Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with The New York Times International Correspondent Catherine Porter; Interview with World Food Programme Acting Director Carl Skau; Interview with Political Analyst Dahlia Scheindlin; Interview with Hammer and Hope Contributing Writer and UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism Professor Lisa Armstrong. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired October 19, 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.
France in flames as protests over education and public services erupt into violence. We'll have more on the unrest rocking France.
Then, a ceasefire but little relief. More than a year on, hunger and hardship still grip Gaza. The World Food Programme's Carl Skau recently
visited the Strip and tells me what he saw.
Plus, a bitter battle for Israel's future. With elections just over a week away, Netanyahu gets Trump's backing as settler violence escalates in the
West Bank. Tel Aviv-based political analyst Dahlia Scheindlin joins me.
Also, ahead --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LISA ARMSTRONG, CONTRIBUTING WRITER, HAMMER AND HOPE AND PROFESSOR, UC BERKELEY GRADUATE SCHOOL OF JOURNALISM: This task force comes in and
basically makes many times worse what was already a problem.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- a crackdown with deadly consequences. Four men killed by a federal task force in Memphis. Journalist Lisa Armstrong investigates the
deaths.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
We will continue the show in just a moment, but first we have an update from Christiane.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hi, everyone. I wanted to give you some news about myself and about this show. After
thinking carefully for several months and experiencing a few sleepless nights, as you can imagine, I've decided to separate from CNN, my partner
of 43 fantastic years, longer than many marriages.
So, this daily show on CNN and PBS will come to an end at the end of this year, but CNN and I have worked out a smooth transition while continuing
doing Amanpour once a week through to June.
Now, there's no I in team, and my whole career has been teamwork to make the dream work. So, I want to thank all the amazingly talented people I've
worked with throughout this incredible journey, especially my beloved show teams and field crews. From my very first big, exciting assignment covering
the first Gulf War to the horrors of the Bosnian War, Rwanda, Afghanistan, Iran, Ukraine, and all the points in between, it is the teams and the
camaraderie we built that counted so much as we together battled to find the facts to bring you the evidence and the humanity so that CNN could
always broadcast the truth about the world without fear nor favor.
Now, you know I've always been fiercely independent, and I will continue to be that for you for as long as I am here and beyond. That's especially
important today as we face unprecedented pressures from all sides, political, financial, and also from the rising dangers in the field. I'll
always be rooting for CNN maintaining its history of independent journalism.
Meantime, stay tuned. Keep watching "Amanpour" on CNN and also my podcast, "The X-Files," with Global.
And finally, thank you all for watching, listening, and engaging with me for all these years, for trusting me and this show. See you back here on
Wednesday.
Now, back to Bianna and today's show.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: 43, 43 incredible years with Christiane and many more shows to go until next June. Our thanks to Christiane.
Well, France is reeling from its worst rioting in years after a weekend of violence, looting, and destruction across the country. More than 2,000
people have been arrested with at least two deaths attributed to the unrest. What began as peaceful student protests over underfunded schools
has grown into a much broader movement fueled by anger over the cost of living and soaring fuel prices.
But those legitimate grievances have been overshadowed by shocking scenes of violence. Historic buildings set ablaze, shops looted, and police at
times overwhelmed. And today, protesters blocked access to the Louvre while the government considers partial curfews.
[13:05:00]
President Emmanuel Macron acknowledged the public's anger, but vowed to hold those responsible for the destruction to account.
With the presidential election less than six months away and Macron unable to seek a third consecutive term, the unrest could have major implications
for France's political future. Catherine Porter is an international correspondent for The New York Times based in Paris, and she joins me now.
Catherine, welcome to the program.
First, let me ask you, have you ever seen protests quite like this in your time covering Paris in France there as a journalist? There have been many
protests over the years, many of them led by student movements. But what I continue to hear is that they haven't seen something quite like this in a
while.
CATHERINE PORTER, INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Yes, I've been here for four years now. I have seen the retirement protests.
I've seen other student protests, but I also saw riots that happened after the death of a teenager a few years ago. And this is those were the most
violent things that we've seen to date.
But to be honest, the scope of what we saw and I wouldn't say the protest scope was what is different. It was the riots that that sprung out from
them was almost like France was a split screen on one side. You saw these peaceful protests that resembled so many of the protests I've covered for
years. Huge number of people taking the street, chanting, chanting and holding up signs, often singing protest songs.
And then the flip on the other side of screen was riots that were happening. There were black had protesters attacking the police even before
the protest began. Official protests began to the point that parts of at least Paris resembled a war zone. There was tons of tear gas, people
throwing rocks, Molotov cocktails, the police responding with water canyons.
And then from there, small groups that the police say were up to, you know, a thousand spread out and started attacking both institutional buildings
like, as you mentioned, City Hall in a small town called Limoges was completely burned to the ground. But also, Marseille, the City Hall was
attacked and Lille in the north was attacked.
