Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs Spokesperson Olga Cherevko; Interview with Ukrainian Member of Parliament Oleksiy Goncharenko; Interview with Irish Foreign Minister Simon Harris; Interview with "Abundance" Co-Author and The Atlantic Staff Writer Derek Thompson; Interview with "Abundance" Co-Author, The New York Times Opinion Columnist and "The Ezra Klein Show" Host Ezra Klein. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired March 18, 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]
PAULA NEWTON, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
Hundreds have been killed in Gaza as Israeli airstrikes rain down in the most lethal attack in months. We have the details and hear from inside
Gaza. Then President Trump and President Putin speak. But what progress will come of their call? And what do Ukrainians want from these peace
talks? I'm joined by Ukrainian MP.
And --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: We don't want to do anything to hurt Ireland. We want it, but we do want fairness.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEWTON: -- are tensions increasing between Ireland and the U.S. as the E.U. trade war continues and foreign policy diverges? We speak to the Irish
Foreign Minister, Simon Harris.
Also, ahead --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
EZRA KLEIN, CO-AUTHOR, "ABUNDANCE", OPINION COLUMNIST, THE NEW YORK TIMES AND HOST, "THE EZRA KLEIN SHOW": We have not focused, as liberals, on
creating the supply of the things people need most.
Journalist Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson tell Walter Isaacson why Democrats need to overcome their own incompetence and begin building an Age of
Abundance.
And welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Paula Newton in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
Hundreds of people have been killed in Gaza after Israel unleashed a huge bombardment right across the territory on Tuesday morning. Here's how one
witness described the aftermath.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): We've been pulling the remains of children since this morning. There are many injuries and martyrs who have
reached the hospitals. And we're still collecting the remains of people, hands and feet. There was no prior warning. It all happened unexpectedly.
And people were in their homes, not even outside.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEWTON: Israel says it was a, quote, "preemptive strike" targeting military commanders, leadership officials, and terrorist infrastructure.
It's foreign ministry adding that Hamas refused to extend the ceasefire.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OREN MARMORSTEIN, ISRAELI FOREIGN MINISTER SPOKESPERSON: Hamas rejected two concrete mediation proposals presented by the U.S. special envoy, Steve
Witkoff. Israel agreed to these mediation proposals. Hamas refused them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEWTON: To be clear, the ceasefire is now well and truly shattered. It had prevented full-scale fighting since early January and enabled Gazans to
receive vital aid shipments and, of course, helped get several Israeli hostages home to their families.
After Tuesday's attack, some hostage families believe the government has given up on their loved ones. And one Hamas leader has said the strikes
mark a, quote, "death sentence" for those remaining hostages. For Gazans, the fear is a return to the sustained large-scale attacks that have already
killed more than 48,000 Palestinians since October 7, 2023.
Joining me now from Tel Aviv with details is our Correspondent Jeremy Diamond. I mean, Jeremy, look, Foreign Minister Gideon Sa'ar said Israel
Had to attack Gaza due to what they describe as a dead end in those ceasefire talks with Hamas. And they assume the refusal to release more
hostages. Now, Israel also says Hamas was planning to attack Israel again. Apparently, they say five -- just five Hamas officials were killed. Can you
try and unravel for us right now the motivations behind this latest move from Israel?
JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT: Well, as you said, the Israeli government has given different reasons for why they have returned
to the fight in Gaza, why they carried out this deadly aerial bombardment of the Gaza Strip last night.
Certainly, foremost among them is this rationale that Hamas has rejected repeated proposals now from the U.S. special envoy, Steve Witkoff, that
would see additional hostages released and this ceasefire extended. But in addition to that, of course, as you said, they have also made this argument
that these were, quote, "preemptive strikes," as one Israeli official told me because of threats from Hamas preparations that they were making to
carry out attacks against Israel, but they're -- they have not provided any evidence to back up those claims as of yet nor have they provided any
further details about what those preparations actually were.
[13:05:00]
And so, what is ultimately clear here is that there was a major gap between where Hamas was and where Israel was, and the Israeli government made the
decision that they believed that carrying out these strikes in Gaza would be the best way to unlock that gap to force Hamas to accept conditions that
they have not been willing to accept.
But on the other hand, you also have to keep in mind that over the last several weeks, what was supposed to be taking place according to the
ceasefire agreement that Israel and Hamas signed were supposed to be extensive negotiations to get to phase two of this agreement, which would
lead to an end of the war in Gaza and the withdrawal of Israeli troops.
And this Israeli government led by Prime Minister Netanyahu made a decision a long time ago that they were not interested in those negotiations, at
least not for the time being. And instead, what they have sought to do with the support from the Trump administration was to get a shorter-term deal,
to extend the ceasefire, to get a number -- a smaller number of hostages out. Recently, that number was five living hostages, according to the
proposal from Witkoff last week. And clearly, at the end of the day, deciding to carry out these strikes rather than try and bridge that gap at
the negotiating table without the military pressure.
NEWTON: Jeremy, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you're at Hostage Square right now, and I do want us to hear from the brother of twins held
hostage, who said this to CNN. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LIRAN BERMAN, BROTHER OF TWIN SIBLINGS HELD HOSTAGE: Basically, I'm terrified for the life of my two little brothers. We know that through
military pressure, a few, we can count them on the number -- on the hands - - on the fingers, how many hostages came back through military pressure. We need a ceasefire to release my brothers. They are still alive and we need
everything to bring them back.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEWTON: Jeremy, how are those families feeling now? Because they had so much hope that they would finally get their loved ones back.
