Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with American Action Forum President and Former Congressional Budget Officer Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin; Interview with White House Council of Economic Advisers Former Chair Jared Bernstein; Interview with U.S. District Judge Esther Salas; Interview with Former Venezuelan Federal Criminal Judge Eleazar Javier Saldivia; Interview with Former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Tom Malinowski. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired July 01, 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 ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Senate being evenly divided, the vice president votes in the affirmative. The bill as amended is passed.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: The final push for Trump's big beautiful bill. What will it mean for America's fiscal future? I asked two top economic advisers under
President George W. Bush and President Biden, Douglas Holtz-Eakin and Jared Bernstein.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: These judges have attempted to dictate the law for the entire nation.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- Trump goes after federal courts as judges face a torrent of threats. I speak to those who understand this all too well. U.S. District
Judge Esther Salas herself a victim of violence and former Venezuelan Federal criminal judge, Eleazar Javier Saldivia.
Also, ahead, the end, USAID. New report shed light on the grave consequences of the agency shutting its doors.
Welcome to the program everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
President Trump's big beautiful bill has passed through the Senate, just one step closer to landing on his desk in time for the July 4th victory
lap. Vice President J. D. Vance was called into the Senate to cast the tie breaking vote after the longest voting session in Senate history. Now, one
final hurdle remains, the House of Representatives must approve the revised Senate bill with a vote there likely happening Wednesday.
Running to almost a thousand pages, the bill contains vast tax cuts coupled with cuts to health insurance coverage that would impact millions of
Americans as well as increased spending for border security, defense and energy production. It's estimated the bill would add at least $3.3 trillion
to the national debt over 10 years, proving a tough pill to swallow for the small group of Republicans who ultimately voted no.
It's also sparked criticism from Trump's own former DOGE director, Elon Musk, who has threatened to launch a new party to challenge incumbents if
the bill becomes law.
Here's what Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer had to say about it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): When people start losing their Medicaid, when they start losing their jobs, when their electric bills go up, when their
premiums go up, when kids and parents lose SNAP funding, the people of America will remember this vote.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: A vote the majority of Americans don't agree with, that is according to recent polls showing 55 percent oppose the bill.
So, what exactly do every day Americans stand to lose or gain, and why is this unpopular bill so essential to this administration? Douglas Holtz-
Eakin is president of the America Action Forum, having served as chief economist to President George W. Bush, and Jared Bernstein chaired
President Biden's Council of Economic Affairs. They join me now. Thank you so much for joining us.
Let me start with you, Doug, because if we were to take the CBO's projections of $3.3 trillion, adding to the deficit over a 10-year period
of time, do you believe what the administration is saying that the economic stimulus from the tax cuts would offset this burden to the deficit or are
we at risk for long-term fiscal instability as many of its vocal opponents argue?
DOUGLAS HOLTZ-EAKIN, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN ACTION FORUM AND FORMER CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICER DIRECTOR: Well, I certainly think it's closer
to the latter. We're already in a dangerous fiscal position, this makes it worse. I look at this bill and I don't see much in the way of stimulus and
pro-growth policy. There are some business investment provisions for expensing equipment investment, research and development costs, and some
structures, but that's about it.
The rest is extension of current law, which gives you nothing and a whole bunch of political favors and handouts to particular classes. Not much
there in the way of pro-growth tax policy.
GOLODRYGA: Jared, your successor, the CA chair Steven Moran just this morning said that this bill will cause an investment boom and more
reshoring as well as lowering the deficit, as the administration has been saying all along. He also says that the CBO ignores a number of things,
including the better growth in this bill for the economy, investments in new factories, that it completely ignores tariff revenue, which they claim
will bring in $3 trillion over the next decade.
[13:05:00]
And then he goes on to include deregulation, a trillion and a half from DOGE cuts. And what he says will ultimately lead to $8.5 to $11 trillion in
deficit reduction over the next decade. Just if you want to rebut those claims, now you have the floor.
JARED BERNSTEIN, FORMER CHAIR, WHITE HOUSE COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS: Thank you. The only people who believe or who will even make an argument
that this bill is going to reduce the deficit or the debt are people who are being paid to believe that. Every estimate I've seen, and I've looked
at non-partisan, left, right, I don't care who it's from, has been very clear that this bill will increase our deficit in debt.
And in fact, I saw a non-partisan estimate this morning of the Senate bill taking our debt ratio, our debt is a share of GDP, to about 130 percent 10
years from now. Now, that's a lot higher than it was even in World War II when our debt ratio topped out at 110 percent.
And you have to ask yourself, for what? Why are we willing to accept or why -- I shouldn't say we, because you mentioned how unpopular it is. Why are
Senate Republicans and the president endorsing a level of debt that is beyond that of when we were fighting fascism? What are we getting for this?
