Return to Transcripts main page

Amanpour

Interview with U.S. Federal Reserve Former Vice Chair and PIMCO Global Economic Adviser Richard Clarida; Interview with Center for European Policy Analysis President and CEO Alina Polyakova; Interview with Former COVID-19 Response Coordinator Under President Biden and Brown University School of Public Health Dean Dr. Ashish Jha; Interview with UNAIDS Executive Director Winnie Byanyima. Aired 1-2p ET

Aired March 11, 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)

MARK CARNEY, LIBERAL PARTY LEADER: My government will keep our tariffs on until the Americans show us respect.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: U.S. markets sink as Trump's trade war escalates. Could a full- blown recession be in the cards? I asked Richard Clarida, former vice chair of the Federal Reserve.

Then, Ukraine launches a huge drone attack against Moscow, as talks begin between Kyiv and Washington. We get the latest.

Plus, the Trump administration says it's completed its gutting of USAID. So, what will the impact be on the ground? I discuss with top U.N. official

Winnie Byanyima.

And --

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DR. ASHISH JHA, FORMER COVID-19 RESPONSE COORDINATOR UNDER PRESIDENT BIDEN AND DEAN, BROWN UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH: Over time, my hope is

we will settle into understanding just how devastating COVID was.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: -- on the fifth anniversary of the COVID pandemic, Former White House COVID coordinator Dr. Ashish Jha tells Hari Sreenivasan what we must

learn from the outbreak and how people are still suffering from it.

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

Well, as fears of an economic downturn grow in the U.S., President Trump is literally doubling down on his trade war with America's neighbor to the

north, posting today that he will raise tariffs on all Canadian steel and aluminum from 25 percent to 50 percent, and threatening to shut down the

Canadian automobile industry.

Now, this comes as U.S. markets continue to plunge. Just this week, the Dow and S&P 500 each posted their worst day of the year. Republicans and the

president were elected partly on promises of lowering prices. But are consumers now going to see the opposite?

Joining me now on this is Richard Clarida, former vice chair at the Fed. Richard, thanks so much for taking the time to join us. You know, the Wall

Street Journal had a headline just a few hours ago that reads, Wall Street Fears Trump Will Wreck the Soft Landing. Is that a fear that you share now

with his policies?

RICHARD CLARIDA, FORMER VICE CHAIR, U.S. FEDERAL RESERVE AND GLOBAL ECONOMIC ADVISER, PIMCO: Well, it's certainly a risk. It wouldn't be my

baseline case. You know, my take on this for the year is we need to find out -- markets need to find out are tariffs a battering ram or a bargaining

chip. And right now, the pricing is for the battering ram. That wouldn't be my base case, but certainly, there's that risk.

GOLODRYGA: And how do you manage projecting what the future quarter or the rest of the year, for that matter, looks like to your clients, to the

American public, without a defined policy from this administration, because the whiplash is stunning, it's coming at record speed. And just days after

you have administration officials publicly announcing policies that will go into effect April 2nd as it relates to these tariffs between Mexico and

Canada only to have the president himself undermine them with one post on social media, saying, no, this is going to happen, it's going to happen a

double the impact as of tomorrow?

CLARIDA: You're absolutely right. Indeed, one of my themes for this year has been that uncertainty, not just about trade policy, but about tax

policy, immigration, geopolitics could be a headwind to the economy this year. And obviously the developments that you mentioned only really elevate

that uncertainty.

You know, we saw this in 2019 during my time at the Fed. There was a lot of trade policy uncertainty, and it did slow the economy. And so, there, there

is that risk for sure.

GOLODRYGA: But back in 2019, and we know that this is a president that's long been a fan of tariffs. He calls tariffs one of the best words in the

world. He says it's time to make America rich again, and last I checked, America was still the richest country in the world. But going back to that

first administration, at least those tariffs, at the end of the day, were ultimately targeted, right? He renegotiated NAFTA into the USMCA.

CLARIDA: Yes, agree.

GOLODRYGA: And I think you have a lot of economists and business leaders that say, we have no problems with you specifically going after unfair

trade practices in China and imposing new tariffs on China for an example, but going after neighbors to the north, to Mexico, to the E.U. seems to

have no end game in sight, only except hurting the United States as well.

Is there any other explanation you can think of as to why the president is doing this?

[13:05:00]

CLARIDA: Well, not really. And as I -- again, as I think your comments certainly are correct, which is trade now is much more trade in terms of

capital goods and intermediate inputs. And so, a tariff, for example, on a lot of Canadian exports is a tariff on U.S. companies who make cars in the

U.S. for example, and that's why the whole issue, for example, with Canada and Mexico, we have a trade agreement that the Trump administration

negotiated, and presumably, one of the priorities will be to renegotiate that as well.

But certainly, don't dispute that, you know, if all of the measures that have been announced do get implemented and stay in place, it will certainly

be disruptive to the U.S economy.

GOLODRYGA: Well, the president seemed to rattle investors and Americans as a whole over the weekend when he said that he can't rule out a recession to

come in an interview with Fox Business. Let's play for our viewers exactly what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: -- this year.

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: I hate to predict things like that. There is a period of transition. Because what we're doing is very big. We're

bringing wealth back to America. That's a big thing. And there are always periods of -- it takes a little time. It takes a little time.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: How do you interpret when he says a period of transition?

CLARIDA: Well, I think it's open to a variety of meetings. I was surprised. It's not typical to hear presidents in a public forum

prognosticate on recession or fed chairs for that matter. So, I did take attention to it. I think the transition argument is OK as far as it goes.

And there is a regime change and there will be some time to work out the details.

