Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Deadly Mass Shooting at Minneapolis School; At Least Two Children Killed in Shooting at Minneapolis; Interview with Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe; Interview with U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Ranking Member Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH); Interview with India's World Editor Happymon Jacob; Interview with Former FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired August 27, 2025 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
ANNOUNCER: This is CNN Breaking News.
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
And we start with the developing news out of the U.S. State of Minnesota, where at least two children have been killed and 17 more people injured at
a shooting at a Catholic school in Minneapolis. The Annunciation School serves students from preschool to eighth grade. Law enforcement officials
say the shooter is dead of a self-inflicted gunshot wound. Here's what Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey had to say earlier.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JACOB FREY, MINNEAPOLIS MAYOR: Do not think of these as just somebody else's kids, those families are suffering immense pain right now. Think of
this as if it were your own. Every one of us needs to be wrapping our arms around these families, giving them every ounce that we can muster. These
were Minneapolis families, these were American families, and the amount of pain that they are suffering right now is extraordinary.
And don't just say, this is about thoughts and prayers right now. These kids were literally praying. It was the first week of school they were in a
church.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Let's bring in former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe. Andrew, we have covered these types of uniquely American tragedies way too
many times. And the fact that it is related to children, young children here, the victims. Two had been murdered by this shooter, the ages of eight
and 10 as they were attending the first school mass of the year. And some of the details from the police chief are just horrifying.
The fact that he hunted these children, apparently looking to kill and hurt as many innocent children as possible, and even locking them in to the
school in the service where they were, the first mass of the year in the church there. The police representative there stating that actually two two
by fours were placed outside of doors there. The police chief just talking about the level of depravity and evil. Let's play some sound from him and
then get your reaction after.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BRIAN O'HARA, MINNEAPOLIS POLICE CHIEF: During the mass, a gunman approached on the outside on the side of the building and began firing a
rifle through the church windows towards the children sitting in the pews at the mass. Shooting through the windows, he struck children and
worshipers that were inside the building. The shooter was armed with a rifle, a shotgun, and a pistol. This was a deliberate act of violence
against innocent children and other people worshiping.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: The police chief there rightly describing the shooter who then took his own life as a coward to be hunting children in this way, the
unimaginable for parents for a community there. And, Andrew, I heard you on our air earlier today talking about some of the first steps that law
enforcements are now going through, trying to put the pieces together of another senseless tragedy. And you said, it is a familiar checklist of
tasks that they are pursuing right now. Talk about what that includes.
ANDREW MCCABE, FORMER FBI DEPUTY DIRECTOR: All too familiar, Bianna, not just to you and I and to the -- and to your viewers, but to law enforcement
officers, FBI agents all over the country. This is an epidemic of mass shootings in this country that we experience unlike any other nation on
earth, period. You can look at any statistic you want, and that's easy to prove.
I remember early on in my career at the FBI knowing like which field offices had actually had the experience of responding to a mass shooting
and helping local law enforcement resolve the tactical issues and ensure -- you know, try to stop the killing, but also, the hard and gruesome work of
processing the crime scenes, like knowing the one or two few field offices that had done that was one thing. Now, there isn't a field office in this
country that hasn't had that experience to one level or another.
[13:05:00]
It is an epidemic of violence. And in this respect -- because let's remember, we have mass shootings not only at schools, we have them at
churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, hospitals, doctors' offices, workplaces of all types. This -- the list goes on and on. But understanding
how to go through that checklist of documenting the scene and collecting the evidence and preparing those victims who are -- who've died in the
attack, you know, collecting as much evidence as you can about what happened to them and where it happened and how awfully they were impacted
by the attack. And then, preparing to have those fatalities ultimately removed from the scene. Going through the excruciating process of working
with their families.
One of the things that the FBI does, I think better than probably any other law enforcement institution, is the division of victim witness assistance.
The Office of Witness Assistance, they -- we have specialists who fly out to these locations simply because they have done it so many times. They
know how to help families, to walk them through this process of reuniting with their loved ones or with the remains of their loved ones.
So, this is a dark and awful expertise that we have been forced to acquire as a nation because we have failed. We started failing in schools in
Columbine, Sandy Hook, Parkland, Uvalde, Oakland Park, Michigan. I mean, the list goes on and on. We continue to fail because these things continue
to happen and we do nothing about it.
GOLODRYGA: This was the first week of school. We heard from the police chiefs that there were dozens of children inside the mass at the time. One
can only imagine how frightened they were. And the fact that of the 17 injured, 14 are children, a number of them critically injured. I believe
the latest reports show that they are going under -- some of them are going under surgery right now.
