Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview With Society For The Rule Of Law Executive Director, Senate Judiciary Committee Former Chief Republican Nominations Counsel, Gregg Nunziata; Interview With Norwegian Refugee Council Secretary General Jan Egeland; Interview With U.S. Centers For Disease Control And Prevention Former Director, Dr. Tom Frieden. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired April 08, 2025 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello everyone and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up. A Supreme Court ruling allows the
White House to continue deportations. I ask conservative lawyer, Gregg Nunziata, what this means for the Trump administration and the rule of law.
Then new video debunks Israeli claims about the deadliest attack on emergency responders since the start of the Gaza War. Meanwhile,
humanitarian workers are under threat all across the world. We hear from Norwegian refugee council head, Jan Egeland, who's just returned from the
Democratic Republic of Congo.
And later --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DR. TOM FRIEDEN, FORMER DIRECTOR, U.S. CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION AND PRESIDENT AND CEO, RESOLVE TO SAVE LIVES: Viruses don't need
passports. Viruses don't obey borders.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- what dramatic cuts to government health services mean for America? Hari Sreenivasan speaks to former CDC director Tom Frieden.
Welcome to the program everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York. Sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
Two Supreme Court rulings will impact critical Trump administration deportation cases. First, in a 5-4 vote, the court allowed the White House
to continue using the Alien Enemies Act, which gives them sweeping wartime authority to rapidly deport alleged gang members.
Now, the ruling also asserts that anyone deported under the act must be allowed due process to contest their removal. White House Deputy Chief of
Staff Stephen Miller, claimed victory on Fox News last night.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEPHEN MILLER, WHITE HOUSE DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF: This was a huge, I mean, a monumental victory for President Trump. It means that the Department of
Justice, FBI, DEA, ATF, the U.S. Marshal Service, Customs and Border Protection, Border Patrol and Immigrations and Customs Enforcement now have
maximum authority to find and remove illegal alien gang members from Venezuela that have been responsible for so much misery in this country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: In a second case, Chief Justice John Roberts temporarily extended a deadline for returning Maryland Father Kilmar Abrego Garcia to
the United States. The Trump administration concedes Abrego Garcia was deported because of administrative error, but his case has become
emblematic of White House's willingness to defy the courts and to deport immigrants without a hearing or review.
So, what are the wider implications of these rulings and of White House attempts to circumvent the rule of law? Gregg Nunziata is a veteran of the
conservative legal movement. He's a former Justice Department official and worked as policy adviser to Senator Marco Rubio. Gregg now joins us from
Washington. Greg, thank you so much for joining the show.
GREGG NUNZIATA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SOCIETY FOR THE RULE OF LAW, FORMER CHIEF REPUBLICAN NOMINATIONS COUNSEL, SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND FORMER
ADVISER TO MARCO RUBIO: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: So, the Supreme Court ruled the president and the administration can continue to use the Aliens Enemy Act, but the judicial review is
required. Here is how the president responded on social media to the decision. The Supreme Court has upheld the rule of law in our nation by
allowing a president, whoever that may be, to be able to secure our borders and protect our families, our country, itself. A great day for justice in
America.
Is he interpreting this ruling the way the Supreme Court interpreted it and came down with it?
NUNZIATA: No, the president and the White House are vastly over spinning this case, and they are trying to claim a win where, in fact, the court
unanimously ruled against the core contentions of this administration and really vindicated its strongest critics on these issues.
All the court said last night was that these cases need to be brought individually, in the district where the detainees are being held, not as a
class in Washington. That's it. That was the procedural decision. The case goes forward. But in making that decision, multiple justices went out of
their way to write explicitly that all nine of them agreed that these individuals deserve due process. And really importantly, not just due
process, but due process with notice and a meaningful opportunity to be held -- to be heard in court.
And that is what the administration was trying to evade at the outset, and that is what they're going to have to try to contend with now as these
cases move forward. So, no, it's not the victory they're portraying it at, it's a narrow victory on a jurisdictional question.
[13:05:00]
And I just want to say, I mean, I know this case is about a few hundred people. It's about foreigners who may be members of criminal gangs, and
Americans may not know why they should care. But the issues here that the court was talking about last night are really deeper, it go to the heart of
who we are as Americans. It's about the separation of powers, the rule of law and due process. And the court unanimously upheld those values last
night.
GOLODRYGA: Yes.
NUNZIATA: And so, we'll have to see where it goes from here.
GOLODRYGA: And to that point of habeas corpus that you noted that all nine justices agreed upon, that was actually written by Conservative Justice
Kavanaugh. Here's what he said. All nine justices agreed that the Venezuelan migrants detained to the United States must receive advanced
notice and the opportunity to challenge their deportation before they could be removed. He wrote in concurrence with others, the split among the court
was over where and how this should happen, as you noted.
So, how significant is this assertion and the right a as highlighted by Justice Kavanaugh to habeas corpus?
