Return to Transcripts main page

Amanpour

Interview With Medecins Sans Frontieres Secretary General Christopher Lockyear; Interview With Ukrainian Journalist Nataliya Gumenyuk; Interview With UCLA Williams Institute Director Of International Programs And UCLA Williams Institute Senior Fellow Ari Shaw; Interview With Two-Time Tennis Olympic Gold Medalist And Three-Time Tennis Grand Slam Winner Andy Murray. Aired 1-2p ET

Aired July 04, 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]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PAULA NEWTON, CNN INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour". Here's what's coming up.

Agony in Gaza, more lives are lost as Israeli strikes escalate, and now water and fuel supplies are critically low. I speak with Chris Lockyear

from MSF for about the daily struggle Palestinians face to survive.

Then another sleepless night in Ukraine as Russia launches the largest attack of the war, Ukrainian journalist Nataliya Gumenyuk explains how this

conflict is evolving and if there's any end in sight.

Also ahead, LGBT rights under attack. Is Pride turning into a protest? I ask senior fellow at the Williams Institute, Ari Shaw.

Plus.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ANDY MURRAY, TWO-TIME TENNIS OLYMPIC GOLD MEDALIST AND THREE-TIME TENNIS GRAND SLAM WINNER: My whole career was sort of building towards, was trying

to win Wimbledon, if I hadn't have done that and I probably would have felt like I'd failed.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

NEWTON: A new generation try their luck at the championships. We revisit Christiane's conversation with former tennis champion Andy Murray.

And a warm welcome to the program everyone. I'm Paula Newton in New York sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.

It has been an especially deadly week in Gaza. Officials there say, Israel's escalating assault has claimed the lives of hundreds of

Palestinians, including dozens simply trying to find food. The world now waits for a possible ceasefire which would bring some relief to a

population facing a tire reality now. A fuel crisis that has forced basic services to collapse and severe food shortages that put many at continued

risk of starvation.

Adding to this, one of Gaza's most senior doctors was killed in an Israeli airstrike this week. Dr. Marwan al-Sultan was director of the Indonesian

Hospital. He frequently spoke out about the safety of medical workers and was the 70th to be killed in the last 52 days alone, that's according to

the Palestinian Medical Advocacy Group, a healthcare workers watch, which also says he was one of only two cardiologists left in Gaza. Israel says,

it struck a key terrorist in the attack.

Now, of course, it's a major loss for a healthcare system. It's already at the breaking point and it's felt acutely by every medical organization

trying to operate inside Gaza. Just yesterday, MSF lost its 12th colleague, Abdullah Hamad, who was killed in Gaza.

Chris Lockyear is their Secretary General and he joins me now from Geneva. Thank you for being with us as we continue to really parse this grim

situation, but first we want to offer our condolences to you and your colleagues at MSF.

And it punctuates, really, you know, the fact that Israel's decision last week to halt humanitarian aid relief pending a new IDF plan, it's just

further tightened a siege that was already strangling the people of Gaza. Are you aware of any aid, whatsoever, at this hour entering Gaza besides

that of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, that aid, the GHF, which has really struggled? And from MSF's perspective, what does this mean in real

terms for you and your staff on the ground?

CHRIS LOCKYEAR, SECRETARY GENERAL, MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES: Well, firstly, thank you Paula for your condolences. Abdullah, as you say, was our 12th

staff member that was killed. Every one of them is a real personal loss and we grieve for him and his family.

He was killed along with at least 16 other people desperately trying to receive flour off the back of an aid truck. We are -- we suspect, we

strongly believe that there were many others killed there as well. But we - - people haven't been able to go and reach the bodies due to a refusal by the Israeli forces on the scene.

The situation in terms of aid in Gaza is catastrophic. What we see is an orchestrated disaster in Gaza. At the moment, we've been saying this for

many, many months, 80 percent of Gaza is a no-go zone. Over one third of the population have been redisplaced again over the last three months.

[13:05:00]

In terms of the aid situation itself, there was a complete and utter siege for a hundred days up to May. Since then, there's been a trickle of aid

coming in, but 90 percent of the food aid is being looted. And so, it really is a complete and utter catastrophe when it comes to supplying what

is needed to be able to deliver aid to people. And delivering aid and providing care to people is much, much more than supply.

But what you are seeing and what we are seeing in Gaza at the moment is something much, much more cynical. We're seeing a weaponization of aid.

We're seeing the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation causing an absolutely catastrophic destruction of life. We're seeing dozens of people killed

every day. So far, over 600 people killed, over 4,000 people wounded. Today in our clinic in al-Mawasi, there were nine people, nine casualties came to

that clinic injured today.

So, it is not just about a question of bringing in aid. It's about aid being dangerous. It's about aid killing people. We are seeing a

weaponization aid -- of aid through the GHF mechanism which simply should be dismantled.

NEWTON: Now, I will point out the IDF denies that and says that they are doing their best, and of course they blame Hamas for that situation. I am

startled by the number that you gave, right, that even 90 percent is looted, which really speaks to the desperation but also the chaos within

Gaza. So much of that pertains to the healthcare system as well.