The police chief also said that there had been dozens of rounds shot and that all three weapons that this shooter had on his person, a rifle, a
shotgun, and pistol were all used and all of them sprayed throughout this church here as these children were just unbelievably traumatized. One can
only imagine.
Andy, the fact that he had these three weapons, and we heard from the police chief that as of now there is no known history, criminal history. I
believe that the investigation is still early on, but that is what we heard from the police chief. What does that alone tell you?
MCCABE: Oddly enough, it doesn't tell us very much, because it's very common amongst school shooters specifically. If you think back to some of
those -- the school shootings I just mentioned, I don't know that any of the shooters, the attackers in those situations had significant criminal
records. It's -- you know, they all have some sort of thing that they're trying to accomplish with these dastardly acts, maybe it's a grievance, a
result of a grievance or some sort of a revenge fantasy against a place that they think harmed them in their past, or it's simply seeking
attention. They know that a certain amount of attention, media attention and renown comes with this sort of awful attack. And some shooters are
motivated specifically by that.
We know that was the case with Aiden (ph) Hale in -- at the Covenant School in Tennessee just a few years ago. We know Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris
from Columbine have become almost -- you know, I'm trying to think of the right word here, revered by troubled young people who might lean in this
direction. They're -- they make -- people make pilgrimages to go to Columbine High School just to see where it happens. So, there is a
mythology that arises around people who engage in these horrible acts, and that in and of itself provides a motivation to some.
So, it's -- the whole -- the idea that we can find the next school shooter by looking at people in the community who've had run-ins with law
enforcement is I think a false hope.
[13:10:00]
GOLODRYGA: And preventing these types of events without significant intervention perhaps, as so many have been calling for changes to the law
while still protecting American's Second Amendment rights, you know, this didn't seem as if this was a failure among first responders like we saw in
Uvalde. Authorities were quick to get to the scene and yet, were not able to stop the shooter before he injured dozens of children killing tragically
two.
Given the rate of murders that we've seen, the increase in these types of shootings, barring change in legislation, what else can be done, Andrew?
MCCABE: Yes. It's the -- that's really the hardest question here. I think you're right. We always look at the kind of response time for the first
responders initially. And of course, there are a few incidents like Uvalde in which the response was so clearly insufficient and kind of disorganized
and poorly led that it likely led to many additional casualties. That's fairly rare.
Most school shootings, the shooting takes place and is completed within just a few minutes. It's almost impossible for law enforcement. Without
some sort of foreknowledge, it's impossible for them to get there to prevent that killing. The best they can hope for is to limit the killing.
Now, we do know that many mass shooters, school shooters, and other mass shooters, when we go back and look at the circumstances around their lives,
it is not uncommon for people who knew them to have been concerned about them and their mental health, and oftentimes, concerned about their access
to firearms.
So, I think it is true that if we somehow become more active about communicating with law enforcement and with mental health services when we
know that someone in our midst seems to be struggling, that that's a possible way to kind of -- you know, to kind of provoke interventions that
might get in the way of this.
But, you know, if you think about the lethality of these acts and how bad it's gotten in the last few years, I was really struck by something that
the ER, the head of the ER emergency medicine at the hospital said during his press conference, he said it was clear that many of these children had
suffered from -- injuries from high velocity weapons. That is -- that's a key point there, high velocity weapons.
The fact is that weapons that shoot particularly high velocity or fast bullets do much greater damage to human beings than weapons that don't. And
I'll give you an example. Your average nine-millimeter pistol round travels at about 900 feet per second, whereas the average 556 round from an AR-15
travels about 3,000 feet per second. And so, simply the common practice among mass shooters of using weapons like an AR-15, by definition, you're
going to see many more casualties, especially when those victims are small.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And these emergency room doctors say they're trained. They're trained. They know what to do with gunshot wounds, but when they
come in with these high-speed wounds from these highly sophisticated killers of these -- some of the weapons that we have now available to just
about anybody easily accessible, that makes it that much harder for them to save lives.
Again, Andrew McCabe, sadly, and we have an international audience and many of them, like so many of us here are asking why does this keep on happening
in America in particular. Thank you for joining us. Really appreciate it.
MCCABE: Thanks. Thanks, Bianna.
GOLODRYGA: And do say with CNN, we'll be right back after a break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:15:00]
GOLODRYGA: And now, Gaza's fate is its focus of the White House today. President Trump is holding a meeting to discuss what will happen in the
enclave after the war. This as Secretary of State Marco Rubio is meeting with Israel's foreign minister.
This all comes as Israel faces mounting pressure at home and abroad to bring the war to an end. But that end may be a bit further away than the
U.S. president is wanting. Special envoy Steve Witkoff says the administration now expects that the conflict will be settled by the end of
the year.
