Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with International Rescue Committee CEO David Miliband; Interview with Columbia School of Journalism Dean Jelani Cobb; Interview with Harvard Law Professor and Bloomberg Opinion Columnist Noah Feldman. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired January 23, 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]
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: -- and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
It's barely been a week and the Trump presidency has already upended U.S. immigration policy and effectively shut the country to vulnerable and
persecuted asylum seekers. David Miliband, head of the International Rescue Committee, joins me from Davos, where Trump declared he sent the military
to the southern border to stop an invasion.
Then as he floods the screens in a media blitz, it's a critical moment for journalism. The dean of the Columbia School of Journalism, Jelani Cobb,
joins the show.
Also, ahead, Hari Sreenivasan speaks with Harvard Law professor Noah Feldman about President Trump's slew of executive orders and their impact
on climate, immigration, and LGBTQ rights.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London. The Trump administration is moving fast to crack down on immigration in the
United States, effectively closing the country to asylum seekers while laying the groundwork to deport migrants already in the country. Here's how
Trump described his moves in a virtual speech to the World Economic Forum in Davos today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: We have deployed active-duty U.S. Military and National Guard troops to the border to assist in repelling the
invasion. It was really an invasion. We will not allow our territory to be violated.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, under the new executive orders, there are few, if any, avenues available to people seeking refuge in the United States. Trump's
immigration crackdown is threatening the rich history of America as a sanctuary for people fleeing persecution and conflict. It's a tradition, of
course, memorialized in the poem on the Statue of Liberty, which was written by Emma Lazarus. She said, give me your tired, your poor, your
huddled masses yearning to breathe free.
And America itself, of course, is an immigrant nation, a historic sanctuary for the world's most vulnerable, who often go on to power, culture,
society, and the economy, and much more. My first guest is David Miliband. He leads the International Rescue Committee, which helps people fleeing
conflict and disaster, and which was founded by Albert Einstein after he escaped Nazi persecution. David Miliband, welcome to the program.
DAVID MILIBAND, CEO, INTERNATIONAL RESCUE COMMITTEE: Thanks very much, Christiane.
AMANPOUR: So, you are there, President Trump virtually addressed the attendees. What did you take? I've described what he said, we've played
bits of his speech on your issue, immigration and the vulnerable. How did you take it?
MILIBAND: I think that the signature word associated with President Trump is consistency. He was elected to be a disruptor. He promised that he would
disrupt the existing ways of doing things both within the United States and internationally, and he has been consistent in that all the way through the
campaign, in the transition period and now, in the first three days.
We've got some measures that are already in place and we can maybe discuss them, for example, in respect of refugee resettlement, and we've got
promises of what's more to come. So, there's consistency.
Obviously, since we're an international humanitarian aid agency, as well as a refugee support agency in the United States we see this from both sides.
And we can see that there are 59 conflicts around the world that are driving people out of their own countries and you've got pressure for
asylum systems to cope with the demand. And that's something that we're seeing both in the United States and south of the border but also elsewhere
in the world.
AMANPOUR: I am going to dig down into that because there is a trend, as you mentioned, including in Europe where you are right now. But I just want
to know, is it accurate to describe what's happening at the U.S. southern border as an invasion, an American territory being violated? Language is
important as well.
MILIBAND: Language is important. I mean, invasion is a military invasion. We've talked about that on your show before, about the Russian military
invasion of Ukraine. So, I think that what we've seen historically at the southern border is two things. On the one hand, people who are fleeing for
their lives, those are refugees. And we also see people who are immigrants, people who are coming to the United States for economic and for other
family reasons.
[13:05:00]
Our learning, our evidence from on the ground is that until the immigration system is working well, and you'll know that America has not passed an
immigration act since 1986, until the immigration system is working in a functional fashion to deliver on the skills, the family unification and
other issues, the asylum system ends up taking a huge amount of the strain and cannot cope. And that's how you end up with a situation until today.
Where if you arrived in the United States, it would take four or five years for you to get your court case heard to see whether or not you qualified
for asylum. And so, these two things have to be addressed in sync, but they're not the same.
AMANPOUR: They're not the same, but asylum is one of those words that means, you know, people historically who fled, let's say, Nazi persecution,
like the war that led to the creation of your organization, and all this persecution around the world. For instance, there are Afghans with actual
permits and visas and whatever, all the right paperwork, ready to try to come to the United States and they've been stopped as well.
So, just give me -- just tell me in the narrowest terms on the asylum issue for those legitimately fleeing persecution, is the door slammed on them as
well?
MILIBAND: Yes, it is. And I'm very glad you raised this Afghan issue. President Trump announced yesterday that the refugee resettlement scheme,
which is the most secure, most organized, most vetted system for people to come to the United States, and which includes a provision for so-called
special immigrant visas for Afghans who worked with the American diplomats, but also military in Afghanistan, there's special -- there's historically
been special provision for them alongside the refugee resettlement scheme. That's been stopped and it's been stopped forthwith.
So, there are people with plane tickets who've gone through the vetting by 15 U.S. agencies. They've been confirmed as amongst the most vulnerable,
they're widows, they're victims of torture, they're not going to be allowed to come and they're left in limbo.
And so, that refugee resettlement route and the associated special immigrant visa route is obviously a massive concern for those individuals
who are left in this very, very difficult situation where they've put up shop for where they've come from. They've waited for often years to
qualify, they've been through the vetting system, and now they're not allowed to come in. And that's a -- those are real existing situations
today.
