Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview With Former White House Coordinator For Arms Control And Brandeis University Crown Center For Middle East Studies Director Gary Samore; Interview With "Adventures In The Louvre" Author Elaine Sciolino; Interview With The Trevor Project Director Of Federal Advocacy and Government Affairs Mark Henson. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired June 27, 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]
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Iran will not have nuclear. What we blew it up is blown up to kingdom come.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Is Iran out of the nuclear business for good, or could us and Israeli attacks drive the program underground? Nuclear arms control expert
Gary Samore examines Iran's strategic options.
And --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ELAINE SCIOLINO, AUTHOR, "ADVENTURES IN THE LOUVRE": Well, it's a fortress. And I went in like a foreign correspondent, like a war correspondent, and
did battle in this incredible fortress that's still impregnable.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- "Adventures in the Louvre." Former New York Times Paris Bureau Chief Elaine Sciolino takes me behind the scenes of the iconic museum, from
its famous glass pyramid to the coveted Mona Lisa, all explored in her new book.
Then --
MARK HENSON, DIRECTOR OF FEDERAL ADVOCACY AND GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, THE TREVOR PROJECT: Suicide prevention is about people, not about politics.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- Hari Sreenivasan speaks to charity director Mark Henson about the Trump administration ending funding for a suicide prevention hotline
for LGBTQ plus youth.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London.
The primary goal of Israeli American attacks on Iran was to remove the country's, quote, "existential nuclear threat." But what if the attacks
have the opposite effect, motivating the Islamic Republic to pull out of the Non-Proliferation Treaty or NPT and resume their nuclear program
covertly.
In parliament, Iranian lawmakers voted overwhelmingly to suspend cooperation with the IAEA. That is the U.N. Atomic Energy Agency that
monitors these things. That would mean Iran halting inspections, reporting and oversight activities. A final decision on the matter will be made by
Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Iran always insisted its nuclear program is peaceful. In fact, in 1995, I was taken to the earliest reactor, the nuclear power plant in Bushehr on
the Persian Gulf Coast. Here's what I found back then.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR (voice-over): Here it stands on the Persian Gulf, covered in idle cranes, buffeted by the wind and the sand. A symbol of one country's hopes
and another's fears. Fears the Iranian government clearly wants to quash by allowing the first TV crew an organized tour inside its unfinished nuclear
power plant in Bushehr.
Iran is waiting for the Russians to install a light water reactor in this cavity, the heart of the building. And to provide other components needed
to start up the plant. The plant was started by the Germans in the '70s. Work stopped after the Islamic revolution. And when the new regime decided
to restart the project, intense U.S. pressure kept the Germans away, that and suspicions about Iran's intentions. Iran says it just wants to see a
return on its $10 billion investment.
REZA AMROLLAHI, THEN-DIRECTOR, IRANIAN ATOMIC ENERGY ORGANIZATION: We already spent this huge amount of money and we cannot get anything from it,
and we want to finish it to get electricity from it.
AMANPOUR (voice-over): Iranians and Russians say this plant can't be used to develop weapons. They say it requires different technology and
scientific expertise, but the U.S. suspects Iran is pursuing a separate military program and worries that the required expertise may come with the
influx of Russians.
AMROLLAHI: The American are totally wrong. No, we don't have this ambitious, and we don't want to have this idea.
AMANPOUR: The International Monitoring Agency says that as yet it's found no evidence to suggest Iran plans a nuclear military buildup. Iran says it
hopes within the next 20 years to have up to 20 percent of its electricity generated by nuclear energy, and it could build between three and 10 more
nuclear power plants.
AMANPOUR (voice-over): Despite its huge oil and gas reserves, Iran says that like any other country, it has the right to develop alternative energy
sources for the future.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR (on camera): That was then 30 years ago. Today, President Trump says the other later nuclear facilities have been totally obliterated. And
at the NATO Summit he said, U.S. and Iranian negotiating teams would meet next week.
So, what is ahead? Gary Samore served as White House coordinator for arms control under President Obama, and he's joining me now. Gary Samore,
welcome to the program. You are a serious arms control expert. You worked for the Obama administration, and we want to know your insight into all of
this.
[13:05:00]
First and foremost, you know, there's a furious row between the administration and those who are claiming that initial intelligence found
that it had only been set back a bit, the program at Fordow, for instance. That initial intelligence. And now, Israel has said it's been taken off the
table. Iran has said its nuclear facilities have been badly damaged.
Can I ask you what you think is the best-case scenario for what could have been achieved by bombing at Fordow? Let's just take Fordow.
GARY SAMORE, FORMER WHITE HOUSE COORDINATOR FOR ARMS CONTROL: Well, I think Fordow is the biggest uncertainty for the other major facilities at Isfahan
and Natanz and centrifuge production facilities. It appears that the damage was very, very severe, in some cases above ground, unprotected buildings
have been completely destroyed.
At Fordow, most of which is underground, it's a little unclear exactly how much damage and whether or not the massive ordinance penetrator bombs the
U.S. dropped actually penetrated into the centrifuge hall. I don't think we'll know until people dig out the tunnel entrances and actually try to go
in there. But in any event, I think it's unclear whether Iran would try to rebuild at Fordow, even if it is only partially damaged because there's a
risk that the U.S. and Israel would simply attack it again.