NUNZIATA: I think this is really significant and particularly given what the administration has been plainly trying to do, which is to deport people
in the cover of darkness without notice to courts and to put them, in their view, beyond the reach of American law without any meaningful review. The
court has now said that these individuals have the ability to be heard, and to be heard on multiple levels. They may challenge the constitutionality of
the Alien Enemies Act to begin with.
Second, they may challenge how that act is being applied. Is this even a war as -- I mean, are we at war with a gang in Venezuela? Do Americans know
that? The court may be asked to answer that question. And then, finally, if we -- if the law is constitutional, if we are at war, are these individuals
being removed actually members of this gang, are they actually alien enemies? Are they actually of the appropriate age? All that will have to be
litigated on an individual basis. And the administration will now have to defend hundreds of these cases in the federal courts.
GOLODRYGA: Are we gearing up for a constitutional crisis between three -- I guess now two co-equal branches of government here? And that is obviously
the administration itself versus the courts, because it does appear that President Trump and his administration is trying to say the courts have no
right to direct national security policy over the United States in using the Alien Enemies Act.
I mean, ultimately, the fact that the Supreme Court took up this case is one point to be made. But do you think that their decision will come down
on the side of the administration that, they, in fact, are using it constitutionally given the makeup of the court?
NUNZIATA: Well, I don't know. It remains to be seen. I'm hopeful by some of the things that were said in those decisions last night. It's absolutely
true that this court has a generally protective view or strong view of executive power. And executive power is at its strongest points under our
laws when the president is dealing with national security and international issues.
And I think that's why the president, who has been certainly trying to weaken the court's ability to play their constitutional role, has really
staked out a lot of conflicts that he's structured at least or presented as national security issues rather than here, a law enforcement or an
immigration issue. So, he's trying to confront the courts on the strongest ground he has.
But I don't think the judiciary is going to allow the president and his administration to disappear people to Latin America by simply muttering
words or issuing a proclamation that the nation is at war. I mean, this really does challenge fundamental rights and values that we have as an
Americans, and I think the court will draw some appropriate lines.
GOLODRYGA: So, how much should we read into John Roberts writing the decision here to at least temporarily delay the return, which was the
deadline was last night at midnight, for Abrego Garcia from El Salvador?
NUNZIATA: I don't think we should read anything into that yet. I think the court is letting the status quo stand while it more fully considers this
decision. But this is an important related case. You know, they said last night that deportees have the right to due process.
Now, this gentleman, Mr. Garcia, is beyond our borders, in a prison in Latin America. He was removed, as the administration admits now, by
administrative error. They're not conceding that he ought not be removed, but they are conceding that he had a court order, which protected his
presence here, and they removed him notwithstanding that court order.
If due process is to be meaningful, it needs -- the administration or the government can't have a backdoor around it by simply removing people and
then claiming they can't do anything about it. I think the court is going to seriously look at this case, and I think it will not agree to a ruling
that effectively allows an administration a pathway around judicial review.
[13:10:00]
GOLODRYGA: Can I ask you quickly, because Justice Jackson wrote separately in the first ruling that we talked about, the Alien Enemies Act, that she
was very critical of the court's decision to continue to act on the emergency docket, where cases are typically heard so quickly and they're
not litigated with oral arguments in a full briefing. Does she have a valid point here?
NUNZIATA: She absolutely has a valid point. I mean, these are some really weighty issues that involve difficult legal questions that the court needs
to consider deeply and carefully draw some lines around how these things should be handled in the future. So, those kinds of decisions, you would
like to have fully briefed, you would like to have the opportunity for attorneys to argue them in court.
On the other hand, while she does have a point, there's a lot happening. As you know, trying to follow the news every day. This administration is
moving really aggressively and trying to challenge the status quo and challenge existing precedent on multiple fronts. Real people's lives are
being affected dramatically in real-time. And the court does not always have the luxury to wait a year or more to fully litigate these matters.
So, these are tensions that are always before the court. And so, I understand kind of Justice Sotomayor's concern that is moving too quickly,
but I could certainly under understand why the majority felt the need to act on an expedited basis here.
GOLODRYGA: Gregg Nunziata, thank you so much for breaking it down for us. We appreciate it.
NUNZIATA: Thank you so much, Bianna.
GOLODRYGA: And stay with CNN. We'll be right back after a break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: Now, it has been a month since Israel cut off humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip. And aid agencies say conditions there have deteriorated
dangerously in that time. Hunger is spreading, water is scarce, and Israeli military operations are a constant threat to the people there. One such
attack in March caused the death of more than a dozen Palestinian emergency workers.
Now, new video evidence cast out on Israeli claims about the killings. Correspondent Jeremy Diamond reports further. And a warning, some of the
video you're about to see is disturbing.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Emergency lights flashing in the pre-dawn sky, a convoy of ambulances and a fire truck pull
up to the scene of an Israeli attack. Palestinian paramedics and Civil Defense responders get out of their vehicles when suddenly, amid a hail of
gunfire, emergency responders drop to the ground, and the paramedic who is filming begins to pray.
