Return to Transcripts main page

Amanpour

Interview with U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee Member Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD); Interview with Forward Thinking Co-Founder and Director Oliver McTernan; Interview with "The Gatekeepers" Author Chris Whipple. Aired 1-2p ET

Aired January 29, 2025 - 13:00:00   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: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): In an instant, Donald Trump has shut off billions, perhaps trillions of dollars.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: Flooding the zone, testing legal boundaries. Trump's radical agenda is temporarily blocked in court. But who controls the federal purse?

Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen joins me.

Also, ahead, the fragile ceasefire holds for Israel and Gaza. I discuss how to end the war with conflict resolution specialist and former Catholic

priest, Oliver McTernan.

And --

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRIS WHIPPLE, AUTHOR, "THE GATEKEEPERS": She is someone who has this uncanny ability to impose at least some discipline on Trump's disorder.

Nobody's ever been able to do that before.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: -- who really is Susie Wiles? Journalist and author Chris Whipple tells Michel Martin how the first female chief of staff in US

history will advance Trump's agenda.

Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London, where governments here and in Europe are bracing for how President Trump's

decisions will affect them. As he floods the zone in America, politicians and experts committed to constitutional democracy are scrambling to react.

And right now, it appears they may have won a first round over Trump trying to freeze all federal aid, and triggering the chaos and confusion that

we've seen amongst educators and charities. We'll get into that with our first guest.

As with many of Trump's actions so far, it's unclear whether he even has the executive authority to make such an order. And on Tuesday night, of

course, a federal judge had halted, until next Monday, this order saying, the government doesn't know the full scope of the programs that are going

to be subject to the pause.

Indeed, some agencies said at one point they were unable even to access federal funds for Medicaid, which covers more than 72 million low-income

Americans. But is this part of a strategy to swamp the swamp, as Trump calls Washington? Is this White House trying it on with Congress? Joining

me now is the Democratic Senator from Maryland, Chris Van Hollen, who sits on the very relevant Appropriations Committee, as well as others.

So, welcome from Washington. And, Senator Van Hollen, I understand you have some breaking news in regard to this order that Trump was trying to send.

SENATOR CHRIS VAN HOLLEN (D-MD), MEMBER, U.S. SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Well, Christiane, it's great to be with you. Just before I

arrived here to go on your show, we learned that the Executive Office of the President had issued a one line statement saying that the executive

order that throws trillions of dollars of funds with the threat of clawing them back had been cancelled. So, they have cancelled that executive order.

As you indicated, a federal judge was going to review the legality of that order on Monday. I believe it was a sweeping power grab and

unconstitutional. But they have probably now mooted that question by rescinding the order altogether.

AMANPOUR: May I ask you, Senator, just to read what you received?

VAN HOLLEN: Good news. But -- yes.

AMANPOUR: Can I ask you to read it?

VAN HOLLEN: Sure. Sure, I'm happy to. It's -- again, it's from the Executive Office of the President, the Acting Head of the Office of

Management and Budget. It's going to be important for people to follow that agency going forward. And it just says, OMB Memorandum M-25-13 is

rescinded, period. If you have questions about implementing the president's executive orders, please contact your agency general counsel. That's it,

two sentences, but the first sentence is very clear. They've canceled the executive order.

This does not mean they've canceled their intention to try to find other ways to engage in these illegal clawbacks. But obviously, this is a

temporary good news. We have to remain vigilant.

AMANPOUR: So, just tell me why you think this is going on. So, this is, you know, rescinding a major, what you all called illegal power grab that

was not only unconstitutional but potentially anti-constitutional that froze.

[13:05:00

And I heard you say, even firefighters in your own state didn't know where their funding was going to come from. But what do you think's going on in

this White House then? Are they just having it on, trying to throw spaghetti at the wall and seeing what's sticks and pulling back at the

first sign of opposition? Explain to me what you think is going on, because also over birthright citizenship, they have -- a judge has temporarily

paused that too.

VAN HOLLEN: Yes. What I think is going on is they're trying through these executive orders to try to grab as much power as they can and try to

implement as much of the Trump agenda as they can through executive orders.

But when it comes to the latest action they attempted, for example, trying to, you know, put a hold on all of these federal initiatives, that clearly

violated what's called the Impoundment Control Act, right? Presidents cannot say, I'm going to, you know, implement this part of the law, but I'm

going to ignore another part of the law. That is a total undermining of the balance of powers and Article 1.

So -- but what you're seeing is -- and flood the zone is a good word for it, just an effort in these last -- these first eight or nine days of the

Trump administration to grab power and to try to implement the president's agenda through any means possible, regardless of whether it's legal or not

legal.

And the good news here is we were going to have this court hearing on Monday, but clearly the Trump administration decided it was not wise to

proceed.

AMANPOUR: Before I ask you what you think may happen next, you talked about this Impoundment Control Act, which, for those of us overseas, may be

a little complex, and you can explain it. But I want to play a little piece of your interaction with the incoming OMB director, Russell Vought, when

you were, you know, talking to him during his -- you know, his time before your committee. This is what you and he exchanged.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VAN HOLLEN: Will you comply with the Impoundment Control Act?