Meanwhile, diplomatic efforts are underway in the wider region. Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen is part of a bipartisan delegation that made a
historic visit to Syria on Monday after a trip to Jordan to discuss more aid for Gaza. She's now in Lebanon in hopes that the Lebanese government
can convince Hezbollah to disarm. Senator Shaheen joined me from Beirut to discuss the role of the U.S. in the Middle East.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
Senator Shaheen, thank you so much for joining us. Welcome to the program. I know you met with King Abdullah in your trip there to the Middle East and
talked about the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and looking for solutions to get more aid into the enclave as soon and as effectively as possible.
Israel is saying that they are now supplying a number of different tactics to bring more aid into the enclave, and they are saying that's being quite
successful given the drop in food prices in Gaza. I'm wondering what you are seeing, and if you agree with that assessment, that improvements are
being made, are you satisfied with some of the solutions being offered to what was objectively a self-inflicted conflict by the Israelis?
SEN. JEANNE SHAHEEN (D-NH), RANKING MEMBER, U.S. SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE: Well, as of this past weekend, what we heard when we were in
Jordan and met with their humanitarian operation that was trying to get trucks into Gaza was that they are still meeting obstacle after obstacle.
And the -- we were in the warehouses, we saw the food stacked up, we saw the trucks ready to go, and what we heard is they can't get those trucks
in, in any meaningful way in the way that the people of Gaza need. So, I think Israel has more work to do.
GOLODRYGA: And -- or have you spoken with Israelis about addressing this issue?
SHAHEEN: I haven't spoken to anybody in Israel about this since I've been in the Middle East. I have spoken previously to people from -- to the
Israeli leadership about this.
GOLODRYGA: So, do you believe that more additional pressure from international allies and the United States is warranted right now?
SHAHEEN: I do. Absolutely. I think Israel needs to not only address the obstacles at the border, they're keeping the trucks out, but they also need
to address the distribution network within Gaza so that people are not being forced into four sites where -- because of the inability to
distribute to the people who need it.
People have been killed. We know one of the things we heard from the Jordanians is that settlers -- Israeli settlers are attacking the trucks as
they're trying to get them into Gaza. So, the Netanyahu government needs to crack down on that. They need to make sure that that humanitarian
assistance is getting in. No one in the United States, regardless of your political affiliation, want to see children being starved to death.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. Israel would say that that is not their intention. But nonetheless, we do know that this is --
SHAHEEN: I would hope that's not their intention. That they need to take action now to address it.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. Nonetheless, a humanitarian tragedy is unfolding there. You voted to withhold certain U.S. weapons to Israel recently. In fact, it
was the first time a majority of Senate Democrats supported such measures. It ultimately failed. But as you've noted, you have been critical of Prime
Minister Netanyahu. What do you say though to those who argue that criticism of a government perhaps, at least optically, is looking like it
is more of a criticism against a U.S. ally that is currently at war and still has hostages being held by Hamas in terms of the timing of this vote?
SHAHEEN: Well, I would hope that Prime Minister Netanyahu is back at the negotiating table, working hard to come to an agreement around a ceasefire
that will free the hostages. It's been the hope of the hostage families, of so many Israelis, people internationally to see a ceasefire deal that
allows those hostages to come home.
[13:20:00]
He needs -- I think he needs to end this war in Gaza and find a way to make sure that the hostages who are still alive are brought home.
GOLODRYGA: In recent weeks, a number of Israel's allies in Europe, Canada, and Australia have announced that they would recognize a Palestinian State.
Israel's foreign minister in an interview with the Wall Street Journal today said that this was a reflection on a conclusion where allies who had
said that there must be a process in place to recognize a Palestinian State now are being given one, and what he views would be a reward for Hamas.
And I'll quote what he said. He said, you know, "These countries came to the conclusion that they need to recognize the Palestinian State now. In
the beginning, it was supposed to be under certain conditions, if the Palestinians would make peace. Instead, they made war and all conditions
were forgotten. For Hamas, this is a recognition of the fruit of October 7th."
Where do you stand on that? Do you think that now is the time to recognize a Palestinian State as well? And what do you make of the foreign minister's
comments?
SHAHEEN: I haven't seen the comments beyond what you just told me about, but I do think what's important to be thinking about at this point and
certainly, I don't know anyone who thinks Hamas is an organization that should have any authority in Gaza or anywhere else among the Palestinians.
What they did on October 7th was abhorrent. It's not what civilized societies believe in, and they need to be held accountable for that.