So, I'm not sure the question of exactly what percentage of the centrifuges had been destroyed, I'm not sure it really matters very much in terms of
Iran's capability to rebuild its program, except they might be able to salvage some of the centrifuges and auxiliary equipment if they decide in
the future to build an enrichment plant someplace else in secret, they hope.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, that is the question, isn't it? The whole debate over how much of a facility was destroyed. Clearly, potentially, I think, anyway,
from what I've spoken to experts, and I'm listening to you now, it sort of obliterates the actual real problem and the real question, which we do not
know, were they able to preserve and rescue and remove a certain number of centrifuges, if not all? And crucially, were they able to remove a certain
amount or all of the 400 or so kilograms of highly enriched uranium, the 60 percent that is so troublesome to the rest of the world? And if so, could
they decide to pursue a program and maybe even a weapon in secret? What do you think?
SAMORE: Well, certainly they could try. I mean, Iran has the technical expertise. They have bits and pieces of the centrifuge program left over,
and most importantly, as you said, they have a pretty large stockpile of enriched uranium, about 5,000 kilograms of low enriched uranium and about
400 kilograms of 60 percent enriched uranium, which could be enriched further to 90 percent. That was the level Iran planned to use in their
nuclear weapon.
Iran could even try to make crude and bulky nuclear weapons from the 60 percent enriched uranium. It couldn't be delivered by a missile or a
military aircraft, but it might be delivered by a boat or a commercial airliner. So, all of that is possible.
I think the question is what Iran's will is and what their capacity or appetite for risk is? Certainly, the war has increased Iran's rationale for
having nuclear weapons as a way to defend themselves and deter future attacks from the U.S. and Israel, but the war has also illustrated that
Israel, and even more important the U.S. is prepared to use military force to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
So, Iran has to calculate what is the danger that an effort to resume a nuclear weapons program or a program to produce nuclear weapons could
result in an additional conflict. And we just don't know the answer to that now.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
SAMORE: I think we'll get a much better idea next week when U.S. and Iranian negotiators are meeting and we'll see whether or not Iran reaffirms
its commitment to the NPT, which would require them to allow IAEA inspectors to verify and monitor the location of this enriched uranium.
[13:10:00]
Some of it could be buried in tunnels at Isfahan. So, it might take months to dig it out. Some of it could have been moved before the U.S. strike. So,
it's really a little unclear at this point exactly what the status of that enriched uranium is.
AMANPOUR: OK. Well, let me ask you, because you yourself wrote that Iran is unlikely to formally give up its right to enrichment. The supreme leader
has now come out and he has said it's a joke that Iran would surrender enrichment. You just mentioned an option, and we wait to see if they
withdraw from the NPT, but they have actually, in parliament anyway and with one other level, it's called the -- you know, one of the expert levels
that they have in their system, have decided that they will suspend or end cooperation with the IAEA. How bad is that? What does that signal?
SAMORE: I think if Iran had withdraws from the NPT and stop cooperating with the IAEA, which would mean that we don't really know for sure where
that enriched uranium is, I think it's quite likely that the war would resume. Just as if Iran tries to build a secret enrichment plant and it's
discovered, I think it's very likely that the war would resume.
So, again, Iran has to calculate, on one hand, it's enhanced desire to have nuclear weapons for protection versus, on the other hand, the risk that
pursuing nuclear weapons will lead to a resumption of a conflict. And I think an early indication will be what happens next week when U.S. and
Iranian negotiators meet, what does Iran agree to?
They -- I agree that they won't give up the right to enrichment. That's something too important to the regime. But they might commit to remain in
the NPT and cooperate with the IAEA. We'll have to wait and see.
AMANPOUR: I want to go back to a little bit of the history of the Iranian nuclear program. As you know, in 1957, the U.S. and Iran signed a nuclear
cooperation agreement, it was part of President Eisenhower. Atom for Peace program, that also led to the IAEA. The U.S. shipped Iran a nuclear reactor
in the late '60s. The Iran signed the NPT around the same time.
But Robert Einhorn, a former arms control official who you know, well say we gave Iran its starter kit. We weren't terribly concerned about nuclear
proliferation in those days, so we were pretty promiscuous about transferring nuclear technology. We got other countries started in the
nuclear business.
So, let's just go back to that. Obviously, with the best intentions, they didn't expect there to be, you know, a rush towards weaponization. Was that
naive or did something go wrong?
SAMORE: Well, what's interesting is that the U.S. position toward Iran's nuclear program has actually been very consistent, going back to the Nixon
administration. We supported Iran acquiring nuclear technology for research and for nuclear power, for energy generation, but we oppose the Shah of
Iran acquiring what's called fuel cycle, enrichment and reprocessing, which are technologies that have both civilian and military applications.
And that policy has actually continued after the after the revolution. President Clinton and President Yeltsin reached an agreement that the U.S.
would not try to block the Bushehr nuclear power reactor that you featured in your really interesting piece. And at the same time, Russia agreed to
cancel plans to build an enrichment plant inside Iran.