RUSSELL VOUGHT, NOMINEE FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET DIRECTOR: Senator, the President ran against the Impoundment Control Act.

VAN HOLLEN: This is -- Mr. Vought, I know what the President did. He wants to change lots of things. He can submit legislation to do that. But you are

going to be the head of OMB and here today at this hearing, you're refusing to commit -- to comply with the Impoundment Control Act. Is that right? Are

you refusing to commit -- to complying?

VOUGHT: Senator, the administration has to go through a policy process to understand the legal parameters for operating in the ICA.

VAN HOLLEN: I'm going to reclaim my time.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: So, I mean, I guess you sort of assessed that he was not going to answer a question about the law.

VAN HOLLEN: Well, that's absolutely right. I mean, you saw it right there. He refused to commit to following the law. Now, this is a nominee to be the

head of OMB. We will have a vote on his nomination tomorrow in the Budget Committee. I will vote no, and I hope we can ultimately defeat his

nomination, but Republicans are behind it.

But, Christiane, this is the person who was the head of OMB years ago in the first Trump administration, who worked to withhold the funds for

Ukraine, right? This was the military assistance to Ukraine. And so, at that time, I asked GAO, which is a watchdog for Congress, whether or not

they violated the Impoundment Control Act when they withheld those funds for Ukraine. And the answer came back loud and clear, yes, that's what they

violated. They violated the Empowerment Control Act.

So, we've seen this movie before. Now, they want to do it on a massive scale. That's what they tried to do through this executive order.

Fortunately, that was just rescinded, but this is exactly the direction they want to go in.

AMANPOUR: So, what do you think will be their next moves in this regard? Will they try it again in a different manner? And what other manner is open

to them if it's not executive order?

VAN HOLLEN: Well, they're going to have an opportunity to work with the Congress, the Republican majorities in the Congress to try to pass their

own budget going forward. But this was really their only way to try to claw back provisions that are already in law.

And that's why it's illegal, because this is -- these are initiatives that have been adopted by Congress already. They passed both houses of Congress.

They were signed by the former president. And, you know, Donald Trump can't just ride into town and cherry-pick what he likes in the law and say, I'll

implement that, but I'm going to ignore this. That's why it's illegal.

[13:10:00]

But here's part of their larger game plan. Russ Vought, who would be the head of OMB, was also one of the prime architects of the 2025 Project.

They're already moving forward on what's called Schedule F. That's an innocuous sounding name for a major policy change, which would dramatically

politicize the federal civil service. It would replace the merit-based civil service in our country, where you're selected based on experience and

qualifications with a system that allows political hacks to take these positions.

And the number of positions in question is in the range of 50,000. So, that is what Russ Vought and President Trump want to do. They want to have these

political loyalists or hacks in these key positions so that they can just turbocharge their agenda without any sort of look to the Constitution or

the laws or anything like that. So, this is part and parcel of a larger strategy.

AMANPOUR: So, let's just put a little bit of that larger strategy. So, before even this thing about freezing federal funding, they had fired

inspectors general, they pulled out security details and clearance from Trump opponents and his loyalists who they don't like anymore, who are in

danger for implementing his policies on Iran during his first term, pushing, as you said, federal employees out, pardoning the January 6th

convicts, the immigration crackdown, terminating DEI programs, barring transgender troops from the military. This is enormous.

Are you -- when you -- obviously today you feel probably vindicated, you feel that you've pushed back, you know, there is a legislative and a media

that has been able to show the folly of this particular action, where do you get your levers of opposition to some of these fundamental attempts to

completely and radically change the United States of America?

VAN HOLLEN: Well, the first and immediate line of defense here are the courts. And that is why, you know, these organizations went to a federal

judge, got a temporary stay. The hearing was going to be on Monday. I assume that will be canceled now. That is the first line of defense.

Now, the second line of defense is through the Congress. What they try to pass through the Congress, we have some levers, especially in the Senate,

to try to slow things down or defeat them. That said, they have a majority in the Senate, they have a majority in the House, there is a procedure in

the Senate called Budget Reconciliation that would allow the Republicans to pass anything with 51 votes and avoid a filibuster.

They have the majority in the House, so their next plan of action is to try to push through the Trump agenda through these very narrow majorities they

have in the House and Senate. Now, it's going to be hard for them to hold that together, that majority, but right now, unfortunately, we have a

Republican Party that just does the bidding of Donald Trump as opposed to, you know, thousands of people around the country.

AMANPOUR: Can I just say, I don't know whether you've seen it, but there's an important Reuters poll out, essentially showing that considerable

majorities of the American people don't actually approve of some of these far-reaching attempts to completely overturn decades of policy.

So, I'm wondering whether you think that'll make a difference eventually, the actual people who voted for him, many of these are people who voted for

him or, and I'm going to play this soundbite from Stephen Miller, who is his -- you know, his guy in the White House, his policy director, in a

conversation with Jake Tapper last night. I'm just going to play this bit.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHEN MILLER, WHITE HOUSE DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF: There has to be political control and review. I can't help it if left-wing media outlets

published a fake news story that caused confusion. If you read the OMB guidance memo, it is -- well, if you read the OMB guidance memo, it's as

clear as day.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: Well, that was last night. And tonight, the same White House is rescinding that memo. So, this was, again, about the radical effect they

tried to impose earlier this week. So, what do you think? I mean, Chris, Stephen Miller has an agenda, he's worked with Russell Vought, they've

worked on, as you say, Project '25 for years in the wilderness and now they're implementing it. Where do you think American people will land on

all of this?

