Return to Transcripts main page

Amanpour

The Fallout From Team Trump's Shocking Intelligence Blunder; U.S. Disdain For Europe On Full Display; Trump Versus Universities; Aired 12-1p ET

Aired March 26, 2025 - 12:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[12:00:26]

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello everyone and welcome to AMANPOUR. Here's what's coming up.

On Signalgate, I talked to former U.S. Defense Secretary, Chuck Hagel, about the fallout from Team Trump's shocking intelligence blunder.

Then, U.S. disdain for Europe on full display. European Council President, Antonio Costa, joins me on what they've learned from Signalgate.

And Trump versus universities. Yale philosophy professor, Jason Stanley, tells Michel Martin why he's considering moving to Canada.

Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London.

Now you can see, read, and digest it all for yourselves, as the White House ties itself in knots trying to explain away its staggering intelligence

blunder.

"The Atlantic" magazine has now released all of the top-level text chain that editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, was included on by accident.

In a group thread on Signal, a commercially available app, With the Vice President, the CIA Director, the Director of National Intelligence and

others, the Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, shared operational details about imminent strikes on Houthis in Yemen, writing, weather is favorable,

just confirmed with CENTCOM. We are a go for mission launch.

He then shares plans in extraordinary detail like 14:15 strike drones on target. This is when the first bombs will definitely drop.

"The Atlantic" says these texts were received two hours before the scheduled start of the bombing of Houthi positions.

At testy intelligence briefings before Congress, Democrats are demanding answers and accountability. Here's a heated moment between Colorado Senator

Michael Bennet and the CIA director.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MICHAEL BENNET (D-CO): This sloppiness, this incompetence, this disrespect for our intelligence agencies and the personnel who work for

them is entirely unacceptable. It's an embarrassment.

JOHN RATCLIFFE, CIA DIRECTOR: Senator --

BENNET: You need to do better. You need to do better.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: Even one or two Republicans admit mistakes were made.

Now, Chuck Hagel was a Republican senator from Nebraska before being tapped as defense secretary by President Obama. And he's joining me now from

Washington. Welcome back to our program.

CHUCK HAGEL, FORMER UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Thank you, Christiane.

AMANPOUR: So, Defense Secretary and also still a Republican. We'll get into what kind of Republican in a moment. But do you agree with Senator Bennet,

Democrat from Colorado, this is unacceptable. This is a whole load of other words that he used there. What's your reaction?

HAGEL: Well, I think Senator Bennet's comments were appropriate. My reaction is amazement, astounding. Is this gross incompetence? Is it

recklessness? Is it both? It's certainly confusion.

And when you've got confusion at the top, with the very most important national security institutions that defend our country and protect our

intelligence and have relationships with other countries, we've got a problem.

And I don't think Senator Bennet or other senators in that hearing yesterday overstated anything. I think they were right on it. And in

addition, what "The Atlantic," Mr. Goldberg released today, I think just backs that up.

It was just truly astounding that we would see that released in the form of a non-secure government channel. And I just have never heard of that

before. I've never seen that before.

AMANPOUR: So I was going to ask you, had you ever seen anything like this before?

So let me ask you the most -- one of the -- one of the most important questions, because the White House says that these were not war plans, that

the story is a hoax, you the typical blame the messenger.

So I want to ask you two questions. Are they war plans, what you've read? I mean, they seem to me rules of engagement. I've been on the -- in the

field. I wonder what you think.

[12:05:05]

And, B, is this information that ordinarily would be considered classified?

HAGEL: Well, I think it is information that would ordinarily be classified for obvious reasons. I mean, details of a strike, a war strike, that's

going to kill people, do damage. That's the intent of it. I think that is classified information.

And you can parse words or you can parse dimensions of the issue and it was in a war plan or a war strike, but it's -- it -- it's all the same. In many

ways you can -- you can say that the specifics of a war strike which this laid out is even more important and probably should be even more classified

than war plans, but all of those I think are classified.

AMANPOUR: Yes.

HAGEL: And it should be classified.

AMANPOUR: And it's interesting you are talking about -- you're mentioning the use of semantics. Because Hegseth, over the last 24 hours or so, has

insisted, and he's basically denied, I didn't text, we didn't text any war plans.

I mean, it's not true. It's untruthful. Would you agree? And this is the current defense secretary of the United States.