So, I think within that domain, it's certainly understandable. I think where you start to get into concerns about recession risk is if the

transition really then becomes the story and really becomes factors that enter into business hiring and investment decisions, then I think it

potentially could be more than just the transition that he referred to.

GOLODRYGA: You mentioned Fed chair, which leads me to my next question. Jay Powell was speaking on the uncertainty in the markets. I mean, I feel

that there have been so much just in the last three days, in the last day, in terms of on-again, off-again tariffs, and at what percentage. But here's

what he said on Friday as it relates to the uncertainty.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HAY POWELL, U.S. FEDERAL RESERVE CHAIR: Despite elevated levels of uncertainty, the U.S. economy continues to be in a good place. The labor

market is solid. Inflation has moved 2 percent longer run goal. As we parse the incoming information, we are focused on separating the signal from the

noise as the outlook evolves. We do not need to be in a hurry, and we are well positioned to wait for greater clarity.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: I think that he was speaking specifically as it relates to rates. But how do you transition or how do you try to separate the noise

from the actual policy when it comes at such a rapid pace? How do economists, how do business owners, large and small, how do American

consumers digest this all?

CLARIDA: Well, it's difficult. And I do think one sort of high-level observation on this year is, I think focusing now on markets, I think

markets did come into the year with a baseline view, as I mentioned a moment ago, that the tariff discussions would be more bargaining chip than

battering ram. And I think what we've learned in the last maybe month or so is it's not clear right -- to me right now, you know, what the end game is,

at least for the calendar years. Is it building -- promising to build more factories in the U.S., for example? Does it involve, you know, fentanyl

crossing the border or immigration?

So, I think at minimum having an understanding about what, you know, the destination is and what the ask is going to be important to do these, and

that's at a more market level. As you talk to individual firms and businesses, we're starting to see this in some of the consumer sentiment

and small business sentiment surveys. And historically, when people get uncertain or nervous about the future, they just scale back. And so, in

particular, the longer this goes on, you know, the bigger that risk accumulates.

GOLODRYGA: Yes. Larry Summers was out saying that a recession would be a self-inflicted wound. The economist at J. P. Morgan increased the chances

of a recession this year from 30 percent to 40 percent. The CEO of Delta Airlines said domestic demand has softened, seeing a, quote, "pretty

significant shift," and then he said consumer spending is starting to stall. And there's been a 50 percent drop in government related travel as

well as business travel stalling as well.

We know the president is meeting with executives of major corporations, the business round table today. What do you expect that they will be telling

the president?

[13:10:00]

CLARIDA: Well, you've done good reporting, and I think what with what the president will be hearing is more or less what you just mentioned. They

know their businesses. They will talk about what they know, and I think that will be conveyed, indeed.

GOLODRYGA: Talk about the lasting impact of all of this. Assuming at the end of the day, there will be some resolution to this trade war back and

forth and tariffs imposed by allies, neighboring countries, countries whose businesses are very dependent on each other, are intertwined, specifically

the auto industry as it relates to Canada.

At some point this does impact longer-term planning for businesses. It does impact how consumers plan out their own family budgets. Is that in and of

itself what would bring on a recession?

CLARIDA: Well, it could. I myself am not in -- you know, I have big respect for Larry Summers. I'm not in the coin flip camp yet. I think

importantly, the U.S. economy came into the year, you know, in a very good position, a very strong labor market, you know, inflation on the way back,

if not all the way back to 2 percent. And, you know, a lot of optimism in particular. There are important changes I think we could make over time to

the tax code and to immigration that and be a positive and to the extent tariffs open foreign markets to U.S. exports.

But again, you know, that's not where we are now and likely not where we're going to be for some time. And so, as I said earlier, I think having a

clear sense of what the endgame is and what the ask is with regards to these policies is going to be an important part of actually preventing that

longer-term damage. So, I, remain cautiously optimistic we can avoid that outcome, but certainly, it is a risk.

GOLODRYGA: What impact will government layoffs ultimately have, in your view, on unemployment in the country?

CLARIDA: Well, over time, depending on the magnitude of the layoffs, you know, it will certainly begin to show up in the -- you know, in the data.

You know, federal employment at least is a really small fraction of the labor market. But I think in the context of a labor market, that was

already slowing last year.

If you look at a private employment, in particular, net of health care and education, we saw a pretty sharp slowdown in private employment last year.

And so, in particular, you know, in that context, it would be something to note.

You know, on the other hand, since it looks like immigration is going to be running a lot lower than it was, those government workers, if they do lose

their jobs, would probably have -- find good opportunities elsewhere, because overall it is a strong labor market.

GOLODRYGA: NEC Director Kevin Hassett was out rather bullishly last week, suggesting that he believes that we will see a positive first quarter. Do

you agree with him?

CLARIDA: First quarter, I think, will come in modestly positive. Atlanta Fed, which is a widely followed GDP tracker, was negative for a couple of

weeks. It's now been revised up into positive territory. So, growth somewhere in the range of 1 to 1. 5 percent is probably what we're tracking

right now.

GOLODRYGA: All right. Richard Clarida, thank you so much for the time. Appreciate it.

CLARIDA: Thank you for having me on.

GOLODRYGA: Well, at its crunch time in Saudi Arabia, as U.S.-Ukraine talks take place, the Trump administration has clearly signaled that it wants the

war, which Russia began, to end as soon as possible. President Trump is pressuring Ukraine to make concessions, pausing military aid and

intelligence sharing, something Kyiv is hoping will restart if these talks are successful.

Now, it couldn't be a more crucial time on the battlefield where there are some of the largest tit-for-tat strikes since Russia's war began. The

Russian defense ministry saying Moscow was hit by a massive drone attack last night, killing at least three people around the Russian capital.