VAN HOLLEN: I think the American people, including all of those who voted for Donald Trump are not getting what they bargained for, certainly in

these first eight days. I mean, one of the first things Donald Trump did, of course, was to pardon individuals who'd been convicted of assaulting,

beating, and bloodying police officers. That is not what people who voted for Trump want to see. Now, we see all these other actions.

[13:15:00]

The bottom line is, I think people need to focus on what happened at the inaugural. When Donald Trump talked about a golden age for America, who was

behind him? He had the billionaire heads of the big tech companies. They actually got better seats than people who are going to be in Donald Trump's

cabinet.

So, when he talks about the golden age for America, he's talking about huge tax giveaways to the most wealthy and powerful people in the country at the

expense of everybody else. And you ask me what comes next, Christiane, they're going to try to pass Trump tax cuts 2.0, which will overwhelmingly

benefit the very, very wealthy and the biggest corporations at the expense of others.

And I think that will be a real wake up call to the country. And there'll be a real sense of betrayal from people who voted for Donald Trump thinking

that he was the guy out to help working people when, in fact, it's just the tech titans who were behind him at the inaugural address.

AMANPOUR: I want to ask you about one of the foreign policy issues. Obviously, he's, you know, declared and apparently had an incredibly heated

and profanity laden conversation with the prime minister of Denmark over wanting Greenland. And then there's the Panama Canal, and then there's --

you know, now on Gaza, he said that, and he said it -- you know, to people on the White House -- you know, Air Force One, that the best plan for Gaza

is potentially to, quote, "clean out the whole thing."

So, do you fear -- and you had severe criticisms and differences with your own administration, the Biden administration, over their policy towards the

Israel-Gaza war, when we last talked in May. But do you think it's possible that official U.S. foreign policy could be, essentially, ethnic cleansing

of Palestinians in Gaza or the West Bank?

VAN HOLLEN: Well, you're right, that's what it would be by another name. And this is an outrageous idea President Trump has advanced. It's an idea

that is welcomed by the farthest right elements in the Netanyahu government, people like Smotrich and Ben-Gvir, they're cheering on this

idea from the president.

But the idea that 2 million people are going to be displaced, deported from Gaza, obviously is it -- it's not going to happen, morally, it should not

happen, that people who, you know, want to find their way forward, even amidst the destruction that we've seen in Gaza can do it. But of course,

the Egyptians and Jordanians have made clear that they're not going to accept the Donald Trump plan.

But it is a very bad sign, Christiane, of where the president's head is right now on all these issues. And I really hope other people around him

will, you know, bring some sense to the situation. I hope people like, like Steve Witkoff will bring the president a little bit of common sense at this

moment.

AMANPOUR: In fact, of course, as you say, he is the Middle East envoy for the president, and he today was in Gaza. Senator, thank you. I know you're

going on to an emergency caucus of your colleagues in the Senate, and it'll be interesting to know afterwards what you've all decided on how to react.

But very interesting to have you as this breaking news on this big issue today. Thank you so much.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration is continuing its crackdown on immigrants, even those with legal protection in the United States,

announcing today that they are rolling back Biden era protections for Venezuelans, for instance, clearing the way for more deportations as

President Donald Trump pursues a hardline immigration agenda.

For more on what this policy actually looks like, Correspondent David Culver speaks to people who've experienced it and who are doing so in this

report from Guatemala.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DAVID CULVER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Stepping off a commercial charter and onto Guatemala City's military tarmac, 124 migrants deported

for illegally entering the U.S. now, back home.

They process past officials, including the country's vice president, and into a reception hall. Cookies and coffee await. One by one, they're called

up to be officially documented. Now, that's a change from their status in the U.S.

CULVER: She lived 10 years in the U.S. in Alabama. She did roofing, construction, and car repair while in the U.S.

CULVER (voice-over): Here we meet Sara Tot-Botoz. At 43, she says she carries a criminal record related to child endangerment.

[13:20:00]

CULVER: She was shopping at Walmart with her grandson, and she said he didn't have a car seat, and she was pulled over as she was leaving the

Walmart by a police officer in Alabama.

CULVER (voice-over): She went to jail for two months and was detained for five more months, she says, by immigration officials in Louisiana before

being sent back here.

She's actually grateful. Thanking God for being back.

CULVER: Do you want to go back to the U.S.? No.

CULVER (voice-over): Sara, seemingly uncomfortable though, speaking with us in what she's wearing. She's eager to get to her bag, which sits in a

pile of plastic sacks and stapled shut. And as she heads into the bathroom to change, we meet Fidel Ambrosio.

CULVER: So, how many years altogether did you live in the U.S.?

FIDEL AMBROSIO, DEPORTED FROM U.S. BACK TO GUATEMALA: 19 years.

CULVER: 19 years?