It is the single deadliest attack on emergency responders in Gaza during the war, killing 15. The Israeli military had acknowledged its soldiers
attacked this convoy of emergency vehicles, but this video debunked their claim that the ambulances were advancing suspiciously and without emergency
lights. The Israeli military says it is re-examining the incident.
Now, new testimony from a survivor further undermining the Israeli narrative. Paramedic Munther Abed says Israeli troops didn't just open fire
on one ambulance convoy, about an hour earlier, his ambulance was also attacked.
[13:15:00]
They opened fire directly on us in the vehicle, Munther says, I survived by lying down in the back of the vehicle. If I had stood up, I would have been
killed.
He listened as two of his colleagues, Mustafa Hafaja and Ezzedine Shaath (ph), drew their last breaths. Israeli troops then detained Munther. The
Israeli military has described that first attack as targeting a Hamas vehicle, killing two Hamas members and detaining a third. An Israeli
military official said they were not uniformed paramedics. But Munther says they were driving a well-lit ambulance and were wearing their uniforms.
As Israeli troops questioned Munther, other medics were dispatched to look for him. The Palestine Red Crescent Society says this is Munther's
ambulance, lights extinguished after coming under fire. No comment from the Israeli military.
Munther saw the convoy arrive. I was lying face down, and a soldier had an M16 rifle pressed against my back with my face turned toward the street. In
the street, there were civil defense vehicles, fire trucks and ambulances parked nearby. They opened fire directly on them.
There are soldiers. There are soldiers. One paramedic says in this recording of his final call.
The Israeli military buried the bodies in this shallow grave. They say it was to prevent the bodies from being scavenged. The U.N. only reached the
site a week later.
Paramedic Hassan Hosni nearly ended up in that grave, but he called in sick that day, and his son, Mohammed, took his place. He soon called him one
last time. Help me, dad, help me. I asked him what was wrong, and he said, we were targeted by the Israelis, and they are now shooting at us directly.
Then the call disconnected. A week later, his father identified his body.
They wouldn't let me wash the dirt from his face. I don't know why. He had a wound on his mouth here, another on his forehead and another on his back,
all from gunfire, his father says. God bless his soul.
Jeremy Diamond, CNN, Jerusalem.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: That is Jeremy Diamond reporting for us. Well, Gaza is not the only place where humanitarian workers face threats both natural and made
manmade. And the gutting of aid from the U.S. means workers from Myanmar to Haiti are forced to shut down critical services.
Now, in the Democratic Republic of Congo, millions face destitution as the escalation in violent conflict forces them to flee across borders. Jan
Egeland, secretary general of the Norwegian Refugee Council is just back from the DRC no stranger to conflict zones. Egeland says that he was
shocked by conditions there.
Jan Egeland, welcome back to the program. So, let me ask you, I mean, you have hundreds of thousands displaced, thousands thus far have been killed.
Tell us what you saw on your visit.
JAN EGELAND, SECRETARY GENERAL, NORWEGIAN REFUGEE COUNCIL: Well, when I came to Goma, which is the largest city in Eastern Congo, it was under the
control of the militia group, M23. This group has taken also the second largest city in Eastern Congo, Bukavo, and a large part of the Kivu
provinces.
Now, there are new displacements, 1.2 million people displaced by that recent fighting when this group took control of the area. But it was also
taken aback by seeing some of the 1.8 million people who have been able now to return home to the ancestral land who need seeds to plant again. They
want to be farmers again. They want to rebuild their homes. We can help them.
And then, it is heartbreaking to see that the U.S. is cutting its aid in this hour of greatest need and greatest opportunity to help the Congolese,
the Europeans are turning their back on this tremendous crisis. We can do so much more. We have several hundred humanitarian workers on the ground
and they can do miracles if we have the resources.
GOLODRYGA: How are the Congolese there that you spoke with reacting to this sort of more isolationist view from the United States in terms of cutting
off aid for other countries? I mean, you have the secretary general saying that we're -- I mean, the secretary of state saying we're not the
government of the world. And as you noted, European countries as well, maybe not for this particular reason, but their focus has turned to
defense, especially in light of the war in Ukraine.
[13:20:00]
Keir Starmer also saying that they will have to boost defense spending and thus take a cut in sort of their international and aid. How are the
Congolese responding to this news?
EGELAND: I mean, they are so disappointed, really, because what is happening is a tremendous strategic mistake of the Western countries, north
-- the United States, Europe, the Gulf countries can and must do more.
We are interested all in a world without pandemics, without mass migration, without perpetual wars. What we're spending. 0.2 percent of a gross
national income on average on assistance. The U.S. less than 0.2 percent of gross national income. Norwegians are paying five times more per tax payer
and we're still only paying 1 percent of our riches.