A bunch of transfers from low-income people from their Medicaid and their nutritional support to the wealthiest through a set of tax cuts, which we
just don't even need right now. So, that, that is very misleading rhetoric from my predecessor.
GOLODRYGA: It is objectively one of the most regressive pieces of legislation that we've seen. And, Doug, the Yale Budget Lab estimates that
the richest 20 percent would receive an average of $6,000 in tax cuts while the bottom 20 percent would lose $560 per year under this bill. Is there
any economic rationale for why it is broken up this way? And what are you hearing from Republicans who are concerned about this very issue?
HOLTZ-EAKIN: Well, I think Republicans are concerned about this issue, recognized this is an extraordinary missed opportunity on two fronts. I
mean, front number one is obviously the fiscal outlook, which was in a terrible shape when the Trump administration came into office and now will
be worse. This is going to have negative implications for every American and puts us at risk.
The second missed opportunity is to build on the 17X better parts of pro- growth tax policy and actually raise the trend growth rate in the United States. You know, back when we took care of business on the fiscal front in
the 20th century the standard living doubled roughly every 30 years. Now, it's on track to double every 56 years.
So, people can see their access to the American dream slipping away. Better economic growth is a solution that for everyone, you don't have to pick
winners and losers, everyone is better off. And this is a real miss on that front.
GOLODRYGA: Jared, assuming there aren't significant changes here in the House, ultimately, there will be some to put up a fight, but given that
this is a signature piece of domestic legislation for this president, I think it's safe to assume that in one way, shape, or form, closer to where
it is now it will be signed by the president in the coming days.
Can you talk about what that does for the legislation that you helped pass and put forward under the Biden administration, which we should note was
passed in a bipartisan manner? I'm specifically referencing Build Back Better.
BERNSTEIN: Yes. One of the things in this bill that we're hearing a lot of complaints about, and I'm talking about the Chamber of Commerce, Elon Musk,
as you mentioned earlier, is the extent to which they are not just cutting back investments in renewable energy, which not only produces less costly
energy, we're going to need a lot more electricity in this country, especially if we want to lead in artificial intelligence. But they also
have buried in here an actual tax, a new tax on the production of renewable energy in this country.
So, it doesn't just take away what President Biden added in terms of contributing to the production that we're going to need to be globally
competitive in the future, it actually taxes the creation of renewable energy sources. This is clearly misguided. And again, the president and the
Republicans are hearing from their constituents from the Chamber of Commerce that this has got -- this is just a big overreach in that regard.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. You've seen a number of oil and gas sector companies. You've seen a number of red states really express alarm over this as well,
because that's where they've invested a significant amount of resources over the last several years and are seeing real profit in terms of
renewable and green energy and solar power as well. We're talking about states like Texas, not necessarily even California here, which has also
been benefiting from that.
[13:10:00]
Doug, the president was asked in Florida just moments ago about the -- what has always been viewed as the holy grail, and that is entitlement programs
really taking a beating here, Medicaid specifically, as the CBO estimated that over 10 million people could lose their healthcare. Some 8 million
people losing Medicaid alone. The president said, no, it'll be much lower than that, because according to the president and his advisers the focus
here is just cutting back on waste, fraud, and abuse. So, walk us through the numbers and the reality here.
HOLTZ-EAKIN: I think the reality on the Medicaid reforms is that the focus is on so-called provider taxes, which are a financial gimmick used by
states to pull money out of the federal taxpayer and into the state. And in a more sane environment, I think both sides could get together and put an
end to this gimmick. The Medicaid program itself could be refocused and reformed in a sensible fashion. Just pushing it this one piece in isolation
doesn't do much good.
I think the larger issue is that nobody's taking on the entitlements. The president puts Social Security and Medicare off limits. Those two programs
alone are more than one half of all non-interest spending over the next 10 years. They're growing more rapidly than the rest of the budget. They are
the source of a structural deficit that's getting larger and threatening our financial future. So, a serious effort at fiscal reform includes
entitlements, it doesn't take them off the table.
GOLODRYGA: So, what would you have supported, Doug, in this regard? Because we've seen a significant investment also in defense spending and
border security as well and however, you want to describe it, whether it's cuts to waste, fraud, and abuse or not, we are going to see Americans lose
their healthcare. Americans that need it.
HOLTZ-EAKIN: I think the gold standard here is would've been a deficit neutral, pro-growth reform run off a current law baseline, that would have
addressed the missing pieces of the 2017 act, where I thought, for example, the taxation of past due entities was not very good, very complicated and
not very helpful. That could have been reformed. It would've made progress on the fiscal front and you wouldn't have in isolation gone after a low-
income healthcare program as the only source of offsets.