We were just speaking of Dr. al-Sultan, that cardiologist and director of the Indonesian Hospital. He was killed in his apartment. Now, we've seen

that Israel's campaign has devastated Gaza's healthcare system. I -- we have had countless days where we have seen clinics and hospitals utterly

destroyed, and obviously not just the patients that are there but the medical workers themselves at great risk.

I want you to listen now to the ICR -- ICRC that put out a statement this week saying, nearly all public hospitals in Gaza are shut down or gutted by

months of hostilities and restrictions on the entry of critical medicine, supplies and equipment. The few medical facilities that continue to

function, including the Red Cross Field Hospital, are overwhelmed and running dangerously low on essential supplies, including fuel and even body

bags. I mean, even body bags. It is grim beyond description.

What is going on in your organization? And I can hear obviously the emotion and how emphatic you are that this has to change and yet has not.

LOCKYEAR: No, absolutely. And we have very similar situations in many of the hospitals that we're working in. We're seeing between 150 and 200

percent bed occupancy rate because of the continued bombardment. And now with the extra fur -- flood of casualties as a result of these ill-fated

disastrous aid distribution gimmicks, essentially, gimmicks is a, is too nice a word to put on it.

But, yes, our supplies are running critically low. We're having to increase the time between dressing wounds, which then creates a much higher risk of

infection. And that's just on the wound side of things, you know. The rates of malnutrition are increasing dramatically in Gaza city. In the north,

there are a million people crowded into a small area. The sanitation is appalling. We're seeing diarrhea. We're seeing jaundice and we're seeing

rates of malnutrition rising every single day.

NEWTON: In terms of what you can do to mitigate any of that on the ground, can you just give me some description about some of the stories that you've

heard from personnel.

LOCKYEAR: Well, we have staff who are trying to turn up for work on a daily basis, but they are -- many of them, one of my colleagues was just telling

me a few hours ago, many of them are living on one meal a day, often taking the meal that they have at lunch and taking it home to eat again later or

to share with their family.

And this is healthcare. These are healthcare workers who are there treating other patients at the same time. You know, our staff, our teams are part of

that community. They are, themselves, suffering and trying to turn up to work in a desperate situation.

Providing healthcare is much more than bringing in trucks of supplies, of running hospitals. It's about having a workforce that is able to work. It's

also about having fuel to be able to run a hospital and to be able to distribute water. And all of that is at critically low levels. We are

living on a thread on a day-by-day basis when it comes to being able to function in Gaza.

NEWTON: Yes, and it is under international law that medical facilities that you operate in are supposed to be free from this kind of conflict and

should not come under attack. And yet in Gaza they have again and again.

[13:10:00]

You know, in prior times in working in Gaza, medical evacuations, they were simply done. Many times, people were medically evacuated right to Israel.

Now, MSF recently penned an open letter. You mentioned the urgent need for medical evacuations. How many patients does MSF estimate are waiting now?

And talk to me about some of the obstacles. I want to point out, some of those evacuations are for critically ill children.

LOCKYEAR: Yes, I mean, there are thousands of patients that need -- urgently need medical evacuation. The World Health Organization estimates

around 10,000 people. The healthcare system, as you mentioned, has been completely destroyed.

And there are many, many people with highly complex injuries, highly complex conditions. There are the physical conditions, but there are also -

- there's also the mental trauma that is associated with that. And we're going to have generations, generations of people that are going to need

long and sustained treatment, and that simply can't be done in Gaza at the moment.

And so, we need all nations to open their doors to patients to allow Gaza - - to allow Gazans, injured Gazans, men, women, and children to be able to receive urgently needed medical supply, whether it's in the region, whether

it's in Europe, whether it's in North America. This is on all of us now to be able to assist these people who so desperately need even the most basic

medical assistance, let alone the most complicated.

NEWTON: I want to get to the foundation, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, their aid program that is in place. The U.N. today says it has recorded

613, you've mentioned these numbers earlier, killings in Gaza near humanitarian convoys. 509 of them, they say, are Gazan Humanitarian Fund

related.

Both the AP and Haaretz newspaper have reported on the use of gunfire on unarmed civilians. Now, you've described the current aid distribution

model. You know, you've said it again right now, it is dehumanizing. Can you tell us how all of this is affecting your operations and the scene in

Gaza in general? Some of the descriptions on the ground by what happens just when people go to get food have been harrowing.

LOCKYEAR: Yes. I mean, well, we are hearing those stories in our clinics because many, many patients are turning up dozens by the day, injured

because of these distribution sites. As one of my colleagues in Gaza, eloquently put it, if people arrive early and approach the checkpoints,

they get shot. If they arrive on time, but there's an overflow and they have to jump over mounds and wires, they get shot. If they arrive late,

they shouldn't be there because it's an evacuation zone, they get shot.

And so, it is adding to the utter carnage and destruction that we're seeing on a daily basis, and I would argue this is deliberate and by design.

NEWTON: And again, just to reiterate, the IDF says that that is not the case. I do want to talk about allies here and what allied countries can do.

Now, you've called out, in fact, for the E.U., and you say that they've been hypocrites for condemning civilian suffering while continuing armed

sales to Israel.