Meantime, Kyiv says Russian strikes have intensified, killing dozens over the past week.

Joining me now on this is Alina Polyakova, an expert on the region and transatlantic relations. She's the president and CEO of the Center for

European policy. Alina, always good to see you. I'm just wondering the risk calculation taken by Ukraine going into these talks while also launching

this It's been a while since we've seen this massive drone strike against Moscow, knowing the posturing of this U.S. government thus far, the

president publicly stating that Ukraine has been more difficult in these negotiations, and he thinks they will continue to be more difficult than

Russia has at this point, it was somewhat of a risk for these drone strikes overnight to be conducted just as these meetings were to begin. Walk us

through the rationale you think Ukraine ultimately had in doing that?

[13:15:00]

ALINA POLYAKOVA, PRESIDENT AND CEO, CENTER FOR EUROPEAN POLICY ANALYSIS: Well, certainly what we've seen from the Russian side since the election of

President Trump is a huge acceleration in attacks on Ukraine's civilian infrastructure, civilians more broadly, and these attacks have become more

deadly, and they're hitting territories in Ukraine that are far, far away from the contact lines in the east and the south.

And I think Ukrainians have seen that the Russians have ignored the fact that there are negotiations taking place for peace, and they've decided

that they will do something similar. And these attacks from the Russian side just simply can't go unanswered when Ukrainian civilians are being

murdered across the country, not just in the Donbass and closer to the southeast.

So, I think this was a calculated risk to really bring home to the Russians that Ukraine will not back down, that they are not going to be seeing

themselves as in a weak position of losing the war.

GOLODRYGA: And also -- and maybe I'm reading too much into it, the fact that perhaps Ukraine is sending a subtle, maybe not so subtle message that

these strikes weren't conducted with U.S. provided equipment and material, that Ukraine has largely been pretty independent in procuring their own

drones over the last three years and also relying on not just the United States for weaponry.

POLYAKOVA: That's exactly right. I think that's such an important point because there's been an assumption out there that without U.S. support,

without U.S. Intelligence, which, of course, are critical to create a broader war effort, and we've seen what those gaps, especially intelligence

sharing have already led to, which are some significant growing losses for the Ukrainian side, specifically where the battles are taking place close

to course.

But yes, Ukraine has been building millions of drones. They've developed their own prototypes and developed all capabilities over time. And these

are the most sophisticated battle tested, cutting edge capabilities that are frankly out there. And so, they're showing very, very clearly that even

without U.S. support, Ukraine will keep on fighting.

So, any idea that these peace talks are going to be accepted, if it's a capitulation of some kind or a complete defeat, that will not be acceptable

to Ukraine and they'll keep on fighting.

GOLODRYGA: What would suggest to you that relations between the U.S. and Ukraine, which fair to say have been rather frayed over the last few weeks,

are back on track in terms of the outcome of this meeting? Is it the resumption of intelligence sharing? Is it finalizing a minerals deal? What

is it that would give you that assurance that perhaps things have been smoothed over?

POLYAKOVA: Well, certainly all those things you just mentioned. We do want to see the U.S. resume military support for Ukraine, resume intelligence

sharing completely and fully as quickly as possible. This is having real effects on the battlefield. But I think beyond that, what I would want to

see is an equal approach by the United States, at the very least Ukraine and Russia.

What we've seen so far is maximum pressure on Ukraine and nothing in terms of what we're asking from the Russians. So, I think the Russians are just

sitting back and not taking these talks very seriously between the United States and Ukraine. They think the real deal will be made between Putin and

Trump at the table, signing off on Ukrainian capitulation, and they see a strategic opportunity to really complete what Putin sees as the unfinished

business of the collapse of the Soviet Union to regain Russian greatness at the negotiating table with the U.S. president.

So, I think we just have to make no mistake about it. There is no reality in which Ukraine stops fighting no matter what the deal is and for the

relations to be on a better path, well, we want the United States and Ukraine to be allies and partners, as we've seen for decades, and Russia to

be called what it is, which is an adversary and an enemy to the United States and our allies.

GOLODRYGA: And to the point of perhaps a Trump-Putin meeting, a prelude may be what is reported as Steve Witkoff traveling to Moscow for what would

be a second, I believe, meeting with Vladimir Putin in the just the first six weeks of this administration. Obviously, Steve Witkoff, a very close

adviser and friend and confidant of Donald Trump's, technically he's the Mideast envoy, but he's been heavily involved in these negotiations as

well.

How much should we read in to these talks if they indeed do happen between Witkoff and Vladimir Putin and how are Ukrainians viewing it?

POLYAKOVA: Well, certainly it's a very odd situation that the United States is sending in person a key adviser to the U.S. President to go to

Moscow to give a readout without Ukraine present, without any of our allies there present on the conversations that are taking place, as we speak, in

Jeddah on Saudi Arabia.

[13:20:00]

This is -- unusual is really too soft reward for it. In a different circumstance, we would see the complete opposite of that. We would see a

much more effort to first coordinated with Ukraine and with our European allies on what the asks and demands will be for some ceasefire, any

cessation of fighting with the Russians on then we would see the U.S. potentially taking the lead informing the Russians that these are our

demands, these are the things we want to see the negotiating table.

I think right now we're seeing the complete reversal of that where the Russian views, the Russian demands are being given far greater priority and

we're spending a huge amount of effort to make sure the Russians are on board when this is the country that has launched this war three years ago,

not Ukraine.

