Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Immigrant Rights advocate and Young Center for Immigrant Children's Rights Erika Andiola; Interview with Immigration Attorney Andrea Martinez; Interview with Palestinian English Language Teacher Asma Mustafa; Interview with Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR). Aired 1-2p ET
Aired January 21, 2025 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
PAULA NEWTON, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: Today I will sign a series of historic executive orders. With these actions we will begin the complete restoration
of America.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEWTON: Day one of Trump 2.0. Break down the flurry of executive orders and the legal challenges they could face.
And tears of shock on the U.S.-Mexico border as Trump cracks down on immigration. I speak with attorney Andrea Martinez and rights advocate
Erika Andiola, who herself found refuge in Arizona as an undocumented child.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ASMA MUSTAFA, PALESTINIAN ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHER: The children are the hope of the future, for peace, for humanity, for love.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEWTON: -- a window into Gaza. As the ceasefire holds, families return to the rubble of their homes. My conversation with English teacher Asma
Mustafa about the grim reality inside the enclave.
Also ahead --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. RON WYDEN (D-OR): I want an economy, Walter, that gives everybody in America the chance to get ahead. And I think that Trump and some of these
oligarchs that we're talking about are not interested in that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEWTON: -- Democratic Senator for Oregon, Ron Wyden, talks to Walter Isaacson about Trump, TikTok, and his economic policy.
And a warm welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Paula Newton in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
And we are just two days into Donald Trump's second term, and the 47th president has already signed dozens of sweeping executive orders targeting
everything from climate regulations to TikTok, diversity, equality, and inclusion programs to refugee admission. The U.S. is pulling out of the
Paris Climate Accords and the World Health Organization. And the National Energy Emergency has been declared to expedite more fossil fuel extraction.
Some of these moves are already facing legal challenges.
Now, Trump has also issued pardons for more than 1,000 people charged or convicted in the 2021 capital riots, including those who assaulted police
and destroyed property.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: So, this is January 6th. These are the hostages. Approximately 1,500 for a pardon?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.
TRUMP: Full pardon.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Full pardon or commutations?
TRUMP: Full pardon. We have about six commutations in there where we're doing further research. Maybe it'll stay that way or it'll go to -- in a
full pardon.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEWTON: Now, he also commuted the sentences of 14 far-right extremists from the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys who were either charged with or
convicted of seditious conspiracy for trying to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power to Joe Biden four years ago.
January 6th pardons and immigration crackdowns were two of Trump's key election promises. Remember, that was ahead now. We will dig into the
consequences for America's immigration system. But first we want to go to our Correspondent Kevin Liptak, who is following all of this from
Washington, D.C. and joins us now from the White House.
A busy couple of days. It's already been. We talked about Trump signing that barrage of executive orders on day one. Certainly, it was a power flex
it was performative and a sharp reversal even in policy. But I want to ask you, for our audiences, especially those outside of the United States, can
you just lay out the significance of these executive orders? Like, how do they work? And given this is such a broad sweep, what is Trump really
saying here?
KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Yes, and it was a huge swath of executive orders. They ranged from the symbolic, you know, things
like renaming the Gulf of Mexico, renaming Mount Denali in Alaska to the highly consequential.
You know, every president uses his executive authority to try and put forward his agenda. But I think what we really saw on Monday in the Oval
Office was a president who is very willing to test the bounds of his presidential prerogative, to see how far exactly he can go with his own pen
bypassing Congress to fulfill some of the promises he made as a candidate.
[13:05:00]
And certainly, some of these actions, particularly when it comes to immigration, will be challenged in the courts. But when you talk to
President Trump's advisors, they described this as a shock and awe moment. They want to demonstrate that they have the competence and the confidence
to enact some of these things on their own. And whether or not these are the policies that remain in place for the next four years, I think will be
up to judges and will be up to the Supreme Court, potentially, if some of these actions make it all the way to the highest court in the land.
And certainly, what you're seeing is a president who feels empowered by a mandate, in his own words, despite winning the popular vote by quite a
narrow margin, to fulfill some of the core promises that he made as a candidate. And so, that is exactly what you saw him do in the Oval Office.
It was notable that these executive actions were written and prepared and ready to go from the moment that he was sworn in at the Capitol. And I
think it really does set the tone going forward of a president who is willing, really, to test how far he can really go now that he is entering
this new Trump era.
NEWTON: Yes, moderation does not seem a keyword for now. And as you point out, what we get from first the Trump transition and now the Trump
administration is promises made, promises kept. But in terms of the ones that will actually have policy implications, which ones do you think will
be impacting Americans right now, daily?
LIPTAK: Well, certainly, some of these immigration orders are already having an effect at the Southern border. For example, the president shut
down an app that was instituted during the Biden administration that allowed people waiting for asylum in the United States to make
appointments. 30,000 people had registered for those appointments. The app has gone dark, leaving some of those people in a high degree of
uncertainty.
The other area that the president really does have a broad authority is trying to reshape the federal government through policy and through
personnel. So, you saw the president sign a hiring freeze, a freeze on regulations. Those are items that can have an immediate effect. You also
saw the president rescind some of the Biden era executive orders, including ones that were just signed within the last month. For example, President
Biden took Cuba off the list of state sponsors of terror. President Trump has revoked that. That could have an immediate effect.