But, of course, this isn't just a European problem, right? The U.S., the U.K., Canada have also supported Israel militarily certainly in the past,

if not now, but they are pledging to help with humanitarian aid in Gaza.

You know, Christiane recently spoke with Geoffrey Nice. He is a leading human rights lawyer who had this to say about what governments should be

doing. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

GEOFFREY NICE, LEAD PROSECUTOR IN MILOSEVIC TRIAL: It has seemed to me from an early stage, it was clear that war crimes were being committed, or to be

fairer, there was plenty of evidence to show that war crimes were being committed. And the responsibility is not on commentators like me. It's on

governments, and governments should have been saying if the evidence was sufficient far earlier, these are war crimes.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

NEWTON: Geoffrey Nice there. From your perspective how widespread is this contradiction internationally? And I want to ask you how much it's actually

interfering with your work, because you would like to deliver aid, critical care, and yet many times, I'm sure you find yourself really having to get

involved in the politics of this.

LOCKYEAR: Well, I mean, I agree with the previous comment and what we have here is a question of burden of proof. It shouldn't be on us or journalists

who aren't present -- international journalists who aren't present in Gaza to be able to point to where war crimes and violations of IHL are being

committed.

It's very clearly being committed on a daily basis in Gaza at the moment, but it should be a question to prove that they're not going to happen --

that they're not happening to be able to continue this supply of weapons.

What we are saying is live by your rhetoric. You're saying that you want a different way of fighting war -- of fighting this war.

[13:15:00]

You're saying you want humanitarian assistance to come in. If that's not the case, then ensure that your weapons, that you are not transferring

weapons which are being used to maim and kill the men, women, and children that we are seeing in our clinics on a daily basis.

Those weapons, you ask how it's affecting and seeing our work, we're seeing the direct consequences of those weapons on a daily basis, and it should be

on those suppliers to prove that things aren't happening rather than us to prove that they are.

NEWTON: Understood. Chris Lockyear, we thank you. President Trump as he expects to hear about a ceasefire in the coming hours and for everyone in

Gaza. We certainly hope that there is some pause in these hostilities. Again, Chris Lockyear, thank you.

Now, later in the program, after a night of heavy Russian bombardment on Kyiv, I speak with Ukrainian journalist on the ground.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEWTON: And welcome back. Ukraine's President Zelenskyy spoke with U.S. President Trump today, saying they've agreed to work together to strengthen

Ukraine's air defenses. And this, of course, comes after Russia, yet again launched a record number of drones on Ukraine overnight, hitting multiple

buildings and residential areas. The country's foreign minister called the attack, one of the worst of the war so far.

Happening just hours after Trump's phone call with Vladimir Putin, disappointed by the call, Trump said, he didn't make any progress. Those

are his words, remember, with the Russian president on a potential ceasefire. And yet the U.S. is undermining Kyiv's ability to defend itself

with the Pentagon halting some scheduled weapons shipments.

Nataliya Gumenyuk is a Ukrainian journalist and she joins us now from Kyiv at this hour on what must have been a harrowing evening. We just put out

the numbers. Russia launched a record number, in fact of drones lasted 13 hours. Apparently, one died and 23 wounded.

Ukraine miraculously intercepted 476 of 539 Russian drones. We have to note though as well that Russia launched, apparently, 11 cruise missiles and

ballistic missiles. Ukraine's retaliation continues. It did hit a drone production facility in retaliation.

I just want to talk to you about what happened overnight. You're in Kyiv. The numbers must seem mind boggling to you. What did everyone throughout

Kyiv experience last night?

NATALIYA GUMENYUK, UKRAINIAN JOURNALIST: So, what was special beyond it was really the largest attack. There were so many, these multiple drones. We

are now speaking about swarms of the drones which were aimed to exhaust Ukrainian air defense, but also the strategy of the air defense change.

So, yes, it's very difficult to shut down the cruise missile, the ballistic missile, supersonic missile, but there are a number of them. And a couple

of years ago, there were dozens of the drones, then the hundreds, but now these numbers are growing.

And I also should say that in the military term when I try to talk to some military commanders, of course Ukraine is considering an option how to

fight and how to defend the populations against that. But as a Kyivite, as somebody who spent the night, you know, sleepless that was pretty an -- it

-- that was still extremely unusual because it was permanent fight for all. It was actually almost 16 hours.

[13:20:00]

And so, the explosives, because there were so many targets where constantly in various areas of the capital, it's maybe a smaller shell, but it's

permanent. It's taking place all the time. So, in the morning, the city was in the smoke. It was really a quite an unusual, but what's worth it to

mention that for the last months we are living with, you know, every week with new and new more intense attack and it's something we are preparing

too.

NEWTON: Yes, this is not a one-night affair, but close to 16 hours. Unimaginable for people who have children, the elderly and the vulnerable

in those shelters for so long. And thousands were in the shelters, obviously.

These were residential districts. Some destroyed, also including parts of Kyiv's railways. These are not military targets. Now, all of this happened

after Putin and Trump's phone call. Remember he spoke with Vladimir Putin. I don't have to remind you. He was very blunt, right? There was no progress

on a ceasefire.