And I think when the Russians backed out of that contract with Iran, the Iranians decided to build their own enrichment facility, ostensibly to
produce fuel for nuclear power. That was the start of the Natanz enrichment plant, which was then subsequently made public in 2002. And which, of
course, was recently attacked in this --
AMANPOUR: Exactly. And you know, of course, I think most people in the business know that it was the Pakistani nuclear scientist who on the black
markets sold Iran its first centrifuges to enrich uranium and help, you know, kickstart the fuel cycle situation in Iran. But I want to ask you
this because, look, you know, John Kerry and all the others who negotiated the JCPOA, they believe that whatever happens, this has to be a diplomatic
process, it has to be negotiated. It can't be bombed out of existence. You can't bomb knowledge of all these scientists, et cetera.
And you, I think, have straddled both sides of it. You are, on the one hand, a member of a group that was very, very clear about opposing an Iran
nuclear weapon, like just about everybody else in the world. But then you resigned from that because you thought the JCPOA was a good deal. But then
Trump pulled out of the JCPOA
[13:15:00]
We're here because of that, right, of pulling out and the Iran's, you know, rush to enrich to 60 percent.
SAMORE: Yes, I think we're here because of two miscalculations. The first was Trump's decision to withdraw from the JCPOA in 2018, which was an
agreement that was working very well. It was limited in terms of its time, but it gave the U.S. and Iran a basis on which to try to negotiate further
agreements. So, that was a grave miscalculation.
The second miscalculation was really on Iran's part. President Biden had negotiated with the other parties to the JCPOA, an agreement to return to
the agreement, to revive it. And in the summer of. 2022, the Iranians rejected that agreement. Why? I'm not sure. But the combination of the two,
Trump leaving and then Iran refusing to restore the agreement, led to the situation where Iran was very rapidly accumulating 60 percent enriched
uranium, which, as we talked about, poses a nuclear weapons threat. And I think that's what triggered the conflict.
If Iran had observed more caution in their production of 60 percent enriched uranium, which they could have done unilaterally, I think we might
not have had the basis on which this war took place.
AMANPOUR: Indeed. And unfortunately, according to some Biden officials, Iran was asking them an impossible question, how can you guarantee that if
Trump comes back, he won't again pull out? So, this is just a whole load of miscalculations by everybody. And here we are. Gary Samore, thank you very
much indeed for being with us.
SAMORE: Thank you, Christiane.
AMANPOUR: And later in the program, "Adventures in the Louvre" with an intrepid reporter who got unprecedented access to the world-famous museum
in Paris.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
AMANPOUR: And now, to Paris and uncovering the secrets of one of the most famous museums in the world. Elaine Sciolino made her name as a foreign
correspondent covering crises and revolution, and she served as The New York Times Paris bureau chief for a while. She's now turned her reporting
skills onto the Louvre, exploring the iconic museum in ways you've never seen before, like joining window washers on the glass pyramid, and
divulging why so many employees there have a love hate relationship with the Mona Lisa.
Her book is called "Adventures in the Louvre," and she joined me here in London to discuss her latest assignment.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Elaine Sciolino, welcome.
SCIOLINO: Thank you.
AMANPOUR: "Adventures in the Louvre." What made you want to write a book about the world, yes, biggest, best known museum? Was it obvious?
SCIOLINO: Well, it's a fortress. And I went in like a foreign correspondent, like a war correspondent, and did battle in this incredible
fortress that's still impregnable, and hopefully conquered it, at least temporarily.
AMANPOUR: You say impregnable. I was actually really astounded to hear about the amount of -- I mean, it's a little bit like going to some kind of
authoritarian dictatorship where you can't move from minders.
SCIOLINO: Yes.
AMANPOUR: How many minders and why at a museum were you so closely supervised?
[13:20:00]
SCIOLINO: Well, Christiane, you know, minders as I know minders from the Middle East. And I had a minder, and she was responsible for setting up
every single interview with a Louvre official. In fact, there was even a classified Louvre document that said that I was not allowed to go anywhere
in the Louvre, except with my minder, and that slowed me down probably about a year.
AMANPOUR: Yes. And I put your hackles up now, it would drive me bananas.
SCIOLINO: Well, what was terrible is she was a good minder. She was really efficient. And so, she did her job and that made it difficult.
AMANPOUR: Difficult?
SCIOLINO: Well, yes. But I found ways around it.
AMANPOUR: Yes, but what difficult? I mean, what could you not do that you would've rather done?
SCIOLINO: Well, it just meant that I had to do every interview according to the Louvre rules and according to her schedule, but I found ways around it.
For example, one of the curators went to the same fish market as I did in - - on the Rue des Martyrs. So, we would meet over fish. And one important curator agreed to come to my apartment. So, we would look at all of the
books on the Louvre and we would look at all of the works of art and paintings so that I could be prepared to go by myself and enter into this,
as I say, a battlefield.
AMANPOUR: And how difficult was it to navigate, because I know it's 400 rooms, it's massive. Did you have to pick and choose what you focused on?
SCIOLINO: No, I did everything. I decided to treat it like a journalistic field. And so, I asked questions,l like, how do you wash the windows of the
pyramid? So, I had to go up with the window washers.
AMANPOUR: That's the -- the famous IMP.
