Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview With Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula Da Silva; Interview With Former Adviser To Mike Pence Olivia Troye; Interview with The New York Times White House and National Security Correspondent David Sanger. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired November 08, 2024 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LUIZ INACIO LULA DA SILVA, BRAZILIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): I think that we too, as head of states and government of two important
countries in the Americas, we have to have a very civilized relationship, a democratic relationship.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: In an exclusive interview, Brazilian President Lula reacts to the return of Trump, as he and Christiane discuss what it could mean for
Brazil and for the planet.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OLIVIA TROYE, FORMER ADVISER TO MIKE PENCE: To my fellow Republicans, you aren't voting for a Democrat, you're voting for democracy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- Former Trump staffer Olivia Troye campaigned hard against the president-elect. So, now what? We get her insight on what a second term
could bring and if she fears reprisals.
Also, ahead --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DAVID SANGER, WHITE HOUSE AND NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Could President Biden be viewed by history later on as sort of the
last gasp of that old order?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- is the second coming of Trump, the end of 80 years of U.S. global leadership. The New York Times David Sanger tells Walter Isaacson
why he thinks it could be.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
The reality of a second more emboldened term for President-Elect Donald Trump is sinking in. Leaders from across the globe flooding him with
congratulations and trying to get his ear on issues from the Middle East to Ukraine to wide-ranging tariffs.
And of course, there's the climate. Ahead of the COP Summit, which kicks off next week. Trump's re-election has been seen as a major blow to efforts
to overcome the existential climate crisis. Now, all these topics that will be on the docket up at the G20 Summit in Brazil later this month, where
host Brazilian President Luiz Inacio will no doubt be seeing parallels between Trump's return and his own country's history with Jair Bolsonaro, a
far-right politician known as the Trump of the tropics, whose supporters stormed government buildings after he lost out on a second term.
In an exclusive interview, Christiane spoke with President Lula da Silva about all of these issues. Here's their conversation.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Mr. President, welcome to the program.
DA SILVA (through translator): Amanpour, it's a great pleasure to come back to your show and it's a great pleasure to be able to talk to you again and
talk to the American people.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, what do you want to tell the American people and the world since you've congratulated Donald Trump on his return to the White
House? You said the world needs dialogue. What do you mean?
DA SILVA (through translator): Well, what I mean with that is that the world cannot continue to spend $2 trillion and $400 billion in arms race,
and we're having conflict and we should spend this money to build illiteracy problems and to feed millions and millions of people that are
still starving that are in hunger in the world.
So, what we need is to learn how to take care of the poorest people so that they won't be poor anymore and that we can manage and build an economy for
mass consumption because we don't have these mass consumers today. Less money with war and more money for peace. This is the solution for the
world. That's why the G20 has as main motto on a global alliance against hunger and poverty. This will be an important issue that will be discussed
there.
And then, we have the energy transition and to confront the climate changes. And then, we have another issue that is the U.N. reform and of the
Bretton Woods institutions. And then we have something that is extremely important, that is taxation of the super-rich. We have 3,000 people in the
world that have a wealth that accrued of almost $15 trillion. And while you have 733 million people that are still in hunger in the world.
And at the same time, we have already held 130 meetings, 22 working groups. And for the very first time, we're going to have a social G20 with the
participation of civil society around the world and we also have an empowerment group for women at the G20. So, these are the novelties that I
wanted to convey to you. And I'm sure, Amanpour, that will have a beautiful G20 summit meeting and we'll make the important decisions to see if we can
make the world better and more humanistic once again.
[13:05:00]
AMANPOUR: OK. So, you are having this meeting, hosting it in Brazil later this month. But I want to ask you then, do you think that Donald Trump as
the next U.S. president will do what you say, to talk about taxation, to make it more fair for people, to make it more fair for women?
I just want to note that the world's 10 richest people became $64 billion richer from Trump's re-election. That's what Bloomberg is saying. What
would you tell Donald Trump about your views on how to make a more equal world?
DA SILVA (through translator): Well, first of all, I'm on board that we have to say to President Trump is the following. First, I think that we,
too, as head of states and government of two important countries in the Americas, we have to have a very civilized relationship, a democratic
relationship, because Brazil has a privileged relationship with the U.S. We are trade partners for many decades and many years, and I believe the stock
of investment of the U.S. in Brazil is tremendous.
And so, I believe the two heads of state when they meet, we have to talk about the interests of the U.S. and the Brazil interest and what is
important for the relationship of two heads of state. And I have a past track, because I had a very good, excellent relationship with George W.
Bush when I took over in 2003.
They said to me, it's going to be difficult with Bush. But it was an extraordinary relationship with Bush. I also had a very good relationship
with Obama. And I have a very good relationship with President Biden. And this relationship should continue because two heads of state, although they
could have divergence, political ideological divergence, when they meet, what prevails is the interest of the state, not personal interest.
And so, what I want to discuss with the U.S. is the interest, the 200-year- old relationship of Brazil and the U.S., what both countries have to do so that we can improve the quality of life of the people that we represent.