But also, then just going after stores. And at some point, it went from what the authorities here are saying were extremely far-left agitators to
basically delinquents that just saw an opportunity to loot.And the videos, I'm not sure if you've seen them, but there were whole streets, not just in
Paris, but in many, many other cities across the country in which people just descended and broke into stores, smashed the windows and then took off
with anything from bike infrastructure. We've seen lots of wine being taken, electronics. It was just a free for all.
GOLODRYGA: Well, Emmanuel Macron, who we noted is a lame duck just a few months away from elections, is urging those to go to the streets to protest
peacefully and saying that people there want to damage the Republic and hijack the debate. He's speaking specifically about those rioters, those
looters, those that have turned violent.
Police, as we noted, though, are overwhelmed. The government is financially constrained. Is he offering, even in the interim, a credible response? What
options does he have?
PORTER: Well, you know, he, as you said, spoke to the country last night. He offered very few solutions. He said that his government, led by his
prime minister, would be meeting with many different groups to sort of almost have focus groups or chats to try and reduce the tension. That's a
very Macronian approach, I will tell you.
But we did see his government come out today. They warned, the prime minister warned, that there would be targeted curfews. And some have
already gone into place. There's five cities we know of, or maybe even more at this point, that are putting in curfews tonight, including Marseille and
Lille in the north.
He also said that they have a huge number of investigators, and they're working to track down the looters in particular, and to offer what they
think is about 3,000 stores and the owners of those stores and employees some kind of reprieve, whether it be unemployment insurance, but also help
them speed up the insurance claims.
[13:10:00]
And so, he's claiming to offer some support, but it's not clear that it's enough. There are demands for everything from a state of emergency from
some politicians here to a kind of inquest into what went wrong. This morning, we had two ministers admit that there were real problems. There
weren't enough police on the street, but there was also a failure of intelligence leading up to this. And I think at this point, there's still a
sense that the state is not in control, and people are quite worried.
But I would also say this has become a political train. You mentioned that six months from now, there's an election, and this is all fodder for that
election. Macron and his government have blamed the far-left for instigating at least the first attacks on police and on institutional
buildings. They've said that multiple times and that later delinquents got involved. And they say that that party in particular is trying to
destabilize the state and impact the upcoming elections. That far-left party has dismissed that.
And the far-right has used this as a moment to campaign. And they say, look, we're the ones you should give power to. This is a clear indication
of how bad things are in our country. We need a government that has authority and it should be us.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. The National Rally's Jordan Bardella actually said France is paying for, quote, "decades of being soft on crime." And he promises to
restore order if his party does win. These protesters want more spending, more public funding. The government, the country itself has been under
fiscal constraint for many, many years. Pressure to cut its deficits. So, no clear solution in sight. But I know you'll continue to cover some of the
scenes we have witnessed on the streets of France for us.
Really appreciate the time. New York Times international correspondent Catherine Porter.
All right. Still to come for us a year into the ceasefire in Gaza and the humanitarian crisis remains dire. The acting executive director of the
World Food Programme joins me after visiting the devastated enclave.
Plus, with just over a week until Israel's elections, President Trump has thrown his support behind Benjamin Netanyahu. But can he help the embattled
prime minister? We'll have more from Tel Aviv.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: We turn now to Gaza, where, despite one year into a ceasefire, more than 1,500 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli forces. That is
according to the U.N. And those who managed to find safety from the bombs and bullets face terrible living conditions as people attempt to pick up
their lives among the rubble of the war.
The U.N. also reports that 80 percent of structures in the enclave have been damaged since the conflict began, leaving few places for displaced
Palestinians to shelter from the ongoing hostilities or protect themselves from the elements. And on top of that, more than 1.4 million people are
experiencing acute food shortages.
[13:15:00]
Carl Skau is the acting director of the World Food Programme and has just returned from Gaza. He joins me from Jerusalem. Carl, welcome back to the
program. So, what did you see in your most recent interview when your most recent visit to Gaza since you last spoke with us in July that can give us
a clearer picture of what life is like now in the enclave?
CARL SKAU, ACTING DIRECTOR, WORLD FOOD PROGRAMME: Well, there is lots that hasn't changed. You know, life is still absolutely brutal in Gaza. People
live in these flimsy makeshift tents among the rubble, garbage, a lot of sewage all over the place. And, you know, there are no opportunities in
terms of jobs. Of course, there is no basic services, really, in terms of water and sanitation. So, life overall is absolutely brutal.
On top of that, it's still extremely dangerous. I mean, there were security incidents when I was there over the weekend. Our team reports that, you
know, on a daily basis, there are around 40 to 50 security incidents. And like you referred to, I mean, there has been people killed every day since
the ceasefire.
What has changed is that we've been able to push back on famine. The food security situation has somewhat stabilized. But that's all thanks to this
massive effort of WFP, supported by donors like the U.S. and others, having provided support to all the Palestinians in Gaza every month, you know, for
the past year.
