Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Trump Meets with Irish PM at the WH; Interview with Former U.S. Ambassador to NATO Kurt Volker; Interview with ACLU National Legal Director Cecillia Wang; Interview with, "The Prof G Pod" and "Pivot" Host and NYU Sterm School of Business Professor of Marketing Scott Galloway. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired March 12, 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]
MICHAEL MARTIN, IRISH PRIME MINISTER: The peace process that you've just spoken about. And I recall back in the early '90s when the first tentative
steps to get peace in Ireland, people criticized people like John Hume or people like Albert Reynolds and then Taoiseach. But they kept going.
And when we got that ceasefire in '93, OK, it took a number of years to get the comprehensive peace settlement. But again, the guns, more or less,
largely went silent. The war in Ukraine is a devastating war on young people. And I think that very simple, straightforward narrative has to be
commended. We all have children. I mean, we're shocked at the prospect of young people losing their lives in that number. Be they Ukrainian, be they
Russian, whatever.
Anything we can do to stop the violence I think is an extremely positive thing. And there will be all sorts of people having qualifications on it,
all the rest of it. It's our job then to work on it and to try and build it. Europe, U.S. and everything.
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: I will say -- and thank you for that, but I will say, last week, 2,500 young people died while we sit here and talk,
and while they talk about peace. But they've been talking about peace. This should have never happened. This war should have never happened. It would
have never happened if I was president. That's what makes me more angry than anything else. Because you've had far more people die than they
report, than these people report, for whatever reason. But you had far more people. The numbers are far more devastating. You'll find that out someday.
And it doesn't affect you very much, they're not Irish, and they're not from my country. They're from Russia mostly, almost all from Russia and
from Ukraine. And people can say, why are you doing this? Why are you involved in that? Because 2,000 people a week are dying. And they have
families, and they have mothers, and they have fathers. And they have sisters, and they have brothers and friends. And they're dying. And I've
seen the pictures, the satellite pictures that we see all the time, and it looks like Gettysburg in its prime. Because that was, they say, one of the
most horrific battles ever.
You have kids lying all over these fields that are dead. Because the weapons today are unbelievable. Between drones and various types of guns.
I'm not even talking about beyond that with the big babies. You understand what I mean?
MARTIN: Yes.
TRUMP: I hate to even mention the name, the nuclear name. I hate to mention it. But you have weapons today that are so powerful. And I see kids
every week. I see pictures of kids laying all over the field dead. They're dead. Beautiful kids. They're dead. And they're not from here and they're
not from where you are, but he's working very hard. We're all working hard to get this thing finished. It's crazy. Over nothing. And it's not going to
go anywhere. It's just a terrible situation.
And I think we have a chance to get it done. So, we've gotten half of it as a ceasefire. And if we can get Russia to stop, then we have a full
ceasefire, and I think it'll never go back to war. I think something (INAUDIBLE).
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: You've just been listening to President Trump greeting and meeting and talking with the
Irish Taoiseach, Prime Minister Michael Martin. A much more low-key meeting than clearly the one that set the standard between the president and
President Zelenskyy a couple of weeks ago, generally, both of them, complimenting each other.
President Trump saying that he wants to end the Russian war on Ukraine, saying now it's up to Russia to decide whether it is going to accept and
abide by the ceasefire that Ukraine has agreed to. That is a 30-day temporary ceasefire that President Zelenskyy announced that he would agree
to if Russia does too. And then, of course, after any ceasefire, as the Irish Taoiseach mentioned, there would have to be weeks, months, maybe even
years of hard work to make a lasting peace.
On the Middle East, President Trump said that no one is going to be expelling Palestinians from anywhere or rather from Gaza. No one is
expelling anyone from Gaza is what he said. He also, on the escalating global trade war that he started, said that this will continue, that we
will continue to impose reciprocal tariffs.
As you know, he imposed some then Canada and the E.U. retaliated. Now, he's talking about more reciprocals. Anyway, that seems to be baked in. And he
also says that he didn't want to do anything to hurt Ireland, but they do want fairness. This is on trade. That was the bulk of what he was talking
to with the press in front of the cameras there in the Oval Office. And we will remain watching to see what else comes out of it in terms of actual
news.
In the meantime, "Amanpour" starts next.
So, hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour," here is what's coming up.
[13:05:00]
The ball is in Russia's court now after Ukraine agrees to a ceasefire. I discussed with Trump's former special envoy to Ukraine, Kurt Volker.
Then, the Trump administration attempts to deport Columbia graduate student and prominent Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil. What does this say about
free speech and foreigners living in the United States? The national legal director of the ACLU, Cecillia Wang, joins the show.
Also, ahead --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SCOTT GALLOWAY, HOST, "THE PROF G POD" AND "PIVOT" AND PROFESSOR OF MARKETING, NYU STERM SCHOOL OF BUSINESS: America's losing a very important
brand association for economic relationships or geopolitical negotiations, and that is one of consistency.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- the market, Trump's own benchmark for success, in swings and shocks. Hari Sreenivasan speaks with co-host of the podcast "Pivot," Scott
Galloway, about Trump tariffs spooking the global economy.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in New York.
President Trump's global trade war is heating up, and the market is responding very negatively. Today, both the E.U. and Canada, two of
America's biggest allies and trading partners, retaliated by levying their own tariffs.
And into this steps Ireland's prime minister. It went well, his meeting with Trump, but even before this latest escalation, Michael Martin's team
had told reporters that he expected the usual Oval Office treatment from Trump, quote, "A couple of kicks on trade in front of the cameras were
inevitable." One expert at the University College, Dublin said that he hoped Martin would get to say the things he needs to say about Ukraine and
Palestine in private and get out of that room as fast as possible. So, those are the atmospherics.
Meantime, Russia has not yet said if it will accept a ceasefire with Ukraine. Trump said he's waiting to hear from Putin, this after President
Zelenskyy put the ball in Putin's court saying that he will enter a 30-day temporary truce.