But at this point, what we need to see is what's going to happen at the end of this war. And I hope that what we're going to begin to see from Israel,
from the Arab world, from the region, is plans for what happens at the end of the war, because it's not going to go on indefinitely. We need to see
what the plans are to ensure that the Palestinians have a state, it's been the position of the United States as long as I've been involved in
politics, that we should have a two-state solution, that the Palestinians need their own homeland. And one of the things that will prevent future
wars is to ensure that the Palestinians have a place that they can call home.
GOLODRYGA: I move on to some of your meetings in Lebanon. You met with the speaker of the parliament there. You're discussing the decommissioning of
Hezbollah's arms and ensuring that the Lebanese Armed Forces have full control. How hopeful are you that Hezbollah has been effectively defanged
and will in fact disarm?
SHAHEEN: You know, I'm -- one of the reasons I came to the Middle East this week is because there is a historic opportunity in Syria and Lebanon
to change the direction that we've seen in both of those countries. Lebanon has made some very important, courageous moves to address the challenges
that they face. They've elected a president after two years without one. They've put in place a technocrat as prime minister who has ministers that
are beginning to look at reforms to make the government work in Lebanon. They've had judicial reform. They've had reform of their civil service.
They're working on their infrastructure needs, on how to create more job opportunities.
And one of the things that we've heard from everyone we've met with is that it is time now for all of the groups to think about how to live together in
the future. One of the great advantages that Lebanon has in the Middle East is that they have a very diverse population where the religions have now
decided that they're going to be able to live together in peace, and that's very important for the future. A piece of that is ensuring that Hezbollah
no longer has weapons and is no longer militarized.
And for that, the LAF, the Lebanese Armed Forces, are very important. They're the institution in Lebanon that everyone respects. They're doing a
great job. We had a meeting in the sector that is along the border with the Lebanese Armed Forces today to talk about the work that they're doing in
that part of the country, to ensure peace and to ensure that the southern part of Lebanon can rebuild. That's what we want to support. We want to
encourage that continued progress.
[13:25:00]
GOLODRYGA: And that diversity and plurality that you just mentioned, it's interesting because Senator Lindsey Graham, who's also there with you, use
that as one example as to why he is hopeful and envisions a future defense agreement between the United States and Lebanon. Do you share that optimism
and that particular goal?
SHAHEEN: Well, I think there's a long time before we get to negotiations around a defense agreement, but I do share his optimism about the prospects
for the future of Lebanon and for the people of the country taking back their country in a way that ensures a better future for all Lebanese.
GOLODRYGA: Tom Barrack, who is the special envoy to the region told Lebanese journalists to, quote, "Act civilized and not animalistic." I want
to play a little bit if we have it, of what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TOM BARRACK, U.S. SPECIAL ENVOY TO SYRIA: And I want to tell you something, the moment that this starts becoming chaotic, like animalistic,
we're gone. So, you want to know what's happening? Act civilized, act kind, act tolerant, because this is the problem with what's happening in the
region.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: So, this did spark some outrage among Lebanese journalists who called it arrogant, disrespectful, racist. I know that your husband is of
Lebanese descent. We should also note that Tom Barrack, I believe, he is of Lebanese descent as well. But what was your reaction to those comments?
SHAHEEN: I think a robust press corps is important in a democracy. It's important here in Lebanon. It's important in any democracy. And one of the
reasons we're here is to try and ensure that Lebanon continues the progress and the really difficult courageous decisions that are being made here
right now to ensure that they can move forward and to ensure that elections happen in the future to ensure that the reforms continue and to ensure a
better life for the Lebanese. That's why I'm here to support those efforts and to do everything we can in the United States to help keep this progress
moving.
GOLODRYGA: Well, from Jordan to Lebanon, also in Syria, you visited the interim president there, al-Sharaa as well. And it does seem that you are
supportive of President Trump's decision to lift sanctions on Syria permanently. Tell us what led to that support and your reaction to meeting
with him face-to-face. Do you actually believe some of the rhetoric that he has put out there publicly that he is also focused on ensuring plurality
for his people there to be living in safety and also abiding by international law while governing?
SHAHEEN: Well, just as we have a historic opportunity in Lebanon, I think there is a historic opportunity in Syria. After decades of vicious dictator
in Assad, the Lebanese -- or the Syrian people finally are able to see freedom in the country now. There is a lot of work to do. And in our
conversations with Interim President al-Sharaa, we talked about some of those challenges. We talked about the need to be inclusive, that there are
a lot of groups that were marginalized during the Assad years who have to be brought in.
We had a great opportunity to meet with a number of representatives of some of those groups, they want to hold accountable those people who committed
atrocities and who are still committing atrocities against their neighbors. So, I thought that was encouraging, but there's a lot of work to do, as I
said. And President Sharaa indicated that he understands those are the concerns of the people of Syria, that he's working to try and address, that
he needs help. It's one of the reasons I support lifting the sanctions in Syria, and I applaud the president's decision that we should do that.