Well, that's now coming to an end. We are not able now to sustain that effort. We're going to have to cut this month about half a million people,
500,000, off our assistance. That's not because we're not able to bring in food. It's not because there aren't needs, because the food needs are still
great, but because we don't have enough funding to continue.
GOLODRYGA: I want to go back to a couple of points you just made. But one is that you continue to run into security issues. Is that with Israeli
forces? Is that with Hamas? Is that with local gangs? Who are the security run-ins and issues with?
SKAU: I mean, it's hard for me to attribute. I mean, there is ongoing tension and fighting between the different parties. And so, I think that's
clear that, yes, overall, the ceasefire may be holding, but it's a lot of security activities that are continuing.
I mean, I was at a distribution point yesterday, one of our distributions, where we're handing out cooked meals. Someone had been shot and killed from
one of the outposts the day before. As I was leaving yesterday, I was held up for an hour because there were strikes happening. So, it's clear that
the overall security environment is far from perfect.
When it comes to the food security situation, people are also not eating enough still. I mean, most people I met with yesterday are eating once a
day. You know, they're not eating any fresh vegetables or fruits. And, you know, many, many also don't have the gas they need to cook. So, that's why
they're coming to our hot meal's distributions.
I'm really worried what will happen now when we cut this down because we're also facing a winter. It's the fourth winter, and it's going to be
extremely tough when those rains hit. And given the shelter situation, given the sanitation situation, that is already there.
GOLODRYGA: Right. Because you noted that this comes at a time when it does appear that the food shortage issue for the time being at least has
stabilized. And now, you have these cuts coming. What is driving down the funding here? Is it from donors? And what are you hearing from them as to
why?
SKAU: I mean, I think it's a mix of factor, and it's across the board. It's not one donor. It's everyone. It's also, you know, from the private
donations that we saw very generously early on in the conflict. So, I think it's, you know, different factors. One reason is probably we're entering
now the fourth year. Things are not getting better. People want to see more kind of tangible differences and changes.
But, you know, I think our appeal is that this is not the time to look away. We now need the International Community to step up to make sure that
we have the funding we need to sustain this effort to hold away famine, but also to, frankly, improve the environment for us to begin the recovery
work. You know, we need to get what is needed to start repairing the water and sanitation systems. We need to make sure that people have proper
shelter.
And on the food side, we just want the markets to function. If commercial foods can come in so that there is plenty of food on the markets, prices
will come down. People would afford also to buy some fresh foods. And for the resources we have, we would be able to basically help all the people we
need anyway.
GOLODRYGA: So, Israel argues that enough food is entering Gaza and that distribution is the problem. What does that assessment and how does that
assessment differ from what you and your team see on the ground there, if at all? Like what explains the gap?
[13:20:00]
SKAU: I mean, we continue to have constructive engagement with this release and I think they share our concern now that when we have to cut so
dramatically in our systems that we'll have an impact.
On the commercial side, it's not the right commodities that come in because of the constraints also on the commercial side. So, you don't have the
fresh fruits and vegetables on the market that you would need. Yes, there are some other commodities, but it's not really what improves the diet and
the nutrition situation on the Gaza Strip.
And frankly, I think, you know, we have been able to bring a lot of food in up until now. We will continue this effort but there is going to be a
dramatic downturn and that is going to have an impact on the overall situation.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And Israel says the halt in commercial supplies stems from a tax dispute between Hamas and local merchants. Have you been able to
confirm that or verify that independently?
SKAU: We have the same reports as I was leaving last night. I understood that that has been somewhat resolved. And so, commercial will open up. I
think the commercial sector -- I spoke to a lot of the retailers in Gaza. They are facing many obstacles. There are many bottlenecks for them. There
are a lot of layers of different fees and taxes from outside from different parties.
And so, I think all parties needs to facilitate the free flow of commercial goods make the markets work. That's going to have a massive impact and it's
also it's going to improve the food security situation, but it will also begin to rebuild some kind of domestic food system. And frankly, it would
bring back some normalcy, some dignity to people.
I mean, frankly, the biggest difference from being back now is that people are beginning to lose hope. You know, it's one year into the ceasefire. Not
much have changed for them. And really, you know, there needs to be more tangible change, also for the people to remain with the spirit needed to
recover and rebuild Gaza.
GOLODRYGA: You mentioned bringing back normalcy and dignity for the people of Gaza. The war -- again, the ceasefire has been in place for a year, but
the war itself has been going on for four now. Just talk about the impact that has had on a daily on a family's daily life in Gaza. What is -- what
does life look like on a daily basis?
SKAU: Well, I sat down with a family in one of these makeshift tents, you know, and they have been displaced, I think 11 times. They had come from
the north. They had been in the south. They've been to Khan Younis and now they were in this makeshift tent. And they were really fearing for the
winter because you could tell already that the rain would be coming straight through. And you know, they were also struggling to meet the
basics.