In return, America has immediately lifted the suspension of intelligence sharing with Kyiv and has unblocked the weapons pipeline. The Kremlin says
it's waiting for a briefing from U.S. officials. On the terms of the ceasefire.
Now, in Paris today, European defense ministers are meeting to discuss the future of their own European security. Kurt Volker was President Trump's
special envoy for Ukraine during his first term and was also U.S. ambassador to NATO for President George W. Bush. Welcome back to our
program.
I don't know, Ambassador Volker, whether you heard what President Trump was saying, but on the Ukraine issue what do you think is the next we're likely
to hear, knowing, as you do, Putin and the Kremlin, what are we going to hear back from them, do you think?
KURT VOLKER, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO NATO: I think President Putin is smart enough not just to say no, but I think what he's going to do is say
yes but, or yes if. Start laying out some other demands that are off the track not about stopping the fighting immediately, but other things that
Russia might want. To get the U.S. chasing those things, pressuring Ukraine to do those things now, too, in order to try to get Russia to agree to the
same ceasefire that Ukraine's already agreed to. I think that's the way Putin will try to play it.
What I hope is that the Trump administration is just as firm with Russia as they were with Ukraine, saying, we have plenty of time to talk about all
these other things after there's a ceasefire. You need to stop the fighting now.
AMANPOUR: So, again, President Trump keeps saying, we need to stop the fighting now. The question is, as you say, on what terms? So, some highly
well-placed experts, you obviously know Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who has a think tank, he was one of the oligarchs that ran afoul of Putin.
Some of his people have said the rational tactic for the Kremlin is to keep talking, tie up the negotiators, and drag things out. Russia will use the
negotiation process as a pressure tool. Putin will try to buy diplomatic time to shift the battlefield conditions and also, they suggest, agree to
the ceasefire, but only on its own terms, ensuring, for instance, Ukraine holds presidential elections, et cetera.
Does the Trump group know enough to say, no, that's not what we're going to accept?
VOLKER: Well, I think first off, I want to say that I agree with that report, that assessment. That is exactly the way Russia handles things.
What we can expect from them. As far as the Trump team goes, it is really President Trump himself. There is one person making decisions, it's
President Trump. He's trying to push the sides to get together so that he can actually negotiate a deal.
And I think he has the instincts to see when he's being jerked around, when Russia is diverting rather than actually doing what he's asked -- what he's
asking them to do. So, I think Trump's instincts go in that direction.
[13:10:00]
As for the team, look, I know Marco Rubio, I know Mike Waltz, they are very smart people. They have been around a long time. They know how Russia
behaves. This is not going to be any surprise to them. But it really comes down to President Trump being willing to say to Vladimir Putin, yes, we're
going to get to all the things you want to talk about. We can talk forever, but first you have to stop the fighting.
AMANPOUR: You wrote on the 21st of February in the Kyiv Independent, the English language newspaper there, an op-ed, you basically said, based on
some of his first statements in office, President Trump seems to understand that Russia is in a weak position and that continued economic and military
pressure can get Putin to end the war.
But I wonder whether you still think that after what happened on the -- I think it was the 21st, that debacle in the White House, Oval Office between
him and President Zelenskyy and also that Trump has been mulling in public the idea of potentially offering early sanction lifts, early sort of
economic re-knitting, early, you know, promises to reestablish diplomatic ties and all the rest of it, and whether you think there's a little bit of
confusion there in the message?
VOLKER: Well, I don't think it's confusion. I think what you see is an effort by Trump to put on some pressure and to push and to pull at the same
time, dangle some enticements, dangle some things that Putin might want in order to maneuver Russia to the negotiating table to get an end to the
immediate phase of violence.
With Ukraine, they had set up that Oval Office meeting to be a success. They wanted to have some press engagement. It was very friendly at the
beginning. They then wanted to sign the minerals deal. They were going to have lunch together. And unfortunately, it all went off the rails in the
Oval Office in that conversation, as we all saw. And that set us back a couple of weeks.
We are now back in the situation where the U.S. and Ukraine are in alignment, as we should be. And that alignment involves military support,
intelligence support the prospect in the near-term of reaching agreement on that minerals deal. And therefore, turning the spotlight to Russia.
Ukraine, very clearly positioning itself now, saying they want peace, they're ready for an immediate ceasefire, and turning that to Russia. And
President Trump has spoken about sanctions, he's spoken about Russia's weakness as an economy, I think he's aware of that. He's trying to get
Putin to engage, trying to dangle some things, but also willing to push if we have to do that, but giving Putin the chance to actually accept a
ceasefire first.
AMANPOUR: I want to ask you your personal and educated professional opinion, since you know all the characters so well. Two questions. Why do
you think President Zelenskyy went into such a high-stakes meeting not speaking Ukrainian? We know that he speaks conversational English, but you
could see that this was -- you know, there was mixed understandings of the language. And why do you think Vice President J. D. Vance decided to really
turn it into a verbal fisticuffs?
VOLKER: Well, I watched that tape a few times. First off, on the question about language. I agree with you. I think that President Zelenskyy would
have been better served speaking in Ukrainian. Also, that gives everybody time to be calm and listen and react a little bit more appropriately rather
than getting caught in the heat of the moment as they did. So, that -- there, I think you're right.
Concerning what happened there, though, when you see this, it was a very friendly meeting. And President Trump says, OK, one more question. Up to
that point, Vice President Vance had not been on camera, he had not been speaking, and I think he wanted to be seen as having a role in that
meeting, so he spoke up.
What he said was fairly anodyne, in my view, talking about President Trump wanting to use diplomacy. President Zelenskyy should have let it go at that
point and they should have moved on to their private meeting, it would have been very successful. But instead, President Zelenskyy reacted to Vice
President Vance, asking him what kind of diplomacy? Tell me, J. D., what are you talking about? How can you negotiate with Putin? He's a terrorist.