SCIOLINO: Yes. Well, how do you wash these or how do you go into the basement of the Louvre? So, I went with the Sapeur Pompier, who are the
firefighters who live in the Louvre into the bowels of the Louvre and up climbed -- we climbed up the side of the Louvre up to the roof, or I found
out that, for example, there was a librarian in charge of all of the letters about the Mona Lisa and to the Mona Lisa. So, I went through every
single letter about it. So, it was -- it really was an investigative but also ground on the ground reporting job.
AMANPOUR: So, we've done the process. Now, we're talking about the art and you bring up the Mona Lisa. So, I didn't know this, but it stands to reason
that 80 percent of first time Louvre visitors go specifically to see the Mona Lisa.
SCIOLINO: Yes.
AMANPOUR: What was your experience covering that? You'd obviously seen it before. But what was your relationship with the Mona Lisa and with the
crowds around the Mona Lisa?
SCIOLINO: Well, I was lucky because I got into the Louvre many times when no one else was there.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
SCIOLINO: So, I was able to see the Mona Lisa, just -- she and I bonded. And after a while, you can appreciate just why she's so magical.
AMANPOUR: Because you didn't appreciate before?
SCIOLINO: No, and I still don't like the fact that she's so important. I mean, here she's a Florentine and she's in this room with Venetian
painting. She doesn't belong there. She really does belong -- have to have her own space. But we had to navigate. We had to have a relationship of
confidence and trust.
AMANPOUR: You and the Mona Lisa?
SCIOLINO: Me and the Mona Lisa. Yes.
AMANPOUR: And you were talking about letters. You found letters that had been written to her. I just want to quote from one of them. There's a
little American girl called Democracy wrote to the Mona Lisa saying, "Tell all your painting friends hi. Do you think you're smiling in your picture?
How does it feel to have no eyebrows? I know how famous and busy you are, but can you please try to squeeze in some time to write me back?"
Well, first of all, that is the most atrocious piece of spelling and grammar that I've ever seen it.
SCIOLINO: It gets worse than that. Yes.
AMANPOUR: Oh, my gosh. I don't know how old this democracy is, but sweet. What other things did people ask the Mona Lisa?
SCIOLINO: Are you so yellow because you suffer from jaundice? Or one of the questions that's asked is, is this really the Mona Lisa painted by Leonardo
da Vinci or is it a fake? Because it would be too dangerous to put the real one there.
AMANPOUR: Do you think that -- because you know now everybody does selfies wherever they go.
SCIOLINO: Yes.
AMANPOUR: I mean, I was shocked that they allowed pictures near the Mona Lisa. Apparently, people barely look at it. They immediately whip out their
cameras, turn their back to it. So, it's a very fleeting relationship.
SCIOLINO: It's like love though. It's fleeting. But then, once you've made the connection, you want to go back for more maybe.
AMANPOUR: Tell us about the building itself. It wasn't built as a museum.
SCIOLINO: No.
AMANPOUR: Ae don't know why it's called Louvre. I want to hear why you think it possibly is. But it was built as a fort to protect Paris in 1190.
SCIOLINO: Yes. And then, it was a palace that the kings tried to live in, but it was damp. It's on the scent.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
SCIOLINO: So, it's damp and flooded and humid, and that's why Louis the IV escaped and built Versailles to get away. It never really worked as a royal
residence.
AMANPOUR: But how many -- I mean, hundreds of years later, it became a museum.
SCIOLINO: During the French Revolution.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
[13:25:00]
SCIOLINO: Yes. And it became a people's museum. It became a museum that everyone had access to and everybody could go to. But it was never a
museum, and it was sort of like a building, huge building, 400 rooms. It would take 18,000 steps to go to every single room. It kind of was all
pieced together over the century. So, nothing makes sense. It's not at all like the Met, which was built as a museum.
AMANPOUR: You talk about -- I mean, look, the Mona Lisa, as we know, are the most famous painting there, but there's so much more. I mean, you and
I, we've been to Iran and Iraq and we've seen so much of the artwork there, but also that has been brought to the Louvre, and it is amazing what they
have.
Tell me the story though, because you went to -- I can't remember whether it was Iran, but you -- the town of Susa, which had all these beautiful,
huge, you know, sculptures of Darius I.
SCIOLINO: Well, that was the sister empire. But when we would go to Persepolis, the tour guides would say, if you really want to experience
what it was like during this period of ancient Persian history. You've got to go to the Louvre. And so, I tell people, you can't go to Iran, but go to
the Louvre and have a feel for what this wonderful empire was like.
AMANPOUR: Did you feel a bit of nostalgia and a little bit of, I don't know, grief a little bit, that so much of it had been taken out of its home
country and put in a foreign museum?
SCIOLINO: The French were brilliant diplomats and diplomatic negotiators, and they negotiated contracts with the Shahs overtime to take all of this
stuff out. So, nothing is ever going to go back to Iran.
AMANPOUR: No.
SCIOLINO: But it is sad to see some of these beautiful ceramics that are still haven't even been put together. And you say, why are they here and
not in Iran?
AMANPOUR: And what did the French also do when they went on military campaigns? They sent also art historians and curators, right?
SCIOLINO: Yes, yes. Napoleon in particular had a whole contingent of art experts who followed and took only good art, not the bad art, and brought
it back.
AMANPOUR: That's pretty amazing that that was an actual thought out piece of conquering.