GOLODRYGA: I mean, it's even stunning and worth noting that these talks between the U.S. and Ukraine are happening in Saudi Arabia before I would

imagine in any other administration, they would have happened in Washington again. I mean, we saw the debacle the last time the presidents met in the

Oval Office or even in Kyiv. But the fact that they're happening in a third country party country, again, where the U.S. had always had a stance of

being Ukraine's top supporter and ally is quite stunning and sends a message of its own. How is this all being viewed among European countries?

POLYAKOVA: There's a huge amount of anxiety and panic in Europe right now over how the U.S. is handling these peace talks with Ukraine and Russia.

The main concern is that conversations about European security are taking place without Europeans at the table. Europe is still not at the table for

any of these bilateral conversations the U.S. is driving forward.

The other big concern that the stop and intelligence sharing I think really raised panic among European allies who have bought so many American weapons

systems that are reliant on U.S. intelligence sharing to be operable. And so, now they're asking themselves, you know, we have bought all of these

systems from the United States. We're spending all of this money in the U.S., but will there come a time when the U.S. government just says, we're

going to shut that down and all of these, you know, multibillion dollar systems you have from Patriots to F-35s, anything you name, you know, are

going to be completely obsolete?

Is this the reality that we're living in now where the U.S. is going to be this completely unreliable ally to Europe? And I think this is the main

debate that's taking place probably as we speak in Paris, where we have a meeting of defense ministers from Europe gathering as we speak.

GOLODRYGA: Yes, I was going to ask you about that. How serious is this idea of sending European peacekeepers as part of whatever ceasefire plan is

ultimately agreed upon to Ukraine physically to patrol the borders there without a U.S. backstop?

POLYAKOVA: Well, it's obvious that if there is a negotiated ceasefire that has a line of contact, the only way to ensure that line of contact is kept

by the Russians is to have an international force to secure that line. We still have 30,000 troops to secure the line between North Korea and South

Korea. And I would say that's the main reason we haven't seen a resumption of hostilities on the Korean peninsula.

So, clearly, this is the right way forward. These are serious conversations. Europe needs to get a force together that is without

question. The problem, of course, is that Europe cannot have an army overnight. And we know that Europeans have divested for decades from their

military capabilities. And that was a mistake. And there's no question about that. So, the Europeans need the United States to back them up

because they know that a Polish soldier, a French soldier being killed will not actually be a real tripwire for a more massive Russian attack on

Europe, unless there is the force of U.S. military behind it.

So, this is why the Europeans are willing to put in the forces now and they're getting it together, which is a huge positive. But they're very,

very anxious that without the U.S. there in some capacity, it doesn't have to be boots in the ground, it can look in all kinds of different ways, that

these forces will not actually serve the deterrent and defense and peacekeeping function that they're designed to do.

GOLODRYGA: What impact is all of this uncertainty from the United States having on the issue of nuclear proliferation by other European countries?

We know that France and England are the only nuclear powers in Europe right now. The fact that this is even being discussed in some countries is pretty

telling.

[13:25:00]

POLYAKOVA: Exactly. Especially in Germany, this conversation around nuclear deterrence has even taken place in Germany, which is a country that

has been completely antithetical to anything having to do in nuclear. Nuclear energy, forget nuclear deterrence and nuclear defense. So, I think

we're seeing a real sea change take place across Europe now.

But I think this issue is so profound because the reason we have had peace and security in Europe and the reason why we haven't had the proliferation

nuclear weapons across European countries and beyond in a massive way is because of the U.S. security umbrella and the nuclear umbrella. If that is

seen as unreliable, there's gaps in it that our adversaries see themselves exploiting, I think we're facing a world in which every country in the

world will take the message that the U.S. is not a reliable security partner, and they will commit significant resource to develop their own

nuclear capabilities, because the Ukrainians will tell you, if they had not given up their nuclear weapons in 1994 in exchange for verbal guarantees

from Russia and other allies that they would not invade Ukraine, they do not believe they would be at war with Russia today.

GOLODRYGA: Yes.

POLYAKOVA: And that is a very, very dangerous message that I think we are currently sending, not just to Europe, but across the world.

GOLODRYGA: Yes, no doubt. These are conversations not only being had in European capitals, but, you know, South Korea, Japan as well, having these

conversations as they're having to go to plan B in terms of whether or not the U.S. will be there to defend them ultimately. Alina Polyakova, thank

you so much for joining us. Good to see you.

POLYAKOVA: Thank you.

GOLODRYGA: And now, former Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte is being taken by airplane to The Hague after police in Manila arrested him on a

warrant from the International Criminal Court. Now, it alleges crimes against humanity relating to extrajudicial killings that were carried out

during a brutal crackdown on drugs. Police there say some 6,000 people were killed, while independent monitors say the real number is in the tens of

thousands.

Duterte says his detention is illegal. Nobel Peace Prize winning journalist Maria Ressa spoke to Christiane in 2019 about covering Duterte during the

height of his presidency.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARIA RESSA, NOBEL PEACE PRIZE LAUREATE: The first thing was the social media attacks. So, Mayor Duterte used social media successfully to get

elected. At the beginning, I was, you know, clapping because they actually did that, but the weaponization of social media happened after he became

president, not coincidentally with the start of the drug war, and they went after not just journalists, and this is very personal, this is a new weapon

against journalists, but they also went after anyone who questioned the drug war.

Then after that, this -- they systematically attacked traditional journalists. We weren't first in line. We were third. The largest

newspaper. The largest television station, we were third in line, and I think we just pushed back.

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: How did you push back?

RESSA: We wanted to continue doing the story, and it was very clear that the government was fudging numbers. The first casualty in the war for truth

was the number of people killed in the drug war. Today, the government will say -- will admit to killing almost 6,000 people. That number alone is

insane.