You can't trust Putin. And that just led to an argument and that really derailed the entire meeting.
And as you said, maybe if that were President Zelenskyy listening, speaking in Ukrainian, it still would have created a calmer dynamic than this
immediate back and forth.
AMANPOUR: Do you -- I'm going to play a soundbite from President Trump a week or so ago. After the -- you know, the announcement, the public
announcement, so that everybody, Russia and everybody could hear it, that they're suspending, you know, military, they're suspending intelligence,
they may even be removing the -- you know, the satellite targeting information and all the rest of it.
[13:15:00]
Trump seemed to -- and then as you know, there was a huge attack on Kyiv, actually, and across Ukraine by the Russians. Here's what Trump said after
that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you, Mr. President, think that Vladimir Putin is taking advantage of the U.S. pause right now on intelligence and military
aid to Ukraine?
TRUMP: No, I actually think he's doing what anybody else would do. I think he's -- I think he wants to get it stopped and settled and I think he's
hitting them harder than he's been hitting them. And I think probably anybody in that position would be doing that right now.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: You know, I don't know what you make of that, but that sort of fits in with what all these observers are saying, and that is the president
has pivoted away from Ukraine. He has an animus with Zelenskyy, a historical one. We'll get back to that. And then, he is taking the Kremlin
talking points.
Again, how does that kind of comment position America as an honest broker in this terribly difficult war?
VOLKER: Well, I think he was making the point just from -- I hate to say it, but just from an analytical perspective, saying that Putin's attacking
Ukraine. If we've suspended military support to Ukraine, of course he's going to attack more. That's just a logical follow on. I don't think he was
taking a position there.
And another thing that Trump, and it was immediately after Zelenskyy left the White House on that Friday, after that disastrous Oval Office meeting,
he said he wasn't convinced that Zelenskyy really wanted peace. Now, that's a very interesting statement because Zelenskyy, of course, does want peace.
All Ukrainians want peace. They're being attacked by Russia, they didn't ask for this, but they don't trust Russia, they feel they have to defend
themselves.
What we've now seen, after the meetings in Jeddah yesterday, is a very clear statement, a joint statement, from the U.S. and Ukraine that is
clearly on the side of Ukraine saying we want peace and we are prepared for an immediate ceasefire if Russia does the same thing. What this does is it
gets Ukraine out of that position where America is not sure what Ukraine wants. It's very clear what Ukraine wants. And in turning that spotlight
back to Putin to say does he really want peace? We're not. And I think we know the answer but it's important that Vladimir Putin be the one that
takes responsibility for not answering that.
AMANPOUR: And again, most of the global observers felt that this was gaslighting Ukraine. Zelenskyy and his people have said they want peace
from the beginning, just not on any terms, not a surrender. So, that brings me to the next question. Given all your experience, what happens next? I
know you said that Russia may drag it out and do this, that, and the other.
But let's say they don't give an acceptable answer on the ceasefire, or let's say they do, how does one make sure the ceasefire actually happens
and it goes into effect? And as Taoiseach Michael Martin said about the ceasefire between the parties in Northern Ireland in the early '90s, you
know, the guns largely fell silent, and then it took a lot of years to hammer out the Good Friday Peace Agreement. So, what's next, do you think?
VOLKER: Well, OK, but there are several things here. Lots of pieces. You brought up several --
AMANPOUR: Well, the most is the security guarantee. Really. Even for the ceasefire. How do you monitor it?
VOLKER: Yes. Here's what I think happens. I think that you keep the pressure on Russia to agree to a ceasefire. You don't go chasing down
rabbit holes with new issues that Russia raises. You try to stay focused, and you push them to have a ceasefire. And that means keeping economic,
energy, financial sanctions, banking sanctions, all that kind of pressure on Russia to see if you can get them to a ceasefire.
Second, you enter negotiation about a longer-term peace agreement, but you have very low expectations because Russia's demands on Ukraine are
maximalist. They don't want Ukraine to exist as an independent country. That's not going to be acceptable to anyone.
And so, therefore, third, you have to put in place the mechanisms, to deter Russia from breaking that ceasefire, to deter them from relaunching,
knowing that there's enough capability and will in place that it will only hurt them. That's a heavy lift. That's what Keir Starmer and Emmanuel
Macron are talking about with a European deterrent force and security assurances for Ukraine. We have a strong, good faith effort to have a
ceasefire, extend that ceasefire, make it as permanent as possible. Have a good faith negotiation if you can, but have every expectation that you're
actually going to have to be in a position of deterring Russian attacks and living with a long-term conflict, although it may not be a hot military
phase anymore.
AMANPOUR: You know, we all know what happened to Minsk and there was no enforcement mechanism. There was no real monitoring mechanism and the whole
thing collapsed under Russians -- you know, mostly Russian infractions.
[13:20:00]
But I want to ask you this. You talked about the Europeans and, you know, stepping up. I want to read you what Prime Minister Donald Tusk of Poland
said recently, about rearming, potentially even re-nuclearization of Europe. Donald Tusk said, it is striking, but it's true. Right now, 500
million Europeans are begging 300 million Americans for protection from 140 million Russians who have been unable to overcome 50 million Ukrainians for
three years.
I mean, that is a real logic. Russia has not been able to do what it wanted to do. And all of this, you know, is leading now Europe to be, you know,
left sort of overnight to try to pick up the U.S. pieces. And potentially even re-nuclearize and make more nuclear states and do all that. What do
you make of that?
VOLKER: Well, first off, it's a very clever statement and it's accurate. And when you say 140 million Russians have not defeated, it's actually less
than 50 million Ukrainians, it's probably around 35 now. But even so, it's because of the U.S. military support that we've provided to Ukraine, along
with our European allies, that we've actually helped to make sure that Russia doesn't prevail.