DIAMOND: Yes. That's right. We have heard actually today from a number of former hostages who were recently released. And right behind me on the
stage here, you can see people who have gathered because they are waiting to hear from three of those former hostages.
Keith Siegel, Iair Horn, and Sasha Troufanov and off. And we've heard from a number of others today who have expressed their great concern at seeing
the Israeli military resuming these strikes in Gaza, concerned for what it means for the remaining hostages still being held inside the Strip.
I want to read you the words of Yarden Bibas, for example, who was released several weeks ago. He said, the military pressure endangers the hostages
while an agreement brings them home. And that is the sentiment of so many of the families of the hostages who believe that ultimately military
pressure is not the way to go, that instead a negotiated settlement to get these hostages out is the way forward. But this Israeli government clearly
choosing a very different path at this hour. Paula.
NEWTON: Yes. And thank you for mentioning that. I mean, think about being a former hostage and waking to this news and really fearing for what
happens next. Jeremy Diamond for us from Tel Aviv. Thanks so much.
Now, we want to hear what is happening, of course, inside Gaza. I've just spoke with Olga Cherevko. She is a spokesperson for the U.N. Office for the
Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, and she joined me from Al-Mawasi in Southern Gaza. Here's our conversation.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
NEWTON: Devastating to think that this is one of the highest single day death tolls since November 2023. I mean, the news on the ground, just so
horrifying. One doctor inside an ER, you know, described to CNN that there were children, women, elderly. These are his words, everybody caught in
their sleep, still wrapped in blankets. You know, he describes it as terrifying, a level of horror and evil that he says felt like Armageddon.
You are there right now. Could you tell us what's -- what level of chaos and destruction Gaza has been feeling in the last few hours?
OLGA CHEREVKO, SPOKESPERSON, U.N. OFFICE FOR THE COORDINATION OF HUMANITARIAN AFFAIRS: Thank you, Paula, for having me. You're absolutely
right. It's been a very intense night and a very volatile day as the events continue to unfold. This is really quite the literal and the proverbial
nightmare that we have been trying to avoid that is unfolding in front of our eyes. And these horrific scenes of hundreds of people dead and injured,
and all these scenes in the hospitals are absolutely horrifying.
And these, of course, come on top of more than two weeks of crossings being closed for the entry of any cargo and the situation already being extremely
difficult to begin with.
NEWTON: Just horrifying. And we do have more witnesses speaking out saying, look, they saw charred bodies, body parts strewn everywhere. I want
you to listen to one woman now.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): We were sitting at the displacement school and getting ready for the sahur. I was about to connect
my phone to charge when all of a sudden, all the rubble fell on me. The woman started screaming. Behind the school, there were humans in pieces. My
son was injured.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[13:10:00]
NEWTON: I mean, you know, she's talking about the sahur there. It is the meal that you have before you start fasting for Ramadan. This is the holy
month of Ramadan. And yet, we know the pressure that Gazans are under everywhere. How is everyone trying to cope, especially with the influx of
patients that are injured?
CHEREVKO: Exactly, Paula. This is the time that should be a time of celebration and a time of joy. And instead, people are facing these
horrifying experiences. And of course, as we've been seeing and we've been receiving the reports of hospitals being overwhelmed and already this is,
again, coming on top of a healthcare system that has been decimated over the 15 months of hostilities and relentless violence.
And the eight weeks of the ceasefire that we had the opportunity to show the world how quickly we scaled up and how effectively we could distribute
the assistance all of a sudden stopped more than two weeks ago when the supplies stopped coming in and we've had to then look at how to stretch our
supplies for as long as possible. And now, this.
NEWTON: Yes. Now, the menacing threat of more violence to come. We spoke to an aid official yesterday in Gaza who said that basically the enclave is
on the brink of societal collapse. What do you believe will happen now? Because, of course, when we spoke to him from Gaza yesterday, there had not
been this level of violence. It hadn't been seen in months.
CHEREVKO: You're absolutely right. This ceasefire, what it offered to us and to the people here it was a sliver of hope and something to look
forward to. And, you know, I'll never forget when I met a woman when the war was still -- before the ceasefire. And she told me, most people in the
world, they look forward to a better future. We, as Gazans, all we can do is look back and just hope that the situation goes back to what it was like
before this war began.
And I think she hit the nail on the head there, because this is how people are living now. And this reprieve, whatever little hope that they had,
could disintegrate if the situation doesn't stabilize. And I cannot overstate it and I cannot emphasize it enough that the ceasefire must be
reinstated immediately.
And one more thing I would like to say is that even if these hostilities continue, we cannot go back to square one into the -- to the scenario that
we had before, where we had to spend hours and hours waiting for green lights. And instead of helping -- using these hours to help people in need,
we then -- we instead, we're stuck in our vehicles, trying to move or operating under these extremely insecure circumstances.
NEWTON: Olga, I can certainly hear the urgency in your voice. What would you say to the International Community and to the Trump administration that
had promised peace?
CHEREVKO: We really appeal right now to the entire world with anybody with influence to ensure that the ceasefire is reinstated immediately, that
international law is upheld, that civilians are protected, always protected, that the hostages are released immediately and unconditionally,
and that we are able to restart our delivery of assistance, that the flow of assistance restarts again into Gaza.