HAGEL: Well, it is untruthful. And I'm sorry to see that for obvious reasons because this is a baseline. This is a new administration that's

barely been in office two months. And our allies, our friends, relationships that we've depended on for years and years to share

intelligence, not just NATO, but countries all over the world, when they see this, they lose trust, they lose confidence in us.

And I hear from ambassadors all the time, what are we going to do? What should we do? What are our alternatives if America is doing this? And then

they see this kind of incompetency that's public and reflected and pretty clear. That just goes deeper into their mistrust and lack of confidence in

us.

And there are consequences for that. There'll be significant consequences for that.

AMANPOUR: What kind of consequences? I just want to, yes, follow your lead for a moment because not only were these war plans, attack plans, strike

plans, you know, used over this commercial satellite, in, you know, violation of protocol, and I'll get to that in a second, but they said the

most awful things about European allies.

I mean, it was like a kid's coffee klatch. Oh, the Europeans are pathetic. Oh, let's figure out how we can do this and make the Europeans pay. Oh, I'm

fed up with bailing out the Europeans. I mean, what is it with them and Europe?

HAGEL: Well, I don't know, to answer your question, what is it with them and Europe. But I think it reflects what the president has said, President

Trump has said, that the Europeans and NATO allies are freeloaders and they've taken advantage of America since World War II.

And to say those things, and again, in open channels, really, just reflects where the president and I think this administration are.

But back to my point about consequences and how dangerous things like this are, you know, the post-World War II world order, with all its problems,

with all its flaws, has worked out pretty well.

And we led that world order based on the rule of law and freedom of navigation, free trade. Everybody has opportunities. There was -- there's

been no World War III, there's been no nuclear exchange, more people free and prosperous today than ever before.

And what you're doing here by saying these kinds of things and moving in this direction, you are undoing the foundations of that post-World War II

world order. And that will create, if that -- if that happens, matter of fact, that will create a world order that is fractured.

And there will be a vacuum in the world. And there will be new leaders. And I don't like the alternatives here, and the options. I don't think this

president and this administration understand the consequences of where we're headed if we withdraw from our Western alliances and NATO.

[12:10:03]

And the president's talked about pulling troops out of South Korea, Japan, it's because of our relationships that we've been able to project power

around the world and because we've been successful.

Yes, we've had problems. Yes, we have issues. We still do, but you need to manage those. You need to get better. And we will. But this is not the way

to go.

So when I -- when I say consequences, Christiane, this is what I mean. I mean, long-term consequences. You always ask the question, what happens

next? Where are we going? How does this end? Those are the relevant questions. And we're not asking those.

AMANPOUR: So I just want to ask one big picture question then. So when you say the consequences will be, I mean, I think I'm interpreting you right,

America will gradually lose its leadership of the world. You talked about a vacuum and there will be new leaders.

So you're talking about China, you're talking about Russia? And notably nobody on this coffee, klatch, whatever classified conversation bothered to

mention that actually China is the one that uses that shipping route, perhaps more than anybody. They kept blaming the Europeans.

Why -- again, is China a fear for you as like taking over world leadership?

HAGEL: Well, yes. I mean, what China is doing, and I think China is probably sitting back, not only delighting in all of this, but probably

saying, I mean, this is such good fortune, how we've been so lucky that this is all happening.

Because what China is doing, I hear this from ambassadors, by the way, and other people around the world. They are all over the world saying to these

countries, well, you see where America is. You see where America is going. You can't trust them.

I, China, we can do some things with you. You know, we can help build a new port for you. We can do some other things.

I saw this years ago, Christiane, when I was in the Senate, when I would go to Africa, I'd go to these developing countries. And I'd be -- I'd be

driving in from the airport to our embassy. And I would -- I would notice a new soccer stadium or a new -- a new hospital. And I would say, that's very

nice.

And they would say, well, the Chinese build it. Well, the Chinese build it, yes, with all their Chinese labor, and then they extract 50 years of

deposits, of mineral rights, and so on and so on.

But the Chinese are giving alternatives to these -- to these countries. The Chinese with Russia, talk about a vacuum. It won't be the same kind of

world that we've lived in because the Chinese will lead it with the Russians, with others.

And where will we be? I mean, we can't do this alone. This Make America Great Again, this is a great nation. We've got our flaws, we've got our

problems, and we will. But we lead the world. And most countries believe in that. Freedom, human rights, the things that are most important for life,

for people.

China doesn't offer that. Russia doesn't offer that. North Korea, Iran. So again --

AMANPOUR: Yes. Let me just jump in for a second. Let me just jump in for a second.