AMANPOUR: I do want to continue this analysis of what you think Trump will bring. As you know, President Trump has very much in common with your
predecessor, Jair Bolsonaro. In fact, Bolsonaro was called the Trump of the tropics. And Bolsonaro wants to come back to be president. He wants to run
against you. His own party chairman said that he was rooting for Trump because that would help put things in order here, consolidating the right
in the largest western democracy.
So, do you think Trump is going to be good for you and your vision of the people, or will it help bring Bolsonaro back? Lay the groundwork for that.
DA SILVA (through translator): Well, Bolsonaro was president, and I defeated him. If he was supporting Trump, there was no votes -- he has no
votes in the U.S., and he couldn't win the elections through that.
Sincerely, Amanpour, I have the following news to the world. I've been following the discussions in the U.S., I've been following the debates on
television, and I believe that each candidate establishes a strategy to win the elections. And I want to say very clearly to the American people that I
will have, with President Trump, a respectful relationship as the head of state of Brazil, and I hope that he will have the same respect relationship
as the head of the state of the U.S.
So, if we manage to establish this line of behavior of civility, of respect, the rest becomes easier. And when I took over, Amanpour, I visit
Bush in 2002, I haven't been inaugurated yet. You know, and on that occasion, Bush invited me to participate in the Iraq war. And I told the
President Bush, I cannot participate in the Iraq war because there's no chemical weapons there, because I don't know Saddam Hussein and thirdly,
because Iraq is 14,000 kilometers from Brazil, and then I have a war to wage in Brazil is to fight against hunger and poverty. And we managed to
end with hunger in Brazil.
And in the previous administration, the government -- hunger went back. When I took office, now, 33 million people were starving and we already
lifted 22 and a half million people from hunger and will lift all the other 10 million left to the end of my term in 2026.
AMANPOUR: I think you'll probably find if Trump sticks to what he says, he doesn't really want to start foreign wars. But I want to ask you about the
stakes in Europe with Russia's war and its illegal invasion of Ukraine.
You have decided not to help Ukraine with weapons. President Zelenskyy has said, unfortunately, I think Brazil is taking Russia's side. And he
basically says the peace plan, the so-called peace plan that you say you've come up with with China shows a lack of respect to Kyiv's population and
its position.
[13:10:00]
How could you come up with a peace plan if you don't even consult the actual president and the people of Ukraine? What is your answer to that?
DA SILVA (through translator): Well, first of all, time will be the master of reason. Let's see who's right, if it's Brazil's position that we're
preaching for peace? Because we're one of the very first countries to criticize Russia, and we said to Russia that it was not correct, the
occupation of the Ukraine country or on any other country. We criticize harshly Russia and we said that we didn't want to participate in this war
because we are a people of peace. Brazil is a country that has no litigation with any country whatsoever in the world and we don't want to
have any litigation with any country.
When they came to say to Brazil that we should send weapons to Zelenskyy, I said, no, I do not want -- no one in Russia, neither in Ukraine, that will
be dead by Brazilian bullets. We want peace. When the two presidents come to their reason and want to talk about peace, Brazil will be willing to
discuss with the two countries for them to go back to peace and for the tranquility of the Ukrainian and Russian people.
And that's why we made a proposal together with China of six points, and these points could only be talked effectively with the two presidents. And
we have already participated in many meetings. I have already met with Zelenskyy in New York City. I have talked with Putin by phone. And so, for
the meanwhile, none of -- both don't want to talk about peace.
When one of them or both of them want, I'm willing to participate if they want to discuss peace, to discuss any kind of peace. And I'm very happy
when you say that if you rely on the Trump's discourse, he's going to end with this war, I think it's important. I think it's important to end with
the war. Because we need peace. The world needs peace, and to live in peace, and peace to grow economically. And we need peace so that we can
improve the quality of lives of the human beings that are being disposable around the world.
That's why, Amanpour, that I am in a campaign of outrages around the leaders of the world. It's necessary that we should have the capability to
become outraged with the millions and millions of human beings that are forgotten by the governments in the planet and even in Brazil.
And I say every day, we need to stop, to look as if they were invisible to the poor in the world. No, they're human beings in the U.S. and Brazil, in
all African countries, in Latin America, in Russia, in Ukraine, in China. And so, we have to deal with great respect, treat with respect these human
beings that have no opportunity in life.
AMANPOUR: And now, on another issue, there's been some good news for your country. Deforestation in the rainforest is at its lowest level since 2015,
and you are getting credit for that. You pledged to end deforestation by 2030. Are you on target?
DA SILVA (through translator): Well, I do have a commitment, Amanpour, that no one asked me to take this commitment. I'm the one that took this
commitment to announce that until the 2030 we would end with the deforestation in the Amazon rainforest. This is my commitment. And the same
way, Amanpour, that I could say to you that Brazil is experienced a very interesting moment because when we're talking about discussing the climate
change and the energy, the issue Brazil has to be undefeatable in producing wind power, solar power, biomass power, biofuels, hydrogen, green hydrogen.