What does that tell you about Putin's intentions and why do you believe President Trump has been so ineffective so far as a potential mediator?

GUMENYUK: So, as we -- I can maybe afford some black humor, but it's not humor. We say that if you are alive, if you wake up, you go and do your

job. And the railway worked in couple of hours and everybody was in the offices in the morning. And that is unfortunate kind of resilience.

But that is adaptation and we expecting for the definitely prolonged conflict in this context because you know, the summer assault in the

frontline is going on. The attacks are more intense. And Vladimir Putin goals are -- have never changed, but they are even more clear now, to

exhaust Ukrainian defense. If we speak about civilian targets, it's not just to destroy power grids, but really terrorize the people.

But in particular, what is striking in these days that indeed the real leverage, the United States have against Ukraine, I would use this term, is

really not providing the air defense. And it serves the only goal of saving civilian lives, and it's really something which is, kind of, postponed

hold.

So, the -- about Donald Trump, he's doing -- he is trying to make concession to Vladimir Putin, which is quite surprising for all these years

of the war, and I'm speaking now about 11 years of the war and three years of the full-scale invasion, we all learned that Vladimir Putin and the

Russian Air Force -- Russian troops can be stopped with the force.

They can be stopped. Their operation can be stopped. They can be denied air superiority. They can be fought in the battlefield or with the pressure. If

you allow them and you demonstrate your weakness, they are trying to do more.

So, it just kind of irrelevant strategy that Donald Trump took, the strategy, which is doing worse, unfortunately, rather than better.

NEWTON: So, tell me though, President Zelenskyy just got off the phone with President Trump. He tried to explain, of course, how important it is for

the United States to continue to support Ukraine. Obviously, Zelenskyy also talked about, you know, direct projects with the United States when it came

to those defense projects.

All of this though comes after the Pentagon halted weapons shipments to Ukraine this week. You know, the U.S. claims it's low stockpiles, but in

reporting to NBC, three U.S. officials suggested that the defense secretary made the call even though the military analysis showed that they weren't

low on any of those stockpiles.

What are caves in Zelenskyy's options now? And since you report on this and have for so long, what is the situation with these stockpiles as far as

Ukraine is concerned? How desperate are you for those kinds of defenses?

GUMENYUK: So, I think that the information about how desperate Ukraine is about particular type of weapon is probably a secret, that's not something

which is announced. But to understand for quite some time, and I'm speaking about the years, Ukraine is trying to develop own capabilities to defend

itself because that's what works. That's a guarantee.

But of course, for the last months and after the temporary withdrawal of the American aid still in March, that was a very clear sign that all effort

of Ukraine is to do these three parallel tracks. First, mitigate the relation with the White House so it's not getting worse and, you know, that

the U.S. isn't using its leverage against us. That they understand Russia better.

[13:25:00]

The second is working with the European partners to clearly understand what can be substituted. But what is the most important is really developing own

capabilities. Would it be the drone production? Would it be the technological -- reaching some techno technological advantage against

Russia? And you know, investing into the weapon production, defense production.

So, these are three tracks which are aimed all of them on trying to build more secure place considering that the war may on go. But for Ukraine, the

most important thing is to -- not just really to destroy Russia, to end the war because, you know, it's very abstract. But to not allow Russia to be

successful in their operation. To deny their superiority. To not allow the Kremlin and the Russian troops to be successful in their operation.

So, their operations are irrelevant while Ukraine is strengthening itself and kind of trying to live under the permanent hostilities.

NEWTON: And can you tell us a little bit more about that? I want to lean on your reporting here and for you to describe to us how, you know, really

warfare has been dramatically transformed. You, in fact, were embedded in three Ukrainian brigades earlier this year.

One battalion commander you met code name Zest wrote, quote, "In 2022, it was still possible to create trenches in the field and successfully defend

them. Today, being there means death for a hundred percent of people. Nobody any longer pursues mass attacks using armored vehicles as they'd be

destroyed before they approach." Listen to that, "Before they approach the front line. The infantry creates its positions when the drones cannot see

it."

Now, we know, again, going back to the topline here. Warfare has been transformed. How do you see it going in the next year or two? And will it

allow Ukraine to have a competitive edge in the months and years to come?

GUMENYUK: So, what was -- even for me surprising, and I'm reporting this for many years, that compared to, you know, a few years ago I embed with

like top-notch tech unit or legendary mechanic brigade, or let's say less fancier, simple brigade, everybody fights in a different way.

And if for a long time we thought that the drones are there for reconnaissance or they substitute artillery or they do mining. Now, you see

that they transform totally the way the war is fought. And this is the beginning of the new type of the warfare. The drones are not substituting

but transforming every single way. The frontline is literally transparent, like 30 kilometers each side. It can be -- it is a kill zone.

So, the fight is very different. And for Ukraine, what is this fight about that Ukraine is fighting in this very decentralized way. There are the

sovereigns (ph) of the companies' producing drones, different ways how the unit's work.

And this is an advantage because it's hard to counteract for Russia, but Russia is very good in scaling. So, for instance, they look at the

Ukrainian tactic, they take it, they scale it. And the -- Ukraine is inventing something else and the Russians are scaling, and then we

inventing something else.

