. Here we'll share it with our viewers. To experience awe is to
dissolve into the swirl of the universe, to feel small in the best way. This sense of interconnection is also why we grieve when we witness
strangers suffering and feel the great sorrow of extinction. The fact that this capacity seems to be missing from the men who hold our collective fate
in their hands is a personal loss for them and an existential crisis for the rest of us.
How does that connect to the environmental damage that you're describing, both in this interview and in the book?
KLEIN: Well, thank you so much for reading that passage. It's really important to us because we were so struck by the fact that the through
line, like whether we were whether we were looking at religious fundamentalists who wanted to hasten the arrival of the Messiah, even at
the price of causing World War III, or whether it is the rocket ships headed for supposedly Mars so that humans can become interplanetary, never
mind the cost to our world.
There was just this sort of excitement to leave this place, to get out of here, that the real excitement, the real joy is beyond here. And we don't
think most people feel that way. I think most people actually see the beauty and the preciousness and the singular nature of our one and only
world, of their own communities, and all of their wonderful diversity, which is an extremely, not just anti-fascist idea, but the antithesis of
fascism.
[13:35:00]
Because fascists want sameness, order, straight lines, not that wonderful diversity of the living world. So, we hope to really be part of this
awakening of appreciating here, both in the sense of our communities, our living bodies, our human connections, and also our planet.
GOLODRYGA: It is your way of ending on a positive note, so we'll leave it there.
KLEIN: It's all we've got.
GOLODRYGA: Embracing what we have, our lives today, Naomi Klein, Astra Taylor, authors of "End of Times Fascism," thank you so much for joining
us. Really appreciate it.
TAYLOR: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: And do stay with CNN. We'll be right back after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: Oil prices in the U.S. are at their highest level since July, recently surpassing $100 a barrel, while gas at the pump has reached an
average price of $4.33 per gallon. And while the U.S. war with Iran continues to choke key shipping routes, it's not just Americans feeling the
pinch. The fallout is rippling through the global economy.
So, what does this mean for the average person? Author of the new book, "Sea Change: America's New Great Game in the Arctic Circle," Rana Foroohar
joins Walter Isaacson to discuss whether we could be heading towards a recession, and why an A.I. bubble might be making things worse.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Thank you, Bianna. And, Rana Foroohar, welcome back to the show.
RANA FOROOHAR, ASSOCIATE EDITOR, FINANCIAL TIMES: Thank you for having me.
ISAACSON: It's already been a tumultuous week so far in the economy. Let's start with bond prices hitting 5 percent with the 10-year Treasuries. Why
is that happening and what does that mean for people like me?
FOROOHAR: Well, it's a great question, Walter. 5 percent is the amount that starts to get investors worried. It means that the cost of debt is
rising. That's bad not just for the nation's economy, but for people's personal finances. When those rates start to rise, you know, your home loan
goes up. Your car loan goes up. The cost of any kind of debt that you might be holding gets more expensive. That's why the president and Fed Chair
Kevin Morsh are so concerned about this.
There's a lot of worry that there could be a market reaction. You've already seen stocks very volatile in the last few months, but falling off
the back of this news. And the big worry is that if debt is perceived as being too high, and with public finances the way they are, there could be a
real market correction, lasting market correction, that would be a serious event.
ISAACSON: It's a 20-year high, these yields. And it does mean that even things like mortgages, the affordability of people to get homes, is that
going to be hit?
FOROOHAR: It is. And it's coming at a time when, as you know, home affordability has already been an issue. You know, a lot of people cannot
afford homes in the places where there are jobs. If you look at the kind of top 12 markets in the U.S., home prices were already sky high. And then
when you add to that a higher loan rate, that makes it even less affordable for a lot of people.
Now, eventually, good news, bad news here, if rates get high enough, then home prices start to fall because there aren't as many buyers.
[13:40:00]
But that would also signify a major downturn, which would have its own impact on the larger economy.
ISAACSON: And you'd also have a cost of borrowing for the federal debt to be higher in the long-term. And this is adding, is this all being caused by
the huge deficits and debt we have and it's going to make it worse?
