Return to Transcripts main page

Amanpour

Interview with Former Canadian Foreign Minister and Former President of the Treasury Board of Canada John Baird; Interview with U.S. Special Envoy for Hostage Affairs Adam Boehler; Interview with Former U.S. House Representative and Former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Tom Malinowski (D-NY); Interview with "Being Jewish After the Destruction of Gaza" Author Peter Beinart. Aired 1-2p ET

Aired February 03, 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]

BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone. And welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: The United States has been ripped off by virtually every country in the world.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: President Trump slaps tariffs on China, Mexico, and Canada. What does it mean for America's relationship with its northern neighbor?

I'll speak to Canada's former foreign minister.

Then, jubilant scenes as Hamas releases three hostages. U.S. Special Envoy for Hostage Affairs Adam Boehler joins the show.

Plus, Trump threatens to shut down America's foreign aid agency. Which countries will be impacted the most?

Also ahead --

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PETER BEINART, AUTHOR, "BEING JEWISH AFTER THE DESTRUCTION OF GAZA": Because when you inflict violence on people, the structural violence that

Israel has inflicted on Palestinians in Gaza and beyond, you ultimately make everybody less safe.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: Michel Martin sits down with journalist Peter Beinart about his latest book, "Being Jewish After the Destruction of Gaza."

Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.

President Trump is putting America's economy front and center and disrupting the global free trade system while doing it. Sweeping tariffs on

goods from America's three biggest trade partners threaten an all-out trade war with Mexico, Canada, and China, which could dent global growth and fuel

inflation since it's consumers who will be bearing the brunt of the tariffs.

President Trump confirms that he's reached an agreement with Mexico to pause tariffs for one month in exchange for 10,000 Mexican troops being

sent to the border with the United States.

Now, Canada is already responding with 25 percent tariffs on U.S. goods worth over $100 billion, including alcohol and motorcycles. Canadian Prime

Minister Justin Trudeau spoke with President Trump today and is expected to keep negotiating.

My next guest is Canada's former foreign minister, John Baird. He was also the former president of Canada's Treasury Board. both under the

Conservative Party, and he joins us now from Toronto. Thank you so much for taking the time to join us.

First of all, what do you make of this latest news from President Trump and the President of Mexico agreeing to pause tariffs for at least one month?

Both sides saying that they had a good conversation. The Mexican president saying that she will deploy 10,000 National Guard troops immediately to the

border to address the trafficking of drugs into the United States. What do you make of the fact that she was able to accomplish up until now what

Prime Minister Trudeau has not, and that is at least delaying the implementation of tariffs?

JOHN BAIRD, FORMER CANADIAN FOREIGN MINISTER AND FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE TREASURY BOARD OF CANADA: Well, let me say at the outset, these tariffs

are massive, they're unjustifiable, they're unjustified. The president's trying to use a national security law for economic gains. He's pushing the

boundaries and the limits of it. The Mexican president was recently elected, so she's in a strong political situation. We're in a bit of a

period of transition in Canada, where our prime minister has resigned after his home party took him out. And we'll have a new prime minister in very

short order and a new government in short order. So, we're in a pretty weak position. I only can hope that the president will take a pause on the

tariffs with Canada as well.

You know, the United States -- 99 percent of goods from the United States can come in tariff free to Canada. That's unbelievably progressive. We have

-- the United States has a $50 billion trade surplus with Canada, when you take out oil and natural gas, which they're refined and enriched in the

United States. So, it's a pretty decent trading relationship. It's a very integrated economy. So, it's very bad news for both of our countries and

for consumers.

GOLODRYGA: So, is this a Justin Trudeau problem more than a larger scale economic concern between the two countries? If there were a conservative

prime minister in office right now, would we be here? Because members of the conservative opposition party are also sticking to what the prime

minister has said is a position of not budging putting Canada first.

Well, obviously, the administration had to know that no government could not respond to this, and I suspect the president wouldn't have any respect

for a government that didn't. So, obviously, there'll have to be a response. Let's just hope that we can have a pause and deal with the

legitimate concerns that the president has with respect to illegal immigration and fentanyl coming in from the northern border.

That's obviously minuscule compared to the southern border. And there's no argument here in Canada that we'll take every and all actions to stop it.

But that's what a good neighbor and a good friend will do.

[13:05:00]

Can I ask you to respond to what the White House Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett said this morning on television, which seemed to stump quite

a few observers, and that is that Canada has somehow, in his view, these are his words, misread the executive order from the president. He says,

this is not a trade war, this is 100 percent about a drug war against fentanyl, and that Mexico has seemingly handled this issue.

BAIRD: Sure. Let me say this. I mean --

GOLODRYGA: Go ahead. Can you -- I'm sorry, we have a bit of a delay. It looks like at least your video has frozen. Can you hear me, John Baird? OK.

OK. Great. So, just to follow up quickly, he said this is a 100 percent drug war against fentanyl problem, not a trade war. Mexico appears to have

handled and better understood the issue than what's at stake for Canada and how Canada has interpreted this. How do you respond to that?

Because as you noted, and this is data from the U.S. DEA, saying that smuggling from Canada contributes to less than 1 percent of the fentanyl

that comes into the United States.

BAIRD: I think President Trump's, the only instrument he has to use these tariffs are the national security laws, and I think he's pushing the

boundaries and the limits of them. There's no argument, we'll do whatever we can. The Canada will do whatever it can to crack down on fentanyl and to

crack down on illegal border crossings. That's what a good neighbor and a good friend would do.

So, we'll take -- the country will take every measure under this government, under a future government to clamp down and ensure that we do

everything physically possible.