Their husband, the lady was sick. They couldn't get the medicine and the children had dreams of going back to university. And so, you know, that was
the conversation we were having. What they told me is that it feels that life is at the standstill, you know, there is -- it's not moving forward.
They are not able to return to their destroyed house. They're not able to start working. All what they want is really to start, get a job, be able to
get off assistance and be able to fend for themselves. That's what everyone really wants.
And so, I think, you know, the effort now needs to be while we sustain the ongoing operation that is needed to keep people alive, to make life
somewhat more bearable. It needs to be effort to move forward on the peace plan, to move forward on the security front. But also, to really enter into
early recovery, help people get the conditions needed to begin rebuilding their lives.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. You're seeking $450 million for Gaza and the West Bank over the next six months. What would that restore immediately if you had
that funding?
SKAU: Well, that would allow us to return to reach all the people of Gaza. We have a variety of programs. We are providing hot meals to those who
can't cook for themselves. We're providing food partials to those who can cook for themselves. We're supporting 80 percent of the bakeries in Gaza so
that they can sell the breads subsidized so that everyone can afford to get a piece of bread.
We are providing now school meals to all the children that are back in school. There are these makeshift schools, these temporary school shelters,
where some three to four hundred thousand kids are now back, supported by UNICEF and others. We are providing some date bars and some fruits and
cucumbers to the kids there. I sat down with them. You know, none of them had eaten breakfast. This is what they get during the day.
[13:25:00]
And so, we have that broad variety to not only ensure that food security remains stable, but also that children who's been suffering from
malnutrition can recover properly. And we would, you know, reinstate all those elements to provide for the entire population.
GOLODRYGA: Carl Skau, acting executive director of the World Food Programme, thank you for joining the show.
Well, with just over a week to go until Israel's elections, President Trump is officially throwing his weight behind Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu,
calling him a quote, "great warrior prime minister." But Netanyahu faces a tight race and fresh accusations over his handling of warnings before
October 7th. Meanwhile, settler violence is spiraling in the West Bank. The U.S. ambassador to Israel has condemned an attack on an American journalist
as an act of terror.
So, what does all of this mean for the election? Political analyst Dahlia Sheindlin joins me from Tel Aviv. Dahlia, I've seen you in so many
interviews. Now, it's crunch time for you gearing up for the elections next week as one of Israel's most preeminent pollsters.
So, let's just talk about some of the implications and news of day. President Trump making it official, throwing his hat behind Prime Minister
Netanyahu and his support. He was once the most popular figure, internal and external, in Israel until recently. And since this war with Iran began,
his support has waned a bit. So, how much does his endorsement actually impact voters before they go to make their choice next week?
DAHLIA SCHEINDLIN, POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, thank you for having me. It's something we've all been thinking about since the tweet came out on Truth
Social. And I have to say that it's, you know, an open question because if there's one thing that could be a little bit more dramatic in this election
where nothing has changed, the basic breakdown of support for Netanyahu and his bloc versus support for the opposition, you would think it could be
President Trump weighing in. This is considered unprecedented in Israeli history for a president to so explicitly throw his weight behind Netanyahu.
However, it's all a matter of, it's relative to expectations because, you know, just a few months ago, there was some speculation or talk that Trump
might do something far more dramatic like come to Israel or welcome Netanyahu. And just a few weeks ago, most of the country was talking about
the fact that Netanyahu couldn't even get a meeting with President Trump when he went to the U.N. General Assembly.
And so, Israelis are fully aware of the ups and downs of that relationship. As a result, it seems to me very likely that this will be filtered through
people's pre-existing views of Netanyahu. If they want to support his bloc, they will see this as proof that Netanyahu has great relations with the
U.S. President. But if they are opposed to Netanyahu, as currently the majority of Israelis are voting for parties who are planning not to go into
a coalition with Netanyahu, they will see this as a minor, you know, nice thing for Netanyahu, but they will not forget the ups and downs of that
relationship.
They will not forget that Netanyahu has created a situation where Israel's foreign relations with the U.S. are dependent on one party and frankly, one
person. They're not so happy about that either. So, I am a little bit doubtful right now that it's going to fundamentally change the contours of
an election where Netanyahu and his parties are far behind the majority they would need.
GOLODRYGA: I'd like to play sound for you from an interview that I had with Israel's ambassador to the United States, Ambassador Leiter, just on
Friday. And here's his response when I asked him about the dynamics behind the relationship between these two men. Remind you, this is before the
endorsement.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: I do have to ask you to respond to the president saying that he doesn't trust anybody when asked if he trusts Prime Minister Netanyahu.
Does Prime Minister Netanyahu trust President Trump?
YECHIEL LEITER, ISRAELI AMBASSADOR TO THE U.S.: Well, you know, Bianna, I think if the president would have endorsed Prime Minister Netanyahu, it
would be the first time in history that a president has endorsed a prime ministerial candidate or vice versa. We don't get involved in those kind of
things. It would be politically incorrect.
