Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa; Interview with CDC National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases Former Director and LGBTQ+ Health Activist Dr. Demetre Daskalakis. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired December 08, 2025 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: Hello everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AHMED AL-SHARAA, SYRIAN PRESIDENT (voice-over): Syria will be a country of stability, and we are not concerned in being a country that exports
conflict, including to Israel.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: One year since the fall of Assad, but can the country escape his brutal legacy? Christian sits down with Syria's interim president,
Ahmed al-Sharaa, who seized Damascus last December.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: I have to say that I'm a little bit disappointed that President Zelenskyy hasn't yet read the proposal.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
Zelenskyy meets European leaders in London, but still no progress on peace negotiations for Ukraine. We have the details.
Also, ahead --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DR. DEMETRE DASKALAKIS, FORMER DIRECTOR, CDC NATIONAL CENTER FOR IMMUNIZATION AND RESPIRATORY DISEASES AND LGBTQ+ HEALTH ACTIVIST: This
administration will pass, and then a new administration will come, but the impacts of what's happening today are going to be felt for decades.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Missing World AIDS Day, pulling funding for prevention, and Trump's war on vaccines. Former CDC Director Demetre Daskalakis speaks to
Hari Sreenivasan about recent shake-ups in American health care.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
One year ago, Syria's fallen president Bashar al-Assad fled the country, and today Syrians are celebrating that anniversary, marking the end of 13
years of a brutal civil war and decades of repressive dictatorship under Assad and his family. The opposition leader, Ahmed al-Sharaa, was a Sunni
Islamist militant, then known to the world by his nom-de-guerre Abu Mohammed al-Jilani. He is now Syria's interim president.
So, how is Syria doing one year after liberation? Al-Sharaa is certainly an international darling, welcomed all the way to the White House. Now,
according to a new poll by Arab Barometer, he has the approval of 81 percent of the Syrian people.
But these numbers aren't universal. Among them, minorities, including Albolites and Druze, support falling well below 50 percent. And a United
Nations commission warning that Syria's transition remains fragile amid continuing insecurity and sporadic violence. So, al-Sharaa's participation
at this weekend's Doha forum was highly anticipated. Christiane spoke with him via multiple translators at the forum and put the crucial questions to
him there.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Mr. President, welcome. Everybody's looking forward to hearing from you. It's almost
exactly a year ago that we were all gathered here and we heard the news that your forces were storming towards Damascus and that President Assad at
the time fled. So, it caused a bit of an earthquake in this room and in international communications and policy. So, here we are one year later.
You, Mr. President, have brought Syria out of its international isolation. You've been here, you've been there, you've been in the White House, you've
been at the U.N. You have been all over the place.
Let's start by asking you whether you believe that Syria is fully into and integrated into the International Community and whether you have hope that
your economy is on the way to being fixed.
AHMED AL-SHARAA, SYRIAN PRESIDENT (voice-over): In the name of God, the most compassionate, the most merciful. First off, thank you for having me.
Quite frankly, Syria has been through a number of serious phases over the past 100 years, particularly over the past 60 years. Syria was living in a
strong and extreme isolation and it was living through a stifling economic embargo. The policies of the former regime actually prompted the majority
of regional players and international players to shy away from Syria.
This time last year, yes, you were at the Doha Forum and we were getting ready to storm Damascus and we probably changed the plans for the Doha
Forum back then as we were advancing militarily on Damascus.
[13:05:00]
Over the past year, Syria managed to regain a large number of its regional and international relations and ties. And I think we have gone beyond the
rapprochement phase and everything we promised, I believe, that we've kept since we entered Damascus. And this has managed to build trust between us
and a large number of regional international players.
I believe we are definitely on the right path. Every single step we have taken has helped the national interest of Syria and we have regained our
regional and international status, which is quite significant. And we went from being a country that exported crises to a country where we have an
actual hope of delivering stability and being a living model for regional stability in the region, particularly if you look at the tensions that are
happening across the region.
And I believe the world has quickly realized this opportunity and the world has started working with Syria immediately in order to benefit from Syria's
status when it comes to regional stability and Syria's influence over stability in the region.
AMANPOUR: As you said, you're surrounded by a load of countries which potentially may not have any interest in your stability. Let's say Israel.
I've talked to several officials here and before I got here. As we know, Israel continues military operations on your country and it has demanded, I
think, you can correct me if I'm wrong, sort of a demilitarized zone all the way from Damascus to the border.
There are those who don't believe that Israel has an interest in a unified Syria. What do you think Israel's objectives are in your country?
AL-SHARAA (through translator): Israel, in managing its crises in the region, often exports crises to other countries and tries to run away from
the horrifying massacres it committed in Gaza. And it does so by attempting to export crises. Israel has become a country that is in a fight against
ghosts. They justify everything using their security concerns and they take October 7th and extrapolate it to everything that is happening around them.