Congress now needs to lift the sanctions and enable investment both from the private sector, from other countries to come into the country so that
people see that there -- there's a future for them in a Syria that is free and that is stable.
The other question, of course, is to make sure that President Sharaa is able to live up to the rhetoric that he's providing. He's made some
important positive moves, but we have to continue to follow closely and to ensure that those moves continue.
[13:30:00] ' GOLODRYGA: Yes. And there's a reason to question whether he'll live up to those pledges. He has a jihadist past, there was a bounty on his head not
so long ago. And we have seen an outbreak of violence in the region there in particular. Do you trust him having met with him?
SHAHEEN: Well, I can't say I know him well enough to trust him. But he's saying the right things. I think that's important. I think we have to take
him at his word at this point. We have to see how he responds. He acknowledged that the outbreak of violence in Suwayda region had -- was a
problem.
But one of the things that he said to us that I thought was important is he said, we need to hold people accountable, who committed crimes, and even
people who are close to me, if they are found guilty, they need to be held accountable too.
GOLODRYGA: Well, I'm sure you know, as you've been in the Middle East, a lot has been happening here back at home in the United States as well. You
may agree with President Trump on lifting sanctions on Syria. I would imagine you don't agree with a lot of the actions that he's taking here at
home. And I'd like to get you to weigh in on the threat now of deploying National Guard troops, not only to Washington, D.C. where we've seen that
already, but also to other Democratic cities like Chicago, perhaps New York, Baltimore as well, and the president really going back and forth now
with some of the governors, the Democratic governors of these states.
What do you make of this promise from the president to do more, to have more scenes like what we're seeing in Washington play out throughout the
country and other major cities? He's saying he's doing it to lower crime.
SHAHEEN: Crime is a concern for all Americans, and I think we do need to address crime. I have serious reservations about how he's going about it.
This is an administration that has cut support for law enforcement, pulling people off of jobs to patrol the streets of Washington when we need them to
be tracking down criminals, drug lords, other people who need to be part of our law enforcement system I don't think is the right way to pursue the
issue.
And sadly, we have crime in cities across the United States. They're not just in Democratic cities or Democratic states, they're across America, and
we need to work together to address those. I'm a former governor. I would not have wanted the federal government to come in and patrol the streets of
Manchester, New Hampshire. I think that's something our law enforcement does a very good job at. And the way to support them is to provide the
resources they need, provide the training they need, and work together to ensure that we address crime across the board.
GOLODRYGA: Senator Shaheen, we really appreciate your time. I know this has been a very busy trip for you. Thank you so much.
SHAHEEN: Thank you. Nice to be with you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: Our thanks to Senator Shaheen for that interview. Now, the U.S. has slapped India with a hefty 50 percent tariff, a largely punitive
measure for buying Russian oil. It's a disruptive move and what appeared to be close ties between the two nations. So, what of their partnership? CNN's
Mark Valerio breaks down the potential economic and geopolitical impacts.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MIKE VALERIO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Six months ago in India's prime minister, Narendra Modi was in the Oval Office bear Hugging and backslapping U.S.
President Trump. And now, fast forward to the end of August, this tariff fight.
So, besides products from India, some of them anyway, becoming more expensive for American buyers. The other theme why this is important for
the rest of the world to look at that we're concerned with is this, could this tariff fight be pushing India in a new direction, specifically one
closer to Russia or even closer to China because of this tension with the United States?
Evidence of that just this week happening for the first time travel by the Indian prime minister to China since 2018, the first time since 2018. Prime
Minister Modi will be going to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization meeting. That is a regional security bloc founded by Beijing and Moscow to
try to reshape the global world order in the image that those two capitals want to make it. Also, Putin will be -- Vladimir Putin, President Putin of
Russia, will be traveling to India by years end.
So, in terms of the human cost of this, you're going to hear from a garment exporter owner talking about the cost that this is already inflicted upon
his business as well as somebody who's worked as an embroidery for the past 22 years.
[13:35:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SUDHIR DHINGRA, OWNER, ORIENT CRAFT LIMITED: There will be job losses. And it's very painful that, you know, these are people who hardly make $300 a
month. This is worse than COVID.
NEERAJ PANDEY, FACTORY WORKER (through translator): I have no other work if this goes away. I don't know how to do anything else.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VALERIO: So, what could bring India and the United States out of this is if a trade deal is reached. So far, there have been five rounds of
negotiation that have ended in failure for. What it's worth, in terms of the geopolitical direction that India could be moving in, there was a
virtual meeting between the State Department and India's Ministry of External Affairs, those representatives the next day agreeing that their
ties still remain strong, especially as it relates to the Quad, which is a security partnership between India, the United States, Japan, and
Australia, with leaders of the Quad, that would be President Trump and the prime ministers of the respective members expected to meet by year's end.