GOLODRYGA: The prime minister has already announced what the first wave of retaliatory tariffs would be. They set to take effect tomorrow if nothing

changes in between. It's about $20 billion worth of imports from the United States, including products from Republican leaning states, which is

notable, whiskeys from Kentucky, for example, oranges from Florida, appliances from South Carolina, and motorcycles from Pennsylvania. What is

the strategy behind the tariffs and why specifically target red states?

BAIRD: That's what coming from the federal liberal government, but the provincial conservative government in Ontario province is going to start

pulling off California wines off the shelves. So, it'll be a more holistic approach. You look at all the actions that the various profits will take,

but let's hope sanity can prevail. Let's hope that we can do everything we can to meet the legitimate concerns with respect to drugs and illegal

border crossings and make the border safer for both countries.

GOLODRYGA: Can we talk about how that can be implemented then? We've seen tangibly the results from the conversation with the president of Mexico,

Sheinbaum, and President Trump. Mexico is going to be deploying 10,000 National Guard troops to the border. I mean, objectively, the issue with

the southern border is much larger and dangerous for the United States from the perspective of drugs coming into the country and illegal migration.

So, what exactly are the tangible items that Canada can perhaps haven't yet offered the United States as sort of an off ramp given that the supply of

drugs coming from Canada, we know is minimal, and the number of illegal migrants, also a fraction of what we see from the southern border?

BAIRD: I would massively reinforce the border land -- border crossings and land borders with -- whether it's with border officials, whether it's

police officers, whether it's bringing members of the Canadian forces on drug labs. We can certainly clamp down hard on fentanyl labs to ensure that

the product can't be exported.

You -- it can't be exploited (INAUDIBLE) Canadians or go to the United States. Already, Ontario province has had one of the biggest cocaine busts

in Canadian history in recent weeks. So, everyone's upping their game. And we're prepared to do whatever it takes to meet the legitimate demands to

keep the United States safe.

GOLODRYGA: What I'm hearing from you is different, perhaps understandably so, but just explain for our viewers than what we're hearing from the prime

minister and from others who are vying for the position like Chrystia Freeland who are standing firm, defending Canada, saying that this is a

mistake on America's part. We've seen -- we've heard booing at sports games just over the weekend to the national -- the U.S. National Anthem being

played.

What I'm hearing from you is that there's more that Canada can do to assuage the president's concerns, what I'm hearing from them is that this

is shame on the United States. Canada did nothing wrong here.

BAIRD: Well, listen, I mean, I think the government of Canada has been blunt and direct with the administration, saying it'll do more. It'll step

up its act, improve its game. And certainly, a new government in Canada will do a lot more.

Unfortunately, we have a prime minister leaving office in a few short weeks and there's a leadership contest on to who will replace them and then we'll

get on to a general election where I believe all the public opinion polls in Canada show we'll have a new conservative government that I think will

be a better partner, not just for President Trump, but for leadership -- political leaders around the world.

[13:10:00]

GOLODRYGA: How would a trade war with the United States impact other aspects of the relationship? Rally important partnerships when it comes to

intelligence sharing, both countries are members of the Five Eyes.

BAIRD: I think it's just --

GOLODRYGA: Go ahead. Yes? Do you want to respond to that?

BAIRD: I (INAUDIBLE) opposition. Let's try to avoid the tariffs in the trade war. Canada can step up its game with respect to national security

and intelligence. We've -- the government of Canada has recently ordered 85 F-35 aircraft, all manufactured in the United States at the cost of tens

and tens of billions of dollars.

I think there's a political consensus that's emerged in Canada. I think because of the president's leadership that we've got to get to that 2

percent and get to that 2 percent expeditiously. Our own ambassador in Washington said, the timeline that Canada has isn't good enough, and I

think a new government would be a great partner for the United States military.

You know, listen, we fought in two World Wars together. We fought in Korea. When the United States was attacked on 9/11, sent a lot of forces to

Afghanistan. We took a huge casualty hit, 158 Canadians soldiers were were killed. One diplomat were killed in the fields of Afghanistan. So, we've

been there when the United States need it. When the United States went after ISIS, Canada was one of the only countries in the world to strike

ISIS targets in both Syria and in Iraq. So, we've got a long-standing history and cooperation and the United States is Canada's closest friend

and ally. We have an integrated economy.

I think Canadians, you know, love the United States. But obviously, there's some significant disappointment and concern about the issue of tariffs in

recent days. Let's hope that this can -- we can address all the reasonable concerns and get back to that great partnership.

I mean, there's no longer undefended border in the world in between Canada, United States. We share the same values. We share the same commitment to

open markets and free economies. We're obviously national security partners, intelligence partners. And hopefully a new government can restore

the relationship.

I mean, this trade deal was initially signed by President Reagan and Prime Minister Mulroney. It was enhanced with President Bush. Mr. Mulroney even

spoken at both president's funerals. Obviously, a lot has changed with the current government. But I -- my messages to Americans is a better

leadership from Canada is on the horizon and will be -- a new government will be a much better partner.

GOLODRYGA: Yes, it was further enhanced most recently by current President Trump in his last term and Prime Minister Trudeau, the USMCA as well. John

Baird, I will continue to follow this. Yes. We'll continue to follow this developing story, really appreciate the time. Thank you.

Well, there were jubilant scenes in Israel this weekend as Hamas released three hostages held in captivity. Israeli-American Keith Siegel was among

them. Here's what his wife, Aviva, told Christiane in November.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

AVIVA SIEGEL, WIFE OF KEITH SIEGEL, FORMER HOSTAGE HELD BY HAMAS: In so many days have passed, while Keith, my husband, this American citizen is

underneath the ground, 40 meters underneath the ground, and just praying that somebody will come and take him out and bring him home. I cannot wait

for that to happen.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: Well, thankfully, those prayers were finally answered over the weekend. Now, beyond Israel, six Americans returned home from Venezuela on

Saturday. The U.S. citizens remain wrongfully detained in Afghanistan, Russia and many other countries around the world.