But still there is a possibility of the technological advantage. So, for instance Ukrainian managed to keep this air superiority. In the maritime

domain, Ukraine successfully pushed Russia, you know, close to the Russian borders.

But of course, it's a very difficult different period. It's not easy. A lot of solutions are there. They're very much depending on the funds, on the

investments. But what is different that it's kind of feasible. It's a lot of money. It's all about capabilities, rationing, but it's not totally

impossible. It's not about the trillions, you know, it's not about this numbers that sometimes we hear from Donald Trump.

So, opportunities are there and the situation is very sobering. Ukrainians for the last months, as I should say, are very sober and pragmatic, and how

would they defend itself and looking at the very practical things, but of course the world -- there is no way for the world not to learn because the

military industry you know, kind of is.

You know, the history is happening now in the very, very dramatic way. And we expect that we really want that it won't be the war of attrition. It's

not just the armed race, but it would be the technological race. And those who is kind of smarter and quicker, and as I earlier mentioned, it's really

not about just stopping everything what Russia does. It's really proving to the last point that what Russia does makes no sense.

They don't have military advantage and any operation than they launch. Mainly do not reach their real goal to conquer the whole Ukraine, to

obliterate Ukraine and things like that. While Ukraine is capable to defend its population and to develop to a liable state.

NEWTON: Nataliya some very good insight there, and we appreciate you as you and other citizens of Ukraine continue to brave these drones and these

missile attacks night after night. Thanks so much.

[13:30:00]

Now, Pride month has just concluded, but for many celebrations were more somber this year with the Trump administration rolling back on DEI

policies, banning trans people from the military and cutting funding to some LGBTQ+ services. Many in the community, in fact, feel they're coming

under attack, and it's not just in America.

In Hungary, the government tried to ban Pride marches only for people to come out en masse, anyway, defying those authorities. While in Turkey,

police detained at least 30 people as they tried to take part in a Pride march banned -- Pride March that was banned in Istanbul for the past

decade.

Ari Shaw is a senior fellow at UCLA's Williams Institute and he argues threats to the LGBTQ community could pose a broader threat to democracy

itself, and he joins us now live from Woodstock, New York. And a happy 4th of July to you.

Again, a lot of freedom that a lot in these communities want to celebrate today. But we do want to highlight your piece for Chatham House where you

really drew chilling parallels between countries like Russia, Hungary, and the United States, it's hard for me to even say that, and the crackdown on

LGBTQ rights. How, in your estimation, are these attacks a threat to democracy?

ARI SHAW, DIRECTOR OF INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS, UCLA WILLIAMS INSTITUTE AND SENIOR FELLOW, UCLA WILLIAMS INSTITUTE: Thanks, Paula. I am very happy to

be here with you today. You know, the piece for Chatham House really grew out the observation that this year, in particular, we're seeing a dramatic

escalation in terms of attacks on LGBTQ rights.

I think for a long time there was a sense of a kind of inevitable progress. And, you know, you mentioned a number of examples from the ban on Pride in

Hungary to the proposed legislation in Turkey that would criminalize promoting LGBT issues to the rollback of rights in the U.S.

And you know, I think what's important is that these are not happening in a vacuum. That all of this is happening against a larger rise in

authoritarianism happening around the world. My colleagues and I looked at these links and the data and found that countries that have lower levels of

acceptance toward LGBTQ people and rights tend to be weaker democracies and -- or authoritarian regimes.

In some cases, attacks on LGBTQ people can be a signal of a more fundamental erosion of democratic norms and institutions. And I think this

current moment shows us that this is more than just a correlation. That actually, you know, this is a strategic deployment of anti-LGBTQ measures

that is part of an authoritarian playbook. And there's, you know, really a familiar set to this.

LGBT People are cast as threats to traditional values or national identity. Often to mobilize conservative voters or to deflect from domestic political

or economic crises. This creates a sort of justification or a pretext to enact increasingly repressive measures against freedom of expression or

assembly. And then those threats can be expanded into larger constraints and crackdowns for other groups.

NEWTON: I mean, to --

SHAW: And as you mentioned, we're seeing this all over the world.

NEWTON: And to that point, you know, you call it strategic deployment. A few days ago, we just showed, right, thousands marching for Budapest Pride,

and they defied that ban from President Viktor Orban who said, quoting him now, "With the change in America, the winds have shifted in our favor."

They are clearly emboldened by what they see in the United States. Are we seeing a domino effect here? And how much responsibility does the United

States have here because I think many, perhaps even in the Trump administration would deny that they're restricting any rights for the LGBTQ

community.

SHAW: Well, I think there are really two things at play. One is a sort of global abdication of leadership on LGBTQ issues by the United States that

we saw under the -- that we're seeing under the Trump administration. Under the previous administration of President Biden, the U.S. really centered

the advancement of LGBTQ human rights within U.S. foreign policy and development assistance.

And in addition to providing, you know, important funding through USAID and the State Department to promote inclusive development and the rights of

LGBTQ people, it created a sort of political support and validation in many countries for these issues and communities.

And now that the U.S. has stepped away from that role, it creates a kind of permissive environment for illiberal leaders or autocrats to crackdown.