FOROOHAR: Yes. I would say that there are three reasons why we are seeing these higher yields. The first would be the war in Iran, the inflation
that's come off the back of that, oil prices, a sense that this president is creating a lot of geopolitical turmoil that comes at a cost, frankly.
The second reason is, as you point out, the fact that the federal debt levels are higher than they have been, and they are getting higher, and
there doesn't seem to be any serious conversation about cutting them. Eventually, when public debt becomes too high, investors say, gosh, this is
risky. I want to be paid a higher premium for lending to this country.
And then the third issue is the A.I. bubble. And I say bubble somewhat lightly. I do think that there will be a correction. There's been a lot of
borrowing, a lot of bond issuance on the part of A.I. companies. A.I. is a real thing. It will, over time, create jobs and productivity. But in the
term, there's just a lot of debt and leverage out there. All of it makes rates go up.
ISAACSON: Well, when you talk about a lot of debt and leverage, there's $2 trillion of deficit this year, which is huge compared to normal times. I
can remember, especially when Republicans were very much against deficits. Why have we given up on trying to stop deficits?
FOROOHAR: You know, that is such a great question, Walter. You're absolutely right. You know, Republicans often talk about cutting debt and
deficits. But to be honest, the walk is often to lower taxes and not end up cutting deficits because there, you know, less -- there's less money coming
to the coffers.
Right now, though, what the president is doing with the war in Iran, trade and tariff issues, just a general sense of instability creates kind of a
perfect storm. There is a concern that the dollar is not as safe as it used to be. That makes rates go up. When you add the sense that there is no
conversation about curbing public budgets on either side of the aisle, it makes foreign investors very worried.
And you can see every time there is a new issuance of treasury bills, which is how America gets money. You know, we issue treasury bills, people buy
them. There are fewer and fewer foreign buyers coming into those auctions. That says the rest of the world is worried about our debt and deficit
picture.
ISAACSON: Well, when it comes to affordability, the other thing and that you've mentioned briefly was gas prices. I mean, that's four dollars and
thirty cents at the pump for regular gas. And I think even worse, diesel has gone way up to $6.30, which means everything being brought to your
markets and all of our goods and services, all of our goods are going to cost a lot more. Tell me what that's going to do to inflation and how that
plays in.
FOROOHAR: Well, oil and food are really the most important things when it comes to inflation. For starters, if you think about gas prices, as you
mentioned, what is the one number that most Americans see every day? It's the price at the pump.
ISAACSON: $4.30.
FOROOHAR: That's right.
ISAACSON: Shock. Yes.
FOROOHAR: You know, I mean, that is about the most broad-based national metric of, gosh, inflation is rising. I'm nervous. It's costing more to not
just fill my car, but fuel my home. And then, as you mentioned, the energy for logistics, for transporting everything, the energy to put for
fertilizer, to grow crops. I mean, oil is at the heart of the economy.
And so, it's very bad economy. It's very bad politically, frankly, in the run up to the midterms for Republicans and for the president, because, you
know, people associate the actions of the last few months with rising oil prices.
ISAACSON: Well, oil is now more than $100 a barrel this week. But I've got a sort of counterintuitive question. Why is it so low? I mean, I thought
with the two different strait being hit with the pipelines in Saudi Arabia, I think people a few months ago said it could hit one hundred and fifty two
hundred.
FOROOHAR: You know, that's a great question. I'm so pleased you asked that. You know, some people in my wonky investment world have even
predicted $300, $400 a barrel oil. For sure it could go higher. There are strategic petroleum reserves. Now, I will say that the American strategic
petroleum reserves are at their lowest level in some time.
The Chinese have been hoarding oil there. There are a lot of countries that have been saying, gosh, we need to keep more on hand. And that goes to a
larger issue, which is also affecting inflation. Since COVID, since the war in Ukraine, since Iran, there is a sense that there is a geopolitical issue
coming every year, every two years.
[13:45:00]
And countries are moving much more into a defensive posture. They're saying we need to hold more supply, you know, on our -- just in reserves. I think
you're going to see that not just with fuel, but possibly even with food, with grain, with things like that going forward. All of that contributes to
inflation. But it also creates buffers. That may be one of the reasons that you're not seeing the kind of spike you talked about.