And what we're doing when we invest in hope, is saving lives. I mean, these were mothers singing and dancing after they have gotten assistance from the
Norwegian Refugee Council. This was from the U.K. and from the European Union and from Norway. They were rebuilding their homes. They were now
becoming self-sufficient on their own land. We could do that because we had the resources. I think it's a strategic mistake now to be inward looking
nationalistic and do armaments only.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And the idea of soft power being so powerful, for lack of a better word, has always been part -- or for many, many decades has been
part of U.S. foreign policy as well, aside from just the humanitarian aspect of giving aid to these countries.
If we could go back to your visit now and what you saw in the DRC. You say, generations of children now know nothing but the cycle of violence. Let me
just read through some of the details that you shared with our producers. The urban camps have overflown, latrines, nowhere to wash, dozens of people
sleeping in a single room.
I mean, these are the so-called lucky people that survive, that managed to flee, but are now displaced. No pots for cooking, brutal assaults, gender-
based violence. Mothers having to send their kids out begging or exchanging sex for food. Why do you think this crisis, and thank you for your focus on
it, has been so neglected by other parts of the world?
EGELAND: Well, it's been lasting for a long time. They -- of course, the Congo is so rich in minerals, in natural resources that it has been ripped
apart by colonial powers, European colonial powers, by neighboring states, by multinational companies, some of them European, some of them American.
The people have never got a fair chance to build a future. Now, we can do that. So, let me tell you a story of going to one school where there were
3,500 people who had fled the fighting and who had come to the school and now sleep every night in the classrooms, every morning they have to drag
out their blankets and mattresses because there's school still going on there, and the latrines are overflowing.
They told me that this guerilla group, the M23 that is in control, had come and said, you have to leave. We give you 24 hours to leave. If not, the men
would have to go to forced labor and the women will be interned on the football stadium.
So, I ask them, do you want to go back home? Is that your wish? And they said, there is no higher wish for us. We -- but it's so far away. So, we
agreed with them to negotiate with the armed group, and we got to stay on this on this expulsion for two weeks. And in that period of time, we will,
the Norwegian Refugee Council with the United Nations, enable voluntary trans -- return with transport and so on, cash to reintegrate when they
come back so they can start to farm again.
This is a success story that can only happen if rich countries take a little bit of their surplus to give to the poorest and the most vulnerable
people in the world.
GOLODRYGA: That is definitely one aspect, but addressing the conflict at hand itself is another important issue. We know that talks are underway in
Doha now between Congo and M23.
[13:25:00]
M23, we should note, both the United States and the U.N. believe that they are backed by Rwanda. Rwanda has denied that. But how hopeful are you that
these talks will actually be fruitful and put a pause or hopefully even an end to the fighting?
EGELAND: I'm hopeful. I think the armed actors all understand that more fighting now would be in nobody's interest, and the population cannot take
more displacement and conflict. So, it's important that there has been meetings between Rwanda and the president of DRC. There is talks between
this one armed group, M23, which is very strong, and the Congolese central government.
There are -- the Southern African countries, the Eastern African countries, the Central African countries are involved in talks. I'm hopeful. But we
also need then to have the investment in development in humanitarian aid and some resolution to the sanctions that this part of the country is
under. We cannot now move money to the banks in the area because they're under sanctions. Humanitarian work, economic life is being paralyzed.
GOLODRYGA: Help us put a face to some of these humanitarian aid workers who, for most viewers just know from headlines, and the headlines typically
or as of late, have been quite bleak. We talked about the cutting of USAID from this government and the State Department, other countries around the
world, I mean, look at Myanmar, three aid workers were laid off while in Myanmar trying to help in assistance following that devastating earthquake.
You talk about what you see in the DRC.
You saw that report from Jeremy Diamond in Gaza, where Israel is now re- investigating an investigation following what had been eye witness and video reports questioning the claims that the IDF had initially made. Just
give us in these final few moments more insight into the risks that these aid workers take and face around the world and the challenges in
particular, they're now facing.
EGELAND: Well, there is enormous bravery on these frontlines of humanity by local aid workers, like the Palestinian colleagues who were killed, there's
no other way to describe it, by a military machine. And don't believe the report of parties to conflicts. Believe us, as aid workers on the ground,
we're independent, we're neutral, we're impartial.
In the DRC, I had colleagues who had went into lockdown. They didn't leave Goma when it was taken over by this armed group. They went down in the
basement. And after three days of intense fighting, they came out and they restarted relief work. That's what we always do when we're on the
frontlines.
I hope we can now not see a retreat of international compassion, international solidarity that the Christian and who humanist and other
idols (ph) will come through really, because there is so much we can do, there is so much we can win together if we live together and we have
fantastic people who are willing to risk their lives to help people in the field, then we cannot disappoint them by not giving them the tools to save
lives and to build futures.