HAGEL: Yes.

AMANPOUR: Because President Trump and his team seem to think that all those qualities are weak. That's for weak people and strength is something else.

But I just want to quickly go back to when you were defense secretary, how would a battle plan have been discussed with the principles? What is the

operational, you know, efforts or rather the operational, you know, security that needs to be in place for that?

HAGEL: Well, we would discuss it within the Pentagon in secure surroundings, in secure rooms. We wouldn't text each other or go on the

internet and discuss it with 15 people. We would have secure rooms in the Pentagon. That would be the Pentagon piece of it.

But when you would branch that out, which you always have to with the president, national security advisor, State Department, attorney general,

it'd be in the Situation Room in the White House. That's where those discussions took place in the top secret Situation Room in the -- in the

White House.

I don't ever recall using any kind of a vehicle outside of secure government networks to discuss any of this, anything like this.

[12:15:02]

AMANPOUR: I want to play -- yes. I want to play a little bit of yesterday's hearing. That was before the -- well, no.

Anyway, it was -- it was a hearing between, again, democratic Senator Martin Heinrich, who asked a direct question of the CIA Chief John

Ratcliffe and the DNI Tulsi Gabbard. Listen to what that -- how that exchange went.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MARTIN HEINRICH (D-NM): So I'm curious, did this conversation, at some point, include information on weapons packages, targets, or timing?

RATCLIFFE: Not that I'm aware of.

HEINRICH: Director Gabbard, same question.

TULSI GABBARD, U.S. DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: Same answer and defer to the Department of Defense on that question.

HEINRICH: Well, but those are two different answers, but you're saying that did not -- that was not part of the conversation?

GABBARD: Not to my knowledge.

HEINRICH: Precise operational issues were not part of this conversation?

GABBARD: Correct.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: So now in the full lightness of day with all the texts published, we know that that's just not true.

HAGEL: Yes, that's not true.

AMANPOUR: OK. So what about accountability? Whose head should roll if anyone's?

HAGEL: Well, there has to be accountability. There always must be accountability in anything, especially government, especially at the

highest level of government, and especially in those institutions represented at that table yesterday, plus the Department of Defense, plus

the State Department.

And to have leaders of those institutions say what they said and deny what was actually in the transmission that we now know of, I mean, that's what I

was referring to earlier. There's either gross incompetence here, certainly confusion here, recklessness.

I mean, didn't they even read those transcripts or they're just straight out lying? And so there has to be accountability. Absolutely. And the

Congress, I hope, is going to continue to pursue this.

AMANPOUR: Well, it doesn't look like the Republicans are pretty exercised about it. I mean, some of them have said, yes, mistakes were made, but we

need to acknowledge that and move on. Like everybody wants to move on. They're all, you know, they haven't yet come to any sort of firmer

commentary on this.

HAGEL: Well, one of the things that we don't know is what is yet -- is what is yet to come. I mean, after Goldberg released the entire text, which

we've now all seen, what else don't we know that is yet to come out? And I suspect there may be more.

Now, the Republicans are going to be in tough spot here because the public has seen this, the world has seen this, the media is all over it. And I

think most people, and even Republicans who are supporting Trump in the Congress, have to acknowledge some accountability here.

They've got to acknowledge some responsibility that they've got to take for oversight. That's one of Congress's major roles, responsibilities, in its

Article One responsibility.

AMANPOUR: Yes.

HAGEL: So I hope they'll do that.

AMANPOUR: I want to ask you a point of law and fact. So one -- you know, in one of the texts, the NSA Director, Waltz, writes the first target, their

top missile guy. We had positive ID of him walking into his girlfriend's building and it's now collapsed.

Is that a legitimate target a civilian building with a girlfriend in it? No matter who the guy is. He's obviously not carrying a missile into that

building, whoever he was that they wanted to get. Is that legitimate?

HAGEL: Well, I would say this. When you look at attack plans and why you're attacking an individual or wherever that individual is, you always have to

factor in collateral damage.

AMANPOUR: OK.

HAGEL: Because there will be. And you get lawyers into this, you get specifics into it. But you've got to factor all of that in.

And again, I don't know the specifics of what went into that or --

AMANPOUR: Yes.

HAGEL: -- what they were really looking for. So I can't tell you however I'd like to say.