President Trump's newly appointed special envoy for hostage affairs, Adam Bohler, joins us now for more from Miami. Adam, welcome to the program.

Thanks so much for taking the time.

So, let's talk about the hostage release in Gaza and into Israel over the weekend. Keith Siegel, back in Israeli soil, reunited with his family. We

heard from his wife, Aviva, who was released in November of 2023 in that first hostage exchange. I just spoke with his brother, Lee, who could

finally say he can say good morning, good afternoon, good evening, because there was nothing good about any of the time that passed when his brother

was in captivity. What was that moment like for you?

ADAM BOEHLER, U.S. SPECIAL ENVOY FOR HOSTAGE AFFAIRS: It's an unbelievable moment anytime an American is released. And I'll tell you, I've been

working in this administration, it hasn't been long. Obviously, the president was just inaugurated. But at his inauguration, he had a whole

number of families behind him that were released. And there's nothing better. There's also nothing worse, to me, than thinking about Americans

still being held by Hamas or any terrorist organization. And so, we need all the Americans home and we can't stop until then, but it feels really

good.

GOLODRYGA: And sticking with the Americans that remain held in captivity in Gaza, we're expecting at least two more to be released, one more in the

first phase of this deal. We're talking, of course, about the hostages that are believed to be alive and that is Sagui Dekel-Chen.

[13:15:00]

What more do we know about when we can expect to see him return?

BOHLER: He better be there and out in the next few days, I'll tell you that much. And I also want to -- I was just talking to Edan Alexander's

parents who is second phase. I don't find that acceptable. I think the president was very clear to Hamas that there's hell to pay and I think that

Hamas better rush and hurry up on that.

And so, I think we've got to get Sagui back immediately, and I do understand it will be very soon. I'm counting every second. and I don't

care if Edan Alexander is a soldier, a boy, a girl, a what -- it's an -- he's an American, and we need all Americans out right now.

GOLODRYGA: Well, that speaks to the timeliness of the prime minister's trip to Washington, D.C. meeting with President Trump tomorrow. We know

that the negotiations over phase two of the deal were set to begin today. They've been put on pause for now. What are the objectives for the U.S.

administration for President Trump going into this meeting?

BOHLER: I think, first and foremost, to support Israel, because no country has gone through what they have gone through. To have so many lives killed

like that by terrorists. And Israel has gone to great extents. I mean, when you look at the fact that they've traded hundreds -- now thousands of

people -- prisoners that have done something, some of them that have killed people, for innocent civilians taken, that's a very hard choice. And it

shows the extent that Israel will go to for their people.

Now, the number one focus has to be, how do we get everybody out, but also Israel's long-term security, and quite frankly, it's the same thing as the

long-term security as the region. There will no -- be no security for folks that live in Gaza or for folks that live in the West Bank until a terrorist

group like Hamas is out.

GOLODRYGA: Adam, we know that President Trump campaigned on and to this day reiterates that he wants to see this war come to an end and he supports

this hostage-ceasefire deal. As phase two, the negotiations, as I noted, are paused but are set to begin today or this week, there is concern, as

you know, among Americans and Israelis that the prime minister will try to convince President Trump not to move forward with phase two or at least to

delay that if for no other reason than for his own political survival.

There's a lot of pressure from some far-right members of his own coalition that have threatened to leave the government if Israel isn't allowed to

return to Gaza and continue fighting. Israeli journalist Amir Tibon has a headline, saying, Netanyahu comes to Washington to kill Trump's Gaza deal.

Will the president let him? So, I'm asking you that question. Will the president let him attempt to kill the deal?

BOHLER: This is what I know about President Trump. Number one, he keeps his word. And number two, he's the toughest guy in the world right now. And

what he said was that there's going to be hell to pay for Hamas until all hostages get out. And that is what he said.

My job is to work with him, work with Marco Rubio, work with our entire administration to deliver on what the president says. And so, I see no

change in that view, one way or the other. There may be multiple ways to do that. And I'm sure we're going to talk to the prime minister who shares,

I'm sure, running a country, the desire to have all of his people out.

And so, I think by hook or crook, the President has made very, very clear what has to happen relative to Hamas and those hostages.

GOLODRYGA: Even if that means having some tough conversations with the prime minister?

BOHLER: I think, as I said, I would be surprised if the prime minister doesn't also view it as an imperative to have his people home. He just went

into a deal that traded thousands of prisoners that have hurt his people to get them home. And so, probably nobody has given more than Bibi and the

Israelis. But I do think It will be a shared objective.

Getting from A to B is how we're going to work and how we're going to identify that. But I can't believe that wouldn't be anything but a shared

objective between the president of the United States and the prime minister of Israel.

GOLODRYGA: Adam, you were a key player negotiating the Abraham Accords during Trump's first administration. What President Trump wants, we know,

is normalization deal between Israel and Saudi Arabia and also between the United States and Saudi Arabia, a separate deal, a security deal.

What -- we also know that is that can't happen, and this is from MBS' own word -- own mouth and his own words, that this can't happen unless there is

at least the beginning outlines of a day after plan for Gaza and who will be in charge and running the day-to-day operations in Gaza. We have yet to

see Prime Minister Netanyahu agree to such a deal.

[13:20:00]

So, do you worry about different priorities here from the U.S. administration and that of the prime ministers?

BOHLER: Well, I think what is shared is there needs to be some answer. And what is shared is that's not a terrorist group like Hamas. And so, what we

need to do is find an alternative, no matter what, no matter whether we're one state, two-state, no state, it doesn't matter from that perspective.