But if you compare it to what the Philippine Commission on Human Rights and the U.N. says, it's more than 27,000 people killed. That's genocide, right?

So, we did that. We went after the impunity that was happening, people getting killed without any due process. And then, we then started looking

at the disinformation networks, the propaganda war.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: The ICC now says that as many as 30,000 may have been killed over the years. Well, Washington's gutting of USAID is now complete.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio says 83 percent of its programs have now been eliminated. Rubio hailed the cuts as, quote, "an overdue and historic

reform." People on the ground argue otherwise, warning that the extraordinary chaotic and rapid process has led to confusion and will put

lives at risk.

There's still little clarity about what even survived the cuts. The United Nations is warning that one area certainly affected is HIV response across

the world. Well, for millions in Uganda and across Africa, USAID is a lifeline for people who rely on anti-retroviral drugs that keep them alive.

Larry Madowo has this report from Kampala, Uganda.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SAMUEL LINDA: I feel traumatized. I feel low.

LARRY MADOWO, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): 36-year-old Samuel Linda has been living with HIV since 2014, getting his lifesaving drugs from a USAID

project. But his supplies are almost out.

LINDA: I feel like the world is ending tomorrow, because I don't know where I'm going to go. I don't know my tomorrow, if I'll be alive or dead.

MADOWO (voice-over): He distributes U.S. funded condoms in his community to stop new infections. And make sure the infected keep taking their

medications.

[13:30:00]

Meanwhile, patients at this USAID funded facility in the Ugandan capital, Kampala, wait, hoping their treatments are still available. Nearly 1,000

employees here have been followed after the U.S. stop work orders. It's still running, for now, though no one knows for how much longer.

Its leader, Dr. Andrew Kambugu, is a U.C. Berkeley alum, who is grateful for American generosity, but worries about the future for his staff and

patients.

DR. ANDREW KAMBUGU, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INFECTIOUS DISEASES INSTITUTE UGANDA: We are in the throes of an Ebola outbreak, and before the Ebola

outbreak, Uganda is grappling with an Mpox outbreak. So, we find ourselves in a situation where a number of infectious diseases have converged.

MADOWO (voice-over): USAID is a lifeline to millions here. Millions who would be stuck without it.

MADOWO: These are thank you notes from patients here to the medical team at the Infectious Diseases Institute in Uganda. They cover HIV, TB, Mpox,

and even the current Ebola outbreak, the country's eighth. The implication is that U.S. funding has kept patients like these ones alive.

MADOWO (voice-over): The U.S. is one of Uganda's largest donors, spending more than half a billion dollars in health care alone every year. More than

a third of USAID funds came to Africa in 2023. Those dollars saved lives, but also supported many Americans.

WINNIE BYANYIMA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, UNAIDS: Without U.S. funding, people die. Without global collaboration, people die.

MADOWO (voice-over): Winnie Byanyima runs the U.N.'s global response to the AIDS epidemic. They warn that up to 6.3 million people could die by

2029 if the U.S. cuts off funding. Americans will also lose out.

BYANYIMA: Actually, sometimes I say we have the diseases, they have the profits. They make money. The aid connects them to markets and markets

benefit American jobs are created at home.

MADOWO: So, USAID is not just charity to African countries?

BYANYIMA: No, no, no. It's mutually beneficial.

MADOWO (voice-over): But the negative sentiment isn't one that's shared by all of Africa's leaders. In an exclusive interview with CNN, Rwanda's

president says the continent has to wean itself off aid.

PAUL KAGAME, RWANDAN PRESIDENT: In President Trump's unconventional ways of doing things, I completely agree with him on many things.

MADOWO: Even though it will hurt you as Rwanda, which depends on some U.S. aid to fund your health care and development?

KAGAME: We might learn some lessons.

MADOWO (voice-over): Self-sufficient countries might sound ideal in theory, but it brings little comfort to the millions across the world whose

very survival hangs in the balance.

Larry Madowo, CNN, Kampala, Uganda.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

[13:30:00]

GOLODRYGA: And we'll have more on the story later in the program. Well, as President Trump's reforms threaten to dismantle the world of health, our

next guest is taking a look back to discover how we got here.

Five years ago today, COVID-19 was declared a pandemic and the world changed forever. Since then, there have been over 700 million cases and 7

million deaths worldwide. As a COVID-19 coordinator under President Biden, Dr. Ashish Jha helped lead the U.S. response. And now, he joins Hari

Sreenivasan to reflect on how the pandemic transformed society and how it continues to impact us today.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

HARI SREENIVASAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Bianna, thanks. Dr. Ashish Jha, thanks so much for joining us. We're about five years out now

from the beginning of COVID, and there is still long COVID, a few million people. I think 3 to 5 million Americans are describing symptoms consistent

with that. First, I guess just to set the table for our audience, describe what this illness is.

DR. ASHISH JHA, FORMER COVID-19 RESPONSE COORDINATOR UNDER PRESIDENT BIDEN AND DEAN, BROWN UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH: Yes, well, first of

all, Hari, thanks for having me back.

You know, long COVID is basically a post-viral syndrome that we've seen this with other infectious disease, we saw this after the 1918 flu

pandemic. It's probably not one condition, it's probably three or four different potential conditions. For some people they just had a really bad

bout of COVID and just have ongoing symptoms. For others the infection might not have even been that severe, but it triggered an immunologic

response, and they have essentially an autoimmune disorder.

And there's probably a subset of people who continue to have symptoms of persistent infection, chronic infection. So, it's a mix of all three, but

all three groups of people are continuing to suffer weeks, often months after their initial infection.