Brazil has an extraordinary energy potential and we want to take advantage and take this opportunity so that Brazil, amongst many things, we could
have a low carbon agriculture output. You know that Brazil has 90 percent of its energy metric is clean energy source. And so, we have 50 percent of
the total energy matrix is clean. And when the rest of the world has only 15 percent.
So, on the climate aspect and on the energy transition, Brazil will make things happen. And that's why my commitment with the deforestation in the
Amazon rainforest. And I hope that the rich countries and I hope that the rich countries give a contribution with money that they have to contribute
because to keep the forest standing costs a lot of money. And because under each tree there's an indigenous people that lives there, there's a
fisherman, there's a peasant, and we need to take care of the people that live in the forest. They are human beings and they need to live. They need
to have their livelihood.
So, it's important that people that deforested in their countries, that have industrialized 200 years ago, now they should take the commitment to
pay for those countries that still have forest standing to preserve their forests. Because I will not be taking only care of the Amazon rainforest,
I'll be taking care of the planet Earth, that is the interest of the U.S., that is the interest of China, that is the interest of Russia, Mexico, and
that's the interest of Chile.
[13:15:00]
So, that's why people have to have the awareness that to keep the forest standing in the Amazon, in the Americas, in Congo and Indonesia, there's a
price to pay for that. And people have to pay for that price. And this is what we want to do. So, the credit -- carbon credit will really start
working to help those countries to keep their forests standing.
AMANPOUR: So, you know what President Trump did in his first term. He pulled the United States out of the landmark Paris Climate Accord. Do you
think he's going to do the same thing again?
DA SILVA (through translator): Well, I believe that President Trump, he has to think as an inhabitant of the planet Earth. And if he thinks as the
ruler of the most important, richest country in the world, most important, that has the high -- more technology that is better prepared from the arms
viewpoint, he has to have the notion that the U.S. is in the same planet that I am, and that in an island of 300,000 inhabitants it is.
And so, all of us, we have to take responsibility for the maintenance of this planet, of the Earth. We need to guarantee that the planet should not
be -- suffer a warming of more -- above than 1.6 degrees. We need to guarantee that the rivers should continue healthy with clean waters. And
so, we need to guarantee that the biomes of all the countries should be preserved.
And so, this is a commitment that I have not only as the president of Brazil, as a human being that lives in the planet called Earth and that
there's no other place to live and only Earth.
AMANPOUR: I want to ask you about Elon Musk, who is a very good friend of Donald Trump, and who spent millions of his own money helping to elect
Donald Trump. You and your Supreme Court had a major standoff over what you accused him of basically having accounts that were damaging Brazil's
democracy. Finally, Elon Musk complied.
But are you concerned that he might try again to bring these accounts up, particularly backed by his friend, the leader of the world's only
superpower to be, that would be Donald Trump?
DA SILVA (through translator): Well, the only thing that we want is that this businessman should treat the countries with respect and not use fake
news to inform the people, either the U.S. people or the Brazilian people. It's very important for us to take an account that we need to go back to
the civility and humanism between human beings.
I can't imagine to instill hatred. We should not continue to raise controversy when we could stimulate peace. We could do other -- stimulate
humanism and other facilities and solidarity. It's an option for life that we have taken that the human being should go back to be a human,
humanistic, that people should respect each other. No one is obliged to enjoy anybody. What we need is to enjoy the people as they are, treat them
with the respect that they deserve, and they also have to treat the others with respect.
Now, if we go back to civility and to live under a system that everybody has their rights, and the right of one ends when the right of the other
starts, then we'll have a better world, a world with more fairness, much a humanitarian world, and a world that will be socially more fair for the
people that live in the planet. This is what I want for Brazil, and this is what I want for the U.S., and this is what I want for Bolivia, Chile, for
Argentina, this is what I want for China and for all the countries.
That is to say, what is not correct is for us to see a country, a strong state like Israel, to end with the people that live in the Gaza Strip,
where thousands of women, more than 40,000 women and children were murdered in a war that is unfair, and we condemned Hamas when they committed those
crimes, but at the same time we condemn Israel against this vengeance that is inhumane against the Gaza Strip.
Unfortunately, the U.N. is weakened, and they cannot make decisions and people do not abide to the U.N. decision. So, it's important for us to go
back to value the U.N. And that we should change the U.N. components. We can't continue with 1945 U.N. Charter. We have to include other countries
in the U.N. Security Council so that we have a much more representative U.N. And when it makes a decision, we have to abide to that decision.
Otherwise, it's useless to make decisions in international forum.
[13:20:00]
And so, I can give you an example, the Paris Agreement. We had already the -- we had the Kyoto Protocol that was not abided. We had the Paris
Agreement that was not followed. We had already a proposal of a hundred billion dollars in Copenhagen 2009 for a fund that wasn't followed. So,
people have to take into account that we have to take our world governance that would have to be strong so that we can pass things, make decisions and
abide to them and fulfill them. Otherwise, the world will become each one doing what they wish, and then we go to anarchy. And anarchy doesn't lead
us to anywhere.