You also saw the president withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement and from the World Health Organization. Some officials really do worry that
that could have a significant effect on public health in the United States. These are areas where the president does have a relatively wide degree of
authority.
And then, of course, there are the pardons. That is sort of the ultimate presidential authority, really sort of, he allowed to do what he wants to
do in that area without challenge, without legal challenge in the courts. And certainly, the president showed he himself very willing to take that to
quite an extreme level yesterday.
NEWTON: Yes, the pardons shocked even Republicans who believed that anyone who had committed any kind of violent offense would not be pardoned. I
mean, look, Kevin, you've been covering this for a long time. When it comes to that presidential pardon authority, some supporters of the president
said that it was Joe Biden on his way out who also pardoned his entire family that he set the precedent here.
LIPTAK: Well, it was interesting. The day began with pardons from Joe Biden, four members of the committee that investigated the riot on January
6th, and it ended with President Trump offering pardons for the rioters themselves. And so, you saw those bookends there. But certainly, President
Trump's pardons really do sort of test the willingness of the Republican Party to go along with what he's doing in the Oval Office.
These pardons apply not only to those who were accused of low-level offenses, but to those who are also accused of violence on January 6th, to
those who are convicted of seditious conspiracy, of trying to use violence to overthrow the government. And so, I think you will hear Republicans
being questioned about this step that the president took.
But at the end of the day, this is one of the most expansive powers of the presidency. It is sort of unchallenged in the constitution. And so,
President Trump does have this ability to take this step. It really sort of crosses out what was the most complex investigation in the history of the
Department of Justice, and I think it raises a lot of questions about how willing President Trump will be to go further down the line as he, you
know, faces requests for pardons from his allies, from people who are defending him out in the public, potentially in a criminal way. Now, he has
set this precedent that he's willing to erase some of those convictions. And I think that will be something that will be a theme of this presidency
going forward, really set from the first day he was in office.
[13:10:00]
NEWTON: As you said, really does set the tone going forward for the second Trump administration. Kevin Liptak, we are grateful to you from Washington,
D.C. Appreciate it.
Now, we want to take a closer look at what we were just discussing, Trump's crackdown on immigration. As we mentioned, his administration is holding
true to those campaign promises. This is the impact. Devastated people on the Mexico-U.S. border are finding out that their appointments for seeking
asylum were now cancelled.
Now, the app for obtaining those appointments just shut down. You can see it there. For most, it was, in fact, the only legal pathway to enter the
United States. Now, the president is declaring the border a national emergency in order, he says, to obtain federal funding for constructing a
wall. And it's not just those trying to get into America who are being affected. Trump is ordering the end of birthright citizenship.
And it doesn't end there. The new border czar, Tom Homan, has promised major raids to detain and deport undocumented immigrants, and it's not just
those with criminal convictions as previously thought. So, what does all of this mean for the undocumented and for America's immigrant communities?
Erika Andiola is an immigration rights advocates who as a child herself crossed the U.S border seeking refuge. And Andrea Martinez is an
immigration attorney. I want to welcome both of you to the program.
Deportations, we heard so much of this during the campaign. Erika, to you first raids could begin right away in cities like Chicago. How are people
who are undocumented at this hour, in this country, how are they feeling about what they may face?
ERIKA ANDIOLA, IMMIGRANT RIGHTS ADVOCATE AND YOUNG CENTER FOR IMMIGRANT CHILDREN'S RIGHTS: Yes, thank you for having me. Well, you know, I can
tell you, at least from the people that I know, people who are messaging me on social media, family members, friends that people are afraid and, you
know, we're not talking about people who have things to fear because they have committed a crime, because they have done anything wrong, but just
because they're here undocumented, people who have been here, like my family, for over 26 years, and who really have been trying to do everything
they can to give back to this country. And now, they are fearing being separated from their families.
And potentially, you know, people who are right now pregnant. Not knowing if their children are going to be able to be citizens of this country, or
what country they're going to be citizens of, really.
NEWTON: Erika, I have to ask you, Tom Homan has said that, at first, in this campaign, we heard it is going to be those with records, criminal
records. And yet, he has now said that, look, if you happen to be with someone who has committed a crime, but you entered this country illegally,
he is saying you can as well expect to be deported. What kind of upheaval could that cause within families?
ANDIOLA: Yes. Look, I have told people over and over again when they tell me that they're only going after the, quote/unquote, "the criminals,"
right? That's been the narrative. That's been the narrative that was sold to the American people throughout the campaign under the Trump campaign.
Unfortunately, that's not the reality. The reality is that DHS has called people, basically, when they show up to a raid or to try to get people
detained and deported to say that there's -- anyone, really, who's around there, they will be detaining them. And they have done it in the past. My
own family has been raided in the past. Both my mother and my brother have been taken by immigration. They were taken 13 years ago and it was in the
same -- with the same logic, right? They have done nothing wrong, they didn't commit any crimes, but because they were there, and ICE got their
hands on them, that they were going to be deported.