AMANPOUR: One last question. One last question. As you know, amongst Republicans too, there was a lot of doubt about the competence and the

experience for these top jobs of Pete Hegseth and Tulsi Gabbard. And she was accused of, you know, having harboring warm thoughts for the dictators

in Russia and in Syria.

[12:20:08]

Do you think that the Republicans made a mistake by confirming them?

HAGEL: Well, I would say this. And I said this at the beginning when I was asked about the confirmation hearings and the individuals.

What you will always see, and it works out all the time, see how it works out. They would not have been people that I would have recommended, or I

would --

AMANPOUR: Yes.

HAGEL: If I would been in the Senate, I would have voted against --

AMANPOUR: Right.

HAGEL: -- almost all those people because I don't -- I don't think they're equipped to do the job.

Three requisites, indispensable requisites leadership, character, courage, and judgment.

AMANPOUR: Right. We got it.

HAGEL: And I don't think most people had it.

AMANPOUR: Secretary Chuck Hagel, former senator, thank you so much indeed for being with us.

And stay with us. We'll be back after a break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

AMANPOUR: If there were any doubt that the Trump team had a hate towards their European allies, it's been made abundantly clear with the release of

the Signal text chain that we've just been talking about.

Top U.S. officials complained about bailing Europe out, calling the continent, freeloading, and pathetic, in words that would have been

unthinkable just a few months ago.

European Council President Antonio Costa is now urging European NATO members to become less dependent on others, namely, he said on the United

States.

The U.S. also making Europe uneasy as Trump and Putin seem to be cozying up. The Russian president was first elected 25 years ago, taking the west

on a roller coaster ride ever since. There's no evidence that Putin actually wants peace in Ukraine. He appears to be pulling Trump into what's

best for him.

I spoke to Antonio Costa about all of this from Brussels.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: President Antonio Costa, welcome to the program.

COSTA: Hello. How are you? Good evening.

AMANPOUR: Good evening. Look, I want to ask you, there is so much going on right now. Particularly, I would like your reaction to what appears to be a

massive mistake in releasing on a text and two journalists, the battle plans for a strike on Houthi rebels a couple of weeks ago. Just what's your

reaction?

ANTONIO COSTA, PRESIDENT, EUROPEAN COUNCIL: Well, I don't comment on private message. But what I want to say is the safety on the Red Sea is

crucial for global economy. And that's why we launched a maritime operation in the last February to ensure the safety of the trade.

AMANPOUR: You know, that's interesting you should say that because no doubt you have read the text. And you have heard Vice President Vance and

Secretary Hegseth essentially dissing the Europeans, calling the Europeans freeloaders, calling the Europeans pathetic, saying that the Europeans

should be paying the price for this U.S. strike because they benefit the most. They really revealed what they think of their European allies.

[12:25:01]

For decades, our alliance has made us stronger. Stronger United States, stronger Europe. We are the largest trading partners in the world. We are

at the core of the most successful defensive alliance.

And we must cherish this longstanding relationship, because it's a very good relationship for Americans and a very good relationship for Europeans.

It's a win-win alliance. And then we need to work on this and improve on this.

AMANPOUR: So, how will you convince Team Trump that it is a win-win? Because what you're saying is obviously historically correct. But they

don't seem to get it.

In fact, they said, why should we even be doing this military action? I'm now just talking about, you know, in the Red Sea. When Europe uses it most,

they never mentioned China. It's critical to China, too.

Well, how are you going to convince Team Trump that this is a good alliance, the Transatlantic Alliance?

COSTA: Well, I believe that always facts are better than perceptions. And certainly, the facts prove the worth of our alliance in the past, in the

present, and certainly in the future.

That our trade grows double over the last 10 years. And it's better for United States at service and is better for Europe at services. And we need

to improve our trade relation. And this is reason because we are now negotiating with the United States to avoid a tariffs war because tariffs

are very bad.

Tariffs, in fact, are taxes, taxes paid by the consumers. And the -- and tariffs increase the prices, boost inflation, and is bad for business, bad

for people. And then we need to continue to improve our relation and not to disturb our relation.

AMANPOUR: I mean, it's almost as if you were talking about an adversary. You should have a great relationship with your main ally, the United

States.

So let me ask you, talking about tariffs, the E.U. Trade Commissioner has been in Washington. He's been meeting with his counterpart, and he says the

hard work goes on. So there are -- you know, there's a whole another round of tariffs that President Trump is threatening on April 2nd. He's already

put 25 percent on steel and aluminum and threatened 200 percent on French champagne, et cetera, and European alcohol.