And I think you then move on, I would call those people refugees. And Elie Wiesel, the Holocaust survivor, once said to me before he died, that while
the word refugee wasn't always popular, the word refuge was. And we all sometimes need a refuge, and I think that's what's at stake here.
AMANPOUR: And I just need to point out, I don't know whether you agree or disagree, but this number of Afghans who, as you described, work with the
United States, et cetera, have been -- this was all triggered by President Trump's 1.0 policy of withdrawing American troops and effectively handing
the country over to the Taliban. The Biden administration executed his deal catastrophically, but it was his deal.
So, the question is, you know, what do you have in place, for instance, as the IRC? Are there any guardrails or things that you -- that still exist
whereby you can meet your responsibility to refugees and those who legitimately seek refuge?
MILIBAND: Well, one unique thing about the International Rescue Committee is that we work both as an international humanitarian aid agency and as a
refugee resettlement agency. And so, in the case of the Afghans, we have 2,500 people working for us in Afghanistan, including 1,000 women. And we
have people working for us in Pakistan. I think our team is about 800 there. Many Afghan refugees are in Pakistan, as well as being a refugee
resettlement agency in the United States.
We can continue to offer our services as long as there remains funding for our work in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We cannot provide our integration
services here in the United States because, obviously, those people are not being allowed in, their tickets are not valid to come into the United
States. So, there are limits -- very strict limits on what we can do here. We're left to our international work.
Now, in respect of the international work, I think your clip from President Trump earlier quoted him freezing foreign development aid. We're obviously
very concerned about that. That means health care. It means education. We're also concerned, obviously, on the humanitarian front, where I believe
that the commitment is to continue with the humanitarian efforts that are supported by various parts of the U.S. government.
But in terms of the provision that we can make for someone who is an Afghan special immigrant visa holder, who's worked for the United States in
Afghanistan, was expecting to come here, until he's allowed back in by the government, we're not able to offer the integration and support services
here.
AMANPOUR: As we said, America is an immigrant nation and both President Trump and his vice president are married to people who's -- you know,
who've immigrated or their parents have immigrated. Marco Rubio, his secretary of state is the son of Cuban immigrants. And he's written that
mass migration is the most consequential issue of our time.
[13:10:00]
So, as you've correctly said, there has been no American congressional law passed since the '80s to fix an obviously broken problem. So, what happens
in the absence of that? And, David Miliband, this is not just an American phenomenon, voters voted for this, it was policy number one for U.S.
voters, and in the rest of the world, they are turning their backs on migration. That's just a fact right now.
MILIBAND: Well, I think that what they're doing is turning their backs on the way migration is being managed or mismanaged. We've always argued at
the International Rescue Committee that the asylum and migration system needs to be orderly, it needs to be fair to host communities as well as
those who are coming, it needs to be safe.
And the choice that we face in the modern world is not whether people arrive or whether they don't arrive. The question is, do they come in a
safe, orderly, regulated way, and a humane way, or do they come in an unsafe, undocumented, and unregulated way, effectively putting themselves
in the hands of the people smugglers.
And our great worry, both for Europe and for the United States, is that until there are safe and legal routes to offer people a legal route to
hope, they're going to put themselves in the hands of the people smugglers. And one of the schemes that President Trump has suspended, especially for
people from Nicaragua, Haiti, Cuba, and Venezuela, people who are fleeing the situations in those four countries, including persecution in Cuba, the
suspension of That means that a program which offered them a legal and orderly way to apply, 30,000 people were allowed to apply for that in any
fixed monthly period, what happened when that program was introduced by the Biden administration is it reduced the number of people from those
countries at the southern border by 98 percent.
And so, the great fear about what's been done is that the end result will be more people putting themselves with more money in the hands of the
people smugglers. That's not going to achieve anything either for Latin America or for the U.S.
AMANPOUR: I want to play a soundbite of an American reverend, the Episcopal Bishop Mariann Budde, who stood before President Trump during his
inaugural prayer service. And this is what she said on this issue.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REV. MARIANN EDGAR BUDDE, BISHOP, EPISCOPAL DIOCESES OF WASHINGTON: I ask you to have mercy, Mr. President, on those in our communities whose
children fear that their parents will be taken away and that you help those who are fleeing war zones and persecution in their own lands to find
compassion and welcome here.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, it doesn't seem controversial. I mean, she addressed the president. And of course, you know, anything like that is demagogued all
over. The president himself called her a radical left hardline Trump hater, and a Republican member of Congress said that she should be added to the
deportation list. So, this just indicates the demagoguery that goes around in public and from leaders on this issue. Does that add to people's hatred
of immigrants?
MILIBAND: Well, the -- Pope Francis 10 years ago went to Lampedusa, which is an island off Italy where many Syrians arrived on their way to Europe,
and he looked at the conditions there and he challenged the world by saying, we mustn't suffer from a globalization of indifference, and moral
leaders, religious leaders often get accused of all sorts of things. Pope Francis was accused in 2014 of all sorts of things.
But I think they're speaking to a very important point, which is the ultimate and essential dignity of every human being. Every human being has
responsibilities, but every human being has rights as well. And no one has a right to live somewhere else. But if you're fleeing asylum -- for asylum,
if you're fleeing for your life, you do have the right to have your asylum case heard. And if you are adjudicated to be unsafe to go home, then you
have a right to stay. I think that's an important principle. It was established after the Second World War.