SCIOLINO: Well, because --
AMANPOUR: Was the cultural side.
SCIOLINO: Yes. The feeling was that France is the center of the universe and France deserves the best art of the world.
AMANPOUR: Of course, the great British Empire felt that it was the center of the universe. And I'm saying this because of the Parthenon marbles.
SCIOLINO: Yes.
AMANPOUR: Here they call them the Elgin Marbles. And as you know, and everybody knows there's a great big negotiation going on right now about
returning them to their rightful place.
SCIOLINO: Yes.
AMANPOUR: Which is Greece and the Acropolis. But you found Parthenon Marbles in the Louvre.
SCIOLINO: Yes.
AMANPOUR: But there's never been this kind of political conundrum over there. Why not?
SCIOLINO: Well --
AMANPOUR: Or has that been.
SCIOLINO: -- it's -- no, it's a very different history about how the British got their bit, and they got a lot where France just has a smaller
part. But it's -- it was fascinating for me to go into the Louvre and to be walking around, and all of a sudden, I see this freeze and it's the
Parthenon Marbles, and I say, what? How did the Parthenon Marbles get here?
And that's the kind of question that I asked throughout the whole book, is you walk into the Apollo Gallery and you say, well, it's got crown jewels,
but how come it's got so few crown jewels? And then, you realize that the third republic in the 19th century is so terrified that the monarchs were
going to come back that they had a grand auction and sold all the crown jewels at auction. And Charles Tiffany bought a third of them and sold them
all to Americans.
So, these are the stories --
AMANPOUR: Tiffany of Tiffany?
SCIOLINO: Tiffany's of Tiffany. And Tiffany still has some crown jewels that they keep in a vault in New Jersey.
AMANPOUR: So, people never get to see them.
SCIOLINO: I saw them. I touched them. I actually touched some of them.
AMANPOUR: Really?
SCIOLINO: Yes, yes, yes.
AMANPOUR: That's amazing.
SCIOLINO: But that's what we do. You know, that's what we do as reporters and that's what is the excitement of tackling a project like the Louvre.
AMANPOUR: What's your advice for people going there? Because it is huge and some people think that, oh, they've got 15 minutes. They can do a quick
whiz round and they can get in and out. But it's not like that.
SCIOLINO: Well, I say to people, first never go to the Louvre on an empty stomach and with a full bladder because you think you're going to, oh, I'm
just going to come for my Airbnb and go march in. I'll go in, I'll grab something to eat and then go to the toilet there. No, because there's
nothing good to eat in the Louvre and there are very few toilets.
But I also tell visitors, choose your Louvre identity. Decide what kind of a visitor are you? Are you a marathoner? And you have to go see every
single work of art in every single room? And I did find people who did that. Are you a sprinter? Do you just want to go in and look at the big
three? The Mona Lisa, the Victory Samothrace, the Venus de Milo. Are you a wanderer, a (INAUDIBLE) and you just want to get lost in the loop?
And once you allow yourself the joy and the freedom to look at it however you want, it makes it a lot easier.
[13:30:00]
AMANPOUR: And do you get it now? Do you get why the Louvre is so unbelievably magnetic and that everybody wants to go and see it?
SCIOLINO: No.
AMANPOUR: Or did you -- no.
SCIOLINO: No.
AMANPOUR: Still no?
SCIOLINO: No, I'm still discovering. And that's the -- it's kind of like a lover who you can never truly discover. And I don't think I could ever
learn everything about the Louvre, but that's what makes it so much fun, is that I can go back and wander around and find some beautiful sculpture or
some little tiny piece of jewelry and it makes me happy.
AMANPOUR: I just want to revert to how you got your start, really as an international correspondent. And you happened to be in France for Newsweek,
I think, and the revolution started to happen and Khomeini was kicked out of Iraq and came to France. And then, you became, you know, the key
reporter for on Iran.
SCIOLINO: Yes, but that was because I was the junior reporter. I was the only woman in the junior reporter with a bureau at Newsweek Magazine with
four older men. And none of them wanted to trek out to Neauphle-le-Chateau, a remote suburb.
AMANPOUR: Which is where he was, right?
SCIOLINO: Where he was, to pay homage and then to interview him. But I did, you know, dutifully, because I had no beat really. I was supposed to cover
like fashion and food and the soft stuff. And so, that when it came time to go on an airplane with Ayatollah Khomeini back to Iran, Newsweek took the -
- had the courage to put a woman on that plane. And we -- there were 140 journalists on that plane and we really were the first hostages.
AMANPOUR: First hostages?
SCIOLINO: There was a plan to blow up the plane.
AMANPOUR: Who was going to blow it up?
SCIOLINO: The Iranian Air Force had a plan to blow up the plane that they brought to Jimmy Carter. And Carter wanted to have nothing to do with it,
but Brzezinski did -- took a -- said, you do it on your own. And it never happened.
AMANPOUR: Now, talking of women, you have -- it's (INAUDIBLE) on your cover of your book. And you know that there is this radical feminist group called
Guerrilla Girls.
SCIOLINO: Yes.
AMANPOUR: And they use that image. And they -- to protest the lack of female artists in the Met Museum. And we will put a -- we'll put a thing
up. But it says, do women have to be naked to get into the Met Museum?