NEWTON: Indeed, Olga Cherevko from Gaza, we certainly hope for better things to come in the hours ahead. Thanks so much.
CHEREVKO: Thank you very much for having me.
NEWTON: Later in the program, my conversation with the Irish foreign minister as tensions with Washington grow.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:15:00]
NEWTON: President Trump spoke with Russia's President Putin in a conversation that lasted hours today as the American leader tries to push
his peace plan forward. A Russian source saying the call went, quote, "very well."
For Ukraine, these talks come at an especially dangerous moment as their forces are pushed back in the Russian territory of Kursk.
So, what do they make of the Trump-Putin phone call and what -- and what would an acceptable peace deal actually look like for Ukraine? Do
Ukrainians trust the U.S. to actually deliver an equitable peace? We get reaction from Ukraine. MP Oleksiy Goncharenko joins me now from Odessa. And
I want to welcome you to the program as we continue to take in this news about that phone call.
Give us your reaction, especially given that a Russian envoy has said that, look, the world is a much safer place now.
OLEKSIY GONCHARENKO, UKRAINIAN MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT: Let it be. I hope that the world is a much safer place now. To be truly safe, it's better not
to have Russian Empire in the world. So, I don't think it happened today that it disappeared.
But we hope this conversation brings us closer to peace. We want peace as soon as possible here in Ukraine. But it should be a real peace, not a
surrender. We will never accept surrender. So, this peace should be -- this deal should be inside Ukrainian red lines, which I will call as first non-
recognition of occupied territories of Russian. Second, sovereignty of Ukraine should be secure, meaning that Ukraine makes its own choices about
what army to have, what alliances to join. And third, security guarantees what will prevent Russia from attacking again.
NEWTON: You know, you have discussed their Ukrainian red lines. As you are aware, there are several Russian red lines. What do you make of what an
actual ceasefire could look like outside of this call, noting that Ukraine was not on the phone call today?
GONCHARENKO: If Russia is not under pressure, Russian red lines never end. Like Putin said, there is no borders of Russia. So, there are no borders of
Russia. So, Russia is everywhere when it -- where it's not kicked out. That's all.
So, Russia will want everything. They want Ukraine to disappear. They want Ukraine to have as a vassal state. They want to limit our sovereignty. They
want territories. They want more territories. And all this stuff.
But Russia is in weak position in reality. Russian economy is in very bad situation. Russian army, which claimed to be the second strongest in the
world, and really is a strong army, but Ukrainian army showed that it's also strong. And Russia has not achieved any big goals in Ukraine during
all these 11 years of war and three years of full-scale war. Ukraine fights and will continue to fight if it will be needed.
But I hope we achieve today some breakthrough. I really hope so, because we want peace. And President Trump said he wants peace, but he should be ready
to pressure Russia.
NEWTON: When you say he should be ready to pressure Russia, especially on the points that Ukrainians cannot give up on, will not give up on, do you
trust the United States and President Trump to actually deliver that deal?
GONCHARENKO: I trust President Trump today, and I hope I will trust him tomorrow. Because the United States is our ally, and President Trump is
elected by American people. And I hope, and I'm sure that we have a lot of cooperation ahead of us between our countries. We will see.
But if President Trump will propose us deal, which will not be inside the red lines, which I told you, in this case, that will be an awful scenario
because we will refuse it, and it will be bad for everybody, absolutely for everybody.
So, President Trump, I'm sure, knows our red lines, and I'm sure that he will respect them, because we are allies. And Russia is not ally of the
United States, and Putin is not friend for United States. Putin always said, my enemies are Anglo-Saxons. Not Ukrainians, not just Europe or NATO,
he's saying Anglo-Saxons.
And the fact that he's now trying to be very polite with President Trump doesn't change the fact that he's a KGB agent who aides the United States
of America.
[13:20:00]
NEWTON: You know, I don't have to remind you that this is a critical moment for Ukraine. You are sitting in Odessa and certainly, there are
strikes every day in Odessa and beyond. Russia now has pushed Ukraine out of much of Kursk. Do you see the situation on the battlefield right now
really weakening Ukraine's bargaining power? And before you answer that, remember, Donald Trump has been keeping up with the state of the
battlefield as well.
GONCHARENKO: Yes, definitely. We have a difficult situation on the battlefield. And yes, Russia almost completely kicked us out from the Kursk
region, which we controlled from August of last year, part of it. But all these Russian so-called successes are very, very small in reality. If you
will take a look at the map of Ukraine and if you will take a look at all these so-called successes of Russian army, it will take decades for Russia
to take all Ukraine, or decades or centuries, I don't know, with the rate of their movement today. But they don't have for ability to fight for
decades or centuries. That's true.
So, they try to show that they're strong, but really, they're not too strong. And I hope and I'm sure that President Trump has all the
intelligence information from Kremlin.
NEWTON: Are you not concerned that Russia may have the upper hand here already in talks? I want to make a fine point of this. The U.S. giving them
the upper hand would mean -- you know, you yourself said to Christiane last year that America needed to keep its promises on standing with Ukraine. And
yet, you had a critical pause in military aid because Republicans refused to back the aid.
GONCHARENKO: Yes, it was last year. And today, we also had -- the last days we had problems with posing of American military aid to Ukraine. Every
time it has big consequences. I just want to remind all of those -- all your viewers that supporting Ukraine is not just a charity and it's not a -
- it's not at all a charity and it's not just -- you know, just fighting for values, it's also American responsibility.