SREENIVASAN: For the people who, you know, say, my life hasn't been the same, but I can't really put my finger on it, when they go to their primary

care physician there's not like there's some sort of test that we can do this to say, oh, you've got long COVID.

DR. JHA: Yes, that's right. And unfortunately, what that has also meant is that some of these people have had their concerns dismissed or minimized,

which of course is very unfortunate and wrong.

[13:35:00]

The truth is, and again, we don't have good estimates, but my best guess is sort of along yours, 3 to 5 million Americans continue to suffer. And there

isn't a single test. That's why we need more research in this area, both to define the disease, but of course, ultimately, to find ways of treating

these people so they can get better.

There have been a few different treatments that have been tried. Some antivirals for long periods of time do seem to be helpful for a subset of

the population, maybe that's the group that might have a chronic infection. You know, until we more clearly define what the set of ailments are it's

going to be hard to find one treatment that's going to work for everything. We probably won't.

So, what needs to happen right now is NIH needs to be funding studies that both define the populations a bit better. And then, within each population,

we need to be trying new types of treatments, whether it's immune modulation for people who have autoimmune disease, antiviral drugs, that

research really needs to continue. Unfortunately, it just doesn't seem to be a lot of interest in Congress or the administration in funding that

work.

SREENIVASAN: All right. So, as we kind of head into this administration's priorities, they want to cut costs wherever they can, research funding

seems to be on the chopping block at several different agencies. So, do you think the NIH is going to be able to carry out the type of research that

may affect and eventually help all these Americans?

DR. JHA: Yes, we started some of that work when I was at the Biden White House, but I will say that my senses that has largely come to a halt. I'm

not hearing a lot of interest in this administration in continuing that work and certainly where Congress is right now, I'm very worried that

there's not going to be a continuation of support for research is going to help these Americans get better.

SREENIVASAN: I think people would understand that there are lingering physical effects, but there was a 2023 study from NIH that found an

interesting correlation between kind of the mental health effects, the anxiety, the depression, even PTSD. How could that happen?

DR. JHA: And so, this is actually really important. And unfortunately, it gets misused by sort of COVID minimizers who say, ah, see, here's the

evidence that this is all just mental illness or just in people's heads. The actual issue is that when you develop an acute illness and then all of

a sudden you don't really get better, let's say six months, a year, two years later, that can be incredibly debilitating. And yes, it has physical

effects, but it also obviously has mental health effects.

You may have had very ambitious plans for your life. You may be an athlete. You may be somebody who had a vision of what you'd be able to do, and when

that is really disrupted, it absolutely can cause anxiety, depression other symptoms. That doesn't mean that COVID is all in your head, or somehow this

COVID -- long COVID is a mental health issue. The mental health issues are often a byproduct of people not recovering.

SREENIVASAN: There was a World Health Organization regional director in Europe who said this past October that we seem to have a collective amnesia

about COVID-19. And do you agree with that?

DR. JHA: I do. You know, it's interesting. When I was at the White House, I did this -- I called up a whole bunch of historians to ask them about,

you know, how do pandemics come to an end? What does history tell us? And the one theme every historian brought up is the idea of a collective

amnesia that follows every major pandemic throughout human history.

And I think it's a little bit of a trauma reaction. It's such a traumatic event for a society to go through a pandemic. And for some periods of time

there is collective amnesia, then there's an attempt to kind of rewrite history and say, actually, it was never that bad. Maybe we exaggerated and

overdid it. Over time, my hope is we will settle in to understanding just how devastating COVID was and how we can learn the lessons to do better in

the future.

SREENIVASAN: I wonder if those historians told you after those pandemics was the sort of reaction used as a political football? I mean, it seems to

be that way now.

DR. JHA: It does. And I think throughout history we've seen that happen again and again. It has also been an impetus for a lot of good action. I

think that a lot of people who think that a lot of the movement that happened for towards universal health systems, even the founding of NIH,

all in the 1920s, to some extent, a reaction to the 1918 flu pandemic.

If you go back into kind of prior times there are large political consequences that come out of pandemics and how they were responded to. So,

I think this is, in some ways, to be expected. You always hope that we're going to learn the lessons of history and do better, but we often find

ourselves trapped by the same problems that our ancestors are in.

SREENIVASAN: You served in the Biden White House. You were the COVID-19 coordinator. And so, you have, you know, some insight into this. Are you

surprised that here we are five years now and we have not used this pandemic as an opportunity to make those kinds of investments that we might

have made 100 years ago after the 1918 flu pandemic?

DR. JHA: Yes. I'm worried, in some ways, that there is backsliding. I mean, I think certainly in the few years -- the first years of the pandemic

there were a lot of investments when I was at the White House. I spent a lot of time thinking not just about how do we bring COVID to an end, but

how do we do better in the future?

[13:40:00]

But I -- you know, I've been talking to people in the Trump administration. I am worried in the larger landscape this sort of sliding back, pulling

back on preparedness, not making the kind of investments that ensure that in the future when we hit another biological crisis, whether it's pandemics

or a biological attack that we are much, much better prepared. And I just worry that we're not doing that right now.

SREENIVASAN: Were there episodes in the Biden administration in the response to the pandemic where the decisions were politicized, where there

were -- there was perhaps a medical prescription that you would have had and there were other factors that also weighed in on what to share with the

public and when, what sort of steps we should all collectively take, where we should make our investments?

DR. JHA: Look, I think my experience, I can talk about the time I was there, which was obviously not during the entire administration, but my

experience, what I would say is that on things where the public health answer was clear, it was pretty clear what to do, and we did it and we

talked about it quite openly. When I think about promoting vaccines, promoting treatments, promoting testing for people who are infected, those

are the right public health answers, and you saw the administration lean pretty heavily on that.