Mike Valerio, CNN, Seoul.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: Well, thanks to Mike Valerio for that report. For more on this, I'm joined by editor of India's World magazine. Happymon Jacob, who
recently wrote a foreign affairs piece titled, "The Shocking Rift Between India and the United States," and he joins me now from Boston.
Happymon, thank you so much for joining the show. As soon as I read your piece, I reached out to our team and I said, this is something we really
need to discuss. So, we appreciate your time now. Your article warned about the widening strategic divergences between the United States and India, and
that was before the implementation of this 50 percent tariff. So, is that, in your view, just further evidence of the thesis that you're laying out
here?
HAPPYMON JACOB, EDITOR, INDIA'S WORLD: Absolutely. Thank you for having me. I think with the 50 percent tariff kicked in today we have gone --
India has gone from being a close strategic partner of the United States to being the most tariffed country in the in the world.
I would say that, today, we are at a juncture in our relationship, which was built over the last two quarter century, last 25 years, between the two
sides was progressing in the right direction. But I think the arrival of President Trump in the White House threatens to undo the achievements of a
quarter century of India-United States relationships.
I think this primarily a function of India being caught in a great power contestation between the United States and Russia, which it has no business
in to be -- to tell you the truth. It is not a conflict that is India's making. It is not a conflict that India has any part to play in. The
argument that India buys oil from Russia, while it is true, it is also true that the United States has been in trading relationship with the Russian
Federation. The Europeans have been buying energy supplies from Russia. So, it's not just India that has been doing it.
So, I think suddenly, and what I'm worried about is that it took a very long time for India to overcome its traditional anti-Americanism in India
and suddenly, we are seeing a mushrooming of that within the Indian strategic community. This may be a lot of noise generated by social media
and the social community, and yet, this is something that is widely seen India -- in India today. That worries me.
GOLODRYGA: We know that economic ties between Russia and the United States are minimal. And we do know that Europe, while heavily reliant on Russia
for its oil and natural gas over the last few decades in particular, has significantly cut back. And it's also true that India has really taken
advantage of lower oil prices to increase its rate of purchasing from Russia since the legal -- larger scale invasion of Ukraine.
So, on that principle alone, does the United States not at least have a point that India was trying to take advantage of a situation where other
allies were clearly trying to sanction and hold Russia accountable?
JACOB: You know, India is not in the same place as the United States or other European countries, economically speaking or geographically speaking.
India is a developing country. We have 1,400 million people and they have their energy needs, they have their economic needs. So, India, in my
opinion, should buy oil and energy from wherever it is available, wherever it is cheap.
You know, the Americans asked India to shut down India's purchase of oil from Iran. India reluctantly accepted. Now, it says that India should stop
buying oil from Russia. In fact, the previous administration, the Joe Biden administration has actually told India and creates India that go ahead and
buy Russian oil under a certain price because it actually helps the oil prices, maintenance of the oil prices internationally. And we went with
that. Now, suddenly, it's a change in Washington.
[13:40:00]
So, I think this is not just about the American unhappiness about buying -- India buying Russia oil, I think there are deeper questions about it. The
American president, for example, not too long ago, made the argument that if India -- the BRICS countries, if they were to sort of look for
alternatives to American dollar there will be more sanctions on countries such as India or Russia or China for that matter.
I think it is important for the American administration to look at what is rhetoric and what is real. I don't think the Indian government is keen to
go with a BRICS payment mechanism, which, at some point of time, will be led by China. And so, India is very clear as to the fact that India wants
to reform the international system, which is not going to support a China- led or a Moscow-led international system, that's completely off the table. So, I think it is important to read the reality -- beyond the rhetoric that
probably comes out of that place.
GOLODRYGA: And we heard in Mike's piece the impact that these tariffs will likely have on India's economy. But let's just talk about strategically in
terms of alliances. Just hours after these tariffs were imposed, the U.S. unveiled a major oil exploration deal with Pakistan. Do you see this as
tactical leverage or perhaps a deeper realignment? Because we have seen a bond that has only grown between Pakistan and the Trump administration over
the past few months, just as what appeared to be a bond from the first Trump term with India is now becoming more and more of a low point in their
relationship.
JACOB: Clearly. I think Trump's reaching out to Pakistan and hosting the Pakistani army chief, the field marshal at the White House have not gone
down very in (INAUDIBLE). The United States is free to do what it wants to. But these actions will have strategic implications, right?