I was able to save my mom from deportation by telling the American people who she was and making an entire campaign to stop her deportation. But
she's still struggling. We're still struggling. I still remember that day. I cannot forget it. I am traumatized by that day. And I can assure you that
many people in this country, not just undocumented people, but also Americans, American citizens in this country will be traumatized by the
amount of raids and everything that they were going to be doing to our people.
NEWTON: That's because, of course, in these families, there is a mix of people in terms of their status in the United States. Andrea, to you now,
and before I get to questions, I do want you to listen to former ICE acting director, John Sandweg, and what he says will be different this time that
Donald Trump has entered office. Listen.
[13:15:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN SANDWEG, FORMER ACTING DIRECTOR, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT: They're laying the groundwork for this mass deportation in a
way that we haven't seen before, including on an explicit directive for the military to start creating detention camps, which addresses one of the real
resource issues that they would face if they ever carried out this mass deportation effort.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEWTON: Andrea, as someone who works so closely with the immigrant community, what would this look like?
ANDREA MARTINEZ, IMMIGRATION ATTORNEY: That's a great question. Right now, there is very limited bed space in terms of who the administration can
detain. But with those camps, those detention camps. There will be more people able to be detained. And the question is, at what cost?
We've had studies that we've seen through the American Immigration Lawyers Association saying that this mass deportation effort could cost the
American taxpayer up to $1 trillion. So, with The Doyle priorities memo being withdrawn and the priorities being now everyone instead of people
with criminal history, because under the Biden administration, every president does have the authority to determine who is a priority to deport.
President Biden determined that people like national security threats, terrorists, the very limited population that really deserve to be deported,
those people would be the priority for deportation. But now, President Trump has chosen to withdraw that priorities memo, and now, everyone is a
priority. So, anyone, including, as you said, mixed status families, there could be undocumented family members that are picked up detained. And once
those detention camps are built, detained at taxpayer expense, even if they have no criminal history. So, that is the grave concern.
And the question is not only the incredible trauma to U.S. citizens and their family members, but also to the taxpayer who voted because they
wanted a smaller government and they wanted to not spend taxpayer money on things like big government. This is an example of big government.
NEWTON: It's an example of big government, but, Andrea, many Americans had made their wishes known during the election. Do you believe this is what
they signed up for? In terms of the people you talked to, did they really sign up for mass deportations to a point where it will disrupt families,
obviously, but also the economy?
MARTINEZ: I'm in Kansas City, Missouri. That's where my immigration law practices. And we are very purple city in a red state. And I am friends
with many Republicans who have told me that they voted the way they voted because of the economy. They believed that Donald Trump would be better for
the economy, but they don't -- this was not what they signed up for.
And in fact, the American people have overwhelmingly stated that they do not adhere to or support mass deportations. This is not what they signed up
for. And this kind of pain and human suffering is not, I believe, what the American people want.
NEWTON: Erika, you gave us some insight into your own personal story and made it very clear that it still traumatizes you and your family to this
day. What are you hearing from your community also in terms of the actions that they're taking this very hour to try and stay out of immigration
detention?
ANDIOLA: You know, people are surely afraid. I mean, as Andrea was mentioning, right, and as you were mentioning, we have people who have
roots in this country. I mean, one example that I've been giving you, it's my own story my own family.
My mom -- my mother is in deportation proceedings and she has been for 13 years. She's now a 66-year-old great-grandmother, right? So, I have -- she
has a great-granddaughter who is a third generation American in this country, yet, her great-grandmother is in deportation proceedings. This is
a -- it's not -- it's just a representation, really, of thousands -- really millions of people in this country who are in mixed status families who
will be -- who right now are really not knowing what they're going to expect when they go to work, if they're in their own home, when they might
get a knock from the -- from ICE at the door.
And it's really -- it's not just scary, you know, it's just the uncertainty also of what's going to happen with your own family with their own future.
It really is affecting a lot of people's mental health and their own wellbeing.
NEWTON: Yes, and it is true that sometimes no matter how hard you try, there is no legal path that is presented to you. It is, as you say,
deportation proceedings. Let's listen now to the president himself after the election. And he sat down with NBC News and was asked about this issue
of family separation. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KRISTEN WELKER, NBC NEWS CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT AND SATURDAY TODAY CO-ANCHOR: Is it realistic to deport everyone who's here illegally?
DONALD TRUMP, THEN-U.S. PRESIDENT-ELECT: We have no choice. First of all, they're costing us a fortune. But we're starting with the criminals, and we
got to do it. And then we're starting with others. And we're going to see how it goes.
We need deterrence. Look, ready? When somebody comes here illegally, they're going out. It's very simple. When they come here illegally, they're
going out. Now, if they come here illegally, but their family is here legally, then the family has a choice. The person that came in illegally
can go out, or they can all go out together.
[13:20:00]
NEWTON: Andrea, what kind of a choice is that? Are you hearing from people that are asking you, saying, look, is it better that we self deport at this
point in time, so that we have an opportunity to re-enter the United States, or have many, you know, elected to go into hiding instead?