So, you know, they just missed the mark on all fronts here, and the result is a bill that's pretty incoherent in the end.
GOLODRYGA: Jared, let me ask you about the personal attacks and the credibility of independent institutions like the Congressional Budget
Office. I know that is an institution that Doug knows very well. Both of you hold high regard for the Federal Reserve chair and his role as an
independent actor, as well as the CBO.
Now, we have seen a number of past administrations question projections from the CBO, but I don't think anything's ever been politicized the way it
has been since President Trump has been in office both the first term and now the second term. And these attacks against Jay Powell, specifically,
Jared, are happening at rapid pace nearly daily.
Talk about the concerns you have that not only impact Americans, but how the world views this, how this impacts the credibility of the U.S. dollar?
BERNSTEIN: The U.S. dollar has taken a hit in something that traders call us a Sell America trade. And that partly reflects a lot of the bad policies
we've been talking about. We haven't really gotten into the trade war, but that's very much a part of that. I think investors look at that as quite
destructive.
Look, my friend Doug has scars from being politically attacked when he ran the CBO, when he was doing, I think, you know, really very good careful
work on dynamic scoring. The last thing you want to do is to attack independent scorekeepers, whether it's CBO or the Federal Reserve because -
- and that's not just a partisan or a -- even really an economic statement, it's an historical statement.
If you look at the economy of countries where the independence of the Federal Reserve or the independent fiscal analysts have been, try -- you
know, have been attacked this way, where the umpires try to -- you know, where the players try to play the refs like this, those economies have been
hurt very badly. They've gotten onto an unsustainable growth path, which I strongly argue is where this budget delivers us. They've gotten -- and
they've lowered interest rates to a point where inflationary pressures have just run rampant.
So, you really need independence, whether it's your budget scorekeepers or your monetary policy setters, your central bank, and when you attack that
independence, you're consigning your economy to some very dangerous outcomes.
GOLODRYGA: And, Doug you and my husband may be wearing different parties and members of different parties working for different administrations, but
you both know what these battle scars look like. He also was a former CBO director. Talk about your reaction to the constant hits and criticism
against some of the CBOs final rulings here.
[13:15:00]
HOLTZ-EAKIN: Well, I think that there are really three things to say. I mean, number one, the attacks are never grounded in the facts. When the
facts are reviewed, it always turns out that the CBO has done its job in a very professional and straightforward fashion and contains no partisan
bias. I think that's a great myth.
The second is that criticism of the CBO has been around for a long, long time. And every director has faced some generally phlegm of their own party
that wants you to somehow cook the books and make it easier for them. And it comes with a turf and you just have to ignore it.
But I think this round of criticism is unique in that this president makes everything personal. It's never a policy disagreement, it's never a
anything like that, it's personal, they're out to get me, they're crooked, they're cheating. And I find that very disappointing.
And I just want to echo what Jared said about the Fed. It is not in the president's interest to damage the independence of the Fed. We will have
worse outcomes. He's a sitting president, he'll be blamed for them. So, they need to sort of understand what goes on out there and change the game
plan a little bit.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And you mentioned tariffs. Let's talk about them, Jared, because CA chair Steven Rand also today said that they expect a flurry of
announcements ahead of that July 9th deadline. And he says that, ultimately, this administration will get closer to the president's policy
of a universal baseline, 10 percent tariff and 50 percent tariff on China.
Ironically, you know, going back to the Fed, we heard Jay Powell today say, but for this tariff uncertainty that they probably would've already cut
rates. So, if you want to respond to that. But also, this target of what the administration says will likely happen on July 9th, a flurry of deals
expected to be announced. Your view.
BERNSTEIN: I take very little solace from any supposed certainty from this administration on tariffs and on the trade war. We've just been fooled too
many times on that, so we'll see what happens. I do believe though, that whatever happens, we're going to end up with an effective tariff rate that
is higher than we've seen in 90 to 100 years. I think we're probably ending up somewhere in the 17, 18 percent range coming off of something like a 2
to 3 percent range before this trade war began. That will deal a devastating blow to international trade flows, which are completely
innocent, in my view, of the kind of negative impacts that the administration grants them.
I'm not saying that there are not unfair trading partners, there are. China is often dumping overproduction in our country, and that's something we
should and try to do something about in the Biden administration. But the idea that we can have tariffs at a 90, 100-year high and not experience the
distortions to trade flows and the price effects, higher prices to lower income people.
Let me put these two together very quickly because the Budget Lab, the Yale Budget Lab did this. They looked at the impact of the service cuts,
Medicaid cuts, SNAP cuts, that is nutritional support cuts, the tax changes, and the tariffs, and they found that households in the bottom 80
percent of the income scale, all the way from the very bottom up to the 80th percentile actually ended up worse off.