And while institutions always need to be reformed, they need to be adapted, they need to be modernized to cope with the times, I think it's very
important that we don't unlearn lessons that were learned in the interwar period and in the 19th century.
And in all the talk at the moment about disruption, I think it's very, very important that we remember that after 1945, it wasn't just the sanctity and
sovereignty of states that was guaranteed in the U.N. Charter, it was also the sanctity and essential nature of human rights. And those -- that was
the first time in human history that happened. It was a very important step forward. I think it should be built on.
AMANPOUR: And I want to ask you just a bit further afield, perhaps some reverse migration. Syria as we know has now it's free of the dictator Assad
and there's hope amongst many Syrians living outside and there are millions of them.
[13:15:00]
You all talked about it being the worst refugee crisis since the Second World War, and there are millions of them. Turkey, you know, Jordan,
everywhere. And many want to go back. Do you see, and are you seeing on the ground with your operation in Syria, and I think you know Ahmad al-Sharaa,
who's the new head of Syria, from his work in Idlib, do you see any ground being laid for a reverse migration?
MILIBAND: Yes, I'm so pleased you've given me the time to address that, Christiane, because I've come on your show many times in the last 10 years
and talked about the situation inside Syria, how the war was going on, how Idlib and the Northeast had 850 staff from the International Rescue
Committee, how there were 6 million refugees. And it's really an extraordinary turnaround in the last three months.
Some people have gone back. The last figure I saw from the UNHCR, the United Nations High Commission on Refugees, was 200,000 Syrians have gone
back. And I was at -- here at Davos, the new foreign minister of Syria was interviewed yesterday. And he made it clear, of course it's words, but
words are a good start. His words were that the future Syria would be an inclusive Syria. It would recognize the different Muslim sects, but it will
also recognize Christians, recognize Druze. It was -- it would be a genuinely inclusive settlement.
Now, I can report to you that, as you say, the group that's now running the whole of Syria were running Idlib Province until December, where we had 450
staff, and they allowed us to get on with our work without hindrance. They recognize that we were an independent humanitarian agency, not a political
agency, and we've now been able to go to Damascus, and they recognize the work that we've done in the northwest and also in the northeast of Syria.
And so, Syria is an extraordinary case study. Our emergency watch list is published every year in December. We never took Syria off our emergency
watch list. For all the people that went and said the war was over, al- Sharaa had won, we saw 16 million people in humanitarian need inside the country, 6 million refugees outside. We didn't see that as over. And for a
very simple reason, untended humanitarian crisis is a store for political crisis. And that's what we've seen. We've got to cross our fingers that the
words are now turned into deeds. And Syria does indeed come back to being a middle income stable country.
AMANPOUR: And people are full of hope. Listen, David Miliband, I'm glad you like that question. I'm going to throw one at you now that you may or
may not like. Would you like to be the U.K. ambassador to the United States? As you know, the reports here are full of the fact that the
government is under pressure, that the United States doesn't want their chosen necessarily, or Trump doesn't want their chosen ambassador. Yes?
MILIBAND: There's a completely fictional story in one of the papers yesterday. Prime minister of the U.K. has -- about me, but the prime
minister of the U.K. has nominated Peter Mandelson to be the U.K. ambassador to the U.S. He'll do an outstanding job. I think he's due to
start in the next few days. I think Peter's got enormous experience, geopolitical as well as in respect of trade and other matters. He'll be a
very good representative of the U.K.
So, there's no question to be posed for me. I'm always happy to take your questions. You may not like the answers, but the answer to this is very,
very simple. We've got an ambassador on his way, and he should be allowed to get on with his job.
AMANPOUR: And particularly since very prominent Trumpies like Musk and the others are interfering in British politics. I mean, you were also a foreign
minister. How do you see the special relationship going?
MILIBAND: Well, I think that President Trump has said that he's met with Keir Starmer twice, the U.K. prime minister. They've had serious in-depth
talks, including about Ukraine. The negotiating tactics are obviously very, very important for all European countries, including the U.K. The U.K. and
the U.S. have close links, but obviously, half of our trade is with the European Union, not with the United States.
So, Britain is genuinely a globally linked country. It's a country that's fortunate to have this, quote/unquote, "special relationship" with the
U.S., which is very strong on the security side. It's also strong on cultural and other questions. I'm sure it will continue to be strengthened.
That doesn't mean we'll agree on everything, but that's politics and politics is, of course, high passions are raised.
But there's big work to be done, big work in respect of the global political situation, big work on the fragmentation of political power
around the world, big work on how to modernize our economies. That's something where we've all got to lean in.
AMANPOUR: Fascinating. David Miliband, head of the IRC, thank you so much for joining us again.
Now, one country where many refugees remain stuck in limbo, as we said, is Afghanistan. And today, the International Criminal Court announced that it
is seeking arrest warrants for two top Taliban officials for alleged gender-based crimes.
[13:20:00]
Since the group regained control in 2021, women and girls have been essentially erased from public life. Fawzia Koofi, a former Afghan lawmaker
and human rights activist, explained to me why women scare the Taliban so much.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
FAWZIA KOOFI, ACTIVIST AND FORMER AFGHAN MP: I think the Taliban have this phobia of educated women because the more educated a woman become, the more
independent a woman become, it's a threat for patriarchy, it's a threat for dictators. No educated woman will allow her son to pick up a gun and fight.