For what Tusk is talking about Europe, on the one hand, he's absolutely right. Europe needs to do more on defense. It needs to spend more. It needs
to have more equipment. It needs to provide more support for Ukraine. It needs to be able to act strategically. All of these things that it has not
been able to do.
And here, I would just point out, I've been in every U.S. administration since President Reagan. And every single one of them has been pushing and
begging our European allies to do more. And now, it is truly urgent that we have Russia on the prowl, attacking one country, threatening others. We
really need Europe to step up.
I wouldn't go so far as the nuclear issue, as Tusk does, at least not yet, but I think that getting Europe to really step up is critical at this
moment.
AMANPOUR: Well, that's because they don't believe they're going to have the protection of the U.S. nuclear umbrella under Trump's, you know, public
statements. But, you know, it's interesting you say, go back to Reagan, because Reagan is the, you know, peace through strength guy. And I presume
what he means is, when you want to get your enemy to make peace, you have to strengthen yourself or your ally who's under attack by your enemy. And
yet, President Trump keeps saying things that make the world believe that he likes -- or trusts Putin more than he does Zelenskyy and the Ukrainians.
Here is this that came from that Oval Office debacle.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I tell you, Putin went through a hell of a lot with me. He went through a phony witch hunt where they used him and Russia. Russia, Russia,
Russia. You ever hear of that deal? That was a phony -- that was a phony Hunter Biden -- Joe Biden's scam. Hillary Clinton. Shifty Adam Schiff. It
was a Democrat scam. And he had to go through that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, in the heat of the moment, often, you know, truth is spoken in anger. He clearly feels that he has a bond with Putin and not with
Zelenskyy. How troubling might that be if he is the, quote/unquote, "lead negotiator, honest broker" for any kind of peace?
VOLKER: Yes, I think what that speaks to is Donald Trump views everything through the prism of himself. He was affected by this Russia hoax. He was
affected by impeachment. And so, he looks at that and he says, you know, I had to go through that, Putin had to go through that. But at the bottom of
that, when you're looking at things through that prism, is that he is fundamentally transactional.
He wants to end the war so that he can get on with other things, not because he really cares about the end state, he just wants people to stop
dying so you can get on with other things. And in this, I think that Putin is Putin. Putin will not come up with a reasonable approach to dealing with
Ukraine. He doesn't want to live next door to an independent, free Ukraine. He doesn't want Ukraine to be able to protect itself. He doesn't want
Europe to engage with Ukraine or Ukraine to join the E.U.
So, we're going to end up in a situation where, despite what President Trump would like to do of engaging with Putin and reaching a deal, I just
don't believe that he will ever do it.
AMANPOUR: Wow. I mean, we got there in the end. Let's see what happens because, you know, yes. Will it ever happen? Obviously, everybody wants to
see this terrible, terrible war end and so much loss of life. But on terms that everybody would consider acceptable. Kurt Volker, we will of course
have you back. Thank you for being with us.
VOLKER: Thank you, Christiane. Good to be with you.
[13:25:00]
AMANPOUR: Now, on that other raging war, President Trump, as I mentioned, said that quote, "No one is expelling anyone from Gaza." This in response
to a question about his dream of, you know, a Middle East Riviera with, you know, exporting all the Palestinians from there.
Now, on this very, very divisive issue, even here in the United States. The Palestinian activist and recent Columbia graduate Mahmoud Khalil will
remain in custody in Louisiana days after he was arrested here in New York. But a federal judge has ordered Khalil more access to his attorneys. The
ruling comes after Rubio ordered Khalil's green card to be revoked. Can he do that? And why would he?
Khalil has not been charged with anything since immigration officials arrested him from his university owned home, citing his role in pro-
Palestinian protests last year at Columbia University.
In New York this week, hundreds of protesters have held demonstrations demanding Khalil's release, arguing his arrest goes against free speech.
Cecillia Wang is National Legal Director for the American Civil Liberties Union, and she is joining us from San Francisco right now. Cecillia Wang,
welcome to the program.
Now, there's a lot to digest here, but from your understanding, what is the ruling and the significance of what a judge in New York has said now about
this case?
CECILLIA WANG, NATIONAL LEGAL DIRECTOR, ACLU: Well, in court today, the judge was dealing with the emergency motion for Mr. Khalil's legal team to
have more access to him. As you know, the Trump administration illegally detained and arrested Mr. Khalil, a lawful permanent resident of the United
States and a Columbia Law University student. They whisked him away from his pregnant wife, his family and his community in New York City and
transported him to an ICE detention in -- sorry, an ICE detention center in Louisiana, initially without permitting him contact with his wife or his
attorneys.
Now, the Trump administration, as you said, admittedly, is trying to deport Mr. Khalil because of his speech and protest in support of the human rights
of Palestinians. The government admits that he has not broken any laws. And instead, they're invoking this obscure immigration law that provides that
the secretary of state may designate someone for deportation if the government has reasonable ground to believe that their presence has a
potentially serious adverse effect on foreign policy for the United States.
AMANPOUR: OK.
WANG: Now, this is completely -- yes.
AMANPOUR: Well, I want to play what Secretary of State Rubio said to exactly your point just earlier today. He said this is not about freedom of
speech, it's not about that. He also said, I have the right to revoke anything, as you said, if it violates our foreign policy standards, et
cetera. This is what he said, and I'm going to play it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARCO RUBIO, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: If you tell us when you apply, hi, I'm trying to get into the United States on a student visa. I am a big
supporter of Hamas, a murderous, barbaric group that kidnaps children, that rapes teenage girls, that takes hostages, that allows them to die in
captivity, that returns more bodies than live hostages, if you tell us that you are in favor of a group like this, and if you tell us when you apply
for your visa, and by the way, I intend to come to your country as a student and rile up all kinds of anti-Jewish student, anti-Semitic
activities, I intend to shut down your universities, if you told us all these things when you applied for a visa, we would deny your visa. I hope
we would.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Right. So, he's laid all that out. Of course, if we were to tell him that, then clearly, we would not be accepted in the United States. But
what he's saying is that, it seems to me, I want to know how you as a legal expert view that, he's essentially suggesting that this all applies to
Mahmoud Khalil. And yet, there have been no charges leveled against him to touch any of those accusations. Am I correct?