There are a lot of other issues in which it is necessarily -- and I say political is a -- you know, not as a dirty word, but politics is how you

negotiate different perspectives. There were places where the labor groups had a different view than the business groups who might have had a

different view than CDC. And so, there was always that kind of conversation.

You know, my job was officially the White House COVID-19 response coordinator. My job was trying to coordinate all of these different views

to try to come to an answer in a way that all these sorts of different stakeholders could feel good about. We didn't always get that right.

But where I think the public health message was clear, we leaned in. But where there was a lot more uncertainty, you had to let everybody else weigh

in with what their views were and then try to come to an answer that was sort of optimal for the American people.

SREENIVASAN: I asked that partly because there seems to be an interest in this Congress to relitigate some of what happened after the pandemic, how

the decisions were taken. And I wonder, are you concerned, having had that job that you'll have to testify in front of Congress?

DR. JHA: I'm not particularly concerned about me. What I am concerned about is sort of a rewriting of kind of what happened. I mean, do I think

the Biden administration got everything right? They didn't. Do I think -- even when I was there, I don't think I got everything right. And I think

there's plenty to look at and say, how do we do better overall.

When I think about the mistakes over the last five years, some of it happened before President Biden came in. For instance, the way schools were

handled, I think there is broad consensus that schools were closed for way too long. They should have opened up much earlier, in the fall of 2020. I

have personally said publicly that even though I was very supportive of vaccine mandates, I believe they saved a lot of lives, you know, over the

long run, I think they also fueled a lot of vaccine distrust, and I worry that maybe those that was the wrong policy decision.

I think we need to have honest and open conversations about these things, Hari, because we're going to face these kinds of challenges again, and

trying to have a conversation in a very open, with a spirit of inquiry, acknowledging mistakes, trying to do better, that's what we need to be

doing, and not the sort of political litigation that is happening in Washington right now.

SREENIVASAN: I wonder if you're seeing this from your perspective, which is this significant distrust of institutions, of government, of vaccines

and science, and what are the consequences of that slide?

DR. JHA: Yes, this is probably the thing that worries me most when I think about the future. I mean, look, one of the huge successes of the COVID-19

pandemic was the ability to build vaccines very quickly, treatments very quickly. But none of that is useful if people don't trust it enough to get

vaccinated. We're seeing outbreaks of measles. I worry about bird flu.

And what has happened is while there is in fact a bigger distrust of institutions, people have also exploited mistakes public health officials

have made to essentially try to discredit the entire public health enterprise. I remind people life expectancy in America has almost doubled

in the last 100, 120 years, largely because of the interventions of medicine and public health. It's been a huge boom for our health. And we

have got to go back to basic principles of the scientific method.

I think if we can do that, I think we communicate with people effectively about what the ups and downs of the scientific method is, I hope that we

can begin to rebuild that trust, but it is not going to be done overnight.

SREENIVASAN: You mentioned the measles outbreak right now in Texas. And I wonder here we were as a nation so close to having completely eradicated

it, were you surprised that a community in Texas had such a rapid spread?

[13:45:00]

DR. JHA: Yes. Well, measles for your audience knows that is the most contagious virus sort of known to humans, it is just incredibly contagious,

it spreads very quickly. As soon as population immunity starts dropping below about 90, 95 percent.

And so, what has happened in the last few years has been -- actually there's been a concerted campaign against vaccines for a long time, but

it's really caught, I think, wind in the last few years, obviously culminating in RFK Jr. becoming the health secretary of America. I mean,

the person who's done more to so distrust on vaccines now runs the health enterprise of the U.S. government.

What it has done is cause a lot of people to question vaccines and vaccine effectiveness and vaccine safety and has left a lot of communities

vulnerable. In that context, one is not surprised to see measles breaking out. It's incredibly disappointing, especially when you start seeing people

getting really sick and dying from measles, given how incredibly preventable all of this is.

SREENIVASAN: You know, speaking of RFK Jr., he had published an op-ed recently where he, I would say, promoted the use of vaccines. But what did

you think of the op-ed?

DR. JHA: Well, first of all, it was great to see him promoting vaccines. I mean, thank goodness that at least he's willing to do that. The unfortunate

part here is that he also -- and then he went and did an interview on Fox News. He also says a lot of things that are largely not just they're wrong,

and they also cause a lot of confusion. He talks a lot about treatments for measles. There actually are no real treatments for measles.

Yes, vitamin A can be helpful for people who are vitamin A deficient, but it's not a treatment for measles. He talks about cod liver oil. That was,

by the way, cutting edge treatments in the 1930s. We don't use cod liver oil anymore because we have vaccines.

The problem with RFK Jr. is he buries the lead and sort of wraps it with a lot of other information that actually, frankly, confuses people. A real

health secretary right now would be very clear, very unequivocal that everybody's got to get vaccinated.

SREENIVASAN: You know, back in 2021 he was petitioning the FDA to revoke authorization for all COVID vaccines and to not approve any vaccines for it

in the future. What are the consequences of that, considering now that the head of the FDA is someone who reports to him?

DR. JHA: Yes. So, first of all, obviously, I think we all hope that does not happen. I would set a terrible precedent. There is a mechanism for

revoking vaccines when the safety and efficacy data come in suggesting that something doesn't work, then we should remove it. That's not what's going

on with COVID.

The irony here is he was doing this to a vaccine that I would argue was the greatest accomplishment of the Trump administration during the year of the

pandemic when they were in office, and that's Operation Warp Speed, which was extraordinary, just great leadership, great success.