How do you think you're going to be able to resolve this?

COSTA: Well, talking. Look, we are allies, we are partners, we are friends. And when problems comes between friends, what we need to do is to talk. And

it is what the Commissioner Maros Sefcovic have done this week in Washington.

And we are willing to continue to talk and to negotiate. Of course, it's always possible to improve our relationship, but we need to preserve what

we have done over the last decades between the United States and Europe, because this is very important for all over the world.

Our trade relations is 30 percent of the global trade in the world. It represents 40 percent of the global GDP. That any problem in our economic

relations is not only bad for American economy, it's not only bad for European economy, it's very bad for the global economy. And that's why we

need to improve our relationship, but not disturb our relationship.

AMANPOUR: Yes. The problem here though is that President Trump is essentially almost cutting the cord, you know, cutting the cord with its --

with its historic allies as you are.

It's this problem with trade, as you've identified. He loves tariffs. It appears that everybody mistook him. They thought it was just a negotiating

ploy, but it's not. It's real. And he has, you know, thrown you in the deep blue sea when it comes to security.

How are you going to cope with an overnight emergency like this? Do you believe that the Americans will give you time, for instance, to amp up

defense spending, to get where you need to be, to be autonomous or independent of U.S. security, as they're demanding?

COSTA: Well, 10 years ago, NATO allies decided to increase their defense spending to two percent of GDP by 2024. And precisely last year, in 2024,

on average, the European allies reached this target of two percent.

[12:30:01]

And we know that we need to do more, and we are prepared to do more. And certainly, on the next June -- in June, in the next NATO summit, we will

take the decision to increase our targets, to fulfill our capabilities.

One month after the Ukrainian invasion by Russia, we decided in Versailles to assume greater responsibility in our own defense. And just over the last

three years, we increased our defense spending by 30 percent.

And we are now preparing to do more, to do more in support Ukraine and to do more in developing our own capabilities to ensure a more larger

ownership in our own defense. And, of course, we don't want to break our relationship, transatlantic relation. We don't want to break our relation

with the United States.

But now, I think we have a convergent vision. United States wants that Europeans assume greater responsibility. And we are working to assume this

greater responsibility in our own defense.

AMANPOUR: And obviously, it's something that takes time.

In the meantime, President Trump has been seen to have switched his allegiance towards the adversary Russia and away from Ukraine and Europe.

But because of the responses from President Putin, which have not agreed, Putin has not agreed to any of the ceasefires.

It all comes with massive conditions, unlike Ukraine, which has agreed, Trump basically said, you know, after the latest talks, that Putin looks

like he may be dragging his feet.

What do you think that Trump needs to know and team Trump about Putin's negotiating tactics? Do you think he wants peace right now, Putin?

COSTA: Well, we appreciate a lot the effort by President Trump. President Trump created a new momentum for a just and lasting peace in Ukraine. But

we are very skeptical about Mr. Putin and about Russia, because we need to learn the lessons from the past. And in the past, Russia never respected

their commitments about Ukraine.

As you know, in the Budapest, Ukraine agreed to give back the nuclear arsenal from the previous Soviet Union to Russia. And Russia doesn't

respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine, doesn't respect the stability of the borders of Ukraine, doesn't respect the peace in Ukraine.

And, first, Russia occupies Crimea, then start the war in the eastern part of Ukraine, and, finally, in 2022, launch a full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

That's why we are in war. That's why we're still in war.

And then we are very skeptical about Mr. Putin. And that's why this is not the moment to release the pressure on Russia. But if we want, because if we

want peace, we need to strengthen Ukraine for peace. We need to strengthen the Ukrainian position to any peace negotiation. And we need to strengthen

the position of Ukraine to preserve peace after this agreement.

And that's why we are supporting Mr. President Trump's efforts, but we are very skeptical to Russian position and what is effectively the will of

Russia to come to peace.

AMANPOUR: Yes.

COSTA: And we will judge Putin, not by their words, but by their acts.

AMANPOUR: Well, that's clear. Can you please tell me, President Costa, what you make of an upcoming visit? It's almost like the U.S., Trump, who said,

I'm going to get Greenland one way or the other.

After saying that the wife of the vice president will come on a personal trip this week, now it's the vice president himself who's meant to be

coming to Greenland this week. And the Greenland and Danish governments have called this very provocative and aggressive. They haven't invited this

U.S. delegation.