Tariffs are a highly regressive tax that really hit middle- and lower- income people. Same with, of course, these service cuts from this budget. Put them together and you're just devastating the working class that this
administration arguably was elected to help.
GOLODRYGA: And quickly, Doug, final seconds here. We don't know ultimately what these deals will look like. The deadline is fast approaching. There
had been concerns that we would've already seen a bigger spike in inflation. That hasn't happened as of yet, but we know things can change
quickly. What are your estimates for where things could go by the end of the year, if we do see an increase in some tariffs?
HOLTZ-EAKIN: I think we will. I think that's almost a guarantee. And I think we're going to see inflation go from something that looks like 2.3
percent in the top line right now to something that looks like 3.5 or 4, and that'll come back down. We're going to see growth slope. We're
essentially going sideways right now, and I would not be surprised to see us dip in the negative territory in the second half of the year.
Federal Reserve's going to be forced to cut rates to support the employment mandate, even though inflation's higher than they like. They've been put in
an untenable position.
GOLODRYGA: Well, if there's one thing we can thank this president for is bringing on guests from different parties to agree more than they disagree
in lengthy thoughtful conversations like this one. Really appreciate the time, Jared Bernstein and Douglas Holtz-Eakin. Thank you.
BERNSTEIN: Thank you.
HOLTZ-EAKIN: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: And later in the program, the future of American judicial independence. Now, as the Supreme Court grants President Trump a win over
the lower courts, we look at the consequences. That's up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:20:00]
GOLODRYGA: Next the U.S. Supreme Court, which handed President Trump a victory over lower court judges limiting their ability to issue nationwide
orders that have been major obstacles during Trump's first few months in office.
Now, it comes as many judges, especially those ruling against the president, are facing a wave of threats. So, much so that Chief Justice
John Roberts urged political voices to think about the danger of speaking out against the judiciary.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN ROBERTS, CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES: It becomes wrapped up in the political dispute that a judge who's doing his or her job is part of
the problem. And the danger, of course, is somebody might pick up on that. And we have had, of course, serious threats of violence and murder of
judges just simply for doing their work. So, I think the political people on both sides of the aisle need to keep that in mind.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Our next guest understand just how serious this is. Esther Salas is a U.S. district judge in New Jersey, whose own family home was
targeted by a gunman who killed her son Daniel, and seriously wounded her husband, Mark, in 2020. And there are warning signs from outside of America
too. Eleazar Javier Saldivia was a federal judge in Venezuela and saw firsthand the impact of dismantling judicial independence, and they both
join me now. Welcome both of you to the program. A really important conversation.
You both participated in an event last Thursday that included a panel of judges calling out threats to the American justice system, similarly to
what we just saw from Chief Justice Roberts there, threats against judges personally, specifically. And the keynote speaker was retired Supreme Court
Justice Anthony Kennedy. And he had this warning about American democracy. Let's play it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANTHONY KENNEDY, RETIRED U.S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE: Democracy is at risk. Freedom's at risk. Aristotle said that freedom can die, and he was right.
Aristotle said that democracy can die. He is right.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Esther, as you look at threats to the U.S. judicial system, is Justice Kennedy, right? Do they pose an existential threat in some cases to
U.S. democracy as a whole?
ESTHER SALAS, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE: I wholeheartedly agree with the justice. I do think that right now we are in uncharted territory. And I
think that all of us should be listening to the justice's words and also the chief justice's words as well. I urge all your viewers to watch the
Speak Up for Justice event on -- that we aired on June 26th and to follow the Speak Up for Justice Programs that we intend on continuing to hold and
air, because we are in uncharted territory. Judges are under attack. We are under attack, I think, and it starts now with a negative PR campaign that
starts at the top and goes to the bottom here.
We have, you know, members of Congress calling us rogue, people in political power calling us deranged. We have -- at the highest levels we
have been called monsters and that we hate America and that the justice system is broken.
[13:25:00]
This is a false narrative that is being sent out on social media platforms, on television. And it does two things, Bianna, it does two things. It
really weakens the public's confidence in its justice system, and I do think it dehumanizes judges. And by dehumanizing judges, there isn't that
interest in, you know, protecting us.
And so, there is -- there are movements that we are now seeing, movements that I know Judge Saldivia can speak to that threatened democracy. And as
Aristotle and what chief justice -- what rather Justice Kennedy said, freedom can die, democracy it can die if we don't protect it, if we don't
guard it, if we don't rally together to uphold the rule of law and to protect d democracy.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. It's one thing to have a constitution that looks and sounds whole on paper, but it's about upholding it that really is at issue
here and is the most important aspect of upholding a democracy.