Do I think there's a great deal of trust between the two men? Look, I've been together with them in the Oval Office. I think now eight or nine
times. They have a friendship that goes back 40 years. And I think there are things that are said that are politically correct and, you know, we
stay away from mixing into each other's domestic politics, but I think there's a great relationship between the two men. I think it's been proven
over the past year.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: So, Dahlia, do you think that's an accurate portrayal of the relationship between these two leaders?
SHEINDLIN: I don't think you can hide the fact that there have been ups and downs over the last year, certainly, and the Israeli public is fully
aware of it, too. As you pointed out, when President Trump put pressure on the government, on the Israeli government, to reach a final ceasefire deal
to release the remaining hostages that were being held in Gaza, Israelis were wild about Trump and they, at the same time, were disappointed in
their own government.
[13:30:00]
And within months, they also were talking about how, in a way, the U.S. is kind of taking over in Israeli politics and that Israel may be forfeiting
some of its sovereignty, particularly with the war in Iran, where U.S. pressure led to a ceasefire in that war and then also pressured, the U.S.
then pressured Netanyahu to reach a ceasefire with Hezbollah in Lebanon.
And so, Israelis were quickly talking about how the U.S. is too involved and maybe interfering in Israeli sovereign affairs. And that is also
something that reflects poorly on Netanyahu. How much is he really in control? How much is he just trying to make sure that, at every step, he
both balances his need to show how close he is to the U.S. president and tries to impress the Israeli public?
I think also the clip that you just played here was played on Israeli media during the morning as the headlines were going through the meaning of the
endorsement and it looked chaotic because, of course, you have the ambassador saying, oh, no, we shouldn't get involved in the domestic
politics of one another's countries. And, you know, just a few days later, this very blatant intervention.
So, again, I think it reverberates for the people who already are for or against Netanyahu. I'm inclined to think they're just going to reinforce
their views, you know. And again, I mean, I mentioned this before, but let me just say this is based on dozens and hundreds of polls. Netanyahu's camp
is way behind in the surveys in terms of the majority he would need to be able to form a coalition. He's far from 61 seats in the vast majority of
the polls.
It doesn't mean the opposition is winning because they're very divided amongst themselves. But for that, you know, for this relationship that may
or may not be sort of good, the ambassador said it's OK over the last year, but there have been so many ups and downs that Israelis don't forget that
easily. Again, I just think it's a very -- it's an uphill battle for Mr. Netanyahu.
GOLODRYGA: Right. And talk about the opposition. In fact, it's Gadi Eisenkot's bloc that is leading, though still not with the majority in
terms of the 61 seats needed. His bloc has 52 seats. Netanyahu's bloc has 51 seats. And in response to that endorsement from President Trump, Gadi
Eisenkot said that Israelis will choose their own prime minister and revealed that he asked Trump to stay out of the election.
So, I'm just wondering if you can give our audience, who over the last few months has heard a lot about this opposition figure, Gadi Eisenkot, the
fact that he has lost a son and lost two nephews in this war. But in particular, what makes him a standout candidate? And can he be the one to
ultimately defeat Prime Minister Netanyahu, where other military, former military leaders have not been able to?
SHEINDLIN: Yes. Well, that was close to my analysis in an article that I wrote for The New York Times last week, that other generals have tried to
go into Israeli politics and they enjoy a very high level of credibility because Israelis fundamentally always trust people who have been chiefs of
staff from the army. It's seen as an institution that is above politics and former chiefs of staff are seen as people who gave their lives to serve the
state or spent their lives.
In the case of Gadi Eisenkot, he enjoys that level of trust to be a part of it. To begin with, that does not necessarily translate into being good
political leaders. We've seen many of those kinds of people come and go. I think what Gadi Eisenkot has is certainly he's a sharp contrast to
Netanyahu.
And, you know, the bereavement that you mentioned, his son, his two of his nephews, you know, when I talk to Israelis about this who are supporting
him, it often comes up in the background that they feel that they can relate to him and that he relates to them. And then if you dig a little
deeper, it comes up that people in Israel are also suffering a lot of loss and they feel that he is, you know, in the same kind of emotional space as
they are on some level.
I mean, I don't want to get too spiritual about it, but people say constantly that they relate to him and they find him relatable. They also
think that he's empathetic and they believe that he is honest and trustworthy, which was, you know, which is always a very strong quality for
a politician.
But it's also such a sharp contrast with Netanyahu government, whom, again, people of the opposition viewed that government as totally shut down to
what the people were going through, particularly for the two years when the majority of Israelis were desperate for a ceasefire deal that would have
released the hostages, which they always preferred in surveys by a majority over continuing the war.
And the government simply forged ahead because they did not want to end the war. That was seen as, you know, really a new breach, a kind of breach of
trust between citizens and not just the government, but the state itself.