The most important thing is you have people in Gaza and people in the West Bank that need a leader and need it -- we need a counterparty to work with

and somebody that represents them. And I think that will result in ultimate security.

So, from that perspective, I agree completely with Saudi, which is, let's think about what happens because there will be some day after. And in my

opinion, that day after is when Hamas is no longer there, we need somebody to actually think about what we do for the people there.

And so, I agree. I think everybody agrees. I don't think there's anybody that likes to see suffering of people. We're all people. And so, that --

but the reality here is that Hamas created this situation. We're going to eliminate it through eliminating Hamas and then, we're going to figure out

what happens next. And so, everybody's thinking to that.

GOLODRYGA: Let me turn to other developments under your purview as well. As we noted, six Americans were -- who were detained in Venezuela came home

Saturday with the president's envoy for special missions Rick Grenell. And President Trump wrote on Truth Social that he was happy to have the

Americans back home. And then he also went on to say, very important to note that Venezuela has agreed to receive back into their country all

Venezuela illegal aliens who were encamped in the United States.

Did Maduro agree to take back all of those migrants who came to the United States illegally from Venezuela?

BOHLER: Well, if the president of the United States said it, then I believe it. So, if that's what he's saying, then that would be the case.

I'd also like to note there that that was a unilateral release of six Americans. And so, we should always celebrate that. I thought it was

awesome.

I got the call. I heard what was happening. I got the call. When they were an hour from landing from State Department Ops, which is kind of an

operator. And I will tell you, even then, he said, sir, they're an hour from landing to me. And I said, wow, this is unbelievable. And we both were

so excited, me and the State Ops person, because every American is excited about that, bringing people home. So, I thought it was awesome.

GOLODRYGA: Yes, it is quite a picture to see, those Americans happy on that plane.

BOHLER: Yes.

GOLODRYGA: Let me ask you about Austin Tice, who has been in Syria for roughly 12 years now, unaccounted for. It's been almost two months since

the ouster of Bashar al-Assad. Can you give us any more details as to what you know, what U.S. intelligence knows about his whereabouts and his

status?

BOHLER: Well, what I can tell you is that we're not going to stop until we get Austin Tice. And there's others in Syria too. And so, we need -- this

is very important broadly, because I need -- Americans should know there are Americans all over the world. It's amazing. There are actually 6,000

Americans in jails in other countries.

Now, that doesn't mean they're innocent Americans, all of them. To be clear, some people committed very clear crimes, but there are a lot of

Americans all over. There are a lot of people that are wrongfully detained in a lot of countries.

And I think what President Trump has set up, and this is his view, is there is a route. You need to unilaterally release Americans. Because if you're

not, then you're an enemy. If you don't have Americans and you want a deal, then we can deal. But we don't go -- the United States is not unilaterally

holding innocent people. We don't do that.

And so, at the end of the day, we need people wrongfully detained to be let go. That includes in Syria. If there's ever any normalization, any -- ever

any opportunity to even have a conversation. And I think there's two options here. Option one is, you do what you see in Venezuela where someone

unilaterally released Americans and we can celebrate that. And the president did appropriately. Option two is his strike against ISIS.

GOLODRYGA: Yes, and I know the secretary of state threatened a big bounty, even double that, that had been issued for Osama bin Laden for what are

known to be as many as seven American hostages currently held in Afghanistan as well.

Can I ask you to respond, given your former work in the administration and working as an executive officer of the U.S. International Development

Finance Corporation, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, among other federal agencies, your response to what we're seeing now with regards

to USAID and the developments over the weekend, Elon Musk's involvement there, and now with the president and the secretary of state coming out

confirming that, for now, it will be under the purview of Secretary Rubio? Is this something that's normal behavior? I mean, walk us through your

reaction to this.

[13:25:00]

BOHLER: I think that a lot of Americans think of USAID where it probably should be, which is kind of like if you think about FEMA in the United

States, an aid organization that works to help -- to provide great services when things are needed, maybe there's a hurricane, maybe there's a tsunami

and we help. USAID has obviously, from the comments, grown to much, much more than that. To be used as instruments of some things that maybe they

shouldn't be, one way or the other.

And so, I think what the president is saying is, hold on. Marco Rubio is secretary of state. And Marco's strategy and my strategy is to approach

things in a unified way. And so, in my mind, the concept of state being involved when USAID is part of what we decide broadly, that concept doesn't

bother me one way or the other. In fact, I think it may make a lot of sense.

And so, I'm not fully up to speed on all of these things. Obviously, they're breaking. But there's nothing I saw that made me think, wow, that

doesn't make sense. In fact, Marco right now is very involved, of course. And he was on my board at DFC, for example, or not Marco -- sorry, the

secretary of state. So, there's always heavy involvement in this case. Then it gets that formal reporting. It may not matter that much.

GOLODRYGA: Yes, it's just -- it's notable to hear his phrasing of, you know, an organization that, in his view, needs some reform. I would

probably say that there are many that agree with that characterization, as opposed to how Elon Musk described it as an apple with a worm, a bowl of

worms, a corrupt organization. So, I guess I'm just asking you if this is something that you think is worthy of the president and of somebody who is

viewed as his right hand man to describe an organization as important as USAID.

BOHLER: I think -- again, I can't comment on what Elon Musk said or didn't say. And again, I'm not privy to all the details. I will say this, and this

is what I think, Americans elected President Trump and they elected him for a reason. They're tired of everything staying the same. And so, we could

sit here and we could say, oh, we'll shift this and -- but things aren't happening. And the reason you see so much happening is because there's so

much to do here.