[13:35:00]

I think it's also important to point out that there is a coordinated global network of advocacy groups, funders, foreign governments that are largely

working in concert to apply many of these same anti-LGBTQ measures in countries around the world. In fact, at the time of the so-called "Don't

Say Gay Bill" that was passed in Florida last year, we heard representatives of Governor DeSantis' administration reference a similar

bill that had passed in Hungary prior to that.

So, there's a real, sort of, coordinated strategy that we're seeing around the globe that, you know, activists are sort of taking advantage of and

deploying strategically to oppose LGBTQ rights.

NEWTON: And to that point about what you call a coordinated strategy, you know, banning trans people from serving in the military here, passing

executive order, recognizing only two genders. The Trump administration, you know, they've been pretty relentless and they would argue successful in

their actions towards the trans community.

You know, we're wondering here, do you see it as a divide and conquer strategy to divide the LGBTQ community? I always speak about rights that

sometimes it's convenient for people to talk about them as a zero-sum game. That you are not expanding, you know, rights. That it is my rights against

your rights.

SHAW: You know, I'm -- I can't speak, you know, directly to what's happening in sort of the minds of members of the Trump administration. But

I do think that it's clear these efforts and the sort of larger backlash against LGBTQ people and trans people specifically is not just about the

community and our rights. It's about power.

And these communities become sort of proxy battles for larger questions about who gets to define social norms, who deserves protection from the

government, and whether democratic institutions can defend vulnerable minorities against executive overreach, or in some cases, you know, the

sort of politics of the majority.

And so, I think -- you know, it's about more than just attacks on the LGBTQ community. It's a demonstration of power and its sort of a test case for

whether, as I was saying before, you know, additional crackdowns and constraints on free expression and assembly can be deployed in other

contexts.

NEWTON: I do want to point out the U.S. Secretary of Treasury, Scott Bessent, he's a married gay man with children. Surely that could be

considered progress and a sign of inclusion, right?

SHAW: I think it could certainly be considered one indication of inclusion. But I think, you know, I look at this more broadly in terms of what it

means to have perhaps an openly gay man in that position and the opportunities to then ensure that all members of the LGBT community can

live free from stigma and discrimination.

You know, one of the things that I would hope Secretary Bessent would keep in mind is, you know, the importance, sort of, economic implications of

discriminating and excluding LGBTQ people. We know from research that my colleagues have done at the Williams Institute and other places that the

real economic cost to discrimination and excluding people.

In some reports we've seen, as much as 1 percent drop in GDP, which may not sound like a lot, but --

NEWTON: Oh, it's a lot.

SHAW: -- when you think about 2 percent drop in GDP associated -- exactly.

NEWTON: Yes, I know. No, it's --

SHAW: But -- a recession, that's quite a lot.

NEWTON: It's a lot. I just argue that the Trump administration, apparently, isn't buying that at this hour. Anyway, I do want to go to a striking

opinion piece in the New York Times. That really got a lot of our attention.

It's from Andrew Sullivan, who's an early advocate for gay marriage. And he wrote, quote, "The gay rights movement, especially in the marriage years,

had long asked for simple liberal equality and mutual respect. Live and let live. Reform, not revolution. But in the wake of victory, LGBTQ groups

reneged on that pledge. They demanded that the entire society change in a fundamental way so that the sex binary no longer counted."

I am really curious about your reaction to that, especially when we continue to hear from people in the Trump administration about what our

family values, what they represent in the United States.

SHAW: You know, I should say that I'm not a political strategist. I'm a researcher. So, you know, I tend to go back to the data. And what we know

from research and evidence in the United States and in other countries is that trans people, you know, tend to be among the most disproportionately

impacted in terms of discrimination and exclusion in accessing basic freedoms like education, employment, public services.

And so, you know, the idea that, you know, anyone should be subject to discrimination based on their sexual orientation or gender identity seems

as though it should be a relatively uncontroversial position to me.

NEWTON: And we will leave it there. I really want to thank you for the conversation. Ari Shaw for us, thank you.

SHAW: Thank you.

[13:40:00]

NEWTON: Now coming up for us after the break, as hopeful players take to the Wimbledon Courts, we look back on Christiane's conversation with tennis

legend Andy Murray who won the prestigious tournament twice.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEWTON: Thankfully it is that time of year again where tennis fans descend on London, queuing for the chance to see Grand Slam drama and enjoy, of

course, some strawberries and cream. We all do. It is Wimbledon. And this year's tournament is breaking all kinds of records.

Earlier this week, players took to the Pristine Grass Courts on its hottest day. Hottest opening day, I should say, ever. There has also been a series

of stunning upsets with top ranked players like Coco Gauff and Alexander Zverev ousted in the very first round.

Now, many spectators watch from a viewpoint dubbed as Murray Mound, named after two-time Wimbledon champion Andy Murray. And now, the chair of the

All England Club says it's looking to construct a statue of the British tennis legend ready to be unveiled in time for the championships 150th

anniversary in 2027.

Now, Murray retired last year after one final professional outing in the Paris Olympics, and he spoke with Christiane just before the opening

ceremony there about his career and his accomplishments.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Andy Murray, welcome to the program.