AMBROSIO: Yes. I'm scared. But we're not criminal, you know.

CULVER: But you have a trespassing conviction?

AMBROSIO: Yes.

CULVER: Are you going to try to stay here or do you think you'll go back?

AMBROSIO: I have to go back, for sure.

CULVER: You'll find a way back?

AMBROSIO: Yes.

CULVER (voice-over): While Fidel walks freely here, others are pulled aside by Guatemalan police as soon as they arrive, accused of crimes not

only in the U.S., but also here in their homeland. They require a lot of resources so as to reintegrate the returnees.

Guatemala's vice president tells me it's about the same number, though, that have been arriving in recent years under President Biden. Though she

says the use of U.S. military planes, which Guatemala is permitting, is new under President Trump.

Back in the reception hall, we almost don't recognize Sara. She's changed into her indigenous wardrobe and feels more at home. Now ready to step out.

And reunite with her daughter.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: So, that is the view from Guatemala. Now, President Trump has put allies from Colombia to Denmark on the back foot. But in the Middle

East, Palestinians refuse to accept being, quote, "cleaned out" of Gaza, as he has suggested. And both the Egyptian president and the Jordanian king

refuse to be destinations for what some are labelling ethnic cleansing. We just discussed all of that with Senator Van Hollen.

Now, for the moment the ceasefire between Israel and Gaza remains intact with another hostage and prisoner release expected tomorrow. But what are

the necessary next steps? Let's bring in Oliver McTernan. He's a former Catholic priest turned conflict negotiator who regularly speaks with both

Israeli and Hamas officials even today. Welcome to the program.

OLIVER MCTERNAN, CO-FOUNDER AND DIRECTOR, FORWARD THINKING: Thank you.

AMANPOUR: Can I just first start by talking about the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who are moving from one devastated part of Gaza

where they've been herded back to their homes in another devastated part of Gaza? When you see that and you hear all the noise that's going around what

is -- what comes to mind about them?

MCTERNAN: Well, one word, resilience. I think what I've found over the past 20 years on regular visits to Gaza and having witnessed five wars

there, there is a remarkable resilience, particularly in Gazans, and also attachment to what part of Gaza you live in.

So, I think it's perfectly understandable that if you've been deported, as it were, to the south, you will want to return to your patch.

AMANPOUR: And since you have been doing, not just talking to all these different sides, but you've been in conflict resolution there and elsewhere

for so long, when you hear what we've been reporting, President Trump's own comments about cleaning out Gaza, and suggesting that the Egyptian

president take, you know, one and a half million, he said, and suggesting that the King of Jordan, obviously, would take the others, both of those

have refused, both those leaders. But the Palestinians there have said, we won't accept it.

Do you think they will be able to resist? Will they have a choice?

MCTERNAN: I think they will. What's worried me from the beginning is the tactic seemed to make -- be -- to make Gaza unlivable. And therefore, you

would have involuntary migration, that families would be so desperate, they couldn't put food on the table, that have no access to health, no access to

education, no legal system to protect them. And in that circumstances, it would be understandable that some, and I stress some, may opt if there was

an option to go elsewhere, simply to survive.

[13:25:00]

But I think the -- I come back to the word resilience, that most Gazans, apart from the deep attachment they have to the land, they also are

resilient. It was so unfortunate that President Trump used those words, clean out, and my suspicion is that he's been very much influenced by the

little group around him.

Right at the beginning of this war, I'm going back now to November 23, I was in the Knesset, and then it was clearly explained by some, and not all

would have gone along with this, but by some, not just in Ben-Gvir or Smotrich's parties, but also in the Likud, that the goal then was to

pressurize President Sisi to open up the border with Egypt, make Sinai the place where the whole population of Gaza would go, then to move the West

Bank into Jordan, and move north and bring America into war with Tehran. So, you would have a remaking.

Now, there was a theological base for this, and there -- this is where I think the influence around President Trump is. They talked about a Judeo-

Christian understanding that this was the opportunity to impose the third commonwealth. Solomon had the first in Hebron, the second, the kingdom was

with David and the temple. October 7th, they said, gave an opportunity -- and I'm quoting, gave an opportunity to introduce the third commonwealth

where from the river to the sea you would have a Jewish Commonwealth, and there wouldn't be space for Palestinians or Muslims.

AMANPOUR: It's interesting that you speak in those words, reflecting what they say in religious terms. You yourself have -- are religious, I guess. I

mean, you were a Catholic priest. But you are very steeped in this conflict mediation and trying to find solutions. And you have been for a long, long

time in the Middle East and elsewhere.

There's -- currently, the ceasefire is holding. There seem to be, so far, regular hostage and prisoner releases. But there seems to be a lot of doubt

as to whether any second phase. I mean, this first phase was meant to be a sort of a framework for talking about what might happen in a second phase.

First of all, I want to play what Secretary of State Blinken told me days before he left office, when I asked him about whether the second phase was

sorted. We spoke on the day the ceasefire was announced. Here's what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANTONY BLINKEN, THEN-U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: That's not sorted. We've worked on it intensely for the last six or seven months intensely, but

quietly, with our partners, with others. I think there's some basic understandings that we've reached, but the ceasefire itself, hopefully,

would concentrate minds and get people to agree on what's necessary to get that day after post conflict plan in place.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: So, he basically said it's not sorted. I mean, it's literally up to the political will of whoever comes next in the United States and in the

region. From your conversations with Israelis and with Hamas political leaders who you talk to, do you have any idea of what the second phase

might look like?