And so, I really congratulate him. It's why I'm proud to be part of the administration is, ordinary Americans were tired of elites and they want

change. And so, if this is change, this is what he was elected to do.

GOLODRYGA: Well, Adam Bohler, thank you so much for your time. And thank you for all the work that you have done in this administration thus far and

getting U.S. hostages back home and reunited with their families. Really appreciate it.

BOHLER: Thank you. Of course. Thanks.

GOLODRYGA: Well, the Washington, D.C. headquarters of USAID is unexpectedly closed today, and workers there were told to stay home,

according to multiple sources. Now, its funding has been frozen, and dozens of its employees were put on leave last week.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio says that he is now the acting director of USAID. Tom Malinowski is a former congressman who also served in the State

Department under President Obama. He joins me now from Washington, D.C. Tom Malinowski, thank you for taking the time.

Before I get you to respond to what we heard from Adam, I did speak to the words we just heard from Secretary of State Rubio with regard to USAID.

Let's play that sound for you and our viewers.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARCO RUBIO, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: There are a lot of functions of USAID that are going to continue, that are going to be part of American

foreign policy, but it has to be aligned with American foreign policy. USAID has a history of sort of ignoring that and deciding that there's

somehow a global charity separate from the national interest. These are taxpayer dollars.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: Your reaction?

TOM MALINOWSKI (D-NY), FORMER U.S. HOUSE REPRESENTATIVE AND FORMER U.S. ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE: You know, who can disagree? Of course, USAID

should be spending taxpayer dollars in the U.S. interest. And of course, any new administration coming in has a right to review what they're doing

and to make decisions about their priorities going forward.

But what they've done is very different. What they've done is like it's like taking over a hospital and then saying, we're going to stop giving

medicine to the patients until we figure out what's going on. We're going to stop the emergency room. We're not going to do surgeries for 60 days or

90 days until we figure things out. People are going to die if you do that.

And look, I mean, seeing Marco Rubio utter those words also is a little bit sad to me. He is looking to me like the weakest man in Washington right now

because these decisions clearly are not being made by him, they're being made by the White House, they're being made by Elon Musk and the college

students that he has breaking into the offices of USAID to try to figure out on their own what should continue and what should stay.

[13:30:00]

And I would like to see, at some point, Marco Rubio actually assert himself as secretary of state. We have not seen that yet.

GOLODRYGA: Well, can I ask you to respond to just what we saw over the weekend, the role of Elon Musk coming in, the trash talking of USAID and

calling it rotten to its core, it's an apple with a worm, it's just a bowl of worms, it's a criminal organization, he said that the president agreed

with him to shut the organization down. This is money that had been appropriated by Congress.

So, just where is Congress in all of this? Are you surprise that we have not heard more outrage from them just in terms of the sequence of events

here?

MALINOWSKI: Yes. So, that's the critical question. This is money that's appropriated by Congress to an organization established by Congress. What

the administration and Musk are doing is completely against the law, but the law doesn't exist unless somebody enforces it, and Congress has to

assert its prerogatives.

GOLODRYGA: So, where are the Democrats? I mean, why -- you know, you would think in theory that Republicans, that this would not be a political, a

partisan issue, but one can understand perhaps why Republicans are rather quiet about this. Where are Democrats? Republicans have a slim majority.

Slim.

MALINOWSKI: Sure. Well, this is exactly the point. Democrats -- Congress - - the House is coming back as we speak, and there's a very simple thing that the Democrats, and Democrats alone can do about not just the shutdown

of USAID, but the funding freezes that we've seen writ large.

In March, government funding runs out. The Republicans will need Democratic votes in the House of Representatives to keep the government funded. They

will need Democratic votes to raise the debt ceiling, which is a huge priority of the president. If I were still a member of Congress, this would

be incredibly simple, I would say, we will absolutely not give you a single Democratic vote to fund the government without ironclad guarantees that

every penny Congress appropriates will be spent as Congress directs.

There's no point in having a Congress if you don't have the power of the purse. They have to use the power of the purse to defend the power of the

purse. And by the way, I think they will, because I've spoken to a number of my former colleagues and I think this is where this debate is heading.

GOLODRYGA: Walk us through what USAID does, who it provides aid for, and why it's such an integral part of U.S. diplomacy? I mean, it is viewed as a

way of engaging with allies around the world, as well as a humanitarian factor.

MALINOWSKI: Yes. So, we've heard a lot about the humanitarian parts, which are essential because they keep people alive and they keep Americans alive

because, you know, one reason we don't have to deal with polio in America and a lot of other horrible infectious diseases is that we stop them

overseas before they come here. But it's a lot more than just the humanitarian piece.

If you care about migration to the United States, for example, then it's obviously cost effective for us to be helping farmers in Central and South

America to put food on the table for their people, to deal with all the climate shocks that they are experiencing. So, that people do not -- hungry

people do not get up by the millions and travel to the United States.

If you care about American influence around the world, you want to continue to do the things that we did so successfully during the Cold War, helping

to provide scholarships to students, supporting independent media and broadcasting, leadership, and exchange programs. This is how we have

attained influence in a lot of parts of the world. And you know who knows this? It's Russia and China, which are trying to replicate those programs

themselves.

Today, there are more graduate students going to school in China from Africa than there are in the United States, because the Chinese Communist

Party has begun to invest massively in the types of things that we've done through USAID. Why? Because those students will go back, they'll start

companies that buy Chinese products, that sell China critical minerals, they will buy weapons from China.

Why would we unilaterally disarm, in this way, unless it's somebody like Elon Musk who gets his information from conspiracy accounts on his own

website rather than understanding how the U.S. government actually works?