WANG: You are correct, Christiane. And here's the problem with what Secretary Rubio and President Trump are saying. The First Amendment
protects everyone in the United States, and the government cannot single someone out for any kind of punishment, including deportation, simply
because of the position that he's taken in protest and in exercising his rights under the First Amendment. Secretary Rubio is simply wrong to try to
read that immigration law in a way that is inconsistent with the fundamentals of American life in the First Amendment.
AMANPOUR: So, again, he's staying there. The judge today ruled he has to stay in detention in Louisiana, but that his legal team, which apparently
hadn't had any contact, physical contact, you know, until now, will be able to have more contact with him.
[13:30:00]
But the question is, his lawyers obviously denied that he was supporting Hamas. He is a Palestinian university activist. He was at these protests,
but they deny that he was sending out Hamas pamphlets or supporting Hamas. So, again, what is the problem here and what is the bigger picture?
WANG: The basic problem is, number one, the Trump administration is trying to smear Mahmoud Khalil and -- with a completely baseless charge about what
it is that he said. But more fundamentally, the problem with what the government is trying to do is that they are -- regardless of the truth or
falsity of what their charges are on the facts, the First Amendment protects Mr. Khalil's right and everyone in the United States, all of our
rights, to say what we believe, to protest whatever we like to protest, and it is completely contrary to the First Amendment and to our basic
fundamentals of American life and American democracy for the government to do this.
In trying to -- in detaining and in trying to deport Mahmoud Khalil, what the Trump administration is doing is not just attacking him and his family,
they're not just attacking immigrants, they are attacking a fundamental American right.
And I'd add, Christiane, that this is part of a larger pattern, a very disturbing pattern of the Trump administration's actions against people he
considers to be his political enemies or disfavored minorities, whether Trump is going after transgender youth or immigrants or pursuing his policy
objectives, when he starts to punish people and censor people and try to chill Americans' rights to speak out against him, he's attacking all of us
and our constitutional values. And this is a very disturbing large step toward an authoritarian government.
And I think we will start to see Americans across the ideological spectrum, from left to right, regardless of party, regardless of ideology, the Trump
administration and Donald Trump are going way too far here.
AMANPOUR: Can I just say, because this has been so vicious, this fight between, you know, different sides on campuses over what's happening in
Israel and Gaza. As you know, this issue of Mahmoud Khalil has -- is now already still polarizing Jewish opinion in the United States. Some
organizations are pleased that he's been arrested, some apparently have been cooperating with the administration, collecting information on
Khalil's activities, campaigning for his arrest, while others are speaking out, other Jewish organizations are speaking out against the
administration's use of anti-Semitism as an excuse to upend the Constitution. This is what they say.
And Trump himself has said in a post on Truth Social, he calls the detention of Khalil, quote, "The first arrest of many to come." He calls
out students at Columbia and other universities engaging in quote, "pro- terrorist, anti-Semitic and anti-American activity."
Do you take that position and that threat that it's the first of many arrests, as Trump says, seriously?
WANG: Absolutely. I think all of us in this country need to take seriously Trump's threat that the arrest of Mahmoud Khalil is only the first of many.
And this is not just about Israel and Gaza, this is not just about immigration. This is about the president of the United States attacking
people he considers to be enemies, people he disfavors.
We've brought other lawsuits challenging Trump's actions to censor scientific research on government sponsored websites because he believes
that certain articles published by medical researchers are contrary to his views on his so-called gender ideology.
And so, I think what you'll start to see as these attacks really increase in scope is that a broader and broader segment of the American public is
going to see that Trump is going too far. Whatever you think about Israel and Gaza, whatever you think about immigration policy, whatever you think
about the rights of transgender Americans and transgender youth you're going to start to see that if you allow the president of the United States
the power to punish people, the power to chill advocates, the power to chill the voices of American people raised in protest on whatever issue,
with whatever viewpoint, then we're going to start to see a fundamental erosion.
[13:35:00]
We won't recognize our country any longer if this continues without a robust response from the American people. And I do think that we will start
to see that.
AMANPOUR: Well, on this issue, certainly, Democrats have started to speak out. Senator Chris Murphy has called it, what happened to Khalil Trump,
being disappeared. Now, we know those words come from Latin America in the days of the U.S.-backed military juntas, which took opponents off the
street and never to be seen again. Some of them just dumped in the ocean, et cetera.
This is what -- because Khalil was taken to Louisiana without so much as even informing his American wife, who's eight months pregnant, or his
lawyers. This is what Senator Murphy said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. CHRIS MURPHY (D-CT): In dictatorships, they call this practice being disappeared. No charges, no claims of criminal behavior. The White House
doesn't claim he did anything criminal. He's in jail because of his political speech.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Would you agree with that characterization that he was disappeared and that this is a speech issue?
WANG: This is absolutely an issue of free speech. It's absolutely true that the government, in violation of U.S. law, took Mr. Khalil from his
home, ripped him apart from his eight-month pregnant wife and put him in communicado in ICE detention in Louisiana.
But I will say this. There is a big difference between the United States and countries around the world in Latin America where people were
disappeared never to be seen again. And that is that we do have the rule of law. We do have petitions for writs of habeas corpus.
We were in court this morning and the federal judge ordered the government to give the legal team access to Mr. Khalil. This is the big difference,
and we will, I am confident, prevail in the court of law and ultimately, as I said, in the court of public opinion.
The U.S. president cannot disappear people from the American communities. We are going to stop him through the courts and through the court of public
opinion.