ANDY MURRAY, TWO-TIME TENNIS OLYMPIC GOLD MEDALIST AND THREE-TIME TENNIS GRAND SLAM WINNER: Thank you.

AMANPOUR: Here we are at the Olympics. You are a two-time Olympic winner, gold medalist. You've won Wimbledon twice, you won the U.S. Open twice, 46,

you know, titles, and you'd been number, and you've helped your country win the Davis Cup in 2015. How do you feel today about your accomplishments on

and off the court?

MURRAY: I'm really proud of what I've achieved. I've worked extremely hard throughout my career. I've given, you know, as I feel like as much as I

could to my profession. I, you know, I feel like I've worked hard and I'm proud of what I've achieved.

Obviously, you know, when you look back and reflect on things all the way, I'm -- there's always things I wish I'd done a bit differently, probably --

and there's a few regrets in there, but on the whole, yes, I did as best as I could and I'm comfortable with that.

AMANPOUR: And what do the Olympics mean to you? Because it's somewhat different than a Grand Slam event, mentally, I suppose, in terms of

teamwork.

MURRAY: Yes, it is different, and I've always fed off that. I've really enjoyed the whole team, you know, atmosphere, and you know, that's been a

big reason for why I've played some of my best tennis. And, you know, when I've competed for my country it's -- you know, you're playing for something

just bigger than yourself and I've really enjoyed that.

AMANPOUR: And you ended a 77-year drought in men's singles winners at Wimbledon. I mean, that must have felt incredible as well.

MURRAY: I mean, when I look back at it, yes. I mean, it was -- there was -- you know, it was an amazing day for me. And I think for, you know, sports

fans in the U.K. It had been -- yes, like you said, been a long time. At the time, I've -- I didn't take it in as much as I wish I had done. I just

I felt so relieved to finally -- you know, finally have done it.

[13:45:00]

I had come close quite a few times. And I guess that was sort of almost what I felt, like I was -- my whole career was sort of building towards,

was trying to win Wimbledon. And if I hadn't have done that, I probably would have felt like I'd failed in some way.

And because of that, I didn't fully appreciate it. I just kind of -- I was like just relieved that it happened. But then, when I looked back, like a

few weeks later, I was like, well, it doesn't end here, like I keep going. You know, what next? It was quite -- it's quite strange feeling.

AMANPOUR: What about fans? I mean, you know, I wonder whether there's a lot of burden you feel or you have felt throughout your career. You know, you

have a really funny and sometimes grumpy demeanor on court.

MURRAY: Sometimes is a polite way of putting it, yes.

AMANPOUR: And then you are funny and the crowd loves you. And I remember that long, crazy match in the Australian Open, I don't know, ended at 3:00

in the morning or something crazy and you got this huge ovation and everybody stayed to watch you. What have you taken from the crowd

throughout your career, from the beginning and then as you got better and better?

MURRAY: Yes, that was probably the thing that I'll -- well, I'll definitely miss that a lot, when I finish, like, I think anyone that's playing in

professional sport, like you want to be playing on the biggest courts and you know, in front of -- I never minded if the crowd were for or against

me. It was just playing in brilliant atmospheres and -- yes --

AMANPOUR: Really, you never minded?

MURRAY: No, no. I mean, if I was playing in the U.K. and the -- you know, the crowd weren't behind me then, you know, you would probably feel that a

little bit. But, you know, when we're playing Davis Cup matches away from home and playing, sort of, hostile environment, it's like, yes, I loved

that. I enjoyed that.

AMANPOUR: So, you've been -- you know, on Safari, we talk about the big five, the big five, you know, beasts that you try to find. There was the

big four at Wimbledon, you and Rafa and Federer and Novak. What was it like being part of that pantheon of real greats and for a long time?

MURRAY: Yes. I mean, look, I didn't achieve anything close to what any of those guys did. But there was a period where, you know, often we were

competing at the latter stages of all of the major events. And look, it was -- to be successful in this period has been very hard. You know, not many

players managed to win Grand Slams and, you know, get right close to the top of the rankings.

I mean, like I said, it's been amazing what all three of them have achieved in the same period. I don't think that we'll see that level of dominance

again in tennis. But, yes, I'm proud of the small part that I played in that. And I think the achievements that I had in this period, yes, it mean

a lot because of how great those guys have been and how hard it has been to win major events during this period.

So, it's been special to see how they've also driven each other to go to the levels that they have and achieve what they have, so, yes.

AMANPOUR: And who would, if I asked you who you would bet on, who you would see as the next great. Is it Alcaraz, who's already great? Is it Sinner,

who's already great -- well, he's number one? Who is it in the men and the women in fact?

MURRAY: Yes. So, it's always difficult because you don't know the next, sort of, 16, 17-year-old that's coming through. I won't have watched them

play and I don't know, maybe there's some younger players that come through in the next few years that are better than all of the players at the top

just now.

But for me, I love watching Alcaraz play. He's obviously achieved great things. So, it's easy to sit here now and say that. But when I watched him

and played against him the first time a few years ago, I just loved the way that he went about things.