In 1994, Ukraine voluntarily, under pressure from Russia and United States, gave up its -- the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world at that time,
the third largest, just imagine. If we would have these nukes, who would ever attack us? But we gave it to Russia under pressure from Russia, which
is clear and the United States of America. And guarantees that these countries will protect our sovereignty and territorial integrity. But
instead of protecting it, Russia attacked us and tried to destroy us.
So, United -- when United States supporting Ukraine today, they are just proving to the world that the United States is a reliable partner. It was
just 30 years ago United States promised this to us by international agreement. So, I hope that the United States will continue to do this.
By the way, we have the first news from the conversation, I see. President has announced that tomorrow will be exchange of prisoners of war, Ukrainian
and Russian. So, we see that there are -- at least, there is some signs of trust building between Ukraine and Russia if the news will continue like
this.
NEWTON: Oleksiy, I will note that is from TASS, which is the Russian state sponsored media. We're awaiting confirmation from the White House. But I do
want to ask you, you are sounding quite conciliatory, and of course, we understand that there is obviously a lot of fatigue with this conflict, and
Ukrainians have suffered so much.
So, we ask you, what do ordinary Ukrainians say about what this deal should look like? How are the people that you represent reacting to the
possibility of a peace deal? They have given up so much. They obviously do not want to creep anywhere near surrender.
GONCHARENKO: Definitely. Surrender is unacceptable for us. And it is Ukrainian army which is fighting. We don't have any boots on the ground.
And if it will be needed, we can continue to fight. But what I am telling you, I definitely can't speak on behalf of all Ukrainians. It's millions of
people that have different views. But I think, in general, the red lines that I told you, they are generally accepted.
So, yes, we recognize the fact that, unfortunately, today we can't kick out Russians from our territories with this level of support that we are having
that we have now from our partners. And we see that at least it is no appetite for the United States of America to increase this support, but
quite opposite. So, in this situation, we can't restore our integrity right now.
[13:25:00]
But what is important for us is to secure it de jure, because we know that Russian Empire will fall apart. It happened 100 years ago, it happened 30
years ago, it will happen again. And we know that this day will come and we will restore our integrity.
Second thing, as I told you, is sovereignty. That is super important for us. We will not -- we will never be again vessel state of Russia. That's
impossible and unacceptable for Ukrainian people. We are part of the civilized world -- western world. We want to become a member of the
European Union, and the European Union is ready to take us. We want to become a member of NATO. NATO is not ready to take us today, but we will
see what will be tomorrow. But we should be sovereign and free in our choices.
And the third thing, security to guarantee, is because we don't trust Russia. And my address is -- to everybody who are now listening and
watching it and also the President Trump, don't trust Russia.
NEWTON: And, Oleksiy, we will leave it there for now as we continue to parse the information post-phone call. Thanks so much.
GONCHARENKO: Thank you.
NEWTON: Now, to the fate of Ukraine. It's just one point of tension between the United States and its European allies. President Trump's trade
war is also building ill will across the Atlantic, while the renewed strikes on Gaza are of particular concern to E.U. countries like Ireland,
straining traditionally strong Irish ties with the United States. Those ties have been on full display this week as -- across the country,
Americans and others celebrated St. Patrick's Day.
Among them, the Irish Foreign Minister, Simon Harris. You see him there, who's been here marking the day and meeting with U.S. officials. And, sir,
you are welcome. Thank you so much and happy belated St. Patrick's Day to you and all of Ireland, of course.
SIMON HARRIS, IRISH FOREIGN MINISTER: Thank you so much.
NEWTON: We do want --
HARRIS: Thank you very much.
NEWTON: We do want to begin with the latest news here. President Trump and President Putin have discussed some type of Ukrainian settlement. We're
still not clear on exactly what they have that is concrete. I will note, though, the E.U. was not part of this conversation.
HARRIS: Well, as you rightly say -- and thank you so much for having me on your program, as you rightly say, we don't yet know what's happened in
relation to that telephone call. But let's get back to first principles here. Everybody wants to see peace. Nobody more wants to see peace than the
people of Ukraine who have suffered so much. But of course, how peace is brought about matters. The peace has to be lasting. It has to be just. It
has to be enduring.
And it also has to obviously include Ukraine in any room where discussions about peace take place and indeed Europe, because this is a war on the soil
on the territory of Ukraine, but it's also a war on Europe in terms of our values and our freedom. And so, we await further information from the White
House.
I hope the call moves us further in terms of a ceasefire, and I hope that that ceasefire could then provide the space for real and meaningful
engagement. But we don't have those details yet.
NEWTON: And you don't have the details. Is it a problem that Europe is on the sidelines?
HARRIS: Well, Europe can't be on the sideline in relation to this. As your previous contributor just said Ukraine is a country that's seeking to join
the family of the European Union. Ukraine is on the continent of Europe. And Europeans, including Irish people, haven't just spoken about solidarity
with Ukraine, we have provided significant financial assistance and assistance in a whole variety of ways because this matters and how this is
addressed matters.
The world has never done well when aggression has been awarded or when appeasement has been tolerated. So, I welcome the fact that President Trump
wishes to bring about a ceasefire. I welcome the fact that President Zelenskyy has accepted that call for an unconditional 30-day ceasefire and
that that could provide the space for meaningful engagement in which Europe must be a part.