[13:35:00]
And so, I think Eisenkot represents for a lot of people bringing back the basic contract, but basic contract between citizens and the state, not just
this government, but in general, people feel that he can put Israel on a track where they can trust their to work for the good of the people, which
can sound like a generalization that many politicians in many countries make, but I think it has particular poignance in the situation of, you
know, such a -- the extreme situation that Israelis have been through, not to mention Palestinians, as your previous interviewer was discussing. I
don't want to leave that aside, but Israelis are looking very much internally right now.
GOLODRYGA: And yet, you've described Netanyahu's core support as remarkably stable. And in fact, he's also indicated that he wants his
current coalition partners back, including Ben-Gvir and Smotrich. Is that a selling point now for those additional voters who he's trying to appeal to?
SHEINDLIN: Well, that's a very good question, because for a number of months, I would say specifically over the last two months, Netanyahu has
been making strategic decisions that seem to me very -- you know, very much targeted at the base. And by base, I mean precisely that core that keeps
voting for him.
If you add up the percentages of Israelis who are voting for any of the parties of the current coalition, Netanyahu's government, you have between
40 and 43 or so percent who are always voting for him. And it's also about his upper range when you ask questions in surveys about who's best suited
to be prime minister or any position Netanyahu takes. You'll always have about 40 to -- just above 40 percent who are on his side.
And those people represent the firm right. Some of them are very extreme right. And some of them are maybe not quite as extreme, but they're
traditional supporters of Likud. It does not seem like he's making decisions that would go anywhere beyond that. He would have to, you know,
speak or act or make decisions that would appeal to that more moderate part of the right wing in Israel.
But, you know, the kinds of responses that he gave, for example, to, you know, Israeli terror in the West Bank, for example, the attack on the
Washington Post photojournalist Heidi Levine or on European diplomats who visited the next day.
In the past, Netanyahu has at least said, well, this is a bad thing and it's a bunch of delinquent troubled youth. This time he issued statements
practically calling into question whether they happened at all, saying these were alleged attacks and that maybe they were provoked by
provocateurs in a way victim blaming. This is just one example.
He's put people on the list of the Likud, the list of candidates in his party who represent kind of a red flag for anybody who is even remotely
more moderate, like the political commentator Yaakov Bardugo. These are the kinds of things that really seem designed to rally, you know, the most
fundamentalists of a pretty fundamentalist political community at this point.
And so, I'm guessing it's speculation because nobody's really inside his head that he sees, like I do, how the polls have been so stubbornly, you
know, stable and not moving for his total numbers. In fact, in some of his most supportive polling, there is more right-leaning polling. His fortunes
are even getting worse. And he might have come to the conclusion that he's not going to win over anybody who has, you know, defected from his camp
over time or moderate right-wingers and he better just focus on turning out everybody who might possibly support him within his base.
And he may also be counting on after the elections, what he's very good at is coalition bargaining, where he is the most experienced, most savvy, and
frankly, most ruthless politician when it comes to the kind of coalition bargaining needed.
So, even if he doesn't reach the majority of 61 seats, he may think, well, I'll cross that bridge when I come to it, and after the elections, I'll
find ways to try to break up the opposition. You know, these things are all still possibilities.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. Which is why many say that your job is not over yet, Dahlia Scheindlin, in terms of taking polls and the pulse of a country,
because we may have elections again, sooner rather than later, even after next week. Dahlia, thank you. So, insightful. Really appreciate the time.
All right. And still to come for us, we're going to talk about a task force created to reduce violence on Memphis' streets and how that turned deadly.
Journalist and professor Lisa Armstrong speaks about her investigation. That's coming up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:40:00]
GOLODRYGA: And now, to Memphis, Tennessee, where four men have been killed by agents working with a federal anti-crime initiative. President Trump
formed the Memphis Safe Task Force, claiming it would end street and violent crime to the greatest possible extent. But this year, the force has
been involved in multiple violent incidents. Professor Lisa Armstrong joins Hari Sreenivasan to discuss the tragic cases.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HARI SREENIVASAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Bianna, thanks. Lisa Armstrong, thanks so much for joining us. You wrote a piece recently titled
"Trump's Deadly Invasion of Memphis," and this is really about a task force that was set up. Through your investigation, what did you find was
happening and is happening in Memphis?
LISA ARMSTRONG, CONTRIBUTING WRITER, HAMMER AND HOPE AND PROFESSOR, UC BERKELEY GRADUATE SCHOOL OF JOURNALISM: So, this task force was created by
President Trump last September, September 15th. And it's 31 different agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, the Tennessee
Highway Patrol. And the idea behind it, Trump said, was that they were going into Memphis to keep Memphis safe. This was September 15th that he
created the task force, and then they went in September 29th. A few days before this, the Memphis Police Department had said that crime was at a 25-
year low.
And so, what I found was that, in speaking with residents and speaking with organizers, they refer to this as an occupation, and they feel that
basically the task force has not been sent to have anything to do with crime reduction, that it has to do with immigration enforcement and also
basically just terrorizing people who live in Memphis.