AMANPOUR: Mr. President, there are quite a few elderly men running very important countries President Biden, President Trump, and you yourself are,
I believe, 79 years old, and you say you want to run for re-election in 2026. Are you going to run for re-election and why? What about a younger
generation?
DA SILVA (through translator): Well, first of all, let me say to you with very great caress and great respect. First, I have 79 years of age and I'm
asking for God to live until 120, if God will allow me to. I take care of my health. I wake up very early, 5:30 in the morning to have two hours of
workout in a gym. I take care of my body and my health.
I'm not a candidate for 2026. What I said is that in 2026 I have the commitment to deliver to this country an economy growing, creating jobs
with less people with illiteracy. This is what I want to deliver in this country. Everybody having three meals, breakfast, lunch, and dinner every
day. People that have access to expert health care. This is what I want for my country. And this is what I'm going to do.
Now, 2026, I'm going to think about 2026 in 2026. If there are many parties that support me, I'm going to discuss this with great tranquility because
to govern, it's not like playing soccer, to govern, is not to exercise or practice sports, it's not the youth that's going to solve the world
governance problems. What's going to solve the world governance problem is the competence of the ruler, the mindset of the ruler, the health of those
-- and the commitments that the ruler has.
Now, when it comes to time that the parties understand that there's no other candidate to confront someone that comes from the far-right that is
denialist, that doesn't believe in medicine, that doesn't believe in science, obviously, I will be willing to run again. But I hope it won't be
necessary. And I hope that we'll have other candidates and so that we can have great political renovation in the country and in the world.
AMANPOUR: President Lula da Silva, thank you so much indeed for joining us.
DA SILVA (through translator): Amanpour, thank you very much to you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: Well, now another concern for Latin American leaders, especially in Central America, is Donald Trump's plan for the mass deportation of
millions of undocumented immigrants. Sources tell CNN the groundwork is already being laid for such action. It's just one policy that an
unrestricted Trump administration could enact that would dramatically shift America and its national security policies.
So, let's get some insight now. Olivia Troye worked in the first Trump White House, focusing in particular on Homeland Security and was an adviser
to then-Vice President Mike Pence. During the presidential race, she forcefully spoke out against Trump and campaigned for Kamala Harris. And
she joins me now. Olivia, welcome to the program. Good to see you.
So, this time around, Trump's victory looks a bit different. He won a clear national mandate. It looks all but certain that he's won over the Senate.
And while we still are counting the votes in terms of the House, it looks positive for Republicans as well. Given that, what do you expect him to do
with that mandate?
TROYE: Well, I think that we should expect probably one of the most extreme agendas that we've seen from him yet. I think he now has this top cover, I
would say, in the public eye of an agenda that he has proposed, and that is what we've seen in the agenda Project 2025.
And so, I think given that this is a situation and he will have unchecked power if they do indeed take the House as well, I think we're looking at
some pretty extreme measures here.
GOLODRYGA: Walk us through what that unchecked power could look like, because that's where there is a lot of concern, that if Republicans control
both chambers, obviously, he's got the executive branch, and then there's a lot of concern about where the Supreme Court lies, given that a number of
these justices were handpicked by Donald Trump, and we've seen how they've ruled over the course of the last several years.
[13:25:00]
What does an unchecked power allow for? Because many people say that you're being alarmist, that there are still laws on the books, that there's still
a constitution. Walk us through the limits to the laws as they exist now with unchecked power.
TROYE: Yes. And look, I actually -- you know, I pay attention to those critics and say, this is hyperbole and the government institutions will
hold. As someone who lived the Trump administration firsthand for all four years, whether I was in the Department of Homeland Security, which
obviously carried a lot of the executive orders that had to deal with immigration, whether it was the travel ban or other border security
measures, and then working it inside the White House, this is someone who does not believe in basic rule of law, and he doesn't believe in our legal
measures or rules and institutions. This is someone who undermines our government institutions, and he did undermine them during his first
presidency.
And so, I think when you have unchecked power there is not going to be congressional pushback when he tries to do things where they're not
congressionally mandated, or what if he's trying to transfer funds to actually carry out these mass raids and deportations. It can manifest
itself in different ways.
And while I understand that people will say, well, the courts will hold, we can litigate this, the lawsuits, well, what happens when he has full
control over the legislative and the like judicial process as well? Then who puts the brakes on? Who are the guardrails at that point is my question
then.
GOLODRYGA: We know that he's just appointed chief of staff and she had run his campaign. Susie Wiles had run his campaign. Campaign as well. And we're
hearing some of the same rhetoric from her that we heard from previous chiefs of staff, that we should note, that Donald Trump had four chiefs of
staff over his course, tenure in the White House. And the last, John Kelly, he was four-star general, who also said that he was going to maintain
order, that he was going to control access to and from the president and that he won't be driving -- he will be driving the car, and not anyone
else. And we see where things landed there.
Talk to us about who Susie is, and what are the expectations you think she brings to the job.