So, Taliban will eventually lose the ground.
Their existence is based on the suppression. So, woman rights have become a matter of weapon for the Taliban, for their power to continue, and that's
why I think our -- you know, our plea to the world is not to trap into that narrative that Taliban have created of Islam because that is not Islam.
And so, I think the Muslim world must really stand now to challenge the Taliban's narrative of Islamic principle.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: And of course, it's the young girls who affected the most going by the name of the Behayshta her own safety. Here's what one Afghan teen
prevented from going to school told me almost two years ago.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BEHAYSHTA, AFGHAN GIRL PREVENTED FROM GOING TO SCHOOL: For me personally, there's always something like a hopeless feeling inside my heart, not
knowing what's going to happen next. Because as I actually lived before, I always -- I'm afraid of like darkness that is going to be happening for my
future, not only for me, but also for the next generation.
You know, girls and women are always left behind, and they are, you know, not on the -- their rights are always taken and they're -- you know, they
don't have the right to participation. They're not heard. And I'm always like hopeless seeing all this happening to us. And most heartbreaking part
is like maybe our voice -- or, you know, we speak up, but no one is hearing that and no certain actions are taken. So, all -- you know, considering all
these things really gave us an uncertain and hopeless feeling.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: And the persecution continues. One of the latest decrees from the Taliban says that new buildings cannot be constructed with windows
through which women could be seen. It really does beg a belief.
Now, if it seems like President Trump has been everywhere in his first week in office, that's because he has. He's done press conferences and
interviews, today addressing the World Economic Forum, every day since taking up his post, while also keeping up his attacks on the mainstream
media. His many threats and lawsuits against journalists are part of a bigger mission to discredit and intimidate the press. It's a critical
moment for journalists and journalism.
Jelani Cobb is the dean of the Columbia School of Journalism and he's joining me now from New York. Welcome back to our program. It seems that
this is a time to take stock again. Trump is back and we know what he thinks of the press, which is not favorable.
Given what happened before, the press sort of formed itself as an opposition, what do you think is going to happen this time, and what should
the press do?
JELANI COBB, DEAN, COLUMBIA SCHOOL OF JOURNALISM: Well, I mean, I think -- first of all, it's good to be back with you, Christiane. You know, always
great to talk with you. And I think that the press should continue to do exactly, you know, what we've done, which is that we're here to report.
And, you know, I really like Marty Baron's line, former editor in chief of the Washington Post, who said, you know, they're at war, we're at work. You
know, we don't have a particular grievance or any particular orientation toward this administration. But our first allegiance is toward the facts
and reporting the truth to our viewers, readers, subscribers, et cetera.
AMANPOUR: Yes, without fear nor favor. Since you brought up Marty Baron, the esteemed, you know, former executive editor, you have seen what's
happening at the Washington Post right now. I mean, literally a hosepipe of the most talented leaving. Partly because of what has been termed, at least
by the New York Times, anticipatory obedience.
Basically, suggesting that in all walks of life, bosses and others are pretty much bending over in loyalty to President Trump before he even asks.
So, Jeff Bezos and the others were criticized for giving in, in various ways. What should, you know, the Washington Post expect, or any
journalistic organization from its leadership now?
COBB: Well, you know, I don't know that it's anticipatory. You know, we already have, you know, background. You know, we saw during, you know, the
first time around with Trump, the attempts to penalize news organizations by utilizing trust and antitrust laws about whether or not mergers would be
approved by the federal government, whether or not the postal rates for Amazon would be changed, you know, Blue Horizon, which is Jeff Bezos's
space company, which depends heavily on government contracts and, you know, all those things came up during the first go round.
[13:25:00]
And so, I think that they kind of understand how this game is played. You know, not coincidentally. There's, you know, a $40 million offer from --
for the biopic about Melania Trump's life, or the documentary about her. And so, you know, you factor all those things in, and, you know, it
certainly appears that people are looking at how the bigger game is played.
For people who are depending upon the Washington Post, who have come to trust the Washington Post, it raises the question of whether or not this
will impact, and the extent to which it will impact, I won't say whether or not, but the extent to which this will impact the editorial decisions that
are made at that news organization.
I think, you know, when I've talked with people I know who are there who have history there, you know, that has been one of the primary reasons for
the exodus. That, you know, they don't think that they'll be able to report in the manner in which, you know, they would prefer.
AMANPOUR: I just want to point out that Trump did address the idea of free speech today during his virtual address to the World Economic Forum in
Davos. And you heard him say -- you know, talk about it during his inaugural address. I'm going to play what he said, and then I want to ask
you what you think he means by free speech.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: In addition, I'm pleased to report that America is also a free nation once again. On day one, I signed an executive
order to stop all government censorship. No longer will our government label the speech of our own citizens as misinformation or disinformation,
which are the favorite words of censors and those who wish to stop the free exchange of ideas and, frankly, progress. We have saved free speech in
America, and we've saved it strongly.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: OK. So, Jelani Cobb, head of the Columbia School of Journalism, pass that for us. Because he's basically saying, no, we don't need any
weeding out of disinformation, misinformation. You know, the subjects that have bedeviled the press for so many years now. What do you think he means?
COBB: Well, I mean, I think it's pretty straightforward, like this is a war on facts. You know, when people are saying misinformation and
disinformation, this is not a kind of subjective evaluation, this is an evaluation that's made on the basis of facts, whether or not something is
provably or demonstrably true or demonstrably untrue.