I mean, what -- I think what is missing in all of this is really strategic clarity. What does the United States want to do? Does it want to take on
the rise of China? Does it want to take on the rising hegemon in Asia, which is the People's Republic of China? If that is the case, courting
Pakistan is probably not the answer. The same Pakistan is in a close strategic partnership with the People's Republic of China.
So, I think there is a lack of clarity in terms of what exactly is that the United States wants under Trump in Asia as far as (INAUDIBLE) is concerned,
as far as realignments are concerned. If you were to ask me, I would say that, in my opinion, from (INAUDIBLE) -- from the way we see it in Delhi,
America's principal contradiction is China, but it doesn't seem that the United States today views China as a principal contradiction.
And given the manner in which it is engaging, Trump or Xi Jinping or Islamabad but for that matter, and giving it more importance than India, a
traditional lie in that sense.
GOLODRYGA: Yes.
JACOB: Sense confuses significant to partners in Asia, not just in India, but also in Japan or in South Korea for that matter. I think it's more
confusion than strategic realignments. I wouldn't call it -- I wouldn't say that there's much strategy behind this.
GOLODRYGA: And you also -- I mean, we could have another conversation just about what happened in the relationship, which appeared to be quite strong
between President Trump and Modi during his first term. And now, that has clearly frayed. And you, in your piece, talk about the increase in anti-
Americanism, which appears to be rising, a rising sentiment in India. Give us more insight into what is happening among the population there in
response to some of these American policies?
JACOB: You know, it is important to realize that India as a post-colonial country for the longest period had a policy of non-alignment. In the 1990s,
we came out of the policy of non-alignment and we became more multi aligned. Today, we are more multi aligned. But today, I would say India and
the United States are closer to each other than ever before in their history.
It is this relationship that the current policies from Washington, D.C. are upsetting or sort of -- seeking to, in some ways, threaten to undo. There
is a rise in the popular feelings against the United States of America, just as there is a certain, I would say, anti-Indian in the U.S. government
today. There is a lot of noise that is being -- that is created both in the strategic community and in the social media in India, just as that is the
case, the -- in Washington, D.C.
So, I think there is a -- we are at a very critical juncture in our relationship. The question that I think the Washington, D.C. should ask
itself, and of course the government of India should ask itself is, what do we want to -- where do we want to be from two years from now?
[13:45:00]
If this goes forward the way it is going forward, I'm afraid we may not have much of a strategic partnership left two years from now. India will
hedge and India must hedge, you know, in the sort of -- in light of what's happening. So, I think this is a fundamental question that the policymakers
on both sides must ask themselves.
GOLODRYGA: And you make the argument that that hedge would not necessarily be an American interest. All right. Happymon Jacob, we'll have to leave it
there. Thank you.
JACOB: Thanks so much.
GOLODRYGA: We'll be right back after this short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: Welcome back. This week marks 20 years since Hurricane Katrina, the devastating U.S. cyclone that claimed nearly 1,400 lives with
neighborhoods in New Orleans being some of the worst hit. Widely recognized as one of America's greatest disaster relief failures, vital improvements
have since been made to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. But the Trump administration's cuts are now threatening to undo this progress.
More than 180 current and former agency employees are sounding the alarm, signing a letter to Congress, warning the president's actions could risk a
repeat of the response to Hurricane Katrina. And now, a number of them who signed with their names have apparently been placed on leave, paid leave,
we should note.
Craig Fugate served as FEMA administrator from 2009 to 2017 and he joins me now. Craig, welcome to the show. So, the fact that we have at least 30 of
these FEMA employees who signed their names to this letter really sounding the alarm about some of these actions taken by the Trump administration
with regards to cuts at FEMA now being placed on paid leave, what does that say? What are your reactions to that and from what you know about the
agency and I would imagine still have contacts there, what does that do to morale internally?
CRAIG FUGATE, FORMER FEMA ADMINISTRATOR: Well, you got to remember, these people knew that by signing this, they were putting their jobs on the line.
And I think that's one of the things we talk about in public service, there may come a day where you're going to have to make a decision that you
cannot continue going in the direction your agency or your boss wants to go in and you have to be prepared to be fired. But that choice is not one
taken lightly.
In general, you know, administrations come in, they make changes, sometimes staff agree, sometimes they don't agree. But in the end, we all work
through the same goal, making sure FEMA is ready to respond to support states in the next disaster. They're raising that question, have we eroded
FEMA back to the same state we found it in when they responded to Katrina?