GOLODRYGA: And who clearly has the president's ear. I mean, just to put into perspective, the USAID has a budget of $43 billion. The U.S. federal

budget spending in 2024 was $6.75 trillion. Again, no one is arguing that there aren't reforms that could be made. I think that the shock value just

comes from how this has all transpired over the weekend and the last few hours.

[13:35:00]

Let me get you to respond to other news. A federal judge now -- today said that she's inclined to extend a block on the president's freeze on federal

grants and loans. That was -- dominated headlines last week. An order issued by the OMB and then rescinded. Your reaction to these types of

policies and the fact that, yes, the administration has put -- has rescinded that order, but the message that this sends to organizations and

departments throughout the federal government.

MALINOWSKI: Yes. Well, the funding freezes are completely unconstitutional. And any judge who takes one of these cases, I think, is

going to find that. But the courts have only begun to deal with the magnitude of what the administration has attempted.

The foreign assistance freezes, for example, are not yet covered by any of the court orders in part. And this is interesting because some of the aid

agencies, the NGOs, the humanitarian agencies that have been affected have chosen not to sue because they're afraid of being targeted if they stick

their necks out. I think that's a mistake. I think they need to go to court collectively to stop this.

But then, finally, to my former colleagues in Congress, I would say don't rely a hundred percent on the courts there. There may be a fight that will

go on for the next few months about what's known as the Impoundment Act, which is the law that says basically the administration, the executive has

to spend appropriated funds. Trump will challenge that. Who knows what the Supreme Court will ultimately say.

But it shouldn't matter, because if you're Congress, you have the power to say to President Trump, to Marco Rubio, to Musk, to all these people, we

will not give you a penny unless you guarantee you will spend the penny as we direct.

GOLODRYGA: Tom Malinowski in Washington, D.C., thank you so much for joining the program.

MALINOWSKI: Thank you.

GOLODRYGA: Well, now as we've been discussing, there is much uncertainty about the second phase of the ceasefire in Gaza. After nearly 16 months of

war, the humanitarian situation there remains dire. Author and journalist Peter Beinart believes equality between Israelis and Palestinians is the

only way to secure peace and safety for good.

It's something he addresses in his new book, Being Jewish After the Destruction of Gaza, and he joins Michelle Martin to discuss.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, Bianna. Peter Beinart, thank you so much for talking with us once again.

PETER BEINART, AUTHOR, "BEING JEWISH AFTER THE DESTRUCTION OF GAZA": Thank you.

MARTIN: You open your latest book with what you call a letter to a former friend. It's heartbreaking. Will you just tell us about this letter and why

is this a former friend?

BEINART: So, this -- my public views of opposition to the war in Gaza and opposition to the idea of a state that gives Jews rights that Palestinians

don't have is a very, very unpopular view in certain elements of the American Jewish community and many of the places -- institutions in which I

spend my life because I'm an observant Jew.

And so, Jewish institutions are structure my life. And in those institutions, there are many people who I care about a great deal who feel

very betrayed by my views, especially because they're expressed so publicly. And people said many times, you know, Peter, I feel like you are

putting my family at risk.

And so, I wanted to write this book for those people to try to explain why I see things so differently, why I feel like our organized community has

gone so profoundly wrong, and why that I believe that what we're doing and what we're supporting in Israel's treatment of Palestinians and Israel's

destruction of Gaza is not just a violation of our best ethical and religious traditions, but ultimately endangers us.

MARTIN: This latest book is titled "Being Jewish After the Destruction of Gaza." It's not being Jewish after October 7th. It's not being Jewish after

1947. Why after the destruction of Gaza? Why do -- why is that the beginning point?

BEINART: Because I think that the Jewish community feels and wrestles with the horror of October 7th that we -- that's for all of us omnipresent. I'm

dooting (ph) for myself, one of the most traumatic days of my life. I know people are already wrestling with the horror of that.

But what led me to write this book was seeing so many good and decent people that I know who day after day after day somehow seem to be able to

block out the screens of what was happening in Gaza. Like I was looking at my computer screen every day and also hearing from people who have family

in Gaza, and every day I was thinking, I can't believe that this is happening, right? The -- most of the buildings are being destroyed, most of

the schools, most of the hospitals, most of the agriculture, the number of children who've been killed just dwarfs what we've seen in Ukraine or

almost any conflict of the 21st century, more child amputees than any other place in modern history.

[13:40:00]

And I look at my community that I love, and I see that people are justifying this. Maybe they're saying it's unfortunate, but they're also

saying it's necessary. And to me, that reflects an unwillingness to truly face what is being done in our name as Jews.

MARTIN: How did this understanding start for you? Because you have a reputation as a person who has long been concerned about Israel's role in

the world, the way it manages its governance, of its territories, and the story it tells the world about itself.

BEINART: I was raised in a family where Israel was very, very important, you know, as a sense of security, that there that there was a state for

Jews after the Holocaust. My father, my grandfather, I remember how much they love to be in Israel.

When I started going to Israel as a kid, I also loved being there. You know, when you're used to being this really small minority and then you

grow into -- go to like a Jewish civilization where everything you see reflects your identity and your culture, it's a very powerful experience.

But I had no experience with what all this meant for Palestinians. That was completely off of my radar screen. It wasn't until my 30s.

I'm embarrassed to say so late in my life that I first went to spend time with Palestinians in the West Bank to see what Israel meant for them. And

on the first day, I thought, oh, my goodness, I'm going to have to rethink some things, that I had no idea what it really meant for people to live

under the control of a state where they had no rights, where they couldn't become citizens, where they couldn't vote, where they lived under military

law, where they needed military permission to travel. And it was that experience with Palestinians that made me rethink what it means to me to

try to live ethically as a Jew.

MARTIN: Do you remember what it is that you saw, literally, on those first days that awakened this, I don't know any other way to call it, but a moral

crisis in you?