What are you thinking about this? I mean, do you think that this U.S. administration is going to annex territory, invade territory, economically

cripple Canada or Greenland in order to be able to take them over? What's going on here?

[12:35:02]

COSTA: Well, allow me to give two level of fences. First, a matter of principle. Greenland is a part of the territory of the Kingdom of Denmark.

The territorial integrity is a universal value that we need to protect and for us is out of question to put in any threat about the territorial

integrity of a European member state.

Second point, as I understood on the last hours, the scope of this visit changed. And now the vice president, Vance, is visiting a United States

military base in the -- in Greenland. And, of course, I have nothing to comment on this.

And the -- and the government of Denmark said that there are any problem, because, as you know, they are Denmark is very close ally of United States.

They have a clear agreement on defense on Greenland. United States have already a military base in Greenland and is important infrastructure for

the defense and security on Greenland.

And this is a common commitment and a common concern of Europe, Denmark, and United States.

AMANPOUR: All right. You're very diplomatic and I see the U.S. is sort of wiggled it so it's not an unwelcome visit to the capital of Greenland.

President Antonio Costa, thank you so much indeed for joining us.

COSTA: Thank you very much.

AMANPOUR: And we'll be right back after this short break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

AMANPOUR: Now, Trump's America has started to challenge and redefine academic freedom. And our next guest is sounding the alarm.

Yale professor Jason Stanley is the author of "Erasing History: How Fascists Rewrite the Past to Control the Future." And he joins Michel

Martin now to discuss how new teaching guidelines are stoking a culture of fear and why he's taking drastic measures as a result.

MICHEL MARTIN, AMERICAN JOURNALIST: Thanks, Christiane. Professor Jason Stanley, thanks so much for talking with us once again.

JASON STANLEY, PROFESSOR OF PHILOSOPHY, YALE UNIVERSITY: Thank you, Michel. It's great to be in conversation in this existential time.

MARTIN: So you've been thinking about and writing about authoritarianism for quite a while. You recently wrote a piece for "The Guardian" in which

you said that President Trump is leading the country down the path of educational authoritarianism. What does that mean?

STANLEY: That means that he's creating a culture of fear in universities. They already have done this in states like Florida, creating a culture of

fear in K-12 education.

But authoritarianism requires a culture of fear. It requires feeling like the state is always looking over your shoulder, feeling like there are

vague rules that you can be punished for and your fellow citizens have been empowered to report you. That's the first thing it means.

The second thing it means is that there's an official state ideology. And if you violate the official state ideology, you get in trouble.

MARTIN: What sparked your latest piece for "The Guardian" was this Dear Colleague Letter that the Department of Education issued, the Office of

Civil Rights issued on February 14th. It was a letter to American educational institutions and it essentially reinterpreted federal civil

rights law.

[12:40:11]

MARTIN: Let me just read a little bit of it. It said that educational institutions have toxically indoctrinated students with the false premise

that the United States is built upon systemic and structural racism and advanced discriminatory policies and practices and that proponents of these

discriminatory practices have attempted to further justify them, particularly during the last four years under the banner of diversity,

equity and inclusion, you know, DEI, smuggling racial stereotypes and explicit race consciousness into everyday training, programming and

discipline.

So, first of all, your reaction to this and tell us why you were so concerned about this that you said that this is what -- is the -- is the

sign that that is the intention of the administration to move toward this path.

STANLEY: Well, the Dear Colleague Letter, announces that it's the intention of the administration to move towards this path. And in Linda McMahon's

final mission statement of the Department of Education, she mentions patriotic education as sort of the goal here to impose on K-12 and

universities.

So the problem here is that the United States is founded and built upon systematic racism and inclusion. It's part of our founding documents that

we wanted to take more indigenous land. So slavery -- the United States is built on slavery. There's no factual argument about that.

So when you begin by saying that universities in K-12 schools are not allowed to teach facts, then you're already on a very problematic playing

field. And part of the point of these guidelines is to be vague, because it allows wide latitude to target professors and to encourage students to

report professors for anything that might suggest that the United States was not always the greatest nation on earth and was essentially free from

sin.

MARTIN: Is part of the issue here -- because -- I mean, because to take it from the other direction, you know, conservatives would say that

progressives or non-conservatives, whatever you want to say, are just mad because they're offering an alternative ideology, that they're just --

they're replacing one ideology with another.

And that, you know, I think their argument is elections have consequences and they get to do that. Like, what do you say to that?