TROYE: Well, look, Susie is -- has been well respected in Republican circles, and I think she -- you know, she ran a solid campaign for Donald
Trump. She got him elected. And I think she has a lot of trust by the Trump team, and rightly so, given what she was able to carry out. But I would say
that Susie is falling into the classic mentality of like, I will have control and I will be able to manage this situation when it comes to Donald
Trump. But the reality is that no one can.
And I don't know how many examples people have to have before they realize that no one is different than anyone else. At some point, you will either
get thrown under the bus or you will have to abide by his bidding, and you will have to bend to what he wants you to do.
And look, I lived -- you know, I was there for John Kelly as a chief of staff. I was there for Mick Mulvaney as a chief of staff. I was there when
I saw him take a stand against Trump at times, especially during the COVID pandemic. And then he got removed from his role after some pretty strong
pushback. And then it was Mark Meadows. And then I lived the Mark Meadows era.
So -- and everybody goes in saying, I'm not going to let the clown car. I think that's how she referred to it. I'm not going to have a clown car. I'm
not going to have the charlatans come into the White House. But the reality is that all of these circles are intertwined and Donald Trump listens to
them.
So, they're going to have a direct link to the Oval Office and an ear (ph) there, no matter what. And she may try to put measures, but from what I saw
firsthand, those measures only last for a short while and just -- if there's any more visible case, it was also for my former boss, Mike Pence,
who did try to manage the situation. He was sometimes the voice of reason, but it didn't matter because what Donald Trump is going to do what Donald
Trump is going to do.
GOLODRYGA: You wrote in a piece shortly after the election, after his victory for msnbc.com, and here are some of the concerns that you laid out.
You said, first, we must worry about a possible significant uptick in political violence. Then you said, the free press could increasingly face
intimidation, comply, or else. And you write that, should he pardon the January 6th insurrectionists as he has promised to do, he would effectively
grant immunity to extremists who could commit acts of violence on his behalf.
Just walk us through those three concerns that you laid out there and the likelihood that you think that let's start with pardoning the January 6th
insurrectionists. It's something he campaigned on. Do you actually see him doing that?
TROYE: Yes. I do. And, you know, as concerning as it is, I would hope that someone in a circle would try to stand in the way of that and say, this is
a really bad idea. But I think that you've seen Marjorie Taylor Greene posing with some of them. And I think she's -- you know, I think you've
seen her advocate for them.
[13:30:00]
The MAGA of MAGA leadership supports this idea, and I think it's something of a vindication that he will send to his followers and follow through on
that promise because those people showed up at the U.S. Capitol that day for him. He was the one that drilled him there.
And so, I think that is a dangerous moment for our country. These people will feel emboldened because they did commit a serious crime when they
showed up the Capitol and put our nation's leadership at risk. And now, they're going to have this whole passive like they got pardoned, and what's
to say they wouldn't get pardoned again.
And so, my concern is that they will carry out acts of violence against Trump's, you know, critics, against targets -- people like me, people in
the media. And so, I think I saw it, you know, during Trump's first term. And the reason I say this, because I worked with the guy that was sending
the pipe bombs to Democratic leaders, to media outlets, I worked, you know, number of mass shootings that were related to hate crimes that were related
to the rhetoric that Trump uses, whether it was a great replacement theory or other types of things.
So, I think we should take these moments seriously. And that is my concern when I write this piece, is that I do believe that we're going to see an
escalation of political violence. I think people like the jam Jan. 6th people, if he pardons them, will be the people that are going to be willing
to act. They were willing to act the first time and by pardoning them, you're saying that it's OK.
GOLODRYGA: On the issue of free press and the intimidation facing the media, we are used to the tweets from the -- his time in office, from 2016
to 2000. It was a unique experience at the time, but the institutions held, the media has held its independence. What concerns do you have about that
changing over the next four years?
TROYE: You know, I think the first sign of concern was what happened with The Washington Post. Because not seeing them endorse in one way or another
was a signal about what was to come and now, here we are. And so, I think it's going to be up to the media and the leadership of the media to decide
who they want to be in this moment.
We are -- when we are really facing a challenge that really looks like authoritarianism, and I don't say that lightly. We saw Donald Trump
undermine the media the first time around. I was inside the White House when he used to refer to you all as the fake news. I remember the press
conferences. I remember how aggressive they were with one of your main anchors on CNN, on Jim Acosta. I remember all of those moments. And so, I
think he will -- you'll see more of that.
And quite frankly, I mean, I think Trump's probably dream or plan would probably be to have state run TV because that's essentially what he tried
to do with Fox News during meetings where he would task people in his own staff to call Fox News and reprimand them for something that they had said.
GOLODRYGA: Your colleague from the first Trump term, Former Homeland Security Chief of Staff Miles Taylor wrote an opinion piece in The New York
Times, and essentially calling for conservatives to join the Trump administration, because the argument being that the first term there had
been guardrails in place, he'd been surrounded by people who upheld the law, upheld the constitution, and kept him from doing some of the more
darker and dangerous things and (INAUDIBLE) enacting policies that he campaigned on. Now, the concern is those guardrails won't be in place as he
is putting together what his team will look like.