BEINART: Yes. I remember talking to a woman. I write about it in the book. And she had two daughter, and then they had a son. And then when she had a

-- her daughters heard that she had a son, the daughter started crying hysterically, because in their village, the boys would throw stones at

Israeli soldiers, and the Israeli army would then go in the middle of the night and pull the boys out of their homes. They didn't necessarily knew

who threw the stones, but they knew that probably that boy could inform on the other boys, even if it wasn't him. And then, they would hold them in --

you know, and you can -- because they live under military law, you can be held under indefinite detention without family, without a lawyer, often

physically harmed for days.

And I saw that fear and it made me realize, what does it mean to live under the control of a state that has life and death power over you, but is not

accountable to you at all? You can't vote. You don't live under the same law as your Jewish neighbors. It's a terrifying experience to be powerless

vis-a-vis state that has control over you. And I had never really internalized that. I'd never imagined -- been able to imagine myself in

that place.

MARTIN: Yes. Interestingly you were actually from South Africa, your family is from South Africa. And I just wonder how, you know --

BEINART: Yes.

MARTIN: -- what role that played in your understanding of these things.

BEINART: What happened is, after I started to learn from Palestinians and read Palestinian writing and get an understanding of what Israel had meant

for Palestinians, I started to hear echoes of what I heard white South Africans say during apartheid. Because white South Africans almost

universally were convinced that if black people got the right to vote, that their lives would be in grave danger.

It was considered just obvious that basically apartheid was what kept white people safe. Because, you know, Nelson Mandela did not believe in

nonviolence. The African National Congress used armed resistance. They were called a terrorist organization by the United States government. They were

being funded by the Soviet Union. It looked terrifying to white people.

And so, I kept thinking, why were all of those white South Africans, including people in my own family, why were they wrong? Why actually were

white people not slaughtered? Why did the ANC's military wing disband after the end of apartheid? And the reason I think is that it wasn't necessary

anymore because when people have the right to vote, when they can get the government to listen to them without having to take up arms, most people

are much, much happier doing that than having to put their lives at risk, which is why when you give people equality under the law, things become

safer.

And so, that began to transform the way I heard these debates in the Jewish community, where people always say, unless we have a state in which we have

legal superiority, we can't be safe.

MARTIN: Really, this book is directed toward Jewish people, really. I mean -- and so, I want to start -- I want to talk about what you call the story

that Jewish people tell themselves about being history's permanent, virtuous victims. What do you mean by that?

BEINART: I mean that I think that oftentimes because of our extremely traumatic history, there is a tendency in Jewish discourse to imagine that

the only role that we play vis-a-vis other people in the world is as the role -- in the role of victims.

[13:45:00]

So, after October 7th, the horror of October 7th, people immediately started calling it a pogrom, which was essentially referring to it as a

kind of continuation of the assault on Jews in the Russian Empire in the early 20th century, as if the Palestinians are the reincarnation of these

anti-Semites from Europe a century ago, or indeed, even the reincarnation of the Nazis, right?

But the conditions in Israel-Palestine are completely different. You can't understand the violence against Jews in Europe without understanding that

Jews were legally inferior. In Israel-Palestine it's Palestinians who are legally inferior. Jews have legal supremacy over Palestinians. And so, if

you want to understand this terrible act of violence by Hamas, you have to be willing to face the fact that Palestinians live without basic rights.

And if you ignore that, you're basically just suggesting that Palestinians are the reincarnation of the Jew haters of old. They are not people in and

of themselves that you need to actually try to understand.

MARTIN: And you also say that -- well, let's just talk about something that is actually a very -- it's a very delicate thing to speak about in any

circumstance. But many people do compare the atrocities of a Hamas attack on October 7th to the events of the Holocaust. And people, you know --

talking about the Holocaust is always sort of very fraught, you know, no matter where you are, but you argue that this isn't quite the right analogy

to invoke. And why is that?

BEINART: Again, because you can't understand the Holocaust without understanding the fact that Jews were Europe's other, the subordinated

class for centuries. October 7th is much more, in my mind, like an inhumane, brutal attack by people who are oppressed, right? And there are -

- this happens tragically throughout history.

Think about America in the 19th century, when Native Americans had been forced off their land, crowded into smaller and smaller reservations. When

they had the opportunity to fight back, oftentimes they didn't distinguish between civilians and combatants. They killed men, women, and children in

horrifying ways, just like Hamas did in horrifying ways.

Palestinians in Gaza -- this doesn't get discussed enough in the American media. Palestinians in Gaza are not from Gaza. They're the descendants of

refugees that were forced out of what's now Israel. Many of them can see from Gaza their lands in which they live. Now, they live in a place that's

called an open-air prison by Human Rights Watch.

My friend Mohammed Shahada (ph) told me that everyone he knew growing up in Gaza had contemplated suicide. There was -- because there was no hope for

them to have a decent life. In those -- if you want to make sure that we never have October 7th again, God forbid, you have to deal with those --

that underlying oppression, because when you inflict violence on people, the structural violence that Israel has inflicted on Palestinians in Gaza

and beyond, you ultimately make everybody less safe.

MARTIN: Peter, one of the points that you make in your book is that criticizing the way Israel conducts itself on the world stage and the way

Israel conducts itself within Gaza and the West Bank is not the same as being anti-Semitic, OK? But you can acknowledge, can you not, that Hamas

and Hezbollah are, that Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist groups have been or are anti-Semitic and want to kill Jews. So, how should we think about

that?

BEINART: The way I think about it is that when people are denied their rights, they resist that oppression. And they do so in a range of ways.