And so, if you believe that all these things are simply kind of, you know, subject to your own whims and what you think, you know, then it's easy to
say that calling something misinformation and disinformation is censorship.
By the way, that doesn't necessarily qualify a censorship in the case, saying something -- pointing out that something is untrue. You know, people
have a constitutional right to speak and whether or not they're telling the truth is not determined by that.
Then finally, you know, I think that, you know, when we look at what's happened in the social media landscape, you know, it's made it, you know,
easier for, you know, the fire holes of untruth and propaganda to just simply spread. And we've seen, you know, what happened in the midst of
COVID and the pandemic and, you know, the kinds of false ideas that people had about the vaccines and about the nature of the virus and so on, and
that there are real-life consequences to this kind of bad information.
AMANPOUR: And, Jelani Cobb, President Biden's outgoing speech made also reference to an oligarchy, and he was also talking about the heads of the
big streaming platforms, the big social media platforms which have, like Elon Musk, got major governmental, you know, economic contracts and things
like that who have -- who've moved away from fact-checking, Meta moved away from fact-checking. They were all sat in pretty much the front row behind
the presidential families at the inauguration.
What does that mean when the oligarchs are not Rubber Barons like in Russia or in the early days of the United States, but they are media titans?
COBB: I mean, I think there's reason to be concerned, there should be reason to be concerned when you see the kind of what we consider the
information infrastructure of the nation that being that closely aligned with government itself.
[13:30:00]
You know, in the United States, you know, we think of the press and the media as the fourth estate, that we're supposed to be a kind of immune
system for democracy. We're supposed to be specifically outside of government in order to operate as a check on government, to inform the
public and the public can then use that information to form their opinions, and public opinion is ultimately at the core of democracy. That's how it's
supposed to work.
When you see that kind of alignment and that kind of choreography, it raises the question about, you know, whether or not there is a kind of
government line or a preferred way of viewing things that then will get amplified, you know, and disseminated on social media platforms.
I don't -- can't say that's happening, I can't say that's true, but I'm saying that's a question that we should pursue, like, why and what are the
implications of this?
AMANPOUR: So, as you know, and I'm sure it's emblazoned on the wall somewhere in the college there, Thomas Jefferson back in 1787 famously
said, when it's -- were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should
not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.
And yet, as you know --
COBB: The latter.
AMANPOUR: Yes, the latter. He said that. But now, we're faced, apparently, with lawsuits, potential regulation, potential license reviews, litigation,
et cetera. But, Jelani, this is also at a time when the mainstream press is kind of hemorrhaging viewers, listeners, et cetera, and they're migrating
to the digital sphere. They played a huge and very important role during this election. So, it's come at a very bad time for us.
COBB: Yes, I think it's a perfect storm, you know, of dynamics. Because in some ways, it's hard to kind of unravel, you know, the chicken and the egg
here, whether, you know, Donald Trump has been so wildly successful at demonizing the press because the press has been weakened or whether the
press has, in fact, been weakened because Donald Trump has been so wildly successful at demonizing it. I suspect that they're kind of mutually
reinforcing at this point.
And if you add the kind of technological disruption the problems of trust and, you know, growing distrust in media and the ongoing problems of the
business model, it really places us in a more fragile position than we have traditionally been in.
And, you know, one of the consequences is that it's very difficult now to have an independent check on what is being passed off as fact or passed off
as truth by a presidential administration or what is being disseminated or amplified algorithmically on social media platforms.
AMANPOUR: Jelani Cobb, I think you would agree that Donald Trump has been incredibly successful at sowing this distrust of the press. In fact, we
remember back in 2016, even before -- you know, after his election, he told 60 Minutes' Lesley Stahl that he was going to just keep his, you know, drum
roll and drum beat against the press up because when they wrote stuff about him that he didn't like, nobody else would believe him. That's one thing.
On the other hand, his press secretary has tweeted that his -- you know, is the most transparent president -- well, let me get it right. The most
transparent president in history is back. Is there something to be said for that?
COBB: I mean, you know, there's -- he governs in hyperbolics and, you know, kind of speaks in hyperbolics, and I think that it's probably not
worth tracking down, you know, every time something is described as the most, or the greatest, or you know, the biggest, or whatever, you know,
kinds of terms there are. I think that there are lots of ways in which the press has found that administration to be opaque. You know, at least the
first one, certainly around the pandemic.
On the other hand, you know, he has often said things that are crass, volatile, disrespectful and, you know, in ways that other politicians
wouldn't, you know, and maybe that does constitute some form of transparency. I don't know that's the kind of -- the most useful thing for
us to ferret out.
AMANPOUR: Do you have concerns about Donald Trump owning Truth Central -- sorry, Truth Social platform and sends out, you know, everything he wants
to say, like he used to tweet up a storm, he does it on Truth Social, which he owns. Is that an issue of conflict of interest? Is that a concern to
you?
COBB: Sure. I mean, in theory, it is a problem of conflict of interest. I don't think there -- that doesn't bother me as much, quite frankly, because
I mean, he owns it. Everyone knows that he owns it. You know, 99 percent of people who are going to subscribe to it are going to be because they
believe in, you know, his worldview and so on.
[13:35:00]
I think the bigger problem is platforms that have functioned more, or have historically functioned more as a public square that are no longer
operating in that same sort of capacity. And so, you know, we've had -- you know, on a very kind of analog level, we've had elected officials that had
newsletters or people who had ties to news organizations.