MCTERNAN: Well, first of all, I think it's remarkable that the Qataris, with the support of the Egyptians, were able to get some format, but it was

torturous. When you look at it, it's a torturous agreement. Fraught with risk, and I've described it as a spoiler's dream, because of the long drawn

out way in which it is done, and certainly, because of the uncertainty along the way.

There is no -- normally when you have an agreement, it's tight, and you have guarantors that they will stand by it. This time, there's a built-in

flexibility, and I think it's the only thing the negotiators could achieve. But the risk, I think, is very, very great for spoilers to create

circumstances that will justify a breakdown in it.

I think there's one person, and one person only, who can guarantee the second stage and Antony Blinken would have known that, and that is Donald

Trump. As president he has the power. Because right at the beginning of this, what made it almost impossible to get a tight -- an agreement that,

you know, would hold was the fact that the -- Benjamin Netanyahu declared two goals. The first goal was to see the total demise of Hamas. The second

was to see the release of the hostages.

Now, anyone would say, those are totally incompatible. How can you achieve a sort of agreement on those lines?

AMANPOUR: So, can I ask you, because there's a big debate inside Israel and maybe elsewhere about that very issue, because we remember that the

images leading to the first hostage release by negotiation back in November of 2023 were much more subdued from the Hamas perspective than the current

one, right?

[13:30:00]

They're out there, they're in full battle gear, balaclavas, weapons, and we're here, we're in control. That must be causing a lot of stress in

Israel. And what does it mean for Gaza?

MCTERNAN: It's interesting. Netanyahu would claim that they got to where they are because of the military pressure that he had put on Hamas, his

first goal. That's what got the release of the hostages the other day. Biden, of course, agreed with that. He said the pressure from May to now

agree.

Very interesting, the Qatari prime minister, in an interview, and he was responsible for overseeing the negotiations, said, it wasn't -- it was

mediation, not bombing that saw the release of those hostages. I would agree. Because if you see the first release way back in November 23, it was

a much more modest affair. It was conducted at night. There were very cautious, careful, no display of anything at all that was offensive to

anyone, but a real effort to make this work.

Now, we see, what I would say, a display of defiance. And that to me proved the question that actually military pressure increases resistance.

AMANPOUR: And there have been a lot of new recruits. Even Tony Blinken, before he left office, said that he -- their intelligence suggests that the

Hamas have recruited as many foot soldiers as they lost under the Israeli bombardment.

But I want to ask you this because, obviously, Americans, perhaps some in Israel, also hope that guarantors would be Saudi Arabia, would be the UAE,

would be maybe an international peacekeeping force to keep control in Gaza. But in one of your forums, one of the Hamas political leaders said that on

no account would they allow any foreign troops, any Arab troops, any troops into Gaza. I mean, that seemed to be pretty shocking to me. They're not

open to that at all.

MCTERNAN: Well, I don't think it's only Hamas. I am in regular touch with a variety of people in Gaza and people who have suffered right the way

through this last 15 months, but are still very much concerned about what the day after is going to be once the -- there is permanent ceasefire and

the begin the reconstruction in Gaza.

I'm not talking about the -- now the building reconstruction or infrastructure, but the social fabric of Gaza once that begins. They are

very, very keen that two things. And I think there is a consensus between all factions in Gaza on this, that it should be driven by people in Gaza,

people who know Gaza, and there is very much talk that the police, which the majority of the police in Gaza, they're not because they're Hamas,

they're simply there for a job.

And -- but that police force should be used, because they know the criminals, they know the spoilers, they know the people that need to be

contained, as in any society. So, I think to bring foreigners in, for me, I think would be a mistake.

AMANPOUR: And yet, so many of the peace treaties or peace moments -- not even peace, ceasefire moments that I've ever covered, require some kind of

external.

MCTERNAN: But look at Lebanon, that hasn't been much of a success with external forces. I think it -- what you need now, and the only way we'll

break this cycle of violence, is once and for all, address the core issue. And the core issue is not who polices or manages the calm, we might say, or

the relative calm, it is basically tackling occupation.

I think unless the International Community is going to address occupation in terms of the U.N., going back to '48, looking at what was agreed in '67,

saying those are the international norms or standards that we need to address it on, end occupation, declare a Palestinian State, I think we must

have the political courage to do that if we want to break the cycle of violence.

AMANPOUR: And on a personal note, you posted some images of a kindergarten that you and your late wife had helped fund and run in Gaza. And now, it's

completely destroyed. We're showing this, and maybe there's some before pictures.

What does this say to you? This war has also affected you personally, but also the children, obviously. So, many of them were killed.

MCTERNAN: The -- it's a human tragedy, what we've witnessed over the past 15 months. I mean, you see the joy, the beauty there. The great vision that

the founder of that kindergarten had.