Do you think that Miles is right here in calling for people to channel their inner patriotism and step forward and at least offer to work for
Donald Trump? I mean, the second part of this question is whether he would even take them on. But even the first part, do you think those people are
out there?
TROYE: You know, my principled instinct would say, yes, absolutely. We need good people with integrity to serve and -- for the greater good. But the
honest to God truth is that I was there when they started to purge a lot of the people from the government.
So, I was there in 2020 when they really started to crack down on the National Security Council, where they were purging experts from it and
lining up loyalists. I was there when I read Schedule F. I read the draft of it firsthand. I'm very aware of it. I know that they will implement it.
So, their plan is to purge anyone that doesn't align up with their agenda and purge people from their expertise because they want to control it.
And so, while I think that, I don't think that they're going to be open much to traditional conservatives that may have served in other
administrations, because those were the people that they were looking for the first time when they were trying to weed out who was a loyalist and who
wasn't. So, I think it's going to be a very challenging time.
Do I want good people to be the guardrails? Yes. And if they're there, I really hope that they're able to stand their ground. But I also think that
we're in a situation here where every move is going to be scrutinized. And I already lived that. And I'm telling you this because myself and many of
my colleagues were already very aware of that.
[13:35:00]
And we were already trying to be -- to pay attention to what we were saying in meetings, how we were working on things, because we were being watched
and scrutinized every single day. That's what it was like to work in the first Trump administration, and it'll be so much worse the next time
around.
GOLODRYGA: Olivia, in the minute we have remaining, I'm just wondering, all of these warnings, Americans were made aware of by people like yourself, by
people who were in the room with the former president, by Republicans, John Kelly, you name it. And yet, more than half of the country chose to vote
for him too. I know there are a number of issues, whether it's the economy, whether concerns about immigration and security. Those are all very
important issues.
So, I'm just wondering how you square, addressing those really legitimate concerns and the fact that you know this man and you know what a threat you
say he is for the country.
TROYE: Well, I'm obviously disappointed in my fellow Americans who made this decision, and I do think that it's actually a lack of information, a
lack of understanding of what this truly is. And I think, you know, when we look at the definition of democracy and how people define democracy, I
don't think a lot of people define it in the same way.
And so, I think there's a certain population that really they're looking at kitchen table issues. They're looking at the price in their grocery stores,
and that is what they're voting on. But I'm more concerned about the instability, the chaos, and the detriment to the security of Americans and
what this means. And at some point, I think they're going to look and be like, OK. Yes, the price of eggs. I was really worried about that. But now,
I have all these other things happening in my country that are frightening.
GOLODRYGA: Olivia Troye, really appreciate the time. Thank you so much.
TROYE: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: Well only months after Biden hosted the 75th anniversary of the NATO alliance, the conversation turns now to how Trump's foreign policy
will affect the United States role in the world.
In his latest piece for The New York Times, David Sanger argues that Trump's win ends a post-World War II era of U.S. leadership, and he joins
Walter Isaacson to discuss.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Thank you, Bianna. And, David Sanger, Welcome to the show.
SANGER: Great to be back with you, Walter.
ISAACSON: It's been 75 years since America has led a world order that was sort of based on defensive alliances like NATO, but also gradually
decreasing tariffs, more free trade, more free movement of people. Does this election of Donald Trump for the second time mean the end of that
world order?
SANGER: Walter, it may well. You know, in the days when -- after President Biden was elected four years ago, he went around telling American allies,
the British, the French, the Japanese, the South Koreans, America is back. And what he meant by that was that the four years of Donald Trump, his
first term, were an aberration. They were the blip in the system. And he represented the return of traditional alliance building.
After all, President Biden was, in many ways, the sort of last warrior of the old Cold War. He had come to age in the United States Senate during
that time. He ran the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and he had, of course, been vice president during one of the most critical periods of the
post-Cold War era.
Now, with President Trump's re-election, the real question is, was Biden the blip? Could President Biden be viewed by history later on as sort of
the last gasp of that old order? One marked, as you noted, by building alliances, relying on NATO, building up alliances in the Pacific, which was
really a hallmark of Biden's four years in office, free trade, or at least freer trade, the concept of 100 percent, 200 percent, 400 percent tariffs,
as now President-Elect Trump talked about during the campaign, you wouldn't have heard that come very easily out of Joe Biden's lips.
ISAACSON: Well, Joe Biden said, this is not who we are, he kept saying that when talking about it. But let's look at American history. I mean, from the
time of Washington and Jefferson and warning against entangling foreign alliances, we've generally been skeptical about, you know, going abroad for
monsters to slay. Is this sort of a natural thing that America has felt and that's one of the reasons Trump got elected?
[13:40:00]
SANGER: That cycle of history has been a part of the fabric of the United States, as you know, throughout its history. People have written many a
book about when these cycles come into play. Samuel Huntington wrote about how they happened every 70 years. Others saw particular triggers in
American society for it. But the fact of the matter is it's a recurrent theme.