MARTINEZ: There is no opportunity to re-enter the United States. It's really not an option. So, the choice right now is for people to go into
hiding, like you said, which is what most of my clients are doing, or if they're placed in the immigration system, the immigration court backlog is
so long that, right now, I have final trial dates set out for 2027, 2028.
And so, getting a final hearing for people who need their asylum applications adjudicated because they fled to the United States for
persecution, it's very difficult. And that is what I think the American people don't understand about this mass deportation effort, is that our
system is so backlogged that to try to deport everyone will create an even greater backlog because there should be rights for every immigrant in this
country.
Now, there will obviously be legal challenges because I expect the Trump administration to try to deport and potentially U.S. citizens with their
non-citizen family members, and we will see a lot of litigation over the next coming years on every single one of these executive orders, probably.
NEWTON: And, Erika what Andrea's talking about, if you have a family, you may have two undocumented parents who obviously are the legal guardians of,
let's say, two, three, four American children, add to that the fact that this child separation task force, we had already gone through this in the
first Trump administration, that's now been disbanded by Trump.
Do you believe there will be more family separations leading to this? I mean, apparently, there are still a thousand families still separated from
the first time this happened.
ANDIOLA: Absolutely. I mean, that's going to happen. There's no question that there's going to be family separation. I don't think the president
cares. I don't think his administration cares. I think what they want to do is to get as many people as possible to leave the country. And the reality
is that it's not going to help anyone. They keep saying that it's going to help the economy. That is not true. We have seen over and over again that
the labor of immigrants in this country is really, really valuable for our economy.
And the fact is, you know, family separation is a form of trauma. It is a form of you know, letting -- telling basically American citizens in this
country that it doesn't -- their family doesn't matter, right? They can be separated from their parents, from the people they love and it doesn't
matter, right?
And I will say -- and the last thing I'll say here is that I know family separation. I know -- you know, my family left Mexico because of family --
because we were victims of domestic violence and we had no other choice but to leave -- to come to this country and we didn't see our grandmother for
many years. And our grandmother died. She passed away in Mexico and we never ever saw her again. I didn't see my grandmother for the past -- the
last 10 years of her life, and it's a choice that shouldn't be a choice for anyone in this country, especially American citizens.
NEWTON: Erika, of course, it obviously is traumatic for you and traumatic to think that there are other families going through this again who will
have to leave their families. I want to talk about those people still trying to get to the United States.
I mean, Andrea, Trump signed an order that gives the military a role. We were just discussing it in this immigration enforcement. We saw at the
border yesterday, I'm sure it's going on right now as well, that people were obviously distraught. They do not have these apps. There is no legal
pathway to entry. Trump has now suspended this refugee resettlement.
What do you believe will happen now? Because some people are saying that, look, if you're not going to give people a legal pathway to enter the
country, they will, endanger to their own lives, continue to try and enter the United States illegally. What do you see happening there?
MARTINEZ: I often say that there is a push factor and a pull factor for immigration. The push factor is that people are pushed out because of
persecution, violence, and they have to leave their country. And then, also, there's a pull factor, which is our demand -- our economy's demand
for workers. We have a low unemployment rate and we need these workers.
So, there are this double whammy, this double factor where you're not going to stop people from coming. They will just come more dangerously and in
more dangerous ways, and they may die trying, and many people do die trying every year.
[13:25:00]
So, with the CBP One app and all those appointments that were canceled yesterday afternoon, people had waited six to 10 months for those
appointments. That was them doing it the legal way, waiting for their day to ask for asylum and be paroled into the United States. And when those
appointments were held in the morning and then canceled in the afternoon, people who had the courage to do that risked kidnapping at the U.S.-Mexico
border to go to those interviews only to find out that their interviews had actually been canceled in the afternoon.
So, what you said is absolutely true, Paula, people will continue to come to the United States. And if they're not given a legal path to do so, they
will do so in a more dangerous way to themselves and at higher risk to themselves because of the fact that they cannot -- they simply cannot live
in their countries. People do not leave their homes, as the Somali poet said, unless their home is the mouth of a shark.
NEWTON: There are tough choices going on right now on those -- all those border crossings. Erika, the last word to you. I don't have a lot of time
left, but what would you like Americans who voted for Donald Trump and want to see more national security around immigration, what would you say to
them?
ANDIOLA: That this is not the way to do it. I know they were sold this narrative that if we deport people who are in this country, like my family
and many people in my community, that they will have a better life, that will not be the case. Your life will not be better by deporting people.
Your life will be better by having a better government who actually cares about the working class, who actually cares about the American people.
So, we're not the villain and I hope they understand that and I hope they see that as Trump moves forward with his plan, that they see the reality of
what's going to happen with people like myself and others in this country.
NEWTON: Erika Andiola, thank you so much for sharing your personal story. And, Andrea Martinez, we will continue to check in with you as the
immigration picture here in the United States continues to change. Appreciate it.
MARTINEZ: Thank you.
NEWTON: And we turn now to Gaza, where the ceasefire, thankfully, is holding. Now, while families of the released Israeli hostages and
Palestinian prisoners rejoice, celebrating a rare moment of hope in this bloody conflict. Inside Gaza, people are returning to the ruins of their
lives.