But remember, there's only one person who hadn't accepted the ceasefire, and that's President Putin. And let's see where later today brings us in
relation to that. But any piece has to be on terms that is lasting, enduring, and that absolutely involves both Ukraine and Europe being part
of those discussions.
NEWTON: And if this negotiation can cross the line and get to that, if it comes down to Europe providing the security guarantee for Ukraine, given
Irish neutrality, you know, you told The New York Times that you are, quote, "very clear as to the role Ireland can and cannot play." Can you
elaborate on that for us?
HARRIS: Yes. So, my country is proudly militarily neutral, but we're certainly not politically neutral. We've always been on the side of Ukraine
and we've spoken up in relation to that and provided significant practical financial assistance. But my country also has a very proud track record in
terms of peacekeeping.
And of course, if it gets to a conversation around the provision of troops to help with a peacekeeping mission, Ireland certainly won't recuse itself
from that conversation. We have a very long standing tradition of providing peacekeepers.
[13:30:00]
I think of the Lebanon, where I'll be next week, where for decades Irish peacekeepers have served with distinction. So, that's what I meant. Ireland
obviously doesn't take part in any military operations in terms of conflict, but it plays a very proud role in relation to peacekeeping.
NEWTON: And I'm very glad you mentioned Ireland's role in Lebanon, and I ask you directly how could Ireland -- what could Ireland's role be in
perhaps peacekeeping in Ukraine?
HARRIS: So, you'll understand why I don't want to jump too far ahead in relation to this, because talking about peace in Ukraine at a time when
Putin is continuing to bomb civilian infrastructure in Ukraine and all the damage and aggression that has happened there does seem premature.
NEWTON: Right. But the U.K. and France have already put that on the table. So, that's why I ask. Apologies to interrupt.
HARRIS: Yes. Yes. No, not at all. We've already been very clear that if we get to a moment where there's a peace keeping initiative, Ireland would be
happy to consider what role we can play in relation to that.
I should say alongside that, it is going to be necessary for all countries in Europe to continue to provide increased financial assistance to Ukraine.
And my own government took a decision last week to provide an extra 100 million euro in assistance to Ukraine. Because solidarity can't just be
about words, it has to be about taking practical actions as well. And we're determined to do that.
NEWTON: I do want to turn to the situation in Gaza right now and in Israel following Israel's strike on Gaza. You know, you -- your government, in
fact, called for an urgent end to hostilities. I note that many European countries have joined that call.
At his White House visit, Donald Trump told your Taoiseach, Micheal Martin, that if Ireland has any problems, don't hesitate to pick up the phone. Many
certainly view that the Trump administration has given tacit approval for this to the Netanyahu government. Is he picking up the phone? Are you
picking up the phone to the U.S. administration about this?
HARRIS: It sounds like President Trump has been on the phone quite a lot today, but we'll obviously be absolutely continuing to represent our views
in relation to the Middle East, in relation to Gaza. I very much welcomed the fact that the president of the United States wanted to see a ceasefire,
wanted to see the release of all the hostages and the flowing of humanitarian aid.
And whilst I know the ceasefire has been fragile in recent times, it was a ceasefire that allowed aids to flow and crucially also allowed hostages to
get back to their families. And I think of those families today. But what we've seen overnight is utterly devastating. Those strikes have seen
civilians impacted in unimaginable ways. They've seen the loss of life of so many people, of so many children. And we were making some progress
towards a cessation of violence.
In fact, there had been incredible work done in recent days by Arab countries in terms of what the future of Gaza could look like and what we
have called an alternative proposal in terms of how you could reconstruct Gaza and have a future without Hamas, a future free from the terrorist
organization that is Hamas and move towards that two-state solution.
But what has happened overnight must be condemned by all right-thinking nations. It was an attack that had an incredible impact on civilians, on
the loss of civilian life. Hundreds upon hundreds of people having lost their lives, including young, innocent children. And the focus of the world
right now must be on immediately getting back to a cessation of violence. To that ceasefire that was fragile, but that was allowing aid access, Gaza,
that was allowing hostages to be freed.
NEWTON: I do want to turn now to other conflicts, transatlantic ones that include Ireland. In their White House meeting, President Trump told Micheal
Martin that Ireland, quote, "took our pharmaceutical companies and other companies."
I mean, how can Ireland influence Donald Trump? Because you and I both know he does seem hell-bent on claiming retribution. He calls it reciprocity on
that trade imbalance.
HARRIS: Well, look, any new administration has the right to review its trade policy. I respect that, and I don't want to involve myself in
American politics, but I absolutely will involve myself in the politics that affects my country of Ireland and the European Union, which we're
proudly a member of.
I would make this point respectfully, that many U.S. companies have decided to locate in Ireland because it has been very good for them. We have been
delighted with that investment. We've been delighted with that job creation, but they've also done very well. And regardless of the views of
the U.S. administration, I believe that so many U.S. companies are going to still want to do business in Europe and are going to require a European
base. And I think Ireland is well placed to continue to provide a stable business environment and home for those companies.
When it comes to our relationship now, it is very much a two-way bilateral relationship. I'm speaking to you from New York where Irish companies have
created 15,000 jobs 15,000 people in New York going to work today in Irish- owned companies, over 200,000 people right across the United States working in Irish-owned companies. Let's have a discussion about trade. Let's -- but
let's try and not -- I think we need to lessen the period of disagreements between Europe and the U.S. and try to get down to intensive talks about
how we can find an agreement that is good for the E.U., good for Ireland, and good for the U.S.