GOLODRYGA: And we know there is so much work to be done. Jan Egeland, you weren't able to see it, but we did show our viewers the footage and the
video of your time there on the ground, the DRC, with the locals. Thank you for sharing this story with us.
EGELAND: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: And for investing your own time there as well.
EGELAND: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: And we'll be right back after this short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:30:00]
GOLODRYGA: Well, now, the U.S. is facing one of its worst measles outbreaks in decades, which last week claimed the life of a second child. The
Department of Health and Human Services is working with local officials to combat the outbreak. And now, this comes as the Trump administration is
slashing thousands of jobs and billions in grants to state and local health departments.
Tom Frieden led the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for over a decade, and he warns Hari Sreenivasan that these cuts threaten lives not
just in America but all over the world.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HARI SREENIVASAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Bianna, thanks. Dr. Tom Frieden, thanks so much for joining us.
Last week, the HHS announced that it is beginning a significant round of layoffs and force reductions. 10,000 to 20,000 people are going to be
downsized. What was your reaction when you heard the news?
DR. TOM FRIEDEN, FORMER DIRECTOR, U.S. CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION AND PRESIDENT AND CEO, RESOLVE TO SAVE LIVES: Unfortunately,
this is targeting the wrong number. It's an arbitrary reduction in jobs. The goal should be a reduction in preventable suffering, illness, injury,
and death. That's what we should be focused on when we're trying to improve health and make America healthier.
SREENIVASAN: So, you wrote a column recently and the title was, "Cuts to the Agency Will Cost American Lives and Dollars." Explain that. Why is this
life or death?
DR. FRIEDEN: Traditionally, for decades, the CDC has protected Americans from threats, whether those are infectious or otherwise manmade or natural
from the U.S. or anywhere in the world. If you look at those three areas that threats come from, two of them are being undermined by recent actions.
One of them is non-infectious threats, which are very real. The chronic disease crisis is indeed a crisis, and there are things we can do about it.
And if you look at the cuts to the global health programs, they're devastating. They -- and if not reversed, they will cause millions of
deaths around the world and make Americans less safe.
SREENIVASAN: People might recognize your face. You used to run the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Kind of put this in perspective for us.
I mean, where the CDC sits, what it's responsible for, where the HHS sits, what it's responsible for.
DR. FRIEDEN: This is unprecedented, Hari. Nothing like this has ever happened before. What we're looking at is reversing decades of progress in
public health. Let me give you three examples. First, smoking. The CDC Office on Smoking and Health has made tremendous progress. We've reduced
adult smoking to the lowest level ever.
Smoking in kids is less than 4 percent now. It used to be 28 percent. These are programs that we're working. And overnight, they have been ended. And
that means the laboratory work, the disease tracking, the support for state programs. There are many state programs that rely for most of their money
for tobacco control on the CDC. This includes Kansas, West Virginia, Michigan, and others. So, tobacco is one big area.
A second is environmental health risks. The whole unit that tracks environmental health risks, whether that's asthma or soot called PM2.5 or
harmful algal blooms, a big issue in Florida. That whole unit was ended from one day to the next.
The third area is communication. Americans rely on the CDC for fact-based information. Doctors rely on the CDC for medical guidance. All of the CDC
communications programs were ended. I have no idea how they're going to update their website or live stream programs or run what's called CDC Info
where they answer questions from the public. This really does undermine health and safety of the U.S.
SREENIVASAN: You know, there's a story in The Washington Post, which said that employees who were laid off worked on measures to, quote, "prevent
drowning, gun violence and smoking." Scientists researched asthma, climate change, and worker safety.
Now, these programs, should they be under the Centers for Disease Control?
DR. FRIEDEN: Well, first off, it's really important to understand that when funds go to CDC, about two-thirds of all of those funds go out to state and
local health departments and some to community organizations to confront those problems in communities.
[13:35:00]
So, when you cut the budget for CDC, you're actually cutting state and local programs. And when you cut the number of staff working at CDC, you're
undermining the ability of CDC to both increase the effectiveness of those programs and to support state and local governments.
SREENIVASAN: Robert F. Kennedy has said that -- Jr. has said that this overhaul is necessary. He put it up on social media recently. He said,
quote, "The reality is clear, what we've been doing isn't working despite spending $1.9 trillion in annual costs, Americans are getting sicker every
year. In the past four years alone, the agency's budget has grown by 38 percent, yet outcomes continue to decline."
What's wrong with his line of thinking?
DR. FRIEDEN: There are elements of what Secretary Kennedy says that I completely agree with. We do have a chronic disease crisis. We must address
it. What we've learned in public health is when we focus on things, we can see big progress.
Look at HIV. With HIV we have a 90 percent reduction in deaths and a 75 percent reduction in infections because of public health programs. When you
eliminate those programs, you get rid of labs that track things like hepatitis and STDs. You eliminate tracking systems for behavioral risks.
You're really putting Americans at risk.