These images show the extent of the utter devastation. I don't even know what else to call it. 90 percent of the population has been forcibly
displaced, and the majority of homes in the Strip have now been destroyed.
Asma Mustafa is an English teacher in Gaza, and she joined me earlier to explain what everyday life is like there now, and the importance of this so
fragile and tentative truths.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
Asma, it's so good to see you again. And we, of course, are hearing about this mix of joy, but also grief, of course, in Gaza.
ASMA MUSTAFA, PALESTINIAN ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHER: Yes.
NEWTON: We have people celebrating, but it must be such a mix of emotions given. So, much has been lost in Gaza. Can you tell me just what this
ceasefire means to you now?
MUSTAFA: Actually, I'm so happy to be live with you again, because I have never really never imagined like to be alive and one of the survivor of the
genocide, because, you know, it was the most violent war ever I have ever witnessed in Gaza Strip.
I have witnessed seven wars before this, but no one was like this time. It continued for 15 months and nobody knew before that it will stop one day.
I'm afraid that I said one day, I told my mom that I am losing hope, Mommy, I am losing hope. At the time that the ceasefire agreement was announced in
Qatar, you know, I was so -- I was waiting eagerly just like the other people all around the world.
I know it was like a hysterical moment and I suspected, for the first time, is it going to be announced really or is it -- it's going to fail like
every time of negotiations? And finally, I have witnessed this moment. I cried, I couldn't stop my tears. You know, it was like a waterfall and I
hugged my two daughters. I was so happy that the ceasefire finally was announced and we survived. We really survived. But at the same time, I was
so scared of the future and I'm still so scared of the future and the shape of my life will be like. If I return to the north, I know that the Jabalya
Camp houses are all destroyed totally or partly.
And I don't know, I can't imagine that the shape of my life, how would it be? Would it be in a tent for, you know, how long and how -- like so many
questions still unclear and so ambiguous. The situation is still ambiguous, but the most achievement that -- is that I'm still alive.
[13:30:00]
NEWTON: The survival is extraordinary for so many in Gaza. And of course, we hear in your voice the contradiction between that grief and that joy.
And as you said, we -- people do not understand if their homes are still standing. 90 percent of 2.1 million people, we want to repeat, in Gaza have
been displaced from their homes. Some as many as 10 times or more. Can you tell us about your experience in the last 15 months? How many times have
you had to move?
MUSTAFA: I have -- I was displaced eight times, even sometimes four times of them, I was displaced from a humanitarian zone to another humanitarian
zone under the Israeli army instructions. It was really, really hard for me to take my tent, to take my things under fire and to leave immediately.
Really, really, I didn't imagine to still alive.
And at the same time, you have to save your children's life. That's the point. You have to take your old family members. You have to look around.
Sometimes I didn't have this -- you know, this choice to look behind and to see my mommy, how fast she is walking. OK. So many details. So many
details. You know, very hard experience. Very hard.
I think I am one of the traumatized people in Gaza and those 2 million are all traumatized. Everybody here is going to suffer much on the future and
we may not stand up very fast. No, no, no. This is not going to happen.
Although, Gaza is full of hope, you know, our hearts is fulfilled with hope and -- but limited hope. Let me -- not exaggerate. I'm so honest. It's
limited hope.
NEWTON: We certainly hear the hope in your voice and obviously the trepidation as well. I know your passion is to teach. I know you are a very
dedicated English language teacher. Listen, you have told us before that during these hostilities, the displacement of schools, 95 percent in Gaza
have been partially or completely destroyed. That's according to the U.N. Children's Fund. So, many of these schools were turned into shelters even
before they were bombed.
I do want to ask you about your passion, though, and the perseverance of so many of people like you to continue to teach. What can you do going
forward? What do you hope to do going forward?
MUSTAFA: I have done -- I thought that I have done much before the 7th of October, but it's still after this very hard time I think teachers need
more and more effort to treat their children's, the student's psychology.
Yes, we are traumatized, but the great effort is waiting for us to do. There is much to do more than before and comparing with other teachers all
over the world, it's like duplicated effort. My passion is duplicated. Because I think when I started developing my methods in teaching English, I
started from the point that the children or the students need this, need to play.
One of my students in 2008 inspired me and stood up inside my classroom. I was standing in front of my students for the first time at that time, and
she said teacher, I'm so happy today. When I asked her why, she said, because you are playing with us as if we are like friends. This moment I
felt that my students need me as a friend, as a mother, as a -- like not only as a teacher.
NEWTON: We hear in your voice, of course, is both a mother and a teacher, that education is a redemption for these kids. It's also an escape from all
the trauma and everything they've gone to. How quickly do you believe you can get back to that teaching? And how important is the ceasefire that it
must hold?
MUSTAFA: Going back to education should not be very long from the ceasefire agreement or a start point, because the students and their
parents in Gaza now are with more awareness than before ever for education.
Now, I thought that -- you know, I met people, many people, in my displacement camps from one time to time, they cried and asked me to teach
their children very, very immediately. That's what I call awareness towards education. You know, all over the world people go to schools because they
have to. But they have never stopped, like, going to schools, and they have never lost their schools and cried for their schools bombing.