SCIOLINO: Yes.
AMANPOUR: What do you think of that?
SCIOLINO: She's -- that phrase is, it's in the book. Yes.
AMANPOUR: And you did it on purpose?
SCIOLINO: I did.
AMANPOUR: Is it your subversive guerilla comment?
SCIOLINO: It is. It is. And I thought it was important to put a tattoo on the back of a beautiful woman and to encourage readers to look at her in a
different way. But I do evoke the Guerilla Girls and I do also say that women have been abused and abused in the Louvre. And there are very few
women artists in a museum like the Louvre. For various reasons, but it's hard to find women.
You can find them and I have found them. Women, heroines and women, wonder women. And I found one in in the ancient the Ancient Mesopotamia
collection.
AMANPOUR: Oh, good.
SCIOLINO: Yes. A real killer woman with ruby eyes and a ruby naval. And I will -- want to take her the next time I ever go to work (ph).
AMANPOUR: Let me just ask you one last question. You are always a reporter. You might be writing about Louvre, but you are in France and at a time of
real strain between your home country, the United States, your adopted country, France. What is it like there being an American today? How do you
sense where this political standoff, especially over the Transatlantic Alliance is going to go?
SCIOLINO: It's a -- this is a really interesting question. I think it's different from what it was like in the months before the American-led war
in Iraq, where there was really a feeling of us against them. And the French really, really thought that the United States was targeting them
with freedom fries, with Americans throwing -- pouring French wine down the toilet.
This is different because it's not America against France, it's America against the world. So, the French themselves don't feel targeted. They feel
that they're -- it's made them closer to the rest of Europe. It's made Marcon, the French president, be much more engaged in Europe and also think
about challenging the United States, but with the Europeans behind him.
So, it's a -- although there is a whole subtext that Dugal was right in terms of thinking that we have to have our own way in foreign policy in
defense, we don't want to be in the military wing of NATO. We have to do it ourselves because the United States is not going to save us.
AMANPOUR: Really interesting. Elaine Sciolino, thank you so much.
SCIOLINO: Thank you.
AMANPOUR: "Adventures in the Louvre."
SCIOLINO: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
[13:35:00]
AMANPOUR: It's such a good story. And coming up, Trump administration axes funding for an LGBTQ plus suicide prevention hotline. The impact of this
move after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
AMANPOUR: Now, at home, the Trump administration recently announced that it would axe funding for a crucial suicide prevention hotline, citing that it
encourages, quote, "radical gender ideology." The Trevor Project calls this a devastating blow for its LGBTQ plus community, because the hotline has
provided help to as many as 1.3 million young people since 2022.
Mark Henson is the director of Federal Advocacy and Government Affairs at the organization, and he speaks to Hari Sreenivasan about the impact of
this decision.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HARI SREENIVASAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Christiane, thanks Mark Henson, thanks so much for joining us. For people who might not be familiar
with how the Crisis Hotline 988 works, especially when it comes to LGBTQ plus individuals, just kind of break it down for us.
HENSON: Sure. Thank you for having me on to talk about this important issue. The 988 Suicide and Crisis Prevention Hotline is a free 24/7
national resource that launched about three years ago to support anyone who was in crisis. The legislation that enabled this created the easy to
remember 988 moniker. And it also set aside funding for two specific groups that have higher risk of suicide than the general population.
So, if one dials 988 and waits to be connected to the general line, they're connected to a center that is in their state who is able to help talk them
through crisis and help give them the support resources. If they press one, they're connected to the veteran's crisis line because the veteran
population has higher risk of suicide than the general civilian population because of the unique experiences they face.
And similarly, if someone impresses three, they're connected to the LGBTQ Plus Youth Specialized Services Hotline, where trained counselors who
understand the drivers of suicidality for LGBTQ plus youth based off their unique experiences are able to provide tailored services.
SREENIVASAN: And when they get to, if they do press three, who are they speaking with? Is it a group of different nonprofits that are trained in
this? Is it just one?
HENSON: The LGBTQ Plus Youth Sub Network is comprised of seven different nonprofits across the country that have handled so far 1.3 million contacts
to this line in a little less than three years. The Trevor Project that I work for, the nation's leading provider of suicide prevention services for
LGBTQ plus youth is proud to have piloted this nonprofit and handles the majority of the traffic.
But when folks do press that -- press three number, they're connected to one of hundreds of counselors across the United States who understands the
experiences that they've gone through, the language that they often use to describe themselves and describe the pain that they've experienced and help
them get through to live to see a better tomorrow.
SREENIVASAN: And can we just kind of put this in perspective here? I think at 1.3 million calls might be an abstract idea for people, but what kinds
of calls are you getting on a daily basis? I mean, even if you say 60,000 a month, that's hard to break down. But is that high? Is that normal? Is that
average? I mean, you know, tell me.
[13:40:00]
HENSON: Well, again, talking about cumulative volume, the demand has been rising. In the month of February, which is the last month that we have
data, there was about 60,000 calls per month. That's about one every one and a half minutes from an LGBTQ plus youth in crisis in the United States
seeking services. And if you extrapolate that, you get hundreds of thousands of calls per year. Demand continues to rise because of the acute
mental health crisis in our country.