SREENIVASAN: There seems to be a focus on chronic disease from the part of the cabinet secretary. Where are we in terms of the work that HHS and CDC
do in preventing those?
DR. FRIEDEN: The big picture about chronic disease is there is no mystery about it. There are five things that are driving most chronic disease in
America, tobacco, salt, sugar, soot called PM2.5, and alcohol. The difference between addressing infectious diseases and addressing chronic
diseases is that infectious diseases don't hire lobbyists. The tobacco industry has been trying to get rid of the CDC program for decades. The
current administration accomplished that in weeks.
A second area that's really challenging is improving nutrition. This means improving the choices that Americans have in the supermarket, in
restaurants so that healthier foods are less expensive, more accessible. Right now, the Agriculture Department spends billions of dollars to
subsidize unhealthy food that's sold cheaply to Americans.
SREENIVASAN: When you think about chronic diseases, I mean, the data doesn't seem to back up our current way of doing things, right? I mean,
early onset cancer increased by 79 percent between 1990 and 2019 around the world. If medical problems like this seem to be persisting, why should we
not shift course as Cabinet Secretary Kennedy says?
DR. FRIEDEN: We know what to do about chronic disease, tax tobacco, tax alcohol, tax soda, tax junk food. This makes a really big difference. If
you can't do that, at least don't subsidize junk food and unhealthy food, make healthy food cheaper, more available.
It's also critically important that we improve our primary healthcare system. Here's a shocking fact. Less than 5 percent of all of the funds
that Medicare provides goes to primary care. Primary care is your local doctor, your family clinician. That is very, very cost-effective care. In
fact, the best evidence is that if we do it right, we could triple spending on primary care and reduce overall Medicare spending.
And in fact, primary care is not available for about a hundred million Americans don't have a local doctor. So, yes, we do need improvements. We
need better primary healthcare, and frankly, we need more investment in some of the leading causes of illness, injury, disability, and death.
20 years ago, I wrote an article called "Asleep at the Switch," that we are asleep at the switch from infectious to non-infectious causes of death. But
when we invest, we see big improvements.
SREENIVASAN: I wonder when you talk about infectious diseases, and I was reading a paper last week by Monica Gandhi at UCSF, and it said that we are
likely to see more drug resistant cases of tuberculosis and HIV spread in the world. This is kind of what happens after periods of war or economic
collapse, and that's what these two researchers were kind of making this parallel to, our withdrawal from USAID or in some of the preventative
issues with -- under both these departments.
DR. FRIEDEN: The chaotic U.S. withdrawal from global health is going to have terrible consequences, not only on the health of children, mothers,
and adults around the world, but also on American health. Drug resistant tuberculosis is an important example. When you stop a TB treatment program,
when you disrupt it with messing up supply chains, with stopping funding of organizations providing care.
[13:40:00]
To give you one example, an excellent organization in Bangladesh had thousands of workers helping tuberculosis patients get through treatment,
they were laid off. Hundreds of thousands of health workers in Africa have been laid off because of these very drastic, chaotic and unplanned cuts.
This is really bad for the world and it's bad for the U.S. also. A single case of drug resistant tuberculosis can cost hundreds of thousands of
dollars or even a million dollars to care for in the U.S., and yet, preventing that overseas could cost less than a hundred dollars.
SREENIVASAN: Speaking of things that are infectious diseases that are affecting populations today, just over the weekend, a second child in Texas
died from a measles outbreak there. In an op-ed, Secretary Kennedy has promoted vaccines, but he's also pursued remedies like vitamin A and cod
liver oil. And I wonder, given what you've said about sort of communications and messaging, do you see something wrong with that
approach?
DR. FRIEDEN: There are really big problems with the U.S. response to measles. Just to be clear, this is the second largest outbreak we've had in
the last 25 years, and as many deaths as we've had in the last 25 years combined in the U.S. The measles vaccine is safe and effective. Measles
virus is dangerous. And as we've seen, it can be deadly even for healthy children.
Vitamin A, actually by chance, I did the studies on Vitamin A when there was a big outbreak in New York City in the early 1990s. Vitamin A may have
a role not to prevent measles or before you have measles, but for young children who have measles, a very controlled dose of vitamin A might be
able to slightly reduce the severity of illness. That's it for vitamin A. And if you take too much, it can be quite toxic.
So, these are not just toxic potential medicines, but toxic advice. The way you stop a measles outbreak is by vaccinating, providing it to people,
answering their questions, being clear the measles vaccine is safe and effective.
SREENIVASAN: Is Robert Kennedy Jr., the cabinet secretary, misinterpreting your data about the vitamin A studies?
DR. FRIEDEN: Anyone who says that giving vitamin A prevents measles or should be given before a measles infection is saying something that's not
supported by any scientific facts.
SREENIVASAN: Recently, we had Dr. Peter Marks, the top vaccine chief. He left the position at the FDA because of disagreements with the cabinet
secretary. He told The Wall Street Journal that Kennedy sought non-existent data to justify anti-vax narratives. So, what do you see here if the person
who's running the agency in charge of health and human services is promoting mis or disinformation?