[13:35:00]
Because this is a vast trading relationship. 1.4 trillion euro a year across that Atlantic Ocean between the U.S. and Europe. And tariffs, in my
view, are not good for anyone. They're not good for consumers.
NEWTON: I would say many countries have made that representation to the White House, but we'll see how it goes in a couple months. I do want to
turn to a topic that I didn't believe we'd be speaking of the day after St. Patrick's Day. But yesterday, the White House welcomed mixed martial arts
fighter Michael McGregor to the White House.
Now, McGregor was found liable in a civil rape and sexual assault case in Dublin late last year. You condemned the visit. You said McGregor doesn't
represent Ireland, and said your views on him are clear and well established. But please, repeat them here for our international viewers.
And why do you believe that Donald Trump would invite him to the White House on St. Patrick's Day?
HARRIS: So, I'm absolutely happy to repeat my views. Conor McGregor doesn't represent Ireland, doesn't represent the people of Ireland. He
certainly doesn't represent our values. The Taoiseach of Ireland represented our country in the Oval Office and many of us have represented
the government across the U.S. over the course of the last week.
But Conor McGregor, in my view, represents the very worst of toxic masculinity. Ireland is proudly an inclusive, tolerant country. And I say
particularly to the women and girls of Ireland and right across the world, Conor McGregor does not speak for our country. And you know, President
Trump can invite whoever he wants to his house, but Conor McGregor certainly is not the representative of Ireland in any manner or means. Let
there be no doubt about that.
NEWTON: Understood. And we will leave it there for now. I do want to correct myself. It is not Michael Conor, it's in fact Conor McGregor.
HARRIS: Thank you so much.
NEWTON: And I thank you very much for being with us, Simon Harris.
HARRIS: Thank you so much. Have a good day. Bye-bye.
NEWTON: Now, after the break, journalist Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson on building an age of abundance and why they believe Democrats need to get
their act together.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEWTON: Next, we turn to the United States where the Trump administration is creating a task force to identify federal lands suitable for building
affordable homes. Now, the initiative marks a first step by the Trump White House to address one of the worst housing shortages in decades. That
shortage is part of the focus of the new book, "Abundance." Co-Authors Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson join Walter Isaacson to discuss how the crises we
see today can be traced back to the regulatory policies of previous generations.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Thank you, Paula. And Derek Thompson and Ezra Klein, welcome to the show.
EZRA KLEIN, CO-AUTHOR, "ABUNDANCE", OPINION COLUMNIST, THE NEW YORK TIMES AND HOST, "THE EZRA KLEIN SHOW": Thank you, Walter. Great to be here.
ISAACSON: So, Derek, a few years ago, you coined the words the abundance agenda. And now, this book sort of builds on that. Tell me what you meant
by the abundance agenda.
DEREK THOMPSON, CO-AUTHOR, "ABUNDANCE" AND STAFF WRITER, THE ATLANTIC: This is January 2022, and I was standing in line in Washington, D.C. in the
frigid air, waiting on a COVID test, which at the time were being rationed during the Omicron outbreak. And I thought to myself, it's kind of crazy
that we are now two years into a pandemic, and we don't have enough COVID tests.
[13:40:00]
And I was thinking about the experience of the pandemic. I thought it wasn't just that we don't have enough COVID tests, we don't -- or haven't
had enough COVID vaccines. And before that, there was a scarcity of PPE for hospital workers. The pandemic I thought was really just this experience of
one shortage after another.
And as I zoomed out from the experience of the pandemic, I thought, you know, it's not just this pandemic alone, it's really America in the 21st
century that has dealt with one crisis of scarcity after another. There aren't enough homes. And as a result, affordability is a major crisis in
American cities. We don't have enough clean energy construction in this country or many other countries. And that's one of the reasons why climate
change has been so difficult to take down.
And as I thought about all of the scarcities, that have defined this modern age, I thought what America needs most is the exact opposite, not a reality
of scarcity, but an agenda, an agenda of abundance. And I thought this abundance agenda could take on housing, to create an abundance of housing.
It could take on clean energy. But far beyond that, you could look at all sorts of other blockages and bottlenecks in the economy, whether it's
policies that limit the number of doctors we have or policies that make it harder for scientists to do their best work.
We need to think about what an agenda for true American abundance would look like. And then yada, yada, we have a book.
ISAACSON: So, Ezra, you've written a lot about this when it comes to housing, which is the core of this book in many ways. Really interesting
part. Including the shocking statistic that in the 1950s housing was about twice as much as your annual salary. Now, it'd be six times as much. Why is
that?
KLEIN: Because in the places people want to live, we stop building homes. I mean, it's really that simple. I'm a Californian. I grew up in
California. I went to public university in California, then lived in D.C. for 13, 14 years and moved back to California, which is where I lived
during a lot of the writing of this book.
And Derek's experience of the pandemic has sort of been my experience of California. I love my home state. It is on the technological frontier. It
is the cultural frontier. It is beautiful. So, why is it losing hundreds of thousands of people every year to Texas, to Arizona, to Colorado, to
Florida? And the answer is that the working class can't afford to live there, right?