[13:35:00]

She's a remarkable lady. She was -- in fact, in her own buildings have been destroyed, the family buildings in Rafah, on the beach, in a tent, they set

up a school where they were educating a hundred children right through this war. That's the sort of person.

We don't know what -- hopefully, we will be able to restore this. Because those children had lived through trauma. They were trying to address that

trauma prior to this war. God only knows where we will be now.

You know, you mentioned about Blinken saying they had evidence of 10,000, 15,000 recruits into Hamas in the war. The frightening figure I was given

was that 60 -- and in good authority, 60 percent of the fighters at the beginning of this war were orphans from the war in 2014. So, it's this

cycle of violence, as I say, needs to be broken.

AMANPOUR: Olive McTernan, thank you very much, of Forward Thinking. Thank you so much indeed.

Next, she is the White House's first female chief of staff. And now, Susie Wiles, who led his presidential campaign, is under the spotlight as she

attempts to navigate and direct Trump's White House. Given his first term saw off four chiefs of staff, our next guest believes Wiles may be, quote,

"Trump's best hope."

Journalist Chris Whipple spoke to all living White House chiefs of staff for his book, "The Gatekeepers:" And he now joins Michel Martin to discuss

it.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, Christiane. Chris Whipple, thanks so much for talking with us.

CHRIS WHIPPLE, AUTHOR, "THE GATEKEEPERS": Good to be with you.

MARTIN: You've done a lot of things in your career but one of the interesting things you've done, at least for somebody like me, who's in

Washington, is you've written a whole book about the inner workings of the White House, specifically focusing on White House chiefs of staff.

So, for people who have not been so fortunate as to like, you know, sit in those briefing rooms and kind of watch these people do their thing, what is

that person's role?

WHIPPLE: Yes, the book I wrote was called "The Gatekeepers," and it was a revelation to me because it turns out that the White House chief of staff

is the second most powerful job in government. Every president learns often the hard way that you cannot govern effectively without empowering a White

House chief of staff to do any number of things, but most importantly, to execute your agenda and tell you what you don't want to hear. That's a

challenge with somebody like Donald Trump.

But it's a critical job and I really believe it when the -- you know, the subtitle of my book is, "How the White House Chiefs of Staff define every

presidency." And to some extent, they really do.

MARTIN: Some chiefs of staff are -- you know, even if you don't really follow politics closely, there's some names you might know of people like

James A. Baker, for example, former secretary of the treasury and a secretary of state or Ken Duberstein or like Leon Panetta, as you

mentioned, he's somebody who kind of has his own public profile. I mean, this -- and maybe Rahm Emanuel, but that's the exception I learned from

your book. That's the exception.

WHIPPLE: Yes. They're often unheralded. You know, there are various models and certainly Jim Baker and Leon Panetta and Rahm Emanuel, they were people

everybody knew about. But there are others in the mold of, for example, Jeff Zients, who was Joe Biden's last White House chief of staff who,

really, is a -- was a superb manager, but an under the radar introverted person.

And so, that's -- I think that may very well be the model for Susie Wiles, who is also someone who is not extroverted by any means, who doesn't need

the attention or want it. She's going to try to make this -- execute Trump's agenda, but without trying to steal the spotlight, which will be

just fine with Donald Trump.

MARTIN: So, let's talk about Susie Wiles. A departure, it seems, from President Trump's first term. He had four chiefs of staff, and none of

those relationships seem to have ended particularly well. You wrote an op- ed about her and what role she may or play in this next Trump administration.

First of all, I was like fascinated to realize that she's Pat Summerall's daughter. You know, Pat Summerall being a famous, you know, NFL

broadcaster, former player. And, you know, that was news to me. So, what else is going to be news to us about Susie Wiles?

[13:40:00]

WHIPPLE: Yes. No, she's an absolutely fascinating character. And you pointed out one thing about her that's really intriguing. One -- among

other things, she's the first woman ever to serve in this job, is -- in the second most job -- most powerful job in government. And I think it's going

to be fascinating to watch.

But she is someone who has this uncanny ability to impose at least some discipline on Trump's disorder. Nobody's ever been able to do that before.

She would be the first to tell you that she doesn't manage Trump. Trump is unmanageable. But she's figured out some sort of modus vivendi. She chooses

her fights carefully. And she has lasted a long time. He trusts her. She has charm and abundance. And she'll need every bit of it to succeed.

Temperament is an underrated quality among White House chiefs, but it's very important. James Baker had it. Leon Panetta had it. Susie Wiles has

it.

Finally, and she's, I think, will have an advantage as a woman. The women in Trump world learn not to compete with Trump or try to be equals. Susie

Wiles has mastered that. And you mentioned her father, Pat Summerall. Both she and Trump grew up with very difficult fathers.

Fred Trump was a cold fish. Pat Summerall was extremely difficult and he was an alcoholic. He credited her, Susie, with getting him into treatment.

I think Susie would be the first to tell you that having dealt with her father, who was not -- who -- which was a real challenge really helped her

to prepare for Donald Trump. She knows something about handling difficult men.

MARTIN: What is her attraction to politics? Like, how did she get into it? And how did she and Trump get connected?