And, Eleazar, let me ask you, as we're speaking to an international audience here, this is an issue that's not only of concern for America's
democracy, but as we spoke your own background, you're from Venezuela, countries around the world, justice -- judges around the world and judicial
systems around the world are also feeling this pressure. Talk about from your perspective the importance of an independent, strong judiciary in
upholding any country's democracy.
ELEAZAR JAVIER SALDIVIA, FORMER VENEZUELAN FEDERAL CRIMINAL JUDGE: Yes, I always said this can happen anywhere. It is not exclusive for Venezuela
because the story people know about Venezuela it was like repression and persecution against Venezuelan citizens. No. That the democracy in
Venezuela die because the -- in 2000, the Supreme Court in Venezuela issue a ruling seven to six and then weakened assistant and then send a clear
message to every single judge in Venezuela, you can no have (ph) accountable the government anymore.
And then, we lost that independence. We were threat - we were labeled as a traitor, corrupt judges. The president back then, Hugo Chavez, was the
chief architect of the PR machine against us. So, he pointed us, he said that we were traitor, corrupt judges. And then, when we lost our
independency, so everything fall because we start ruling based on fear and intimidation. That's my message.
GOLODRYGA: And you were a federal criminal judge at a district level. You ultimately, because of that intimidation and the threats, were forced to
flee the country. Can you walk us through what ultimately led you to leave, the pressure that you were facing and under?
SALDIVIA: Yes, the first factor, it was in 2009 when Hugo Chavez in national Television branding Judge Maria Afiuni as a traitor and labeled
her as a corrupt judge. And then he asked for her imprisonment. And then, follow that, she was sent to prison. She was sent to prison where she was
raped and torture.
And then, so for -- in 2014, to me, the president -- the governor of my state, I was handling a case against violation human rights because the
student were protesting because we were losing our democracy and then the students got, shot or -- and then was jail in Venezuela. And then -- so, I
opened an investigation for that, and then I received a direct phone call from Governor Aristobulo Isturiz, who later becoming the vice president of
Venezuela. So, he asked me point blank, reverse your ruling or face that consequence. That's the breaking point in my life.
I've -- I have to flee the country and then move to the U.S. And then -- so because the rule of the law was undermined from the government. It's a
mistake, it's a lie that have been created, a narrative that the judicial branch, it cannot rule against the Congress, the lawmaker, or the executive
power, in this case, the president.
[13:30:00]
So, we are the third branch of the government. And then -- so, they elect us, but we regulate, then we have to check the violence. We have to protect
the rule of the law because when we lose independency, we lost everything.
So, the Democrats -- democracy is so fragile that we have to protect. And then, the ultimate, the judges and the independency of the judicial brand,
it's the backbone of the democracy. If we lose that line, that's -- we are in trouble. That's happening in Venezuela.
SALAS: You know, if I could jump in here, I think that our chief justice spoke to the illegitimate attacks and he spoke to those illegitimate
attacks in his 2024 yearend report. He talked about the first illegitimate attack, violence against the judiciary. I'm living proof of that, right? My
poor son, Daniel, was murdered because I'm a federal judge and I was doing my job.
And we've seen now attacks since Daniel's murder, two, these acts of intimidation. We have seen unprecedented attacks against the judiciary in
the United States of America. 103 pizzas have been delivered or attempted to be delivered to judges all throughout the United States of America.
Those pizzas coming to judges' private homes at odd hours of the night, right? What does that say? It says, judges, we know where you live.
And then of course, the pizzas began being delivered to their children. And what does that tell the judge? We know where your children live. And as of
you know, April 6th, 20 pizzas have been delivered in my murdered son's name, in Daniel's name. What does that say? We know where you live. We know
where your kids live, and do you want to end up like Daniel Anderl? Do you want to end up like Judge Salas? These are unprecedented attacks against
the judiciary to intimidate the judiciary.
Three, the spreading of disinformation. Chief Justice Roberts warned about the spreading of disinformation, and we're seeing that rogue judges,
corrupt judges without any basis, you know, judges that have an agenda, judges that are deranged and out of control and monsters, that is the
spreading of disinformation over all media platforms for a purpose. All right. To spread that false narrative.
And then finally, the fourth was to even, you know, threaten not to follow lawful judicial orders. These are illegitimate attacks that must be spoken
to, and that's why I am here. That's why Judge Saldivia is here. It's because we have to speak up for justice. We have to speak up. We have to
defend our rule of law and protect our democracy, because it can die. And it died in Venezuela and Poland, which is another judge that we spotlighted
last week. I mean, these are real dangers.