Now, of course, you would ideally separate or distinguish yourself during the time in office. We don't see that, you know, happening here. But for
me, the bigger tech platforms are really the fundamental question there.
AMANPOUR: So, we've got 20 seconds left. Are you optimistic or concerned about our role over the next four years, and beyond, frankly?
COBB: Well, I'm really optimistic. We just had our annual DuPont Awards here, which always celebrates, you know, the baton that's given for the
DuPont Awards. We celebrate the best in journalism each year. We did that at Columbia Journalism School last night with stories that were from all
over the world and looking at illegal fishing, you know, from, you know, the Chinese fleet and looking at, you know, the trans -- the attack on
trans rights in Texas and the Texas legislature and a man who was convicted and spent 48 years in prison and reporting was able to get him out, you
know, so that he was exonerated.
And, you know, all those things give me a great deal of optimism and hope about where we're going as a profession.
AMANPOUR: I'm glad you paid tribute to reporting. Jelani Cobb, thank you so much indeed.
Now, from pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement and the WHO, to those harsh crackdowns on immigration, President Trump's barrage of executive
orders has the potential to dramatically change the lives of millions of people. So, it begs the question, how much power does a U.S. president
actually have?
Harvard law professor Noah Feldman speaks to Hari Sreenivasan about some of Trump's first orders and whether they'll hold up if challenged in court.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HARI SREENIVASAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Christiane, thanks. Professor Noah Feldman, thanks so much for joining us on his first day in
office. President Trump wanted to keep a bunch of his campaign promises. Some of them included making executive orders and repealing executive
orders. And I think he put out 46 different presidential actions, and he repealed dozens of different executive orders from previous
administrations.
But before we get into the specifics, just to kind of set the table for people, what is the scope and gravity of these executive orders? What does
it mean? What kind of power does it have?
NOAH FELDMAN, PROFESSOR, HARVARD LAW AND OPINION COLUMNIST, BLOOMBERG: To begin with, an executive order is anything the president tells the people
who work for him to do. And it's important to note that it's not a law because only Congress can pass a law and president signs it. And it doesn't
usually have the force of law unless someone else has authorized the president to implement the law via executive order. And it also doesn't
usually force anyone in the private sector to do anything. So, that's the limitation of an executive order.
At the same time, an executive order can be a very effective way for a president to set out priorities by telling everybody who works for the
president, which is the whole of the executive branch, including all of the agencies, the Department of Justice that implements laws and so forth and
so on, that they should approach a given problem in a certain way. And so, it can have a huge impact on a president's policies.
And then, a lot of specific circumstances where the president is exercising power, they already has under some law, the executive order tells you what
the president's going to do, and that can also have transformational effects. For example, we'll talk about this, I'm sure, in the context of
climate.
SREENIVASAN: So, let's talk a little bit about some of the ones that give you the most concern. I mean, which -- we don't have to go through all 46,
but which ones are the ones that kind of leap off the page to you?
FELDMAN: Hari, there's a lot to choose from. So, starting at the planetary level, the president's announcement through executive order that the United
States will withdraw from the Paris Climate Accords is of grave significance and importance to me. I'm very, very concerned about the
effects of that on global warming. And it comes with a whole series of executive orders that are directed at enabling and facilitating much more
extraction of fossil fuel resources, that is to say, drilling in the United States. And the concern there isn't just for the environment associated
with the drilling, it's really for what happens to the environment when the fuels, thus taken out of the ground, are then burned.
So, we're talking about the possibility that the Trump administration, through these orders, will really reverse a substantial amount of the
progress that's been made on climate change. And I would add to that as well, an executive order that says that the incentives created for people
to buy electric vehicles are also going to be rolled back.
So, that's at the level of the globe. And I'm starting there only because that affects the largest number of people. Now, we can go on to some of the
other things.
[13:40:00]
SREENIVASAN: One of the campaign promises that helped gain so much support for president Trump among his supporters and voters was issues regarding
the southern border immigration, and he had a raft of executive orders focused in on that. And I think one of them was titled "Protecting the
Meaning and Value of American Citizenship."
I mean, so he went from issues regarding the southern border all the way into birthright citizenship. Of that category of executive orders, which
ones do you think will, I guess, last? Because many of these executive orders look like they will be coming under legal challenge.
FELDMAN: Well, you can put them into three buckets, one of which I think is overwhelmingly likely to be found illegal, one of which is going to be
fought in court, and one of which probably will survive. The one that's almost certainly going to be found illegal is the order that purports to
say that if you're born in the United States, if your parents are undocumented, you don't automatically become a citizen.
And the problem with that is that it explicitly violates the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which says if you're born in the United States and
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, you become a citizen.
So, you may ask, how in the world can the Trump administration try to go against that? Obviously, the president doesn't have the authority to
contradict the Constitution. Even Congress can't contradict the Constitution. And the theory that the Trump administration is operating
under is a very convoluted theory, and -- but just so you know what it is, though it's wrong, the claim is that the words subject to the jurisdiction
of the United States only apply if you're here in the United States as a citizen yourself or your parents are citizens.
Now, there might be some edge cases like if you're an ambassador from a foreign country, and you have diplomatic immunity, and you have a child.
Maybe you and your child aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, maybe. But everyone else who's here, whether they're here on a
tourist visa or whether they're here on an undocumented basis, is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. If you commit a crime, you'll be
arrested. And that means you're subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. But that's the argument that they're going to mount.