WHIPPLE: You know, she was a 23-year-old scheduler for Ronald Reagan and later worked in the Labor Department. And prior to that, of course, she --

right out of the University of Maryland, she worked for Jack Kemp, Congressman Jack Kemp, the pro football player. That was a job that Pat

Summerall helped to arrange for her.

She became addicted to it, to politics, and spent her whole career in Florida. She was -- among other things, she really ran the winning campaign

for Ron DeSantis for governor. And then, they had an ugly falling out, very bitter falling out. And it's still a mystery. I've asked her about it. And

to this day, she doesn't understand precisely why Ron DeSantis turned on her, but he did viciously and really tried to destroy her career.

Trump rescued her. And she -- he was grateful to her for having carried Florida for him in two elections. And she ended up becoming the co-chair,

but really, first among equals, as the head of his 2024 campaign.

MARTIN: What's she good at?

WHIPPLE: She's incredibly organized and she knows -- she's just a very smart and savvy political operative. She understands how to -- she's a

great manager. And again, her superpower seems to be her ability to work with somebody like Donald Trump. She's very good at managing him. And I put

"manage" again in quotes.

MARTIN: What's the evidence of that? Can you give us an example?

WHIPPLE: Well, she certainly had her share of moments of truth with Trump, and one of them came when Trump called her to a meeting with several

witnesses and tried to intimidate her, complained that she wasn't up to the job and turned to the others in the room and said, What do you think?

Should I fire her?

He was trying to humiliate her. She retreated but she didn't run away. And she came back. She lived to fight another day. She came back to Trump

shortly thereafter. And she said, don't ever do that, I'm paraphrasing now, but don't ever do that again. Trump said, I won't have to.

MARTIN: In a recent op-ed for The New York Times, you wrote that Ken Duberstein, Ronald Reagan's final White House chief of staff, once observed

that campaigning is trying to destroy your opponents, while governing is making friends with them. In his first term as president, Donald Trump did

not get the difference, and his tenure was often overwhelmed by dysfunction and chaos.

[13:45:00]

Well, I haven't seen --

WHIPPLE: Yes. Trump has never understood the difference.

MARTIN: Well, I haven't seen so far that he's really trying to make friends with anybody. I mean, I do see that he's trying to exert his will.

And so, I'm just wondering what is Susie Wells do about that or just is -- or (INAUDIBLE) construct just no longer relevant?

WHIPPLE: That's why it's the most difficult job in Washington, bar none. It is thankless. It is relentless. It is 24/7. And then you can -- it's

exponentially more difficult with somebody like Donald Trump.

When I interviewed Reince Priebus, shortly after he stepped down as Trump's chief of staff during his first term, the first thing he said to me was,

Chris, take everything you've heard and multiply it by 50. Those were the fights he claimed he was fighting behind the scenes that nobody knew about.

So, it's a huge challenge for Susie Wiles, not least because Trump has never understood the difference between campaigning and governing. And Ken

Duberstein is absolutely right. Campaigning, you try to destroy your opponents, and Trump has a genius for that, a feral genius. He's never

understood how to make friends or cut deals on Capitol Hill, and that's why his first term was so unproductive. You know, it's one thing to put judges

on the bench, it's another thing to repeal and replace Obamacare or pass infrastructure or other bilateral things.

And so, far, all we've seen from Trump has been this firehose of executive orders and proclamations. Some egregious, some unlawful or

unconstitutional, some dubious. And it's not a good sign, I have to say. But it's -- for Susie Wiles or Trump, because it suggests, when it comes to

Wiles, that she's either in agreement with a lot of these crazy orders that Trump has put out there or she's not in the loop. And if she's in the loop,

then she's clearly not being heard or being very effective. So, so far, I think it's troubling.

MARTIN: You said in your op-ed that the hallmark of a good chief of staff is telling the president what he does not want to hear. And I -- you know,

I don't think it's a secret that President Trump doesn't like to be told things he doesn't want to hear. He doesn't like being told no. Can she do

that?

WHIPPLE: I think that she is more successful at it than any of his -- any of her predecessors were. And, you know, he -- Donald Trump churned through

four White House chiefs, each one more hapless than the one before. And he ultimately found the chief of staff of his dreams, Mark Meadows, who was

the ultimate sycophant. I compared him, in one of my books, to a kind of glad-handing maitre d. He didn't just want to please Trump, he wanted to

please everybody. He could not tell Donald Trump hard truths.

Susie Wiles has shown, over this long relationship with Trump and her ability to win that campaign, that she really does have some ability to

tell Donald Trump hard truths. But this is a relative thing when it comes to Trump.

You know, clearly, she decided not to fight the battle, for example, that probably any other White House chief would have thrown her body in front of

a decision to pardon 1,500 January 6th insurrectionists. She evidently chose -- she either didn't fight that battle or she lost it. We don't know

for sure. But eventually, we're going to find out.

MARTIN: Well, it's been reported that Wiles has already taken a firm stance on Elon Musk's access, you know, the tech mogul, Tesla, SpaceX, et

cetera, who -- it's been reported, wanted to have an office in the West Wing. And apparently, she said no to that.