SREENIVASAN: You know, there was a memo from the President, and it said this was to provide, quote, "hypervigilant policing, aggressive
prosecution, and large-scale saturation of besieged neighborhoods with law enforcement personnel." Tell me, what does that look like in practice?
ARMSTRONG: So, I actually drove through some of the neighborhoods in which the task force is patrolling. And basically, these are predominantly black
and brown neighborhoods. And actually, saw the task force for myself, so there are different points where they're doing traffic stops or they are
patrolling neighborhoods.
And again, people described having them knock on their doors in the middle of the night and waking them up. People describe being stopped sometimes
multiple times in a day by the task force. And the stops are for things like a broken taillight or expired registration. And in some cases, some of
the people said that their taillights weren't actually broken. There wasn't actually something wrong, but that they were just stopped.
And again, the stops are then to check, are you an American citizen, or to check, were you involved in some sort of crime? So, it's mainly these
traffic stops that had already been an issue in Memphis beforehand that the task force is now sort of reinforcing in their work.
SREENIVASAN: I want to take our audience a little bit further back than before this task force started. There was a very painful and tragic
incident to a 29-year-old black man named Tyre Nichols. This was back in 2023. And he was severely beaten by five Memphis police officers following
a traffic stop. He died of his injuries three days later.
And after the incident, the Department of Justice investigated the Memphis Police Department. And they, in their 2020 full report, they said Memphis
police officers regularly violate the rights of the people they are sworn to serve. Now, a federal jury acquitted the former officers of the most
serious crime that they violated his civil rights.
But put this in perspective for us. So, the Department of Justice investigates a specific incident, says there's a pattern here, right? And
there probably should be steps taken to address it. When the president comes in with this task force, what happens?
ARMSTRONG: So, basically, that was what my whole story was about, was the fact that, as you mentioned, in 2023, Tyre Nichols is beaten and then
subsequently dies. The DOJ comes in. They write this report. They say Memphis is over police. They point to race being an issue. So, they point
to all of these issues.
[13:45:00]
At the same time, their organizers -- and I interviewed some of these same organizers who are working against the task force now, their organizers who
worked to get some ordinances passed.
So, it looks like, you know, there's been a problem identified with over- policing and there's a need for reform. That DOJ report came out in December 2024 -- 2025. Obviously, President Trump takes office. And
subsequently, the report was kind of thrown out. And then the task force was sent in.
So, what I was looking at was, you know, here's a city where there's already an issue that has been identified. It looks like, based on the
work, again, of some of the organizers, that there was some move towards change. And then this task force comes in and basically makes many times
worse what was already a problem.
So, these pretextual traffic stops, in which, again, you're stopped for broken taillight, cracked windshield, something minor, ostensibly to
investigate a more serious crime, this is something that has become more of a problem. The DA said that it has led to, there was already overcrowding
in the jail. It has led to even more severe overcrowding. And it has also led to the deaths of four black men in the space of 56 days. And that's
sort of like what a lot of my story centers on.
SREENIVASAN: Let's talk a little bit about, first, I guess, the arrests. If that's the point, and the U.S. Marshal Service, which runs this task
force, says, they say, we measure the arrests as our performance because that is what the task force was created to do. The goal, which we are
accomplishing, was to lower crime in Memphis. We will continue that mission until we are told by the administration to reduce or end.
So, if the measure of success is the arrests, and you're saying these arrests, a lot of them are thrown out or not even prosecuted, then I don't
-- I guess it's not that successful.
ARMSTRONG: And I actually did ask a spokesperson for the U.S. Marshal Service. You know, I shared that same data that I got from the DA's office.
And I also asked, you know, if these arrests aren't leading to prosecutions. And if they are for, again, people who are here and
undocumented, or they are for minor things, how is that actually helping with crime? And the spokesperson didn't respond to that specific question.
But I would argue, just based on reporting, that I don't know that the arrests can be used as a measure of success.
SREENIVASAN: Let's talk about a couple of the specific cases that have really angered a lot of the people in Memphis. Tell me a little bit about
Tyrin Johnson. What happened to him?
ARMSTRONG: So, Tyrin Johnson, he was killed on July 5th, early in the morning. And the official report was that he had a gun. And the Tennessee
Bureau of Investigation, after his death, released this report saying that he had turned to face some National Guard officers who were chasing him,
and then they subsequently shot him.
What I found during reporting, I spoke with his mother, Brittany Johnson. At the time that I interviewed her, she really had no information. She did
not have an autopsy report or any additional information about how her son died. What she did have was a video that was shot by some teenagers who
just happened to be there.
And the video shows Tyron running. It doesn't show who he's running from. A car kind of cuts him off. He darts in the opposite direction. And then you
hear gunshots. And the young people filming drop the phone. So, you don't actually see what happens, because he's behind a car at the time that you
hear the gunshots.
And so, his mother, at the time that I talked with him, wanted to understand what happened. She did not believe that he had turned and had a
gun. He has a one-year-old. And so, what she told me was he wanted to live. So, there's no way that he would have done something like that, knowing
that it would probably have led to his death.