[13:35:00]
NEWTON: We hear the appreciation in your voice for the fact that you're hearing from the community these kids need to be back in school. Given the
humanitarian situation, in terms of food, things like shelter, how much depends on the next few weeks?
MUSTAFA: I hope that the Palestinians could find more humanitarian life, more dignity in their life. Because, you know, people cannot imagine what
does a tent mean. They need food, they need blankets, they need safe places, they need healthcare, they need much. They need much. The children
are the hope of the future, for peace, for humanity, for love, for everything we need to live in.
NEWTON: Asma, we so appreciate you spending some time with us. We know your resilience and we'll continue to check in with you as we all pray that
this ceasefire holds. Thank you so much, Asma.
MUSTAFA: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
NEWTON: Now, as we discussed earlier, President Trump has signed a number of executive orders on day one, including rescinding 78 Biden era executive
actions and delaying the TikTok ban that was signed into law just last week.
Now, while this is a blow to Joe Biden's presidential legacy and the Democrats, like the title of his new book suggests, Oregon Senator Ron
Wyden believes that, it's just like that title, "It Takes Chutzpah" to fight fearlessly for progressive change. And just before Trump's
inauguration, Wyden spoke with Walter Isaacson about his thoughts on the new administration.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Thank you, Paula. And Senator Ron Wyden, welcome to the show.
SEN. RON WYDEN (D-OR): Thanks for having me.
ISAACSON: You have a new book out called "It Takes Chutzpah." It's about how to fight for progressive -- how to fight fearlessly for progressive
change. First of all, explain to me what do you mean by chutzpah in that title?
WYDEN: Well, chutzpah is inherently good, Walter. It is the best of America. You look, for example, at the founding fathers. When they told the
British to go fly a kite, that was chutzpah. And I try to make sure that people understand that bad chutzpah or warping or misappropriating, you
know, chutzpah is something that we want to reduce and good chutzpah we want to spread. And I have basically 12 rules of chutzpah in this book so
that you can take your inner chutzpah and apply it to the rules and polish them up and make a difference.
ISAACSON: Do you think that the problem has been that the progressive left has not been aggressive enough?
WYDEN: Certainly, if you look at the past year on economics, it is not been a blunt, straightforward message. For example, I'm going to have town
hall meetings 1,100 so far, and I can tell you the second word of what people bring up is always bill. It might be grocery bill. It might be
medical bill. It might be electric bill, and that's sort of gotten lost in the last year or so. And, you know, the late Gerald Ford knew that you
couldn't whip inflation after a while because that was his old button, but we had to have a better message than we did.
ISAACSON: You know, one of your chapters is taking hits and bouncing back. Boy, the Democratic Party, I mean, up and down the line, took a lot of hits
in this last election. What's the best way to bounce back?
WYDEN: I mentioned the kinds of issues you zero in on. The social issues for example. I'll give you a perspective. I was the first United States
Senator to support marriage equality, and I did it really 15 years before anybody else. It was in the campaign to succeed Bob Packwood, and nobody
was talking about it much, and I was asked, and I said, if you don't like gay marriage, don't get one.
And I can walk into practically any group now, regardless of their politics, and they say, here's a Democrat who's like a live and let live
guy. And I'm focused on those issues that people are talking about in their kitchens and living rooms.
ISAACSON: Well, does that include things like trans rights, trans playing in sports, or as a Democratic Party got beaten back on that issue?
WYDEN: No, those issues, I think are much the same. We ought to, at a local level, make sure that we provide freedom and liberty to all, but
they're not the first issues that are going to come up.
ISAACSON: So, on the economy, you're saying people worry about paying their bills or whatever. What is it that should be done to fight for the
middle class since the Democrats seem to have lost the loyalty of the working and middle class in these past elections?
[13:40:00]
WYDEN: Well, let's take food prices. I was one of the senators who led the fight against the Albertson-Kroger merger. Walter, if that had gone
through, that would have been the biggest merger in the food and grocery business in the history of the United States, and I believe all that
consolidation is driving up the prices, and I believe it's time to dust off the antitrust laws. We've got good Democrats, people like in Amy Klobuchar
who's been involved in these issues. I fought for these kinds of reforms. Let's talk to people about things they can understand in corporate power,
driving up prices is right at the top.
ISAACSON: And so, you think food prices have mainly gone up because of corporate price gouging?
WYDEN: That's been a big factor. And let me give you an example. When it came up in the campaign there was a question of price gouging and people
said, well, are there price controls? They came to me because I was chairman of the Finance Committee. I said, look, we believe deeply in
liberty. We are markets people and we focus on markets and liberty.
When the markets are having problems, you need some guardrails. And by the way, more than 30 states have guardrails today. So, there are concrete
alternatives here on food, on concentration, on markets, that's what we're going to be pursuing.
ISAACSON: One of the big pieces of news this week, other than the inauguration of President Trump, is trying to figure out the TikTok
situation. And there's been a law that made the Chinese divested or banned TikTok. Supreme Court on -- last Friday said that law could stand, but you
want to extend the enforcement of that law. Explain to me your position there.