These are -- these families are my friends, right? I was in San Francisco watching people have kids and have to move away because they couldn't
afford a home in the city that often they did essential jobs to protect or to serve.
And parts of the book that we wrote are futuristic. Parts of them are about how we pull the inventions we want in the future forward into the present.
Those are things that we don't yet know how to build. But there's no technical problem around building apartment buildings. The question of how
to construct a house is solved. What is the issue here is politics, is process, is the ability to get people to say yes. And frankly, the process
where you have to have so many people say yes along the way.
And you've been looking at other problems in California. Why are we not going to hit our clean energy targets? Well, we've made it too hard to
build clean energy. So, Texas, which does not love clean energy the way California does, is building more clean energy than California is. What
happened to high-speed rail? Sort of the same story.
And it's something you begin to realize what you have in a lot of big liberal states, is true for New York, true for Illinois, true for others,
is we have not focused as liberals on creating the supply of the things people need most.
ISAACSON: You know, Derek, as you just said, as liberals, and this book is written, both of you consider yourselves sort of liberal, moderate
Democrats, but it's largely pushes back at the Democratic Party for being engaged in process, regulation, how much of the problem, let's stick with
housing, comes from regulations and rules and everything and nimbyism and zoning?
THOMPSON: Some things happen to the identity of liberalism in this country. Between the 1930s, the 1960s, the New Deal era, we built and built
and built, and it was a Democrat, FDR, that got us kick started on this habit of building. We built houses and roads. We built transmission lines
and electricity. We built dams. We built canals. We built it all.
And something happened, I think, to the identity of liberalism in the 1960s and 1970s, where we decided that the key to being a good liberal was being
good at the politics of blocking rather than the politics of building. And there were lots of good reasons for this shift. The environmental situation
in the 1950s America was horrendous. I mean, people were waking up to waters that were disgusting and air that was choked with smog. And so, we
made it harder for states and companies to change the physical world.
But the medicine of the 20th century that we administered to this country has become the disease of the 21st century. It's simply become too
difficult to build in this country. And too often, as we look in the mirror, we see that it is liberals who are responsible for this.
[13:45:00]
ISAACSON: So, Ezra, if you look at what President Biden did for clean energy and the infrastructure, there were many things, but one of them was
to try to have electric vehicle charging stations across this country. I'll tell a tale about one of my Tulane students who ended up going in the city
government. He was so proud he was going to help build those charging stations in Louisiana because it's a state thing. And yet, by the end of
it, they had built zero because every time he came up with a plan, they said, well, this plan doesn't fit our equity matrix or it doesn't fit our
labor standards or it doesn't fit this. And so, zero got built. Is that what you're talking about?
KLEIN: That's absolutely what I'm talking about. There's another example like that, which is that in the infrastructure bill, a huge amount of the
money in that bill, more than $40 billion was earmarked for rural broadband. It's a great idea. That was passed in -- I forget if it's late
2021 or early 2022. Either way, by the end of 2024, the number of people it had hooked up to broadband was approximately zero people.
You then wonder, why didn't they win? Right? You talk to the Biden people. I've spoken to them many, many times. I know you both have too. And they're
very, very, very proud of the decade of infrastructure investment that they set off with the CHIPS Act, with the infrastructure bill, with the IRA, and
I think in a way they're confused about why that didn't have more political upside for them.
But one reason, maybe not the only, is that people didn't feel it. The money didn't move fast enough. Having -- you know, getting $42 billion
dollars for broadband isn't all that important if people don't get broadband. And a lot of the book is about this dynamic in which Democrats
will pass a big bill. And it is sometimes at the national level, right, like the Inflation Reduction Act, or it's sometimes at the state or local
level, like I report in some detail on Los Angeles' efforts to raise money to build affordable housing.
And then, you look at how it's implemented. And it is the amount of complexity layered onto it is astonishing. And a lot of these intentions
are well meaning. The equity intentions are well meaning. You know, the environmental things you're building into it are good. But I was talking to
somebody who builds affordable housing. And my God, have they been slow in doing that and using public money in Los Angeles.
And she was saying that when she tries to build it, and she has housing people who live in tents under the freeway, you know, she has to go back
and back to the planning board and they're like, well, you need a higher quality air filtration system because this development will be near a
freeway. Higher quality, by the way, than a private development would have. And that's fine, but it is delaying housing when the alternative is people
living in no house at all with infiltration system under an overpass underneath the freeway.
Liberals should be much angrier about this than conservatives, right? This is a part of modern politics that upsets me. For conservatives, it's fine
when government fails. They kind of want it to fail. That proves their point. Liberals should not be excusing it when it fails. They should be
fixing it when it fails. They should be making sure it doesn't happen again. And that's what I don't see. That's, I think, the cultural change
that needs to happen here.
ISAACSON: Let me say, Derek, there's been such a backlash that we now have, you know, what Trump is doing, what Elon Musk is doing in government,
but it's partly a backlash, because as Ezra just said, they were supposed to build broadband internet access and build zero. Whereas Musk and
Starlink have put up a million since then, likewise put up, you know, hundreds of thousands of chargers.
Do you think this is what's causing this backlash that has led to people like Trump and Musk and others wanting to blow up the regulations?
THOMPSON: Let's make no mistake, you know, we have in this country, a right-wing movement that is trying to destroy government. And not just
destroy it, destroy it to take it over, to purge it of all sources of potential pushback and ideological disagreement, right?