It was certainly a theme in this election, although I don't think the dominant theme. I think what got Trump elected over Kamala Harris was, as
you would expect, much more domestic issues, inflation, the social wage issues that Trump kept pressing. You saw him take out a lot of ads on TV
and you saw them on social media about trans issues. You didn't see many about NATO issues.
ISAACSON: President Putin of Russia congratulated Trump. And I think he said -- he praised Trump's desire to restore relations with Russia and to
end the Ukraine crisis -- Ukrainian crisis. Do you think there's a possibility, and is it a good thing or bad thing, that Trump will work with
Putin and end the Ukrainian war?
SANGER: He may well end the Ukrainian war, and I know many people both within Trump's circle and some outside who think that with Trump coming in,
that war may be over within a year or so. I'm not sure I fully sign on to that. It's not only a question of whether the war ends, it's a question of
how it ends.
So, the Biden bywords here were nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine, which was to say, we're not going to go negotiate around your back with
Vladimir Putin and decide the lines between Russia and Ukraine. You've never heard those words from Donald Trump.
And when he says that he will end the war in 24 hours, many believe that what he's really saying there is that he will end the war by calling Putin
saying, OK, what deal do you need? What's the deal we can strike? Putin will say, well, why don't we start with the 20 percent of Ukraine that I
now basically occupy? At which point, the theory goes, he would then call Zelenskyy and say, do I ever have a deal for you? All you have to do is
give up 20 percent of your territory, and this war will be over, and you won't suffer these awful casualties.
ISAACSON: And what happens when Zelenskyy says no?
SANGER: Then he says, you know, I'm not really sure we can continue supporting you at the level we've been supporting you.
ISAACSON: And what's the danger of that? I mean, should we -- why is it better to keep this war going on for another five years?
SANGER: It may not be better but the question is, is the message that you send around the world that Putin can be rewarded for invading another
country and ending up with some of his territory. Or if you view it the way I think President Trump and many of his advocates view it, do you say,
look, all wars end with a negotiated settlement. Zelenskyy's been incapable of getting that negotiation going. We're going to help him along in that
process.
ISAACSON: Well, wait. Tell me what your view on that is.
SANGER: Well, my view on that is that at the end of the day, my guess is this war will only end with territory either being given to Russia or Korea
like being in dispute. That is to say that there's an armistice of some kind and an agreement to negotiate on territory at some point in the
future.
Now, in 1953, this looked terrible to the South Koreans because they were saying they've lost territory of their own that used to be theirs. If you
had been able to say to the South Koreans back then, you know, in 70 years plus, you will be one of the world's largest economies and you will be able
to travel -- your citizens will be able to travel the world and you'll be among the most admired manufacturing countries in the world and a high-tech
country to boot, making products that even the United States, in some cases, is having a hard time making, I think the Koreans would have taken
that deal.
There's no way to make that guarantee to the Ukrainians, but it is possible given the talent that we've seen the Ukrainians have that they should think
about rebuilding the country and that that is a bigger issue than territory. I'm not sure Zelenskyy thinks that way, and giving away
territory might be the end of him politically.
[13:45:00]
But, you know, this is what happens at the end of long, slogging wars where it becomes clear that the Ukrainians, in this case, are unlikely to be able
to defend all their territory.
ISAACSON: In your book, "New Cold Wars," you talk about how General H. R. McMaster is working with Trump, national security adviser, said that Trump
felt he could break through with Putin on a personal level and McMaster said, don't go down that path. That's not going to be a good idea. What
happened? And from -- can you take from the first term and do you think he will try to have a personal relationship in the second term?
SANGER: Oh, I'm certain he will. I mean, first of all, one of his critiques of President Biden is that Biden and Putin only met once they met in June
of 2021. That was over cyber-attacks that emanated from Russia and hit the American oil and gas pipelines. It was not largely about Ukraine. They
barely communicated since, never met in person during that time.
I am quite certain that President-Elect Trump believes that what works in diplomacy is in what he would call great man diplomacy, that he can talk to
Vladimir Putin, that he can talk to Xi Jinping, that they're scared of him, that Xi would not dare to take Taiwan because he thinks that Trump is
blanking crazy, that's what he told The Wall Street Journal, right?
So, he is very much of the belief that the personal diplomacy is the key to all of this. I think that can be a bit of a trap because the Chinese
learned how to play President-Elect Trump by dangling trade deals. Putin seemed to develop a relationship with him that put very few limits on the
Russians.
But I'm sure that Trump believes that he can bring about peace in Ukraine and the end to the new Cold Wars through the strength of his personal
diplomas.
ISAACSON: One of the biggest shifts in the past five, six, seven years has been the growing alliance between Russia and China. You're teaching there
at the Kennedy School with Graham Allison, of course, and you certainly know the Bismarck and Metternich warnings about letting your two
adversaries get closer to each other than they're to you.
Is this a huge mistake in foreign policy, and what can Trump do to reverse that growing alliance between Russia and China?
SANGER: Well, first of all, this alliance barely showed itself during the first Trump term. And early in the years that Biden was in office, he
didn't even acknowledge that it was likely to happen. I asked him at a press conference about a year into his presidency, did he believe that the
Russia-China partnership, I wouldn't call it a full alliance, is a real thing, and he said, no, I don't think these two countries can get together.