DR. FRIEDEN: I'm worried, and I'm worried about things like the Advisory Committee on immunization practices where Mr. Kennedy has spread inaccurate
statements. He said 97 percent of them have severe conflicts of interest. That is simply not true. And in fact, what CDC has done is put on the
website every potential conflict of interest in every member of the Advisory Committee. These are parents, pediatricians, public health
specialists who volunteer their time. And this group, what's called the ACIP, is what gives doctors the recommendations for which vaccines to give
and what requires insurers to pay for these vaccines, whether they're for COVID or meningitis.
So, messing up our infrastructure to use facts to protect people from microbes is a very dangerous road to go down.
SREENIVASAN: So, what's the problem with saying that perhaps these functions can be done by other departments, other agencies, and this is a
way that we could cut costs?
DR. FRIEDEN: There's a move to create a centralized unit in the federal government. And actually, Congress has outlined some interest in looking at
that. Until you see what actually would be done and how, it's hard to say whether it's a good or bad idea.
Certainly, doing things in an unplanned way, getting rid of thousands of people who spent decades of their lives learning how to protect Americans,
that's a bad idea, and it's not a recipe for success. And communication is so very important. Who's going to trust a political appointee to give
information when the taxpayers are paying the world's top experts in microbes, in environmental toxins, in prevention of stroke and heart attack
and treatment of diabetes, that's who we need to be hearing from, and that's what we need to be strengthening.
We can reverse the chronic disease epidemic in this country, but that means better primary healthcare with a focus on controlling high blood pressure
and implementing the programs that work while we figure out what's causing some of the increases, for example, of cancer in young people, which is
most likely a result of some environmental contaminations, whether it's microplastics or nanoparticles or endocrine disruptors, all of those things
were studied by the CDC unit that got ACT last week.
[13:45:00]
SREENIVASAN: Make the case for how interconnected global health is to American Health. Because some of the pushback that people have been seeing
recently is, OK, you know what, I don't necessarily know if I should be spending taxpayer money on preventing tuberculosis in a different country
or HIV in a different country, what does that have to do with American health here?
DR. FRIEDEN: Viruses don't need passports. Viruses don't obey borders. And when a disease emerges anywhere in the world, it may be a threat, not just
there, but to the U.S. as well. It's faster, it's more efficient, and it's more effective to stop health threats when and where they emerge than to
wait until they've spread and gained momentum and are now spreading within the United States.
SREENIVASAN: Former director of the CDC, Tom Frieden, thanks so much for joining us.
DR. FRIEDEN: Thank you, Hari.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: Well now the Rwandan genocide, 100 days of slaughter, 31 years of pain. This week, people will come together to remember those who were
killed. In the spring of 1994, over months of carefully planned terror, around 800,000 people, mostly from the Tutsi ethnic minority, were murdered
by the Hutu extremists. Yet, from the most heinous crimes against humanity, forgiveness and reconciliations still emerged.
Back in 2019, Christiane, spoke with Denise Uwimana, a survivor who was pregnant when the Hutu militia attacked her village. Here's their
conversation and Denise's message of hope.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: So, what happened to your family precisely? Because what happened to your family happened to
nearly a million others in Rwanda.
DENISE UWIMANA, RWANDAN GENOCIDE SURVIVOR: The whole family on the side of my father, the side of my mother, the most people were killed. My father,
my mother escaped the genocide because they were not in Rwanda.
AMANPOUR: If they had they be in Rwanda --
UWIMANA: Yes.
AMANPOUR: -- you would have lost your mother and father?
UWIMANA: Of course. Yes.
AMANPOUR: And you were married, you were the mother of children, two boys and you were pregnant when the genocide happened.
UWIMANA: Yes.
AMANPOUR: What happened to your husband?
UWIMANA: My husband was killed during the genocide. Even today, I don't know the way they killed him. So, no one even told me, your husband was
killed from these people. I know he was killed by the Hutu militias, but I don't know where they put him. I don't know where he is. This is still a
trauma for us.
AMANPOUR: So, you've never been able to bury him or make your peace?
UWIMANA: Unfortunately. Because I always ask questions, I always ask people everywhere. No one really was able to give me an answer.
AMANPOUR: Do you remember how you got separated? Did you remember the last time you saw him?
UWIMANA: Of course. It was very hard. It was 5th of April, 1994. And he asked me, what are you feeling? I told him what I was feeling. He just
saying goodbye, embraced and he must leave. As usual, he went and he never see him again.
AMANPOUR: Do you remember his last words to you?
UWIMANA: He just embraced me. He told me, I love you, and he went.
AMANPOUR: And you didn't know what that meant, and you had, as I said, two little boys and you were pregnant. You were nine months pregnant. You were
nearly about to have your third child.
UWIMANA: Yes.