As far as the individual calls that come in, it really depends upon what the LGBTQ plus youth are facing. Sometimes people need a little bit of help
navigating how to come out to their families, so when they're identifying as LGBTQ plus. Sometimes if their families have rejected them, they're
experiencing potential issues of homelessness or loneliness or family estrangement. There are also times where even hearing upon anti-LGBTQ plus
policies can really set folks on edge.
For example, our research has found that transgender youth when faced with anti-LGBTQ plus policies within different states, it could have an up to 72
percent increased chance for suicidality. And there are, again, particular unique issues that LGBTQ plus youth face that our counselors are trained to
understand, empathize, and again, help give them the mental health supports to live to see a better tomorrow.
SREENIVASAN: OK. So, part of why we're having this conversation now is, really, it comes down to politics and budgets. What is supposed to happen
to this service that you've just described as of July 17th?
HENSON: That's right. As of July 17th, the Trump administration has said that they're going to end the LGBTQ Plus Youth Specialized Services
Subnetwork. They've indicated that with about three short weeks away, this critical program that has served over a million people with demand rising
would no longer be available to have trained counselors there and supporting.
And to your point, you know, there are lots of different policies and lots of different politics that people can disagree on, including some aspects
of LGBTQ plus policy. But we here at the Trevor Project believe suicide prevention is about people, not about politics. Every independent,
Republican, and Democrat that I know believes that we should set aside politics when it comes to saving young people's lives.
SREENIVASAN: What was the rationale for why this should be shut down? Because technically, the 988 line will still work, right? And if I call, I
will -- if I'm a veteran, let's say, I will still be able to press one, but I won't be able to press three, correct?
HENSON: That is correct. One of the rationales that have been expressed is that separating folks by identity drives polarization. However, that
doesn't recognize that suicide prevention is about risk, not about identity. LGBTQ plus youth are more than four times as likely to attempt
suicide as their peers. This is not because they are LGBTQ plus, but because they experience stigma, bullying, loneliness, where specialized and
tailored services are able to help support.
What's particularly ironic is the original legislation that created this line was signed by President Trump unanimously passed the Senate and had --
and has strong bipartisan support in Congress. So, this rationale that they're putting forward now goes against the understanding that they had
when these services were put available and really undermines President Trump's legacy on mental health from his first term.
SREENIVASAN: Now, the administration released a statement in part that says, everyone who contacts the 988 Lifeline will continue to receive
access to skilled, caring, culturally competent crisis counselors who can help with suicidal substance misuse or mental health crises, or any other
kind of emotional distress.
So, help me understand. What is the cultural competency that the existing counselors when you press three have that might be missing in a few weeks?
HENSON: To be clear, as you said, 988 is not going away. 988 will still be available for mental health emergencies and suicide prevention to every
American, including LGBTQ plus youth. But as you said, within an LGBTQ plus youth dials into the regular number, the counselor may be well-intentioned,
but what if they're unfamiliar with the coming out process? What if they're unfamiliar with pronouns or accidentally misgender a youth that reaches
out?
[13:45:00]
The counselors on the LGBTQ Plus Youth Sub Network are trained in the drivers of suicidality and the experiences that LGBTQ plus youth face,
including family estrangement, isolation. And that helps them create a bond of empathy and trust with the LGBTQ plus youth.
Hari, as you might have experienced, if you have a bunch of positive experiences with a medical professional, but then you just have one really
negative one, that makes it far less likely that you can seek support in the future, including, and especially mental health support. The LGBTQ plus
youth population in the United States have strong experience with rejection and with fear.
One other note, the Trevor Project's research has indicated that 84 percent of LGBTQ plus youth in the United States want to access mental healthcare,
but only half of them were able to in the last year. The number one reason was fear. Fear of not being understood. Fear of having their problems
minimized or rejected, fear of being outed to their parents, families, friends before they were ready. And so, therefore, not having these LGBTQ
plus counselors means those resources may not be available.
And suicide prevention is about minutes. It's about tailoring specific services that can mean the difference between life and death. I'd also
reiterate that what message are LGBTQ plus youth who have used this service over a million so far receiving when their government says, nope, these
proven bipartisan services are no longer available to you. We know that they've worked, but we don't want to have them anymore. That message in and
of itself is damaging. And again, makes it less likely the LGBTQ plus youth would even reach out to seek support.
SREENIVASAN: A spokesperson for the HHS said that, look, this section has run out of congressionally directed funding. Right now, we have all these
silos. The entire mission of 988 and crisis prevention is compromised if we can't do this. Is that reasonable?
HENSON: I wouldn't say that's reasonable, and I wouldn't say that that's accurate. There's significant flexibility right now to reallocate funding
for these vital services that have proven that they have worked. I'll also note that it's only LGBTQ plus youth services that are under threat. In
addition to continuing to provide veterans care, they continue to create a Spanish language option, and there are other services such as for the deaf
and the hard of hearing to ensure accessibility. It would be a relatively simple endeavor to reallocate funding to continue these services for
another two and a half months in this fiscal year and to have at a relatively low cost the ability to save tens of thousands of lives.