Some of which are ethical and humane, some of which are unethical and inhumane. Some of which -- sometimes they do so in a spirit of equality and

the recognition of the humanity of all people, and sometimes they do so in a kind of, in the case of Hezbollah and Hamas, in an Islamist ideology,

which is itself supremacist, because it believes that there should be an Islamic State in which Muslims have rights that are superior to Christians

and Jews.

And so, it seems to me the right way to respond to this is if you want to weaken Hamas, if you want to defeat Hamas and Hezbollah, you have to

support Palestinians who are fighting for their freedom in ways that are ethical, in ways that are consistent with international law, in ways that

don't target Israeli civilians.

And when I look at what Israel and America have done, look at how they respond when Palestinians appeal nonviolently, when they try to go to the

U.N. or to international courts, or when they call for boycotts or divestment and sanctions in the spirit of the anti-apartheid movement, or

when they do nonviolent marches like the Great March of Return, or even when they collaborate with Israel in order to convince Israel that they can

be trusted by working cooperatively with the Israeli military, as the Palestinian Authority does, Israel defeats all of those efforts.

Palestinians have not gained anything from those ethical, nonviolent struggles.

[13:50:00]

So, if we are horrified by October 7th and we oppose the ideology of Hamas and we don't want a single Israeli Jew to die, we are incumbent, it seems

to me, on us to support ethical, humane, nonviolent Palestinian resistance to show Palestinians that there's a better way. And I fear that the United

States government in Israel and the organized American Jewish community has done exactly the opposite.

MARTIN: Is it your view that more people share your view than are willing to express it publicly, particularly in the wake of October 7th?

BEINART: Yes.

MARTIN: I remember a conversation that I had with a young college student who is observant, like yourself, deeply observant, and said that in the

wake of October 7th, she said to her parents, well, didn't we want a place where we could be safe and free? Don't Palestinians want the same thing?

They want a place where they can be safe and free?

BEINART: Right.

MARTIN: And she told me that her parents said to her, now is not the time.

BEINART: Polling shows, actually -- that particularly among younger American Jews, that a remarkably high percentage of young American Jews say

things like they think Israel is an apartheid state. And there was a fascinating poll done by a Canadian political scientist, Mira Sucharov,

where she asked American Jews if they consider themselves, would you consider yourself a Zionist, if Zionism means that Israeli Jews have more

rights than Palestinians? Most American Jews said no.

So, there are undoubtedly a lot of very passionate supporters of the State of Israel and of what is -- and of this war. But there's also a climate of

fear that exists in the American Jewish community. Rabbis know that if you publicly criticize Israel too harshly, you very well lose your job, or if

you're a teacher at a Jewish school or a Jewish camp, people know this very well. And so, oftentimes people suppress what they say. Young American

Jewish kids know this as well, that the consequences for them could be very severe.

And so, I think that there's much more division and much more diversity of opinion among American Jews than you might sometimes know, because

sometimes people are afraid to express it.

MARTIN: One of the things that we haven't talked about yet, though, that I do want to talk about is this whole question of who is indigenous, like who

are the indigenous people, right?

BEINART: Yes, yes.

MARTIN: And, you know, one of the arguments that's emerged is that it describes Israel as a settler colonial state. It sort of suggests that

these are people who came from someplace else and planted themselves on the indigenous people, displaced them, killed them, oppressed them, et cetera.

But then other people argue that Jews also have indigenous rights to this land. So, how do you think about that?

BEINART: I think both of these things can be true. Nobody needs to tell me that Jews have a deep and profound ancient spiritual connection to this

place. When I woke up this morning, I prayed a liturgy which spoke about a desire to return to the land of Israel. It's very, very deep within our

tradition.

But it's also the case that the Zionist movement was created in the late 19th and early 20th century by Europeans who referred to themselves as

colonists. Theodor Herzl writes to Cecil Rhodes, the arch imperialist of Southern Africa, and says, we have a colonial project here. It's just like

yours. Vladimir Jabotinsky, the founder of revisionist Zionism, Netanyahu's own tradition.

Colonial was a positive term for them. It meant bringing modernity to a backward part of the world. And people say, wait a second, it can't be

settler colonial if people have deep roots in that place. Cornel West's answer to that is to cite Liberia, right? The people who colonized Liberia

were enslaved black Americans who had come from West Africa. They also had roots in that place, but when they went back to create a state in Liberia,

they oppressed the native populations there because they also had notions of them as -- of themselves as kind of coming from a superior society and

wanting to rule. So, these two things can both be the case.

And as you said, Jews have the right to live equally and safely in Israel- Palestine. I believe that very, very deeply. But that doesn't mean you have the right to superiority over another people.

MARTIN: What is your vision for this land?

BEINART: Israel-Palestine is a binational society. You have two nations -- two groups that both see themselves as nations, that both that speak a

foreign language. That would have to be represented in government. So, it would might be a binational democracy.

But the principle that I believe is that wherever Jews and Palestinians live alongside one another, they should be -- they should live equally

under the law. And I -- my hope, I don't know if I'll ever see it, is that when we look at what happened in South Africa and we look at that South

African legal team that went to the International Court of Justice and there were white people and black people and Indian people and people and

of all different backgrounds, and they were saying, look at us. We overcame supremacy and we are now fighting to make -- to fight for that principle

around the world of human equality.

[13:55:00]

That's my dream of what we could have among Palestinians and Israelis. A legal team of Palestinian and Israeli Jews saying, we overcame of

supremacy. We live together in equality and are what we accomplished can be now an inspiration for the world. And I really believe the world needs that

inspiration today.

MARTIN: Peter Beinart, thank you so much for talking with us.

BEINART: Thank you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

GOLODRYGA: And that is it for now. Thank you so much for watching, and goodbye from New York.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:00:00]

END