STANLEY: There's no such thing. I mean, in a democracy, the state cannot impose a required patriotic ideology. I mean, universities are not there in

a democracy to as -- to stoke egos of the citizens of a country.

Just imagine what your cartoon vision of an authoritarian country. It's where the purpose of schools is to tell students to love their country and

not question it.

In a democracy, universities are there to teach the facts. They're not there to breed patriotism. These documents explicitly tell us the purpose

of schools and universities is to create patriotic citizens. That is not the purpose of university. That's nationalist education. That is not

democratic education.

What they've been doing, by banning critical race theory, which is essentially banning black history, because you're banning the study of

institutions that developed under slavery and Jim Crow that have repercussions today. So you're banning that with these vague guidelines.

You know, they say we're not banning that, but the guidelines are so vague that you would be, you know, you would be foolish to test whether or not

it's really banning that.

So --

MARTIN: What's your evidence of that though? What's your evidence that that is the case? Because I think other people might look at that and say, well,

they're vague. That means that there's room for interpretation.

So, why do you say that the vagueness is itself a problem?

STANLEY: Well, the -- a conservative intellectual, in a "New York Times" article where I was also quoted said, you know, terms like DEI are vague.

So they allow us wide latitude to target people, because they leave it open to interpretation and that's the point.

So we can basically target anything we want by calling it DEI. And now this does, the vagueness does leave room for contestation, but would you like to

go in front of a school board? Would you like to go in front of a Title VI office with a lawyer to defend that in the interpretation that it does not

-- that you're teaching about slavery or Jim Crow or mortgage redlining does not fit -- does not fall under these prohibited guidelines? That's

really a distraction from your work. Legal fees are very expensive. Most teachers and professors, if not all teachers and professors, would like to

avoid that.

[12:45:24]

MARTIN: American universities have been engines of tremendous wealth, tremendous innovation. There's a reason why people want to come from all

over the world to study at these universities, including people like Peter Thiel and Elon Musk, because of -- because of their role in creating

private wealth through the accumulation of knowledge.

So, why is it that they, in your estimation, that these activists are so -- and this administration is so sort of hell-bent on bringing universities to

heel?

STANLEY: Can I be frank, Michel?

MARTIN: Yes, I hope so.

STANLEY: They're destroying my country. They're intentionally destroying my country. They're saying Vladimir Putin is an ally. They're taking down the

federal bureaucracy. They're taking down the schools and universities to enrich the billionaire class.

And then they're throwing scapegoats to the American people, to the working people, trans women, black Americans. It's about juicing up dominant group

victimhood. It's about telling white Americans, you're the real victims.

And once we target all the people who made you feel like you weren't the real victims, all the people who are making you feel guilty for inheriting

your house from your parents when they didn't have -- couldn't inherit a house from your parents.

Once we do that, then everything's good for you and we can dismantle the country. That's what's going on. It's starting out with the universities.

It's vital. You take down the universities, you tell people universities are just for job skills. They're not for -- they're not democratic

institutions anymore.

And then, so you encourage people not to go and you encourage people not to go to universities. You make student loans more difficult, more expensive,

privatize them. And then you delegitimize the university.

MARTIN: One of the things that you talk about is the fact that Columbia University is the source of particular ire to this administration, and also

to, let's say members of Congress who made a point of making a pilgrimage to the university to, you know, to express their outrage at what they

consider to be anti-Semitic demonstrations that started in the wake of Israel's war on Gaza.

Columbia agreed to a list of Trump demands in order to reinstate some $400 million in federal funding that the administration revoked, as they said,

for punishment for Columbia's failure to protect its Jewish students.

So let me ask you about this, because the reality of it is there are a lot of Jewish students at Columbia who did feel threatened and demeaned by

these -- by these demonstrations. So some people are looking at this and they say that this is kind of an outrageous capitulation on Columbia's

part.

But other people are saying, well, you know, maybe this was just a pragmatic step to try to survive this era. What do you think?

STANLEY: A tremendous number of Arab students who felt incredibly threatened at Columbia. What about them? They're people too, first.

Secondly, at Yale, and I'm sure this is true of Columbia, there were a very large number of Jewish students in those protests because who on campus

cares the most about the behavior of Israel? Well, one group are Jewish students.

But the way the administration is using the term anti-Semitism is synonymous with leftism, which is ironic because the large majority of

Jewish Americans voted for Kamala Harris, you know, comparable to Black Americans.