AMANPOUR: I wonder how long it is legally possible -- I don't know what the law says. So, I'm asking you. How long is it legally possible to keep
somebody in detention with no charges? And I want to ask you this. You know, this may not be a slam dunk, according to some analysts. Steve
Vladeck writes about the case. Although what the government has done to this point is profoundly disturbing, and is, in my view, unconstitutional
retaliation for First Amendment-protected speech, I am not sure it is as clearly unlawful as a lot of folks online have suggested. And that's a
pretty big problem all by itself.
Your thoughts?
WANG: Well, I disagree with Professor Vladeck in two respects. First, the Due Process Clause in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution limits the
government's ability to arbitrarily detain someone. So, let's be clear about the two different issues that that Steve Vladeck might be talking
about. Their detention in ICE custody and whether ICE can sustain a deportation charge against Mr. Khalil.
We believe that we will prevail on both fronts. The government is detaining him, even though they have no basis to do. So, he is a lawful permanent
resident. He lives in New York City. I'm confident that the federal court - - through the federal court system and through the immigration courts, there is no basis for the government to detain him, regardless of the
merits of the deportation charge.
As to the deportation charge, as I said, the government is invoking this very obscure so-called foreign policy bar as a deportation ground. That
statute rarely used cannot trump the First Amendment if the government's position is that Mahmoud Khalil and presumably hundreds of thousands of
other Americans who've said similar things that Mahmoud Khalil said in protest are deportable because of their speech that they can be deemed by
the secretary of state as a threat to the U.S.'s foreign policy interests simply because of what they said in support of human rights or anything
else for that matter, then we're going to be in deep trouble. But I'm confident that the U.S. Constitution is going to prevail and the rule of
law is going to prevail.
[13:40:00]
AMANPOUR: OK.
WANG: The government simply cannot deport a lawful permanent resident because of what he has said, and because they disagree with him.
AMANPOUR: OK. I'm going to get back to how long they can keep him before charging him. But I want to -- you just raised the issues of the foreign
law thing that is why Secretary of State Rubio has it. This is what, this week, yesterday in fact, the White House spokeswoman said about this case.
Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, the secretary of state has the right to revoke a green
card or a visa for individuals who serve -- or are adversarial to the foreign policy and national security interests of the United States of
America.
This is an individual who organized group protests that not only disrupted college campus classes and harassed Jewish-American students and made them
feel unsafe on their own college campus, but also, distributed pro Hamas propaganda, flyers with the logo of Hamas. That is what the behavior and
activity that this individual engaged in.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: As we said, his lawyers denied that. But very quickly, we have 20 seconds. What are the limits of the secretary of state's authority? And
will this go to the Supreme Court? And will they rule as you expect them to do?
WANG: The secretary of state is limited, like all other government officials, by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and by the Fifth
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. And I'm confident that we will prevail in court because you cannot punish, the government cannot punish someone
for their speech. That is just a basic fundamental of American life.
AMANPOUR: OK. Thank you so much. Cecillia Wang, thank you for being with us.
WANG: Thank you, Christiane.
AMANPOUR: Now, from a tariff war, as we discussed earlier in the program, to tax cuts for the rich, is there method in Trump's MAGA-nomics? Our next
guest thinks so, and he's calling it his, quote, "weapon of mass distraction." NYU professor, entrepreneur, and podcast host Scott Galloway
joins Hari Sreenivasan to break down what Trump's head spinning, constantly shifting economic policies mean for the state of American finances.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HARI SREENIVASAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Christiane, thanks. Scott Galloway, thanks for being back with us. Last time you and I spoke,
we were talking about your book, "Adrift." And at that time, you said, America as a country isn't lost, but rather adrift and unmoored. And I
wonder, since that time, has your assessment changed?
SCOTT GALLOWAY, HOST, "THE PROF G POD" AND "PIVOT" AND PROFESSOR OF MARKETING, NYU STERM SCHOOL OF BUSINESS: Well, you could argue that it's
found direction. Unfortunately, I think the direction is more a direction around a change towards a quarter of each party. Democrats are just as
guilty of this as Republicans are in favor of an autocrat as long as that autocrat shares their views.
And I think that's sort of come to fruition here. I think the superseding of our checks and balances of different branches of government such that
one political party that is in control can sort of bypass the traditional constitutional measures or safeguards reflects that America has become, if
you will, more open or accepting to the notion of an autocracy.
I think we are pretty much in a full kind of, call it, maybe most generously autocracy light and much of America voted for this.
SREENIVASAN: Do you think that, say, for example, what's happening in the stock market is a reflection of people's dissatisfaction with this
direction that you're talking about? I mean, I think the S&P's had one of its worst weeks ever. All the gains that we had since the election have
practically been wiped out.
GALLOWAY: I wouldn't say it's dissatisfaction because that implies that they're upset about it. The market is pretty unemotional and is focused on
increasing earnings and people will buy stocks regardless. Sentiment sort of takes a backseat to financial considerations.
I think what's happening in the market is, first off, you have to acknowledge that even with these drawdowns, the market is still
substantially up from where it was just six months ago. It has come back from pre-election. The Trump bump has been wiped out.
I think what you're seeing, quite frankly, is a couple things. The market just may have gotten, quite frankly, overvalued. But I think the thing that
kind of triggered the sell off, if you will, is what appears to be irrational, non-economic decisions around tariffs, where we're basically
ripping up these 80-year long alliances with trusted economic partners that engage in mutually beneficial trade, and that these are not only a bad idea
in the specific agreements we're trade -- we're ripping up, but America is losing a very important brand association for economic relationships or
geopolitical negotiations, and that is one of consistency.
SREENIVASAN: You know, there was an estimate by the Yale budget lab that these tariffs are going to cost the average household somewhere between
$1,600 and $2,000 every year. It's also estimated to reduce our GDP as much as $110 billion a year.
You know, one of the lines of thinking that I hear from members of the administration is, look, if these short-term hits can get us better
leverage to try to negotiate longer-term prosperity for America, this will have been worth it. Does that make sense?