GOLODRYGA: So, from your perspective, do these -- were these cuts warranted? The administration has long said that their goal is to eliminate
fraud, waste, wasteful spending of taxpayer money. Is that what you saw happening or do you think that this could potentially do significant harm
to FEMA and its ability to respond to these types of crises?
FUGATE: You know, we basically only know what the administration's told us, and the real test won't come until we see a disaster where FEMA is not
able to perform. But items like a hundred thousand dollars requirement for approval before implementing a contract, when you're dealing in a disaster,
that's a relatively insignificant sum compared to the total cost of disaster.
[13:50:00]
And the thing we learned after Katrina was, we didn't need more red tape, we needed to get faster. And so, anything that slows down decision making,
slows down response, I'd question how that will impact the people on the other end of survivors.
So, when you're making changes, it's not that you couldn't do with fewer people, there weren't opportunities to make reductions. I don't disagree
with the president about the cost of disasters and putting more financial responsibility back to state and local governments, but the idea that we're
going to abandon states and abandon our assistance in their time and need or continue with such draconian rules that they say, well, this makes
sense, it voids fraud, waste, and abuse, I doubt it. I think it's going to cost us more money because we never get time back in a disaster. So, again,
folks putting their careers on the line to make this known publicly, I do not take that fact likely.
GOLODRYGA: Well, that policy of putting the onus more on states and local governments versus sending FEMA and FEMA's resources to really cover the
bulk of the natural disaster was really tried just a few months ago with the horrific floodings in Texas. And critics say FEMA's response was
dysfunctional. And FEMA and FEMA officials at the time said that their hands were tied. What do you make of that? Did that prove that the
president's argument here in his policy likely has some weak links to it?
FUGATE: You know, that flood with the tragedy of the loss of all the children, and everything that was going on in the immediate aftermath I
think was another reason why I tend to be rather reluctant to directly criticize when you're not in the room, you're not seeing the request,
you're not dealing with decisions. That's why I strongly believe we as a nation need to have something, some of the National Transportation Safety
Board, an independent organization that can go in and investigate to develop the findings and make those reports to Congress without the
interference of the agencies or the administration and those outcomes.
GOLODRYGA: You've argued that FEMA should be prepared for the, quote, "maximum of maximums.". Explain what that means, and do you believe that
FEMA is prepared for the maximum of maximums today?
FUGATE: Well, when I was at FEMA, I could tell you we weren't and we were working to figure out how we were going to respond to credible scenarios.
We weren't doing science fiction. We actually looked at the historical and actual physical risk. We picked one, the Cascadia Subduction Zone off the
coast of the northwest. If that went, as it has done historically to a large-scale event, it would've exceeded the capabilities of the federal
government and many of the resources we would require, we'd have to -- we'd be asking for international help.
We had to really think about what we would do differently to focus on lifesaving and life sustaining operations in an area from Washington State
to Northern California with most of the transportation system taken out. It's what I call planning against what can happen, not what you're prepared
to handle. And it also -- the issue that is not unsimilar what the president said, states need to build capacity so that the federal
government is not the only resource that we have to respond to these catastrophic events.
GOLODRYGA: As we note, this week marks 20 years. Unbelievable. The 20 years already went by since the devastation of Hurricane Katrina. From your
perspective and from your time now reflecting back on 20 years ago, what was the biggest lesson for FEMA to learn and do you think -- are you
confident that FEMA and the country are prepared for what will inevitably another -- will be another Katrina-like natural disaster?
FUGATE: As to whether we're prepared, we'll only know that when it happens. Lesson we've learned in Katrina was we cannot let each level of
government fails before the next system kicks in. We always talk about local-led, state managed, federal supported. But one of the things that
Congress recognized is FEMA cannot wait when something like a Katrina is happening the formal a request from a governor. We needed the authority,
which they gave to FEMA, that if the president determines an event has occurred or is likely to be occurring, FEMA can start expending resources,
meaning spending money out of the disaster refund to start mobilizing resources and anticipating of the need that a state may have.
If we had been able to do that, we would've moved much faster with more resources to Katrina than we had. And I know this is true because I was in
the State of Florida. We sent up 6,000 responders and everything from food, wipe, ice, and baby diapers to the Mississippi Coast, and we did that in
the first, you know, days of that event.
[13:55:00]
GOLODRYGA: Yes, no doubt there, there were plenty of unsung heroes trying to help out following that tragedy. But it was no doubt a huge failure
collectively as a nation, the richest nation on earth, responding to a natural disaster like that and failing so many people. Craig Fugate, thank
you so much for joining us. Really appreciate your perspective and reflecting upon this now 20-year since Hurricane Katrina. Appreciate it.
And that is it for us for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. And remember, you can
always catch us online, all over our website and social media.
Thanks so much for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