SREENIVASAN: You know, there's one rationale that the administration has said that this is about dollars and cents. And then there's another vein
here that I want to read a spokesperson for the White House Office of Management and Budget said, the proposed budget wouldn't grant taxpayer
money to a chat service where children are encouraged to embrace radical gender ideology by, quote, "counselors" without consent or knowledge of
their parents. How do you respond to that?
HENSON: That is categorically untrue and quite frankly, offensive. LGBTQ plus youth reach out to this lifeline when they're in crisis and they need
help. And our counselors listen to their concerns. Our counselors try to help them stay alive for another day and empathize with them, understanding
the particular drivers of suicidality, the experiences they've had, the stigma that's been created.
Our counselors don't give medical referrals. Our counselors don't practice politics. They listen to LGBTQ plus young people, hear what they're saying
and help give them the tools to stay alive. That rationale from the administration is offensive, and again, attempts to erase the experiences
of transgender and non-binary youth and really, you know, sidelines LGBTQ plus youth across the board.
SREENIVASAN: Look, the Trevor Project has decided to kind of respond to these funding cuts with a petition. Tell me a little bit about what you're
asking for in the petition and what kind of response you've gotten.
HENSON: Absolutely. Thank you, Hari. And in response to this, the Trevor Project has worked with mental health groups, veterans groups, allies
across the board to push back against this proposal to get the administration change its mind, and to have Congress step up and both
pushback of the administration and assert its priority of allocating spending to key programs.
Before I continue on the petition, Congress continues to have strong bipartisan support for these programs. Multiple House Republicans and
Senate Republicans have issued statements in support of these continued programming.
[13:50:00]
Many of them, along with all of their Democratic colleagues have pushed for these services over the last five years, we're just asking them to stand up
and to make sure that that they continue. The Trevor Project particularly launched this petition, calling on Congress and the administration to save
these services, and there's been tremendous response across the country.
This past Tuesday, there were 17,000 folks who had responded to it. As of today, there are more than double that. The news of this program being shut
down in four short weeks has mobilized people all across the country to tell Congress fund these programs, to tell the administration, don't take
away this lifeline for vulnerable LGBTQ plus youth. And they've shared their stories about how vital these services are and how they've saved
lives, including their own.
SREENIVASAN: Mark Henson, director of the Federal Advocacy and Government Affairs for the Trevor Project, thanks so much for joining us.
HENSON: Thank you.
SREENIVASAN: We have talked about some difficult topics in this conversation, including suicide, and if this is something that throws you
into crisis, know that one, you aren't alone. And two, that there are places like 988 that will still take your calls. And of course, you can
find the Trevor Project online.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And finally, this week, we say farewell to a friend, a colleague, a fellow war correspondent, and a fighter to the very end. Reporter Rod
Nordland has died at the age of 75 after a six-year battle with an aggressive form of brain cancer. From Newsweek to The New York Times, from
Bosnia to Afghanistan, he bore witness to some of the worst and the best of humanity, including the plight of a young Afghan couple whose courtship and
escaped from their homeland. He chronicled in his book, "The Lovers."
Last year, I spoke to Rod about his diagnosis with glioblastoma, which he wrote about in his final book, "Waiting for the Monsoon." In this memoir,
he reflects on how war reporting truly defined his life, so much so that he associated each of his children, Lorine, Johanna and Jake, with different
conflicts that he covered in the '90s and the 2000s.
In our last conversation, he told me how the disease had also brought with it some unexpected joy.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: You have talked about you are living your second life. And you seem to have an incredibly optimistic view of what happened to you and
really what it gave you, where most people would probably be thinking, oh, my God, this is the worst thing possible. You have -- had a different
engagement with your disease.
ROD NORDLAND, WAR CORRESPONDENT: Yes. I mean I also, from time to time thought, oh, my God, this is horrible. But I managed to keep my spirits up,
partly thanks to the devotion of my partner and to many great friends who have been there for me. You know, when you have a disease like this or
become disabled, a lot of people just ghost you. They don't -- they can't face it. They don't want to have to face the reality of it. And that can be
very hurtful.
But I was fortunate to have a large group of very close friends and a very devoted partner who have always been there for me.
AMANPOUR: Because you have been a war correspondent most of your professional life, I want to ask you how this is different than what you
experienced and the fear and the risk on the road. Because you write, death was not alien to me. I had spent my career facing it down. I'd covered wars
from Cambodia in 1978 on through Iraq and Afghanistan, and I'd seen my share of carnage.
Can you describe the difference between the danger of being a war correspondent and the danger of being, you know, felt with a terminal
illness?
NORDLAND: Actually, there's a surprising number of similarities. It's a very intense experience, like covering war is a very intense experience.
And dealing with a disease like this is quite intense. Throughout it I think I've felt like it was just another war and I had to deal with it like
I would any war.
AMANPOUR: What do you want to get out of your remaining days? And what do you want the book to tell people?
[13:55:00]
NORDLAND: I hope that it'll help other people with similar diseases or disabilities, help them find a way to respond to it positively and
constructively. Just judging from the comments that we've had so far, I think a lot of people have taken it that way, which is wonderful.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: And all his friends say farewell to Rod. You can see the whole interview online.
That's it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. And remember, you can always
catch us online, on our website, and all-over social media.
Thank you for watching, and goodbye from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