GALLOWAY: Well, to be fair tariffs aren't all bad. Sometimes you need tariffs as a hammer to restore symmetry to an asymmetric trade
relationship. Biden maintained the initial Trump tariffs. I think some of Trump's initial instincts around the asymmetry of the trading relationship
between China and the U.S. were accurate.
What this is, though, is just plain non-economic. I was a graduate student instructor in microeconomics in graduate school. We used to talk about
tariffs, I imagine, the same way that professors in medical school talk about leeches. Like, can you believe they were stupid enough to actually
think this would work?
And the notion that we're putting on ourselves in a position to negotiate some big, beautiful deal, I don't think it's going to work because Trump
tore up the Iran deal and now appears to want it again. The tariffs are off and on. I just don't think we're being -- we're seeing now as a reliable
partner that can be counted on with the economic livelihood of your country.
Think about Canada. We're not even able to give Canada a good reason for why he's doing this. The -- kind of the stated reason from the
administration for what is tariffs that will hurt our economy and dramatically hurt the Canadian economy is that the unchecked transfer of
fentanyl across the Canadian border. You could take the amount of fentanyl that's come across the U.S.-Canadian border and put it in a backpack.
Estimates are that it's less than 1 percent.
And to alienate your closest allies -- think about Canada, Hari, it's the largest undefended border in the world. What does that tell you about our
relationship to this point with Canada? They joined us in World War I. They were in World War II before us, training Allied pilots. They were side by
side with us in Kosovo in our fights against the Taliban. Amazing economic prosperity. We have NBA and NHL teams in America and in Canada,
respectively.
And I love that question, Hari, that was presented by a Holocaust survivor around evaluating who are your real friends. And that is, it comes down to
one question for her. Would they hide me? And that's a really puncturing kind of rattling question to evaluate your friends by. But by that
standard, Canada is one of our best friends.
In the Iran hostage crisis, they hid American diplomats and under great personal risk made -- ensured their safe escape from Iran. And they stayed
behind. And had they been caught, there was a good chance they would have been hanged from crane.
So, Canada has hid us. They are real friends. And for us to recklessly, irrationally, and inexplicably try to hurt them in exchange for what might
be some big, beautiful deal, it's -- it -- the damage here to unwind and repair will take the better part of the 80 years it took to make these
amazing, prosperous relationships that, quite frankly, the administration, in my view, has irrationally taken for granted.
SREENIVASAN: So, how does the world deal with this kind of uncertainty?
GALLOWAY: So, the VIX, which measures volatility, as evidenced by trading and options, has spiked. And the Atlanta Fed has a metric, we're trying to
project what GDP growth might look like in the coming year. In the last 45 days, it's gone from a projected growth of GDP of 4 percent, which is
really robust growth to negative 2.8. The economy is contracting faster than it has since the COVID lockdown. Obviously, the markets are chilled.
I think the silver lining here -- I always like to ask myself, what could go right? Because over the medium and the long-term, the majority of the
metrics in the world do get better, and it's easy for someone like me to try and sound smarter than they are by always being negative. So, I think
it's an important question to say, what could go right? And I think the silver lining here is that Europe is in fact becoming a union because they
realize they can no longer count on the military economic umbrella or the geopolitical consistency of America.
America spends about $800 billion. NATO and all E.U. nations spend about $430 billion on the military. And quite frankly, they have gotten, I would
call, lazy and expectant around the military umbrella being provided by the U.S. They now are convinced they can no longer count on the U.S. to be pro-
democracy and make what are rational decisions in honor of this kind of post-World War II order. They realize they can no longer count on or expect
the military umbrella of the U.S.
[13:50:00]
They will dramatically increase their spending on military, which I think will have stimulative and spillover effects. I think the silver lining here
is that Europe is going to begin to command the space it occupies.
Keep in mind the total GDP of European nations is 19 trillion. The GDP of Russia is 2 trillion. So, there's no reason why Europe, if it gets its act
together, shouldn't be able to push back and be a credible opposing threat to an economy that is, again, smaller than the size of Canada, Russia.
SREENIVASAN: You've been pointedly critical of Elon Musk in the past several months and really even a couple of years. But in light of the
Department of Government Efficiency, I think there is a consensus that people on both sides of the aisle are interested in making government
function better, making it more responsive and efficient.
But what have you seen over the past couple of months that give you pause on whether this is going to have longer-term effects and perhaps unintended
consequences?
GALLOWAY: Well, every administration from Clinton-Gore has had some sort of task force to try and root out inefficiency, fraud, and waste. So, far,
if DOGE is an audit of the U.S. government, then the U.S. government has been issued a clean bill of health. Because this wall of receipts is
surprisingly scant.
The first one said they were -- claimed they were saving $8 billion. It ended up to be $8 million of spending that had already been spent. And then
numbers two, three, and four on the list of DOGE receipts that have since been taken down were just blatantly false.
The Wall Street Journal reports that so far DOGE has found 2.6 billion in cost savings. You could 6X the savings from DOGE to date by cutting off all
subsidies to Tesla, which has cost taxpayers $15 billion. But I think it's more mendacious than that, Hari. I mean, yes, we all like the idea of
cutting waste.
But I believe it's a misdirect, and that is, while we're all kind of have our hair on fire and looking over here, at DOGE, 2.6 billion, the
indignance, the emotional upset of firing good people doing good work, or just the general incompetence of laying off air traffic controllers, or
firing people overseeing our nuclear stockpile and then trying to hire them back, I believe for the most part it's a strategic weapon of mass
distraction to get you to look over here, as the Trump administration is planning to increase our deficit by $800 billion a year with tax cuts to
the wealthy.
All of this is a misdirect. It's sad. It's unfortunate. It's incompetent. It's an -- these savings are illusory, right? But at the end of the day, I
think it's a purposeful distraction from the tax cuts they are trying to put forward at the expense of future generations.