And then in late August, she actually got the autopsy results, and they showed that he had been shot in the back, which would suggest that he had
not turned to face them with a gun. And so, she does have an attorney. The investigation is still ongoing. I did, you know, also request records. The
investigation is ongoing. So, the information that I have is limited to sort of what has already been released and what I know from his mother, and
also what's in the autopsy result.
SREENIVASAN: There was another case, a matter of Jonah Neal. And he was in the midst of, as you report, a mental health crisis this past May. What
happened to him?
ARMSTRONG: So, his mother came home, and she said she opened the door of their apartment and saw him with a gun that she owned. And he basically was
having this mental health crisis, and she was afraid that he was going to saw him with a gun that she owned. And he basically was having this mental
health crisis, and she was afraid that he was going to kill himself.
[13:50:00]
And so, she called 911. Homeland Security investigators shown up. And one of the things that I sort of look at in my story is the fact that Memphis
was the first state to actually have this model in which officers who are trained to deal with mental health crises would be the ones to respond to
mental health calls.
So, one of the questions that I asked in doing my reporting was why it was that these Homeland Security investigators showed up versus some other
person who could deal with a mental health crisis. So, they show up. And according to his mother, she was asked to wait outside. And then at a
certain point, she heard a gunshot. And she waited for several hours before she was told that he was dead.
And at the time, again, the official report was that they did not know whether his death was due to a self-inflicted wound or a gunshot from one
of the agents. Again, once the autopsy results came out, it showed that it was a homicide and he was shot by one of the agents. And what his mother
and attorney say is that in looking at body cam footage, it shows that one of the agents is heard saying, you know, Jonah, no, drop the gun. Another
agent says he doesn't have a gun. And so, essentially, his mother said he was complying with whatever it is they were asking him to do and was not
holding a gun and that the agent still shot him.
SREENIVASAN: So, when you were investigating Jonah Neal's case, what did the agencies in question say to you?
ARMSTRONG: The agencies actually did not respond to specific questions about Jonah Neal. A lot of agencies didn't respond to specific questions
about any of these cases. And the U.S. Marshals Service that did actually respond to me did not answer questions that were specific to any of the
people who had been killed because the spokesperson said it was an ongoing investigation.
SREENIVASAN: So, in one case that we've discussed, it's really difficult to try to get accurate information or any information if you are a loved
one of the victim. And then the other case what you're showing here is that perhaps not the best trained people are the ones responding to this, right.
If there are 31 different agencies, what's the agency that investigates the agencies?
ARMSTRONG: So, the Tennessee Bureau of Investigations is the entity that is investigating these cases. What's interesting is that they also had
agents who are embedded with the task force. One of the questions I had, again, was the independence between the agents who are embedded with the
task force versus the people who are investigating. I imagine that there must be some sort of independence. But yes, the Tennessee Bureau of
Investigations is in charge of investigating these cases.
SREENIVASAN: OK. So, these cases have certainly angered Memphis residents. What are they doing about it?
ARMSTRONG: So, part of my story centers on the work being done by organizers. And they're doing multiple things. One is documenting where the
task force goes. And they were doing this before when it was just ICE. And so, they have a system where residents can call and say that agents are
here in my neighborhood. They have dispatchers who will take that information. And then often people will go out and investigate to see what
the agents are doing. They will also go and record what's happening and have said that they face retaliation as a result. And there's an ACLU
lawsuit that's been filed by some organizers who say that they have been targeted as a result of trying to document what the task force is doing.
They also have a boycott buyout list. And so, they went to different businesses and said, people, you put this in your window, basically saying
that you will not serve ICE or members of the task force. I think they're also raising awareness. It's really, the organizers are doing a lot of the
work of getting what's happening, especially with the people who have been killed out into -- you know, so that the public understands what's
happening.
SREENIVASAN: The administration is going to say, they point to this idea that even though crime was at a 25-year historic low before the task force
went into effect, they say that violent crime has now fallen 38 percent since the task force deployment. So, there must be some people in the
community that are supporters of the task force. What did you hear from the people who were in support of this task force?
ARMSTRONG: Yes. So, I mean, there are people who are supporters. And I think part of that is just a culture of policing, where you think of
policing as being the way to solve problems, but who are supporters.
[13:55:00]
And I think part of that is just a culture of policing, where you think of policing as being the way to solve problems versus, you know, mental health
programs or work programs or education programs or programs that sort of support and deal at the root cause of crime, as opposed to, you know, the
arrest and prosecution and incarceration part of things.
And so, there definitely were people who felt like, OK, you know, my neighborhood is unsafe and these people are here and they're going to make
it safer. I don't know that there is any proof that it's the task force that has caused this great change.
SREENIVASAN: Lisa Armstrong, thanks so much for joining us.
ARMSTRONG: Thank you so much for having me.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: And that is it for now. Thank you so much for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