AMANPOUR: So, then what happened?
UWIMANA: Oh, that is really difficult also because sometimes we have -- we survivors, we do not know how to express really what we experienced. I was
pregnant and I heard that we were going to be killed. I informed my neighbor that we were going to be killed. We make peace to separate. And I
-- in my house, we're ten people. We met in the corridor. We knew we were going to be killed. We had time to say goodbye. And I must leave, flee in
the bathroom because I heard that the militias were coming. I had my second son on my back. Others went in my bedroom, other in guest room.
[13:50:00]
So, in the bathroom, there I struggled really with God. And I have reason to struggle with him. For my faith. I was a Christian. My husband was not
there. So -- and there, I told to God, you disappoint me. Why didn't you never tell me the truth I be killed?
AMANPOUR: In the middle of this you gave birth?
UWIMANA: When the killers met me in the bathroom, instead of killing me, they start a discussion with me. They asked me money. I said, I don't have
money. They said, we're going to kill you, but they wanted the money. I went in my bathroom and I saw my beloved cousins down.
AMANPOUR: You saw your dead cousins?
UWIMANA: Yes, down. So, I took money, I gave them. When I gave to them, one went to kill me. He said, no, why you don't want to kill this Tutsi woman?
He rose the sword to kill me, and I stopped him. And I went in my bedroom.
Under the bedroom, they will I see my cousin, Manasseh, He was still alive. He told me, please, make me come under the bed, I'm still alive. I crawled
myself under the bed. There was full of blood of people who were killed. Can you imagine?
AMANPOUR: So, you crawled into all of that blood under the bed?
UWIMANA: Yes. I stayed there the whole afternoon. During the night, water broken to attempt to give birth.
AMANPOUR: Your water's broke there and then?
UWIMANA: Yes. So -- and all the time, I was hearing my cousin always crying, crying, Jesus of Nazareth, help me. Help, until she finished. You
can you imagine such traumatic. I breathed the blood. So, I was there, and he helped me. I told him, please, let me get out. All clothes were full of
blood. I went to the bathroom. I could wash myself. I watched through the curtains to see how the killers would plunder the house of Tutsis.
AMANPOUR: So, they were stealing everything?
UWIMANA: Stealing the night.
AMANPOUR: You gave birth to the baby in this unbelievable environment, lying in blood, trying to get help from neighbors.
UWIMANA: Yes, yes.
AMANPOUR: I was stunned to read --
UWIMANA: Yes.
AMANPOUR: -- that you survived of your Hutu neighbors.
UWIMANA: Oh, I can tell you that. I had unexpected support from Hutus, some of my neighbors whom I did not expect that they were the ones to support
me. So, they were like angels sent from God. And until now, they are best friend of me.
AMANPOUR: How on earth --
UWIMANA: Yes.
AMANPOUR: -- did you, after all this that happened to you, and you talk about reconciliation and forgiveness. How did you start the process of
forgiveness out of this horror?
UWIMANA: First, I started for myself, I can say. Because I started to struggle. Why did you allow that more than 1 million Tutsi were killed? How
will I again live with these people? How will -- where are we going to trust? So, we were young widows. You know, I survived 28 -- 29 years old.
AMANPOUR: Did you ever think you'd be a widow at 29?
UWIMANA: Never. You saw, I was dreaming many good things with my husband. So, suddenly, all were cut. How I come to forgive, so it was a voice inside
me told me, do not overcome by evil. Do good things. And then, as I was always praying, I got a message, really which gave me strength from the
bible. Inside the voice told, Denise, give chance. These Hutu people who killed you, so that they recognize that they have done bad to you.
AMANPOUR: Did they have to admit what they did?
UWIMANA: Yes, yes. They asked for forgiveness.
AMANPOUR: Because you didn't just forgive them just like that?
UWIMANA: No, no, no. They said, forgiveness. But forgiveness, it was a process. I say, yes, but I must fight every day, I forgive, I forgive.
AMANPOUR: Why is it important for you to forgive? Why did you need to forgive them?
UWIMANA: So, I forgive because also they killed myself, also I hurt them. And as a Christian, I should not do like them.
AMANPOUR: So, you needed to forgive to end the hate?
UWIMANA: End the hate, because I forgive, and I end the hate.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: An incredible story of strength, resilience, and ultimately forgiveness from a survivor.
[13:55:00]
And finally, we end the show with these adorable cubs. Meet Romulus and Remus. They might look like regular dogs, but they're actually a
reincarnation of the dire wolf. The fearsome species which went extinct over 12,000 years ago. Wielding the power of cloning and gene editing
technology, a Dallas-based biotech company, Colossal Biosciences, says that it altered the genes of a gray wolf and paired them with a dire wolf DNA
found in fossils.
Three cubs have been born from the project. The latest addition to the pack, a female pup called Khaleesi. A nod to the famous queen from "Game of
Thrones."
Well, that does it for us today. Thank you so much for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