SREENIVASAN: Do you think that Elon is getting a net positive benefit from this? Because on the one hand, he has gained incredible proximity to power
and in fact power for his $250 million contribution to the campaign. On the other hand, the value from Tesla shares have been evaporating because he
seems to have alienated a huge chunk of the people that used to buy his cars.
GALLOWAY: I think the political calculus here was miscalculated on his part. We were talking about Nike off mic. When Nike embraced Colin
Kaepernick, which was a political position, they had done the math, and that is two-thirds of their revenue comes from people outside of the U.S.
or people under the age of 30, none of whom thought the U.S. had it right on race relations. So, they purposely tickled the censors or cemented their
kind of progressive ideology among a customer base that they knew would appreciate that.
Musk has made exactly the wrong calculation, and that is three quarters of Republicans would never consider buying an EV anyway. His largest market is
California and sales are down 11 percent. In Europe, sales are off 75 percent, in Germany in between 20 and 30 and other big E.U. markets. So,
essentially, Tesla has shed a third of its value in the last month. It's given back all of its gain since the Trump election.
What is really going to hurt his pocketbook is that it has now jumped the lab and is now starting to affect SpaceX, specifically Starlink, who is
seeing contracts being canceled by people ranging from Canada to Poland is saying, we can't count on you for something as important as communications
and battlefield communications technology. So, they're reconsidering their Starlink contract.
So, I would argue the political calculus here from Mr. Musk was wildly inaccurate, and he is seeing a lot of his wealth evaporate because the
negative associations of Musk have -- are starting to infect not only the Tesla brand, but also the SpaceX brand. So, I think it was an irrational
decision from a purely economic standpoint.
[13:55:00]
SREENIVASAN: Here we were at the inauguration and we saw lined up next to the president, literally the who's who of technology and billionaires
standing next to him. And I wonder, is this just business as usual or was it -- you know, is this different than what the Carnegies or the
Rockefellers might have done a hundred years ago? Is it just the optics that are different now or is there something more structurally more
destructive?
GALLOWAY: It's a fair question because I think a lot of people on the right would maybe fairly say, look, we may be more transparent and brazen
about it, but it's nothing that lobbyists and lawyers and the media haven't been doing for the left. They've just done it more quietly and elegantly.
When the most powerful or wealthy tech executives in the world are all willing to be intimidated into donating to inaugural campaign, which they
did do in 2020 despite publicly stating their politics more in line with Biden than Trump, when they're willing to be paraded around for the benefit
of the Trump administration, you have what I call a domino of cowardice.
And that is, they text my "Pivot" co-hosts that they hate themselves and, you know, that they hate showing up in the inauguration, and then they show
up. And then, that leads -- gives Linda Iaccarino, the CEO of X, the confidence to demand that an ad agency advertise on their platform or they
risk having their merger blocked by her buddy who has proximity to the president.
What we don't want to acknowledge in America is that rights and democracy are now a function of how much money you have full stop. The wealthy
technocrats and the 0.1 percent feel as if, and quite frankly, it may be true, that they are protected by the law, but not bound by it. Whereas the
rest of the 99 percent are bound by the law, but not protected by it.
SREENIVASAN: I wonder -- getting back to those CEOs for a second. I wonder if they now or will always have a shield that says, hey, listen, I'm just
doing what's right for my shareholders. This is my fiduciary responsibility. So, I give a million dollars to the campaign or to the
inauguration. You know what, it could help our stock down the line, or if I don't give the million dollars, it could certainly hurt my stock down the
line. And that's as CEO. That's who I'm supposed to, you know, be loyal to.
GALLOWAY: I think that's a fair argument, Hari. But what I would ask is they don't ever use the term stakeholders again. Remember all this BS over
the last 10 years where they start talking about stakeholders? Well, all right. The country, democracy, poor people, people who aren't politically
connected, people who don't have stock options in Apple, the 99 percent that only own 10 percent of stocks, are you supposed to be also be
representing them? Are you supposed to have some fidelity to the values, the rule of law, democracy, checks and balances that helped get you so rich
in the first place?
Because let me list all of the CEOs who have filled this leadership void and have said, I am more concerned about the long-term health of America
and what it means for private and public companies, and I'm not going to engage in this sort of this kleptocracy. I'm not going to be an agent. So,
here are some of the CEOs who have filled this leadership void. OK. List over.
At some point, these people, many of whom talk about running for president, many of whom claim to be great Americans, many of whom constantly voice
their gratitude for what is the best experiment and the best platform in the world for establishing economic security and rights, at some point,
you'd like to think they're going to show some fidelity to the democracy and principles and rule of law and checks and balances that played a huge
role in their wealth. But instead, they default to this, quite frankly, cold comfort of, well, I'm a fiduciary for shareholders. Let's be honest,
just kiss his ass, give him a million bucks, and stay out of the crosshairs.
Yes, it's probably good in the short-term. The question is, at what point does someone stand up and say, OK, I'm representing the bottom 99 percent,
I'm representing democracy, and I'm representing what America is supposed to stand for. And paying it forward based on the incredible rule of law,
democracy, fair competition that got me here in the first place.
So, I think that the domino of cowardice here in the private sector is not only shocking, it's just very disappointing.
SREENIVASAN: Author and professor and podcast host of both "Prof G" and "Pivot," Scott Galloway. Thanks so much for your time.
GALLOWAY: Thank you, Hari. Always good to see you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: That focuses the mind there. And finally, from the fiery frontlines to serene ski slopes. A group of Ukrainian vets who lost their
legs in battle have made their way to snow covered mountains in Oregon on America's west coast. It's all part of a skiing program for amputees set up
by a nonprofit that aims to make sport more accessible for people with disabilities.
And that's it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. And remember, you can always
catch us online, on our website, and all-over social media.
Thank you for watching, goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