GOLODRYGA: And, Esther, your son Daniel's murder in cold blood was heartbreaking. It was something that captivated a nation. Your strength and
resilience really shown as you continued to speak out immediately after that terrible day when you were celebrating your son's birthday, only to
end up mourning him days later on public television, on national television.
Behind every robe is a person, and as you are upholding your independence in just following the rule of law in this country, I'm wondering why you
keep doing it, why every day, given everything that you've been through, given all the threats that your family has endured, all the heartache that
you've endured, why you as a person continue this fight?
SALAS: Because I love this country. Because I love this country, because I believe in this country, because I see what can happen in this country. A
little girl from Union City, New Jersey raised by a mother with a fourth- grade education from Cuba could rise through the ranks and become a United States district judge only in America.
And this is, as Judge Saldivia just said, very fragile. It is a very fragile system that is really taking a beating lately. And so, I know I owe
this to Danny. I owe this to the American public. And I really -- I feel, and my husband, Mark, we feel like now more than ever, judges -- sitting
judges must speak up for justice.
[13:35:00]
You know, a lot of people talk about this being political. It is not political to defend the rule of law. In fact, there is a Canon that guides
our judicial ethics, Canon 4. And the commentary to Canon 4 is very clear. And I want to just paraphrase it, but it says that judges may express
opposition to the persecution of judges or lawyers anywhere in the world if the judge has ascertained, after reasonable inquiry, that the persecution
is occasioned by conflict, emphasis on conflict, between the persecuted lawyer or judge, and the policies or practices of the relevant government.
That was written when judges were traveling internationally to speak.
I don't think that commentary was written to be used necessarily in the United States of America, but I do think it is a Canon that judges should
look to and think about, because there is at least reasonable inquiry now and proof that we are under attack, either attacks by known individuals or
attacks by those that hide in the shadows and send us death threats to our chambers and send us pizzas to our homes to try to inflict fear.
W The justice system is under attack, Bianna. It is under attack, and that is why we must speak up for justice and we must begin to speak out against
these attacks. I won't stop. Mark won't stop and Daniel won't either. That's happened also in Venezuela. They create that fear and intimidation,
and the judges were so afraid to rule in certain way.
They we didn't protect the constitution and the rule of the law. And then when the judges rulings are based on fear or intimidation or favor, one or
other party, we lose, we can lose democracy. It's so fragile as a judge. Sa said it can happen anywhere I, I. I'm not here just to say this is a story
about Venezuela.
It can happen anywhere. Venezuela was built. It was one of the best country in South America. We are the country with more oil in the world, so one of
the richest country in this region. But what happened there? It was a plant. It was a playbook. Apply to Venezuela. And then so we failed for
that plan and we didn't reach the level that every judge and every citizen in Venezuela could have done.
So, of course. So, you see the images. With the protestor people get killed and torture violation human rights in Venezuela. But that came after they
took over the judiciary brand, not only in Venezuela, the dictatorship came dressed judges rope because we were fear. I cannot emphasize that enough.
And then when you have a judge that fear, why? Because their opinion is going to change and you're going to receive. See you, you're going to try
to protect yourself because that's or human, that na nature. So, protect us when they threaten you the loyalists in Venezuela to the regime. So, we're
going to kill you.
We're going to prosecute you, we're going to put you in jail. So. You have to self-protect Judge Ian. I, and I know bna, I just want to say one thing.
It's important for us to remember that judges, there've been calls for impeachment, impeaching, judges for disagreeing with our rulings. Never
heard of, never an avenue that was appropriate.
Right? I mean, the idea that we now need to, you know. Perhaps sue judges because you don't agree with our rulings that there is a constitutional
framework that has existed since this country was founded. And it's an appeal judges to a higher court. But our constitution, our justice system,
it works. It's the best in the world, in my opinion. But again, we cannot give into false narratives, to the idea that it's not working, Bianna.
GOLODRYGA: The best in the world only when a co-equal branch of government is not that in name only, when it actually has that ability to enforce the
laws without the judges fearing for their lives. Really important to hear from both of you. Thank you so much. Thank you for your passion. Thank you
for your love of this country. Esther Salas, Eleazar Javier Saldivia. Thank you.
SALDIVIA: Thank you.
SALAS: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: And we'll be right back after this short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:40:00]
GOLODRYGA: Well, it is the end of USAID. As of today, what was left of the agency is now part of the State Department. This comes as a new report,
warns that the gutting of USAID could lead to more than 14 million avoidable deaths by 2030.
In the video farewell, two agency staffers on Monday, former U.S. Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush lashed out at Trump's decision,
calling it a travesty and a colossal mistake. Set up by President Kennedy in the '60s, the independent agency has provided lifesaving aid to
countries across the globe, from Sudan to Gaza, and more.