Not a coincidence that we're turning over our telecom policy to Elon Musk himself, or that Trump is, you know, getting out into the front lawn of the
White House in order to basically make an advertisement for Tesla, or Tesler, as he calls it.
We have a government right now which is defining or combining the worst parts of kleptocracy and kakistocracy, government by theft and government
of the worst people. All that is to say, we need an opposition movement in this country that is popular and strong and competent. And it's a problem
right now. The Democrats in the left are unpopular and weak and often not competent in the places that they govern.
You know, to elaborate on Ezra's point. It's been a terrible political mistake to measure success in dollars authorized rather than things
accomplished. That's how you get California authorizing $33 billion to build a high-speed rail system that doesn't exist. It's how you get a story
of a $1.7 million toilet, yes, $1.7 million public toilet built in San Francisco because the city has such procedural kludge. That's how New York
City has the most expensive mile of subway construction in the world.
[13:50:00]
It's how you get the Chicago mayor bragging on twitter that they spent $11 billion to build 10,000 affordable housing units coming out to $1.1 million
per affordable, affordable housing unit. This is the record of a movement that has forgotten to judge political success by outcomes. And instead, has
judged political success by how much money can we spend.
ISAACSON: Well, wait. Let me ask you that, Derek. Why is there no Democratic city mayor who's making the city work?
THOMPSON: Well, there are Democratic city mayors making the city work. I mean, there are Democratic city mayors, for example, in the State of North
Carolina and the Raleigh-Durham Chapel Hill area, which is adding more residents and almost any metro in the country. That's where I'm living for
this year. There are mayors who are making things work. It's happening.
And many mayors and many governors are outcome oriented. Jared Polis from Colorado is a great example of a governor, a Democratic governor, who I
think is thinking in a very forward looking way about the need for housing abundance. How do we bring down regulations, and also how can we make it
easier technologically to put up housing?
Because if you can put up housing for cheap, then that reduces the price that people have to pay to live in those units. There are people on our
side. There are YIMBY's who are younger progressives. There are people who are --
ISAACSON: Wait. Explain what a YIMBY is real quick.
THOMPSON: Yes, there are people who are defining themselves, I think as abundance progressives, there's people on our side, but we're trying to
enlarge this movement.
KLEIN: I would add to that. The YIMBY's are the Yes in My Backyard Folks, right? The YIMBY's have their center in San Francisco and California for
all the intellectual victories and even statutes passed, bills passed, have not begun building more housing. This is very hard to do.
Everybody wants to say, I passed a big bill on affordable housing. Saying that I went into the guts of the processes and I closed down a bunch of
ways people in the community could come out and voice their objection to somebody building an apartment building down the block, that's a lot less
popular. It's a harder fight. You often don't have the power to do it. Maybe the mayor wants to do it, but the board of supervisors doesn't want
to do it.
You see this all over, right? Gavin Newsom, the governor of California, he knows perfectly well what a problem the housing crisis is, both for
California and for any presidential ambitions he might harbor. He has signed bill after bill after bill. But the coalitional dynamics of this
aren't easy. And that's why it does require, I think, some long, aggressive ideological change, because nobody wants to focus on process, right? Nobody
wants to hear about it. You don't win elections by saying, well, I've reconstructed the jury -- the overlapping jurisdictional authorities that
created 14 veto points in how we built a public restroom.
It makes people in the agencies mad. They get mad at you. They leak things into the press. You have to see it as enough of a crisis to break some
eggs. And again, I am lord knows no fan of what DOGE is doing, but I do hope Democrats take one thing from it, which is that there is a lot that
they have treated as inviolable in the way government works. A lot of rules, regulations, interagency processes, notes from their lawyers that
weren't exactly laws. They were just sort of guidance, and they treated all of it as something that was a hard boundary. You just couldn't do anything
about it.
I mean, there is a dimension where I think liberals stop, too many Democrats stop at the first sign of internal bureaucratic resistance. They
treat the structure of government as too settled. The Republicans right now are treating it as completely unsettled, and they are trying to unmake it.
They are trying to destroy it.
I do not want American politics trapped between a party that will not make government work and a party that wants to make government fail. We are
going to need, after the sort of institutional defenders that the Democrats became, the institutional arsonists the Republicans became, we're going to
need some kind of synthesis, a party, a coalition, a movement that insists on making government work, not because it hates government, not because it
doesn't want government to do big things, but precisely because it cares about government and it does want government to do big things.
ISAACSON: Derek Thompson, Ezra Klein, thank you so much for joining us.
KLEIN: Thank you.
THOMPSON: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
NEWTON: And finally, after years of searching, astronomers have identified a quartet of small rocky planets orbiting Barnard's Star. The nearest
single star system to Earth. Now, this animation, you see it there, shows the four small planets whirling around Barnard's Star, in the center there.
Researchers used data from telescopes in Chile and Hawaii to confirm this discovery. But scientists concluded all four planets are just too hot to
harbor life, much like our solar system's innermost planet, Mercury.
[13:55:00]
Now, make sure to tune into tomorrow's show for Christiane's conversation with Turkish author Elif Shafak. Now, she'll be speaking about her newest
book, "There Are Rivers in the Sky," which explores both climate and the Yazidi experience. She will also reflect on the impact of rising autocracy
in her home country and her warning to the West about the fragility of democracy and the importance of preserving freedom of speech and cultural
expression.
That's it for us 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.
I want to thank you for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