And so, the question that is going to be, I think, in front of us is he going to try to do these kinds of things for other existing vaccines, not

just measles, but polio others? And then, what is he going to do when the next vaccine for a deadly disease becomes available or comes in front of

the FDA? Is he going to try to block it? Obviously, we all hope he doesn't, but we're going to have to watch.

SREENIVASAN: You know, recently, the FDA canceled an advisory meeting that would help figure out what strains of the flu that we should target this

coming fall. And we forget that flu is actually deadly for thousands of Americans every year. And I wonder if there are strains of the flu that do

not have a vaccine out on store shelves, so to speak, does that compound the dangers to people who might also be infected by COVID-19?

DR. JHA: Yes. So, let's remember, every year about 30 to 50 million Americans get infected with the flu. It's pretty bad, pretty nasty. About

30,000 Americans, mostly older Americans die of flu every year, though some children and young adults as well.

You know, we pick a strain by working with WHO and American expertise is very important to making sure that we get the right vaccine. The irony

here, Hari, is by leaving WHO, which is what the administration has done, by canceling this meeting, chances are that we're either going to not have

a vaccine at all, which would be devastating for just millions and millions of Americans, or we'll just have to go with the WHO strain and not have any

input. And by withdrawing from WHO we actually end up becoming more dependent on WHO because there is an alternative mechanism for finding a

vaccine.

So, I worry a lot that the administration is putting ourselves kind of behind the eight ball. We're going to make the vaccine selection process

less effective, and we're going to be more dependent on others and less reliant on our own expertise.

SREENIVASAN: I don't know how the sort of scientific research private sector communities work when it comes to vaccines, but I wonder if they see

kind of the signals with this new administration that there is just not as much of an incentive for us to be doing the research and trying to publish,

so to speak, the data and trying to make the vaccines because we don't even know whether the Americans are going to want to take the medicines in the

first place.

[13:50:00]

DR. JHA: Yes. So, thankfully, there is a global community and much of Europe and many other places in the world remain very active and interested

in protecting their elderly. And I think there is a large community of Americans who still want to kind of use modern medicine, who want to get

vaccinated, who want to use treatments that are going to be available. So, there is sort of enough of a market for companies still to be in this

space.

What is happening, I think, with the way that the administration is dealing with NIH, the way they're dealing with FDA and CDC, is there just making

all of that harder and less effective. And so, I believe you'll still see companies engaged in this space. I think you'll still see products, but

they'll be slower, they won't be as good, and people will be worse off for it and we'll measure it in more people getting infected and unfortunately,

more people dying of things like flu and COVID because we're not doing the scientific best that we can.

SREENIVASAN: Former COVID-19 coordinator for the Biden White House and the current dean of Brown University School of Public Health, Dr. Ashish Jha,

thanks so much for joining us.

DR. JHA: Thank you, Hari.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

GOLODRYGA: I want to turn now to Winnie Byanyima, who is the U.N. AIDS executive director. Thank you so much for joining us, Winnie. I want to

first begin by asking you about the impact of these cuts, the USAID cuts, specifically as it relates to funding for AIDS research and treatment in

Africa.

WINNIE BYANYIMA, UNAIDS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Thank you for having me. The impact has been devastating. When the pause was declared, it was very

sudden, and there are 55 countries where PEPFAR, the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, that was started by Republican President George Bush

in 2003, and for 20 years has been supporting people living with HIV with all services, treatment, prevention, testing, labs, surveillance, and all

of that. So, it was a sudden stop.

But we thank the American government for the waiver that came a week later to restore lifesaving services. But I have to say that everything hasn't

come back. That actually, as I talk now, in many of those countries clinics are closed, people are not receiving treatment or getting tested or

receiving their prevention. Frontline health workers have been terminated.

If I can give you an example, in Mozambique, the country with the highest - - third highest burden of HIV, 20,000 healthcare workers got stop work orders. More than a thousand doctors were laid off. So, the impact is still

huge. And prevention is suffering even more than treatment because this is about people who are criminalized, who are (INAUDIBLE) and so on.

GOLODRYGA: And --

BYANYIMA: The impact is huge.

GOLODRYGA: Yes, and one study found that some half a million people could die in South Africa over the next decade as a result of these cuts. Let me

ask you about Uganda in particular, because the country has been known to have some of the harshest anti-LGBTQ laws in the world. Are there

particular countries or counties in this country in particular talking about the impact to locals there as it relates to AIDS treatment and

funding?

BYANYIMA: The people who are most -- first of all, there are 40 million people living with HIV. 31 of them in the million in the world are on

treatment. There are 9 million not on treatment. Many of these are people who are afraid to come forward to services. Yes, they can be gay men, they

can be sex workers, they can be even girls who are having sex but are afraid of being known. So, it is these groups that are now suffering the

most because PEPFAR had worked with us and others to make services available for those who are afraid to come to the mainstream. And these are

the ones being cut.

In Uganda, we had 84 drop-in centers. These are centers where those who are afraid of the law or stigma could go for their treatment. Those were the

first to close. Now, there are attempts to reopen them, but still, people are afraid to come forward and not all services are back.

[13:55:00]

But let me tell you something. There is an opportunity. There's a real opportunity to work to end this disease in the next five years. Why?

Because an American company called Gilead has found, has developed a magical prevention treatment called Lenacapavir. It's an injection given

twice a year, can help us cut new infections down to zero.

So, I have a deal. I know that your president likes deals. I have a deal for him to get all countries to roll out prevention down to zero, and we

will end this disease. And it will be another Republican president ending a disease after years of struggle. There is an opportunity.

GOLODRYGA: Winnie Byanyima -- sorry, apologies. We hope that message is delivered to the White House. Thank you so much for your time and for your

work.

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:00:00]

END