And on the woman's side, Iga Swiatek. She's -- you know, she's a brilliant, brilliant player. She's done extremely well on, you know, particularly on

the clay courts. And, you know, she can make a few adjustments on the other surfaces. I would expect her to go on and win lots more majors.

AMANPOUR: It was noted when you took a woman coach, Amelie Mauresmo, and you were, I think, the first male player to have a female coach. And then

came out all these -- you know, you really put yourself noticeably behind equality and equity for women in this sport and maybe throughout life. What

is it that made you not only have those feelings, but actually speak about it and promote the women's game as well?

MURRAY: Well, it wasn't something I'd really -- you know, when I was in my teenage years or like early 20s on the tour, it wasn't something I'd given

much thought to. I was just focusing on my own career and wasn't, you know, thinking about much, much else to be honest.

[13:50:00]

And then, when I started working with Amelie, things changed for me quite a lot because obviously recognized there was a big change in attitude in

terms of -- well, the way the players in the locker room were talking to me about her. And, you know, even people, part of my team.

AMANPOUR: Negatively.

MURRAY: Yes, negatively. You know, the media were obviously very interested in the story. But each time I lost, I got asked a lot of questions about my

coach and Amelie have never experienced that before. And, you know, I realized that this was different.

And around that time, I started to have a few more conversations with my mom about what it's like. She's worked in tennis for a long time as a, you

know, a female coach. And some of the difficulties and challenges that she's had and -- you know, it was quite eye opening for me. And that was

sort of when I started to realize that things needed to change a bit.

MURRAY: I mean, even at the French Open this year, it was noted that a lot of the good women's matches were during the day and never in the sort of

prime-time slot in the evening. Do you think that there is a way still to go, even though in the Grand Slams they have equal pay?

MURRAY: Yes, I think there is still a way to go. But I also think that tennis is one of the best, sort of, global sports in terms of how they

treat men and women. It's definitely not perfect, but I feel like tennis should probably celebrate that side of things more the fact that there is

equal pay, that the men and women are always -- you know, particularly at major events are always competing on the same stage together.

And I think that's one of the brilliant things about tennis and shouldn't be, you know, looked on negatively. I think it's a positive thing. It's a

great message. And I fully support that.

AMANPOUR: Many people try to trace back where does drive and ambition and turning point moments in young people's lives come from. Obviously,

everybody knows what happened in Dunblane, the worst British school shooting ever in history at your school. Do you, when you look back, think

that that gave you drive?

MURRAY: I mean, it's impossible to say. I think that the -- there are certain things that I would have learned from that throughout my

upbringing, through my life. It was obviously unbelievably difficult time. But, you know, the way that the whole -- sort of the whole city and

community, you know, came together in a really difficult, extremely difficult time and has, you know, eventually never fully recovered, but has

become stronger through that. Like, I definitely learned some -- a lot of strong values from -- you know, from that.

You know, I also -- I think also from growing up with a brother very close in age that that's something I was constantly competing with him as well.

And you know, I think that that would have helped, sort of, grow my competitive instincts, competitive drive. Yes, that is hard to put your

finger on one thing.

AMANPOUR: Billie Jean King, who I know you admire a lot, has said pressure is a privilege. And yet, it seems that pressure is so intense now. Maybe it

was different when she was, you know, at her height. It seems it's even more obvious now on it on all sports, especially tennis, because you play a

very long season, I mean, a long year. Is pressure a privilege?

MURRAY: I think it is providing you -- well, you have to manage pressure in the right way. You know, I've found playing tennis at times, you know, very

-- you know, very stressful. You know, the competing side of things.

In the moment, it's not something I'm really enjoying, but the reward at the end of it when you win is brilliant. When you lose, you know, it's hard

and you need, you know, strong team around you to support you, you know, support you through that.

But you know, I think it has changed now. There is a lot of focus on sports and, you know, everyone knows how tricky social media and things like that

can be to manage at times. But yes, it should be. And, you know, I'm aware now, like looking back, how lucky I was to be in the position that I was to

compete for Wimbledon or Olympic games and things like that.

And if you can remind yourself that when you were a child or when you were first starting out as a professional athlete, that, you know, you would

have signed up to be -- you know, to be in this position and play on the biggest arenas and stages in the world, you know, you'll be OK.

AMANPOUR: Andy Murray, good luck in the Olympics. Thanks for being with us.

MURRAY: Thank you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

NEWTON: And finally for us, these are of course dark days in the Middle East as the Israel-Gaza war rages on and claims tens of thousands of lives.

Some though do what they can to bring moments of levity to the region, like puppet maker Abed Alsalam Abdo in historically Arab East Jerusalem.

[13:55:00]

Now he brightens up the lives of Palestinian children by transforming tin cans, just tin cans and bottle caps into whimsical characters. He says, the

puppet theater is a magical world where we can do everything without boundaries or restrictions. Though constraints on movement imposed by

Israel do make it difficult to bring those puppet performances to wider audiences, Abdo remains committed to his art and hopes that one day new

generations will take up his joyful craft.

And that's it for us for now. Remember, you can always catch us online, on our website and on social media. I want to thank you for watching and

goodbye from New York.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:00:00]

END