ISAACSON: And what about the stock market? It doesn't seem -- I mean, it's been volatile recently. But why hasn't it gone down more given all the dire
things you've talked about?
FOROOHAR: You know, the Wall Street, Main Street divide is the -- it's the endless question. The simplest answer is that corporate profits are still
high. And in some ways, you could say that the stock market and asset prices are simply a measure of corporate profits. If investors believe that
companies will be able to stay in the black and keep making money, then stock prices will keep going up.
Now, at some point, that sense of what's happening in the asset market starts to dovetail with what's happening in the real world. And that 5
percent, going back to the beginning of our conversation, that 5 percent rate is the big flashing sign that markets are starting to say, hmm, we
don't like the fundamentals, even though corporate profits are high. And the big question is when those two things collide and what happens.
ISAACSON: And if those collisions happen, is there a chance we could go into a recession and maybe even a global recession since this is happening
all over?
FOROOHAR: I would say 100 percent yes. And I don't say that to be fear mongering. It's really a historical norm. I mean, we are overdue, frankly,
by if you look at historical boom and bust cycles, we're overdue for a big recession. You know, we've had a few instances in COVID, for example, where
you saw a brief downturn and then the markets came back up. But that was because of a lot of government spending.
You know, we did coming out of COVID, have the strongest recovery. But the Trump administration came in and add a lot of geopolitical conflict, added
the tariff and trade wars, added Iran. And so, given the position that we're in right now geopolitically and given how tight the room for maneuver
is that the Fed has now, it's not what it was 5, 10, 20 years ago. I think a global slowdown is probably in the cards at some point.
ISAACSON: The other big news, and especially in the past four or five days since this weekend, is the fear that A.I. gets totally out of control.
Before we talk about A.I. and how it might affect the job market, what do you think that means when suddenly the big A.I. companies that are driving
most of the investment spending right now are saying, ho, ho, we got to pause for a second, maybe?
FOROOHAR: It's a huge issue because if you look at what's really driving the U.S. stock market, it's a handful of companies. It's been that way for
some time. The market is more concentrated than it's ever been in tech and in A.I. specifically. Over the last couple of years, the entire net
spending and investment of corporate America has been into A.I. And so, A.I. is the market story.
And if there is a ripple, a bump, a downturn in some of these companies, it will 100 percent have a broader market effect. So --
ISAACSON: Wait. You mentioned the word bubble, which is a frightening word already. Do you think there's a bubble in A.I.?
FOROOHAR: I do. I thought there was for some time. And let me caveat that because, again, I don't want to be fearmongering. When you look at a big,
what they call general purpose technology, something that is going to change our world over the next several decades, next 100 years, something
like the Industrial Revolution, that's what most people believe A.I. is.
So, over the long-term, it is going to net create jobs. It is going to increase productivity. But that's the long-term. What tends to happen at
the beginning of a big investment cycle, like we're seeing in A.I., like we saw in the railroads, for example. You get a lot of money flowing into the
sector. You get a lot of speculation. And then eventually the market's correct, sometimes in a big way. And then, you know, the chafe gets weeded
out. You know, you get the good bets and the bad bets being sorted through. And then eventually things come back.
But boy, if you're in that five- or 10-year period when that's happening and you're looking to try and retire, that doesn't feel good.
ISAACSON: And you talk about A.I. in the long-term, probably creating jobs. I think it was Keynes who said, well, in the long-term, we're all
dead. And I'm looking at my college kids coming out of Tulane and stuff. And it seems like particularly college kids are having a harder time
getting jobs. Is that true? And why?
[13:50:00]
FOROOHAR: It is true, Walter. And it's a little bit counterintuitive. You know, many of us thought, I would say, I thought that young people, you
know, they're more tech savvy. Maybe they're going to do better in the A.I. revolution. But actually, what we're finding is that older people are doing
pretty well.