WYDEN: Well, I'm a big speech and freedom guy. I mean, people always say I'm the senate's First Amendment hawk, and I say, thank you very much
because I believe in speech. My dad was a writer and an author. Millions of Americans really enjoy TikTok, both for business and for their personal
life. I think we ought to be looking for an American buyer, and that's what our legislation seeks to do.
I will tell you --
ISAACSON: And wait, well, if you can't have an American buyer, should it then be shut down? Because TikTok says it's hard to separate the American
part from the rest of the company.
WYDEN: Let me raise the biggest concern I have as we look for an American buyer. If Donald Trump were to order the Chinese to sell to Elon Musk, I
would say that sounds corrupt to me, because Elon Musk has been his big campaign benefactor. So, I'm going to focus, with my colleagues in the
Senate, on getting more time, trying to find an American buyer. I'm doing it because I'm for speech and I'm for this country having choices in the
communication sphere.
ISAACSON: And do you think it would be permissible to allow it to continue with Chinese owners?
WYDEN: I want an American owner. I want a red, white, and blue owner.
ISAACSON: Why's that?
WYDEN: Because we want -- in this country, you've seen it with the chips issue. We want to build back our best into institutions in terms of
businesses, in terms of consumers, I don't want to go back to the days when we had big giants and not communications largely controlled from elsewhere.
ISAACSON: When you talk about, you know, building back in the United States, what do you feel about some form of tariffs to try to stimulate
manufacturing back in the United States?
WYDEN: Well, let's step back for one second, then we'll talk about tariffs. Chinese surveillance is also very much on my mind when we talk
about these issues, Walter, because I've been leading the fight to respond, which is, according to many of my colleagues, very conservative senators,
been the biggest hack in American history with the Chinese climate around our phones.
So, this is an issue where we've got to focus on protecting American rights, and that was particularly Salt Typhoon, a big problem.
ISAACSON: When you talk about wanting to bring things back to America and, you know, have the companies there, to what extent should tariffs be part
of that mix?
WYDEN: Walter, I have been for using tariffs in a carefully targeted kind of way. It's kind of like you have a tool bag. A tool bag of resources to
work in the trade, you know, area. Tariffs ought to be one of the tools in the toolkit. But what Donald Trump is using is this universal tariff
approach, which I believe is going to be bad news for American consumers and American small businesses. I think it's going to contribute to raising
inflation.
[13:45:00]
I believe deeply in trade in our part of the world, in Oregon. We like to grow things and make things we like to add value to them, we like to ship
them all over the world. And these tariffs, I think, the way Trump envisages them are going to be across the board.
Now, the nominee, Mr. Bessant, for Donald Trump's secretary of treasury came. I asked him about, you know, tariffs, and he gave this very academic
kind of issue about how everything's going to be hunky dory, and I started off by saying, Mr. Bessant, Donald Trump lied through the whole campaign
about tariffs. All through the campaign, he said foreigners are going to pay the tariffs.
And I said to Mr. Bessent, that's just a bunch of baloney. American workers and small businesses are going to pay the taxes involved here. And he
basically just offered more academic theory and it's sure not in line with what mainstream economists and citizens say is going to happen if you have
an across-the-board tariff approach. Targeted tariffs, they can be useful, not this.
ISAACSON: but in your exchange with the potential Secretary Bessent, he did talk about on a 10 percent tariff, not all of that has passed through
the consumers. And you may have seemed, as you say, academic, but there is some explanations of what that would do and how that would ripple forth. Do
you think it's a more subtle question than that?
WYDEN: I think the overwhelming evidence is that across-the-board tariffs are going to hit consumers very hard. Trump's tariffs, his approach are
going to hit very hard. And what they were talking about, Mr. Bessent, I thought was, and in fact, you know, many of the economists that we follow
pretty much said the same thing. They said Bessent tried, but sure didn't make them think that his kind of tariffs would be OK and wouldn't hurt
consumers.
And I think there's -- in fact, I'll tell you this way, Walter, one of the reasons Trump keeps trying to gussy up his approach on tariffs is because
people don't think it adds up. You know, he also had -- instead of an internal revenue service, he said, let's have an external revenue service.
What's that about? This is all about the Commerce Department. And it really is an effort to kind of gloss over what's going on.
And if you go beyond targeted tariffs, as I've said here, and just say, we're going to have tariffs across the board, American consumers and
American small businesses are going to get hurt.
ISAACSON: Almost 30 years ago, you were instrumental in creating what's known as Section 230, which basically says that social media platforms,
whether it be X or Facebook or even TikTok, cannot be held responsible or liable legally for what other -- what users post. That has changed the
whole way social media has affected democracy. Do you have any changes you would make in retrospect in that approach?
WYDEN: I don't think there's a law out there that you can't make better. I just want to make sure you don't come up with approaches that are worse
than what the challenges are. And I'll give you an example, Walter. At one point, The New York Times wrote a long piece with Chris Cox, my Republican
partner and I, about how we wrote Section 230. And underneath it, it said, Ron Wyden and Chris Cox wrote the law that is responsible for increased
hate speech in America.