So, what does a world without these crucial programs look like? Tom Malinowski is a former assistant secretary of state and is joining me now
from Washington, D.C. Tom, welcome to the program. Just your reaction from somebody who has worked so closely with this agency, has seen firsthand the
benefits that USAID has reaped for this country and the world from both Republican and Democratic administrations. Your reaction.
TOM MALINOWSKI, FORMER U.S. ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE: It is going to - - well, thank you for having me, Bianna. It's a very sad topic because I think this is going to lead to the death of millions of people and to the
death of American influence in the world.
Anybody who has represented America in other countries understands that the power of this great country, the authority of this great country does not
derive solely from our military might, our ability to punish others, which is a tool that we don't want to use 99 percent of the time. Our influence
comes from the fact that we stand for and do things that are attractive to millions and millions of people around the world. And USAID was a huge,
huge part of that.
GOLODRYGA: Just judging by the fact that this organization, this independent organization, and body goes back some six decades, are you
surprised by how quickly it's been gutted?
MALINOWSKI: Well, the Trump administration, you know, they may not have completely obliterated Iran's nuclear program but they are good at
completely obliterating core institutions in the United States, and they move very, very quickly, they move ruthlessly and they've not been checked
enough by an unfortunately compliant Republican majority in the U.S. Congress.
The speed of the destruction is part of the problem though, because it means that even if it were possible for the rest of the world, other
countries that provide aid to poor communities around the world, even are possible to compensate for the loss of U.S. assistance, there's no way that
it could be done in a matter of weeks or even months.
And so, if you are a poor child receiving daily food rations at a refugee camp, if you're reliant on this kind of assistance to survive, the sudden
withdrawal of the United States from being a helpful country is absolutely devastating.
[13:45:00]
GOLODRYGA: From a moral standpoint, and we know that the United States has been the most charitable country in modern history in terms of providing
aid for those around the world who need it most, can you answer the question for an average American family who may mourn deaths and starvation
in other countries, but say, listen I need to worry about my own family's wellbeing, I need to worry about our own countries economic insecurities.
And so, that comes first. And if that means that others around the world have to suffer, perhaps it shouldn't be a burden or on the shoulders for
the United States to remedy. Your response?
MALINOWSKI: Yes. Well, so, first of all, I would say America has been a generous country, but we're not the most generous country. We're the most
generous in providing security to the rest of the world, in our military spending, in our commitment to things like the NATO Alliance. But our
European allies spend significantly more per capita on humanitarian assistance, on anti-poverty assistance around the world than the United
States does. So, that's the first thing I would say.
The second thing I would say is that. It is actually a very small investment. It's about 17 cents per American per day to keep millions of
people alive around the world to give poor countries the possibility to become more stable, wealthier, good trading partners of the United States.
And I would point out that even beyond the moral arguments, which I think are important to most Americans. If we don't want mass migration, if we
don't want millions of people trying to cross our border every single year, then we absolutely have an interest in spending a small amount of money in
Central America, Latin America, to help people survive where they live.
If we don't want diseases crossing borders, if we don't want deadly diseases like Ebola coming to the United States, it's absolutely in our
interest to spend a very small amount of money in Africa to stop them where they start. So, it is the right thing to do. It is in our interest. We have
many, many good partners in doing this, but without the United States, it does tend to fall apart because we are so big and so wealthy.
GOLODRYGA: We know that a lot of the headlines circulating the waste, fraud, and abuse and the misallocation of funding that Elon Musk and others
at DOGE had flagged early in this administration that a lot of it had been premised on mis and disinformation. I'm wondering from your perspective
though, what would've been an appropriate trimming of some of the costs to keep the program alive, but perhaps look at where some of the investments
have been made and tailor it to what is more appropriate today.
MALINOWSKI: Well, every administration does that. Every administration comes in with its own priorities. The world changes all the time. So, we
reallocate from one program to another. We evaluate the programs to try to figure out what works better and what doesn't. And so, what USAID is doing
in 2025, what it was doing is very different from what it was doing in 1985 and 1965.
And, you know, if the administration wanted to come in to say, like, we got to cut the budget across the board, so USAID gets a 10 percent cut, it
would be painful. It wouldn't be devastating. It's not what they did. They eliminated this, they completely surrendered America's role in promoting a
healthier, more democratic, more stable world.