By the time he did his last press conference, which was after the NATO summit in the summer, he admitted that he had a program to try to get
between the two countries to try to stop this, the way Nixon and Kissinger, as you wrote in your Kissinger biography, tried to design the opening to
China to keep the Chinese and the then Soviet Union from coming together.
Now, Biden would not describe the elements of that strategy, and my guess is that a good deal of it was covert, and a lot of it was aimed at stopping
the flow of technology from China to rebuild the Russian military. But the fact of the matter is that there has been a policy of trying to get in the
way of this relationship, not terribly successfully.
We never heard during the campaign, Walter, not once, any reference to this. The biggest change in geopolitics, I think, in the past four or five
years during the campaign, we never heard it come out of Vice President Harris' mouth, we never heard it come out of President-Elect Trump's mouth.
And so, we don't know whether or not he will try to interfere in that relationship. My guess is he's so transactional that he believes that he
can sort of negotiate side deals with each one of them and that that alone will sort of weave in the way of this. I don't think he's going to look at
this in a sort of grand strategic Kissingerian way.
[13:50:00]
ISAACSON: Amid all the turmoil in the Middle East right now, what effect will Trump's election have, especially on Israel's war against Hezbollah,
Hamas, and for that matter, against all Iranian proxies and perhaps even Iran?
SANGER: So, if you're Netanyahu, your strategy has just paid off. Netanyahu, from early in the year, was basically waiting out the
administration. He'd get these letters from Secretary of State Blinken or Secretary of Defense Austin saying there are legal restrictions on the way
that you can use American provided weaponry. And if you don't allow aid into Gaza or you're using those weapons against civilians, there will be
restrictions. And he basically tossed them aside and said, let's wait for the election, because he knows that the Trump view -- in fact, we believe
President Trump said this to him in a conference to Netanyahu, in a conversation a few weeks ago, is do what you need to do.
And so, the era of restrictions is going to be over. And, you know, that was the message that Harris was trying to send out in Michigan, to the Arab
populace and others who were very unhappy with the way she dealt with the war against Hamas in Gaza. And her answer was, at least we're pushing
Netanyahu a bit, Trump wouldn't push him at all.
ISAACSON: Former Defense Secretary Panetta said that Trump would give Netanyahu a blank check. Is that sort of true? And if so, what will happen?
SANGER: I think that probably is true. I don't think you're going to see President Trump put any restrictions. I think the place where the rubber
will hit the road on this, Walter, will be on Iran itself. You'll remember that during the first term, President Trump talked a very tough line
against Iran, but he pulled back once or twice when there were opportunities to get into a deeper conflict with them. He did order the
killing of General Soleimani, the head of the Quds Force, one of the most elite military commanders in Iran, but he pulled back from opening up a
broader war with them.
We don't know what his view is now. But the Iranians have, of course, we believe, sent out, or at least tried to order up, hit teams against Trump
when he was candidate. They've denounced him. Their cyber operations in the United States were anti-Trump, even while the Russians were pro-Trump.
So, my guess is that Trump comes into office with a much hardened view about Iran and may well not stand in the way of Netanyahu if he decides to
go after Iranian nuclear facilities, for example, and so forth. I don't know that Netanyahu is going to do that. He's hesitated himself a few
times. But certainly, that was a big concern of the Biden administration just in the last few months.
ISAACSON: One of the successes of Trump's first term in the Middle East was the Abraham Accords, and there has been a sense that he would like to have
a growing alliance with Saudi Arabia, some of the Gulf states, Israel, all as part of an alliance against Iran. Do you think that is a strategic shift
that could happen in a second Trump term?
SANGER: I do. And you know, that was a line of consistency between the Trump administration and the Biden administration. Joe Biden and his aides
did not have very nice things to say about Trump foreign policy, except when it came to the Abraham Accords, where on that issue and the issue of
supporting U.S. technology against China, they praised the way Trump went about it.
And of course, they were trying to reconstruct the Saudi Arabia deal in the days before the October 7, 2023 attacks. They hope that might come back
this year. It did not. I think it's very possible that Trump may push in that direction. And if he did, I think that could actually change the
diplomatic complexion of the Middle East.
ISAACSON: David Sanger, thank you so much for joining us.
SANGER: Great to be with you, Walter.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: And finally, an emotional sound in Paris. The iconic bells of the Notre Dame are ringing out once again, five years on from the fire that
devastated the cathedral.
[13:55:00]
After a lengthy restoration of the 861-year-old structure, the bells began to sound one by one this morning until all eight chimed in harmony for
about five minutes. The heaviest bell, called Gabriel, weighs over four tons. And three new bells will be installed in the Gothic landmark,
including one that was rung by each of the track and field winners during this year's Olympic Games. The cathedral will officially reopen on December
8th. And that is definitely music to our ears.
Well, that is it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. And remember, you can
catch us online, on our website, and all-over social media. Thank you for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