And we called them up and said, look, we don't kind of complain very often, but the reality is most of the stuff, Walter, we hate online. The filth and
the misogyny and all the really stuff that are bothering us is driven not by Section 230, but by the First Amendment. 90 percent of what we don't
like plus online is the First Amendment.
I don't think anybody wants to unravel that. We can always find ways. That's why we have the moderation provision in the legislation Chris Cox
and I wrote, and I continue to be open to ideas. But I will tell you today, just like when we wrote the original law, the people who benefit are the
users, these small groups, you know, knitting groups and the like. I don't think Black Lives Matter and MeToo movement could have even gotten off the
ground without our legislation, because I don't think there would have been websites that would have taken it. So, yes, to being open to improvements.
Let's not make the so-called cures worse than the challenges.
ISAACSON: You know, President Biden and what was, sort of, called his farewell address talked about the oligarchy and the tech industrial
complex. You've been very involved in those issues. What did -- what was he talking about? And is that something that worries you?
[13:50:00]
WYDEN: Very much so. I want an economy, Walter, that gives everybody in America the chance to get ahead. And I think that Trump and some of these
oligarchs that we're talking about are not interested in that. They want to give the breaks to the people at the top. And the idea was that people who
are on Medicaid and hunger programs got cut, and it would just sort of trickle down to people.
So, what I've been working on is a tax code, for example, that says that when teachers and firefighters and nurses pay taxes with every, you know,
paycheck, the billionaire shouldn't be allowed to buy, borrow, and die and pay little or no taxes for years on end.
And yes, I'm very concerned about a thousand billionaires and Musk, for example, having a special carve out of rules that benefits them. Even
enforcement of taxes, which I talked about with Bessent, is very different. Because the working person pays taxes with every paycheck, the government
has all of their data. So, if they think something is going off the rails or is wrong, they can use that data. But, you know, what the billionaires
can do is bring in their accountants and their lawyers to make sure I don't pay much of any income this year and they don't get taxed. And we were
dealing with Mr. Bessent not having paid Medicare taxes for several years.
ISAACSON: In your book, you talk about the need for principled bipartisanship. First of all, what do you mean by that? And in this new
administration, to what extent do you think there may be chances for you to work with the Trump administration on principled bipartisanship?
WYDEN: Bipartisanship is not about taking each other's crummy ideas. Anybody can do that. Principled bipartisanship is about meeting around
ideas and approaches that can bring both sides together. For example, you know, I felt very strongly that to fix health care, you got to get
everybody covered. If you don't have everybody covered, there's too much cost shifting and not enough cost containment. Democrats believe in that.
Republicans say, what about the private sector? I'm open to that. I think particularly in areas of health research and innovation. We very much need
a robust national institute of medicine and the like. So, principled bipartisanship is not about taking each other's bad ideas.
A lot of times in Congress, people say they're being bipartisan, but really what they're doing is looking for ideological trophies that they can claim
have support. I think there's a very different kind of alternative, and I gave example after example, whether it was with Chris Cox in technology,
Bob Bennett, you know, in healthcare. I've worked with a number of my colleagues on tax questions. This is something that connects with people.
And by the way, you need chutzpah to do it, because if you're going to take on these special interests,l rigging the tax system, you got to take them
on with some chutzpah.
ISAACSON: Senator Ron Wyden, thank you so much for joining us. Appreciate it.
WYDEN: Thanks for having me, Walter.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
NEWTON: And finally, two Americans, Ryan Corbett and William McEntee, held by the Taliban in Afghanistan have now been freed, that's in exchange for a
Taliban member serving a life sentence in the United States.
Now, the deal was struck during President Biden's final hours in office, but some sources say that the Taliban deliberately delayed the prisoner
swap to allow President Trump to take credit. It's a remarkable, if faint, echo of history.
On January 20, 1981, after 444 days in captivity, the 52 American hostages held at Iran's American embassy were freed just minutes after President
Reagan was sworn in. And on the 13th anniversary of the hostage taking, Christiane, spoke with John Limbert, one of the hostages. And here's what
he told her about his experience.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: What happened to you that day?
JOHN LIMBERT, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR NEAR EAST: Well, that day, whatever they thought they were doing, whether 1970s style student sit in,
the results of it were very different. They brought misery to the Iranian people.
AMANPOUR: But to yourself, to you and the hostages that day?
LIMBERT: To us, what happened to us was difficult. It was frightening. It was uncomfortable. But it lasted 14 months and was over. But what --
AMANPOUR: Did you think it would last that long?
LIMBERT: Of course not. We thought --
AMANPOUR: What did they say to you?
LIMBERT: We thought this was a 1970s style student sit in.
AMANPOUR: As they say?
[13:55:00]
LIMBERT: As they have in retrospect presented it. What happened -- I don't think we certainly didn't expect it to last that long. They have said they
didn't expect it to last that long. But what they did in effect was to create a climate of lawlessness and mob rule that they and their
compatriots are today the greatest victims.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEWTON: And that's it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episodes shortly after it airs on our podcast. Now, remember, you
can always catch us online, Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.
I want to thank you for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END