And one of the reasons for that is that if you are skilled, if you've been in your job for a couple of decades and you know how to use and really
harness the productivity of these A.I. tools with the right questions, the right paradigms, you're actually doing pretty well. Whereas if you're just
coming in and you're learning, maybe you're at a little more of a disadvantage. And also, the jobs that are being replaced most quickly tend
to be at that lower level.
I'll give you a perfect example. I just -- I have a new book coming out in October. I used A.I. as a research assistant. I would say it cut 50 percent
of my research time off, did the same job that I might have paid a young person, you know, $50,000 to do in the past. That's the kind of thing that
we're seeing.
ISAACSON: When we talked about why oil prices haven't gone way up to like $150 or $200, you said one reason is that the U.S. is drawing down its
strategic reserve. In other words, the oil it keeps in reserve in case there's a price problem. But now our strategic reserve, I think, is at the
lowest level in more than 40 years. If the Iran struggle or whatever it is, war keeps happening, is that a real problem?
FOROOHAR: It's a huge problem. I would say that in some ways Iran has won this war because they have shown that it is not going to be business as
usual in the Strait of Hormuz anymore. It doesn't really matter what happens militarily. They have the high ground literally in the world's
most, what I would say is the world's most important choke point. And that's a big deal.
And it's interesting that other countries are now looking for ways around the Strait of Hormuz. You're seeing China just actually launched a trans-
Arctic shipping route, again, something I cover in my latest book. I think that choke points and resiliency and finding ways to cope in a world where
geopolitical strife is going to be with us for years, if not decades, is going to separate the winners from the losers.
ISAACSON: And when it comes to these terrorist wars, do you feel that all of this could take the U.S. out of the central role in the global economy?
FOROOHAR: Boy, that is the $64 billion question. Yes. I think we're moving to a world where it will not be U.S.-centric only. You know, geopolitical
pendulums kind of shift about every 50, 75, 100 years. We are at one of those pivot points. Most of us have grown up and lived and worked in an era
of U.S. dominance.
We are now seeing a fundamental shift towards regionalization, towards new kinds of alliances, middle powers like Canada, certain European countries,
certain Asian countries are saying, well, wait a minute. We can't trust the U.S. anymore. Maybe we don't trust China either. Let's see what kind of
horse trading we can do together. And the whole map has been thrown up in the air. And it's going to be years before we understand really where
things are going to land.
ISAACSON: Rana Foroohar, thank you so much for being with us.
FOROOHAR: Thank you, Walter.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: And finally, it was a night to remember at the Emmys, particularly for the cast and crew of the medical series "The Pit," winning
one of the biggest awards of the night, Outstanding Drama Series. Christiane spoke to one of the stars of the show, Sepideh Moafi, earlier
this year about her role as a doctor who worked in crisis zones. Here's what she said about learning from humanitarian aid workers to play that
part.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEPIDEH MOAFI, ACTOR: Something that moved me that I layered into this character was that across the board, anyone who I've talked to or anybody
who I've seen or read speak, when they come back from having been deployed, talks about, despite the horror, despite the destruction and death, they
would go back in a heartbeat, because even in the depths of darkness, they witnessed these extraordinary acts of courage and solidarity and
generosity.
And so, for me, it was so important for this character to hold the voices of her colleagues that she's left behind to hold their practice in her own
practice. And I think this detail gives a specific gravity to this character in the world of "The Pit."
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: "The Pit" airs on HBO Max, which shares a parent company with CNN.
It was also an emotional evening for Michael J. Fox, who was awarded the Bob Hope Humanitarian Award. He's being recognized by the Television
Academy for his Parkinson's disease advocacy. Here's how he reflected on the support that he's received over the years.
[13:55:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MICHAEL J. FOX, ACTOR: Initially, I kept my Parkinson's diagnosis a secret. I worried that it would arrest -- that it would affect my work and
my relationships with audiences, would they laugh if they knew I was sick. And then I was stunned by the support I got, the support from all of you.
It was so uplifting and just made me feel like I could keep doing this. I hadn't lost what I do, and they couldn't take it away from me. And it's
because you stood up for me, and I appreciate it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: An incredible man, a voice, an advocate for so many. 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. 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