WHIPPLE: And she said, no way. And he's in the executive office building. Yes, exactly. So, round one, goes to Susie Wiles. Now, Susie Wiles, one and

Musk, zero. We'll see if she can keep that up.

MARTIN: But here's my question is, are they really interested in governing in the way that we think we have traditionally thought of as governing,

getting certain policies approved and implemented and institutionalized?

Because, yes, with this flurry of executive orders they've created a lot of -- they've gotten a lot of attention. Some of these things, as we've said,

are of dubious legality, a dubious constitutionality, and they're going to be -- that's going to suck up a lot of attention. So, is the question here

really to try to govern in the way we have been accustomed to thinking of governing or is it something else? And if it is something else, what is it?

[13:50:00]

WHIPPLE: Well, it could very well be two different answers. One for Trump and one for Wiles. Wiles, I think, without a doubt, wants to govern

effectively. She wants to make the trains run in an orderly way. In the West Wing. She may be deluded in her belief that she can make that happen

with Donald Trump, but I think that is her mission. I think that's what she is helping on accomplishing.

When I -- the last time I spoke to her, she was driving from Mar-a-Lago, she said she just got off the phone with Hakeem Jeffries and she was

telling him, you get ready. This is a new Trump. This is not the guy from his first four years. He really wants to get stuff done. He -- you know,

he's -- he knows how to do it and he's going to buckle down and govern. I'm paraphrasing. She didn't say it in those words. But she believes there's a

new Trump. Well, we'll see about that.

MARTIN: You just mentioned Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. One of the things you pointed out in the op-ed in The New York Times that we've been

talking about is that she doesn't really have experience on Capitol Hill. She certainly doesn't have the kind of experience that Jim Baker had or

that Leon Panetta had. How critical is that going to be?

WHIPPLE: It's a real strike against her. It's something that she's going to have to compensate for. She's going to have to be an awfully quick

study, because, you know, the ideal White House chief of staff is someone not only with a White House experience, but someone who knows Capitol Hill

like the back of his or her hand. Jim Baker was certainly one. Leon Panetta was another.

She doesn't have that experience except way back when, when she was in the Reagan administration as a young woman. So, that's going to be a real

challenge for her.

MARTIN: I have to point out that the Republicans on the Hill have shown a great willingness to defer to the president. You know, the Republican

leaders in both the House and the Senate have pledged their loyalty to the president, said that they're there to, you know, help him get his agenda

through, and they can't afford to lose a lot of votes.

And so, the question is, does she have the ability to -- I mean, obviously, it's their job to whip their own caucuses, right? It's -- you know, the

leaders of those two bodies, it's their job, at the end of the day, deliver the votes. But is that a situation where the chief of staff plays a role?

WHIPPLE: Absolutely. I mean, the White House chief of staff is really, among other things, all the things we've talked about so far. That's the

person who really has to be able to corral, wrangle votes on Capitol Hill. You can't just leave that up to the caucus.

Now, the Republicans may -- the Congress may seem cowed, intimidated by Trump right now, and I think they are on the back foot. That's an

opportunity, obviously, for the Trump White House and another -- one advantage that Susie Wiles has that will obviously work in her favor on

Capitol Hill is that I don't think anybody doubts that she speaks for Trump. That's critical.

And it was never the case with her predecessors from previous to Meadows. Nobody was ever sure that those guys when they open their mouths that the

president was speaking. But Susie Wiles has that, and I think that will be an advantage for her.

MARTIN: Chris Whipple, thanks so much for talking with us.

WHIPPLE: My pleasure.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: And of course, as we've been reporting all evening, the White House has had its first major stumble as it rescinds the executive order

freezing all federal aid. Of course, that story isn't over. But that's it for now, for this first round.

Finally, tonight, as RFK Jr. faces the scrutiny of the Senate, his cousin Caroline, daughter of the late President John Kennedy, has unexpectedly

stepped into the spotlight to issue an urgent warning about President Trump's pick to head the Health Department. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CAROLINE KENNEDY, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO AUSTRALIA: I watch his younger brothers and cousins follow him down the path of drug addiction. His

basement, his garage, his dorm room were always the center of the action, where drugs were available and he enjoyed showing off how he put baby

chickens and mice in a blender to feed to his hawks.

Bobby preys on the desperation of parents of sick children, vaccinating his own kids while building a following, hypocritically discouraging other

parents from vaccinating theirs. We are a close family, and none of that is easy to say. It also wasn't easy to remain silent last year when Bobby

expropriated my father's image and distorted President Kennedy's legacy to advance his own failed presidential campaign, and then groveled to Donald

Trump for a job. Bobby continues to grandstand off my father's assassination and that of his own father.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[13:55:00]

AMANPOUR: Searing. And she ended the statement by expressing that her late father and her uncles, Bobby and Teddy, would be, quote, "disgusted."

Now, over the last 50 years, global vaccine efforts have saved over 150 million lives, according to the World Health Organization. This is a

conversation we'll continue tomorrow when we speak to actress Jessica Hecht and Bill Irwin, the stars of "Eureka Day" on Broadway. It's a provocative

and satirical look into the conspiracy theories over vaccines. Timely indeed.

That's it for now. Thank you for watching, and goodbye from London.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:00:00]

END