And, you know, who's taking advantage of that? It's our adversaries, it's China. Everywhere that USAID is retreating the Chinese are coming in with
money and projects of their own and they'll never match what the United States did, but they're certainly taking advantage of the utter stupidity
of this decision to build their influence at our expense.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. There's the moral argument and then there's the political argument, and there are some Republicans, maybe not the majority, but there
have been some vocal opponents of this move within the Republican Party saying that it takes away a core soft power of the United States, everyone
from Senator Mitch McConnell, who when last week questioning OMB Director Russell Vought said that this administration's attempts to root out waste
have been unnecessarily chaotic. He also said America was losing its soft power. And I also want you to hear what Susan Collins of Maine had to say
about this.
[13:50:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. SUSAN COLLINS (R-ME): We do know that important food supplements, the ready to use therapeutic food that I'm showing you right here, which is
peanut butter-based, but greatly enriched, have saved the lives of premature babies and malnourished children. We know that prenatal vitamins
have allowed impoverished mothers in Africa to safely deliver healthy children. These are not only the right thing to do for humanitarian
reasons, but they're incredible instruments of soft power.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Can you talk about the impact of that soft power, of food, of supplements carrying and bearing the weight of the United States flag on
them?
MALINOWSKI: Everywhere American presidents and diplomats go, we get a better hearing, we get a better reception because people see the United
States as special in the world. They see us as the only great power in history that despite our imperfections, has been willing to use that power
and wealth for the common good, not just for ourselves.
It's the reason talented people want to come to the United States. It's the reason why pretty much every country in the world wants to be an American
ally. Nobody wants to be a Chinese ally or a Russian ally, for this reason. To surrender this unilaterally is the biggest gift that I could possibly
imagine an American president giving to the enemies of the United States.
Not in their wildest dreams did the Chinese Communist Party or the Russian leadership ever believe we would do this to ourselves, but this is what we
are doing to ourselves.
GOLODRYGA: I have to say, it is rare to have an issue where you see former presidents from different parties come together and speak out against a
policy. So, it is telling that you have President Obama and President George W. Bush coming out and vocally being so opposed to this move. Tom
Malinowski, thank you for the time.
MALINOWSKI: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: Well, France is ending Its longtime love affair with cigarettes starting today. The country is banning smoking in many public spaces,
including beaches, parks, and sports venues, and a move that aims to protect children's health.
This comes just a week before schools break for the summer holidays. CNN Saskya Vandoorne has more on the country's push for a smoke-free future.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SASKYA VANDOORNE, CNN SENIOR PRODUCER (voice-over): This is the country that turned cigarettes into high art, but --
VANDOORNE: Lighting up under the Eiffel Tower or in the (INAUDIBLE) is now illegal.
VANDOORNE (voice-over): And it could cost you 135 euros. The government's aim, a tobacco free generation by 2032.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I feel like it's a big liberty torn away from us, from French people, because we smoke a lot and it's just because we like it and
I feel like it'd be pretty hard to enforce too.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): I find the forbidden boring.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why they smoke?
VANDOORNE: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: For the stress. Maybe the stress or the ritual with the (INAUDIBLE) and so on. It goes together.
VANDOORNE: Can we have a smoke generation?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It is never going to happen.
VANDOORNE (voice-over): And now, France is making history, the first European country to ban cigarettes on all beaches nationwide. Starting July
1st, smoking will also be banned in public gardens and anywhere near schools.
A lofty goal for a country that a generation ago had children staging tributes to (INAUDIBLE), cigarettes, and all.
ean-Paul Belmondo made it look cool in "A Bout De Souffle", a cigarette hanging from his lips in nearly every scene. Coco Chanel smoked 50 a day.
And Brigitte Bardot (INAUDIBLE). But tobacco use in France has actually been on the decline in recent years. Smoking is at its lowest level in more
than two decades, with 23 percent of the adult population lighting up daily.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): Think about the freedom of those next to you. For example, there are children who don't want to smoke.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Actually, I can understand for the children and for health reasons.
VANDOORNE: Still, there's one sacred space the law won't touch (INAUDIBLE). And French people, especially for regions are breathing a
smoky sigh of relief because banning cigarettes there, that would be a step too far, even for a changing France.
Saskya Vandoorne, CNN, Paris.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: We'll take whatever good news we can, and I qualify that as wonderful news.
And finally, as a record-breaking heat wave continues to grip Europe, animals at the Berlin Zoo are feeling some relief. Just like humans, they
are keeping cool with refreshing showers, swims, and of course frozen snacks.
[13:55:00]
Wonder the Washington State Sun, however, more than 300 competitors dressed as prehistoric predators raced fast as Dynomite at the annual T-Rex World
Championship. Some even took glided -- some even glided to the track and parachutes before sprinting across the finish line, giving wings to the
roar some creatures that once walked to the earth. I tried to sell that as best I can to each their own. May the best T-Rex win, I guess.
All right. That is it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. Remember, you can
always catch us online, on our website, and all-over our social media.
Thanks so much for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