So, but the administration is using the term anti-Semitism as short for leftism. So Jewish-Americans like me who are highly critical of Israel. I

mean, I don't know what the phrase right to exist means but, you know, I'm not -- you know, I don't want to take down the state of Israel. I'm some

kind of Zionist.

However, I'm very critical of the behavior of the state of Israel. And there were plenty of students. It was -- it was, you know, tied for the

largest identity group in the protests. So, why don't they count as Jewish?

Well, the administration is saying there are good Jews and bad Jews. And good Jews are the ones who support Israel's actions in Gaza. And bad Jews

are the people like me who are highly critical of what is happening and push for Palestinian rights because Palestinians deserve every bit of

political equality that Jews, Jewish people deserve.

[12:50:17]

So this -- yes.

MARTIN: Well then -- well, I have two questions here. First of all, why do you think that Columbia has agreed to these terms, including, you know,

banning face masks and empowering campus police officers to remove people from campus or arrest them if needed?

Why would Columbia, which is not a poor institution, agree to these terms?

STANLEY: Two reasons. First of all, there are people within the Columbia structure who are essentially betraying Columbia. They agree with this

ideological attack. I think that is really problematic. They're not seeing it. They're in fact traitors to their own institutions. So that's one

point.

The second point is that, you know, this -- Columbia is completely bending to an authoritarian regime. And what we're seeing across universities,

Michel, is we're seeing this culture of fear, this idea that if we just do what they say, everything will be OK.

But I'm seeing this everywhere. And it's one reason that I am probably leaving the United States --

MARTIN: Really?

STANLEY: -- to the University of Toronto.

MARTIN: Really? Huh? Is that -- is that -- is that -- I was going to ask, what are your thoughts about your own course here? So you feel strongly

enough about this that you are going to leave the country?

STANLEY: Yes. Because what I -- I would not do this if I saw all of our universities banding together. But it's not just the universities, Michel,

it's the law firms, it's all of our American institutions.

When Paul Weiss -- Paul Weiss capitulated -- well, the part of the reason they capitulated is other law firms, instead of defending them, were going

after their clients.

Now we see universities saying things, including my university, like we're going to keep our head down so we're not targeted. As soon as I heard that

vocabulary, I knew sort of, you know, it might be that game -- the game is over, because you're not banding together, if you say we're going to keep

our head down.

MARTIN: So, I want to get back to you though. You are -- you're leaving. Any regrets about that? Do you feel, in a way, you're abandoning the fight?

Or how do you see it?

STANLEY: I think Canada is very centrally in the fight right now.

So, you know, I would return to the United States, my home, in a heartbeat. And I hope, you know, and that's why I'm saying I'm probably moving to

Canada because I might return to Yale if so -- if they essentially allow me with leave structures.

I'm leaving because the political climate for the universities and the political climate for freedom looks grim in this country. We face a fascist

regime.

So I can best fight it in a country that is dedicated to the values that I love, the values that America, the United States was formed on, freedom and

equality. And Canada definitely centers those values.

I have two black children, two black Jewish children, and, you know, the United States to erase, to use one of their identities as a sledgehammer

for fascism and to try to erase another of their identities, is deeply problematic for me.

And, you know, there's all these longstanding features of this country, like mass incarceration that I worry and violent policing that obviously

with two black sons concern me as well.

But I -- this is my home. The United States is my home. It will always be my home. I'm a patriotic American. And I want to fight for our country, but

I do have two small children. I do have two young children.

And I do think that the institutions that I love are being existentially threatened. And they're not defending themselves in a way that gives me any

kind of hope that free inquiry will still be possible.

MARTIN: Professor Jason Stanley, thank you so much for talking with us. You've certainly given us a lot to think about.

STANLEY: Thank you so much, Michel.

AMANPOUR: And what a robust defense, and especially the notion that for all of our professions, an attack on one is an attack on all.

[12:55:02]

And finally, as President Trump moves to upend voting processes and civil rights protections, we remember the greats of yesteryear who fought to

defend them. Sixty years ago, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. addressed crowds in Montgomery, Alabama, the final day of historic march from Selma to

protest voting discrimination against black Americans.

Standing at the steps of the state Capitol building, he delivered one of his greatest speeches, How Long? Not long. His words were a guiding light

for the nation.

The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice. Now these words might sound quaint today, subject to the slings and arrows of

outrageous fortune, as Shakespeare might have said, or they could ignite hope and action to defend a brighter future.

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

END