And again, already a lawsuit has been filed against it by attorneys generals of many, many states. And I think it's most probable that the
courts will, overwhelmingly probable that the courts will strike that down.
SREENIVASAN: You know, one of the things that the president did was declare different types of emergencies. He declared a national emergency at
the southern border of the United States. He delivered another -- he declared another emergency delivering emergency price relief for American
families and defeating the cost-of-living crisis and then declaring a national energy emergency. So, when a President declares an emergency, what
does that kind of unlock?
FELDMAN: There are many laws passed by Congress that include provisions that say the president is entitled to declare an emergency under some set
of conditions. And then, when the president does that, here are the extra powers he gets. Sometimes it's new money, as you were mentioning. Sometimes
it's more authority to make decisions. And then there are some more general statutes that confer this authority in a pretty nonspecific way that allow
the declaration of a national emergency.
So, the unfortunate fact is that it all depends on the specific statute. And what we're going to see is that, in some instances, Trump will just be
invoking emergency powers that he's entitled to invoke under the statutes. You know, we could quibble about whether there really is an emergency, but
most of these statutes give it to the president to decide that there is an emergency. So, effectively, there's no argument with that.
And in those instances, the president will have expanded powers, sometimes powers to make decisions, potentially -- even potentially to declare
tariffs under some of these emergency powers provisions and to send more -- spend money and to sometimes even deploy troops.
And then, there are other going to be -- there are going to be other situations where the president pushes the envelope, where President Trump
pushes the envelope of what he's allowed to do pursuant to those emergency powers. For example, by trying to invoke emergency powers to spend money on
something that Congress has already told him not to spend money on.
He tried to do that in his first administration with respect to building a border wall and ultimately, didn't do so. So, I would expect similar
pushing the envelope here and where he does push the envelope, his actions will be challenged in court.
SREENIVASAN: Well, none of this happens in a political vacuum, right? I mean, the president feels empowered by this victory of all the battleground
states and so forth to say, look, this was a referendum, not just on Joe Biden, but this gives me the authority. I have essentially both houses of
Congress and I have appointed three Supreme Court justices who might side with me more often than not, especially considering just in the last couple
of terms, they have increased the scope and scale of presidential power.
I wonder whether we are actually witnessing a much, much greater concentration of power in the executive branch and specifically under one
person now.
FELDMAN: Every president claims to have a mandate and every president takes bold steps. In statistical terms, measured at least by the popular
vote, Trump's mandate is not very large.
[13:45:00]
And what's more, his majority in the House of Representatives is razor thin and could easily be undermined. And so, it's actually not going to be as
simple as he might imagine, or as others might imagine for a Republican Congress to vote things that Trump wants, because when you have a narrow
majority, even just a few people deviating from it on a specific issue means you won't necessarily win.
And that's one reason that you see President Trump coming into office with this whole slew of executive orders, all of which, in theory, at least the
lawful ones, he can do without Congress.
As for the Supreme Court, you know, you're right, Hari, that the Supreme Court expanded executive power in, for example, its decision that Trump and
other presidents subsequently can't be held criminally liable for most conduct they do as president, except with some narrow exceptions.
But it's also worth noting that even the very conservative members of the Supreme Court, in fact, the most conservative members of the Supreme Court
are generally skeptical of the idea that Congress gives power to the executive agencies, including the administrative agencies, to do things
that have the force of law. And you may actually see a bit of a surprise. You may see that on some of those issues, the conservative justices are
skeptical of too much delegation of power.
When it comes to the president himself, I think you're right that this court is very sympathetic generally to the idea of strong executive power,
and will probably see some court cases that really test that.
In the first Trump administration, remember that Trump came into office with the Muslim ban and the courts -- the lower courts really pushed back
and yet to do it and then redo it and then redo it, and ultimately, the Supreme Court in a very complicated compromise decision said, well, you can
sort of do this within certain limits. And he may find himself in similar situation now where the court actually ends up pushing back against him
more than he expects.
SREENIVASAN: Already we've seen, especially in the context of immigration, a recent memo that came out that the Trump administration wanted federal
prosecutions to go after city and state officials who stood in the way. What does this do to, I guess, the general climate on not just whether or
not these laws can be deemed legal and these actions can be deemed legal, but what about anybody who chooses to say, this is not my official act,
this is not part of my job to do this, and so, I'm not going to comply?
FELDMAN: You know, this kind of rhetoric is really designed to frighten those public officials who would like to take a stand, as happened during
the first Trump administration of saying, well, you know what, we're just not going to comply with your demands and orders with respect to
undocumented people.
And I think a lot of those folks are very brave public servants and will continue to stand their ground because legally the Trump threats do not
have much really to rest upon. Our system of federalism, which you can love it or you can hate it, but when the president and Congress are against you,
most people suddenly discover that they like federalism.
And under a system of federalism, the federal government can't commandeer local or state level officials to fulfill the demands of federal law. They
can't break federal law, but they can't be commandeered into doing the job of federal officials. And that's what they'll be resting on.
SREENIVASAN: You know, one of the areas that the president is interested in rolling back is he's already ordered all federal agencies and executive
branches to stop all DEI, diversity, equity, inclusion related initiatives.
And, you know, on the surface, it might be seen as a reaction to the politics of the last couple of years, but some of the rules that are going
to be sort of erased or rolled back have been on the books for decades for entirely different purposes. What are some of the kind of unintended
consequences of a blanket policy?
FELDMAN: Well, first off, I would say, I think for the Trump administration, these are intended consequences because it's not just -- as
you hinted, it's not just about a response to the DEI efforts that picked up, say, in the wake of the Black Lives Matter movement. This is part of a
long run strategy by Republicans to put a definitive end to all forms of affirmative action, including the kinds of affirmative action that go back
to the Civil Rights era, and that were really designed less in terms of diversity at the time and more in terms of remediating the history of
consequences that slavery and then segregation had in the United States.
And so, part of this is an attack on diversity, and the Supreme Court dealt a major blow to the diversity rationale for affirmative action in the SFFA
case in 2023. And so, this order follows on that. But some of it is a deeper cultural effort to move us as a country past the idea that we do
think there's appropriate role for diversity and affirmative action in hiring in corporations, in hiring the government, and the handing out of
government contracts and so forth and so on. And that's the name of the game for the Trump administration.
[13:50:00]
And so, the couple of orders that the administration has issued do go all the way back to affirmative action programs that have been in place, in
some cases, since the Great Society and LBJ. And which have, I think, for the most part, been accepted by most Americans. But those will also be
rolled back, and that's not an accident. It's part of an overall objective that the Trump administration is pushing for.
SREENIVASAN: Professor, can you walk us through the impact of these executive orders on, say, trans and LGBTQ rights?
FELDMAN: Well, the administration issued an executive order that was designed to reverse any progress that the Biden administration had made on
trans rights, and it refers to a range of different contexts. It orders all the parts of the government that are under the executive's authority to use
biological sex as the definition rather than to use gender or gender orientation as a definition.
Some of that is going to be challenged in court because it's, to be blunt, very poorly drafted, and isn't really very logical in terms of how it's
written. But, inevitably, some of that order will come into effect. Some of it also affects transgender people who are imprisoned in the federal
system, and insists that only biological sex can be used for placement of prisoners. And that's already come under sharp criticism from trans
activists and from the civil rights community for the potential dangers that people might suffer in consequence.
And that is also a very symbolically significant order. You know, Donald Trump ran on this issue and certainly believes, with perhaps some empirical
evidence, that it was an issue that helped him to victory. And the message that it sends is pretty clear, it's an explicit order designed to send the
message that the federal government under Donald Trump is not going to be a respecter of trans rights.
And, you know, there's some limitations on that, but right now, the Supreme Court is considering a case about trans rights. And if that case comes out
against the interest of the trans community, there will be a kind of multiple set of forces, both coming from the executive and the judiciary,
that might represent real reversals of some of the progress that's been made in recent years. It's a very serious matter.
SREENIVASAN: You know, as people watch this raft of executive orders and proclamations and pardons and so forth, I wonder whether we are now more
accepting as a society that this is the power of the presidency, this is why we want this person to go in there. We want him to or her to sign a
bunch of things on day one and lay out policies, lay out priorities that reflect my vote for that person, right, versus, oh, I don't know how
Congress is going to get through it, I don't know how the Supreme Court is going to get through it. But hey, at least I know that I have access to a
button that I can push once every few years and that hopefully my priorities will win the day.
FELDMAN: I think you're making a really important point. You know, the Constitution, as it was designed, did not have a king, and it definitely
didn't have an emperor. It just had a president, and the president was just supposed to execute what Congress said to do. That's why it's called the
Executive Branch.
And our notion of the contemporary presidency as the most powerful of the branches, and as you said, the only one that we vote for, all of us has
gradually made the presidency into something more and more like an elective monarchy or even like, an emperor, and there's a huge risk to that for the
principles of democracy that we have.
That said, although Trump is an extreme form of this, it's not like Joe Biden didn't frequently try to do things that he couldn't do through
legislation, through executive orders. Every president likes to maximize the power of the president to one degree or another, and that's been a
consistent trend. It's one of the reasons we've headed in this direction because every president after the next one tries to extend presidential
power, usually just a little bit more.
And so, I think our distrust in Congress just measured by statistics of what people tell the pollsters that they feel and the crisis of legitimacy
that the Supreme Court has been facing in recent years in light of its conservative revolution. Both also tend to push us in the direction of
saying, well, Congress isn't going to do it and we don't trust the Supreme Court, that leaves it up to the president.
And the reality is much more complicated than that. And in a genuine democracy, you can't concentrate all the power in one person, it's just
much too risky, because you lose the basic principle of checks and balances.
SREENIVASAN: Noah Feldman from Harvard Law School, thanks so much.
FELDMAN: Thanks for having me.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And indeed, a federal judge has now just temporarily blocked that executive order, ending birthright citizenship, calling it, quote,
"blatantly unconstitutional."
[13:55:00]
And finally, tonight, actress Demi Moore has gone almost all of her career without getting a major award. But this year, her body horror film, "The
Substance," has strongly resonated with audiences and critics. She and the film have scored five Oscar nominations today, which shows her stripped
down and bearing all as a woman aging in a man's world and the dramatic things she does to arrest that process. Here's what she told me about the
response to the film.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DEMI MOORE, ACTRESS, "THE SUBSTANCE": I think it's amazing. I mean, it's really in truth, I think, hit a certain kind of zeitgeist in popular
culture that is even beyond what I could have expected but all that I had hoped for.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: And that is it for now. Thank you for watching, and goodbye from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