I believe that since we arrived in Damascus, we sent positive messages regarding regional peace and stability and we've said very frankly that
Syria will be a country of stability and we are not concerned in being a country that exports conflict, including to Israel. However, in return,
Israel has met us with extreme violence and Syria has suffered massive violations of our airspace and we've been victim of over 1,000 airstrikes
and over 400 incursions, the last of which was the massacre that Israel committed in Beit Jinn that left over 25 people dead.
So, what we try to do is convince powerful regional players and powerful international players. The entire world today supports Syria in its demands
when we demand Israel to go back to the pre-December 8th lines. We have also been very adamant about respecting the 1974 agreement. This agreement
has held on for over 50 years.
So, one way or another, we can call it a successful agreement. And messing with this agreement, even though it has received international unanimity
and Security Council approval and attempting to seek other agreements such as a buffer zone or something similar. I believe these attempts will send
us into a serious and dangerous place and we don't know what the result may be. They could be successful or not.
So, I believe the best thing we do is to commit to the 1974 agreement that has held on for so long. As far as a demilitarized zone is concerned, let
us deconstruct that. How will it be? Who will protect that zone? Israel often says that they are afraid of coming under attack from southern Syria.
So, who will be protecting this buffer zone or this demilitarized zone if the Syrian army or the Syrian forces are going to be there?
So, there are currently negotiations and the United States is participating and engaged in those negotiations. And like I said, all countries support
an Israeli pullout to the pre-December 8th lines and everybody is OK with addressing logical and reasonable security concerns. And that's the key
word here, reasonable security concerns, in order to make sure that everyone is safe and secure.
And just a reminder, it is Syria that is being attacked by Israel and not the opposite. And therefore, who has more right to claim a buffer zone and
a pullout?
AMANPOUR: Now, I want to talk about some of the concerns from inside your country. Look, I was at an event the other night for Syria in London. And
one of the main speakers said the fall of Assad marks a new dawn for Syria. It's not just the end of our struggle, it is the beginning of a different
chapter, one where we are finally allowed to hope, to imagine recovery, and to speak openly about the country we want to build.
[13:10:00]
So, let's speak openly, because it's not just the Israeli attacks and other neighbors that you have issues with, but you have a country that you want
to build. And there seems to be tribal minority fragmentation, and that's a kind word, and a lot of fear inside your country.
So, as you know, you need the U.S. Congress to lift the Caesar Act. That's the last of the very, very important sanctions. And after what happened in
Suwayda and to the Alawites, et cetera. There was a pullback. And I want to know whether this is really important enough for you to fix and to try to
really do what you said you wanted to do, which was unify your country, and how you think you're going to do that.
AL-SHARAA (through translator): First off, I disagree with the use of the term fear, because there are millions of people who are taking to the
streets spontaneously. They have been doing that over the past two weeks and celebrating the fall of the regime. Are those people afraid? On the
contrary, I believe Syria is living through its best days. We are talking about a country that's aware, that's conscious. And there is not a single
country in the world without domestic issues. And there's not an authority in the world that receives unanimous approval from its people.
As you're very well aware, roughly 100 years ago, modern Syria was established. And we went through a number of phases, particularly the pre-
independence phase, and then a number of coup d'etat, followed by the regime that ruled over Syria over the past 60 years.
And so, over the past couple of years, the Syrian people simply did not know each other well. During the revolution, there was a lot of mixing and
mingling amongst the various factions and communities in Syria. And we actually inherited a lot of conflicts and a lot of differences from the old
regime because they used to use confessions against each other.
However, ever since we took over, we actually resorted to pardoning a large number of people and a large number of factions so that we can build a
sustainable, safe, and secure future for the Syrian people, and so that we can secure another opportunity for the Syrian people to get to know each
other. In order to do that, we engaged a lot of factions and communities in the national dialogue and in the government. So, a lot of measures that we
did helped calm the situation down because in a lot of countries that see conflicts, there's the post-conflict cycle that often lasts longer than the
war.
So, we tried to avoid all of this by taking a series of measures, and the majority of these measures were successful. However, let us also be
realistic, Syria -- is Syria required to obtain 100 percent unanimity, the Syrian government? This doesn't occur even in advanced countries that are
living through relative stability. However, Syria has moved from a one regime to another that does not resemble it at all following the success of
a popular revolution.
Of course, there were people who were damaged because they were benefiting from the former regime, and we are trying to manage things. Over the past
year, we delivered a number of significant achievements. Of course, there were some issues that are completely unacceptable to us, and we are working
on holding those who caused them and who perpetrated them accountable. However, once again, I believe that Syria is on a positive path. It is
tending towards stability.
We also have economic growth that is gradually taking shape, and we are seeing the first indications of this economic growth. Additionally, the
service environment has improved over the past year. People were receiving an hour and a half of electricity per day, and now we have reached 12 to 14
hours per day.
Hopefully, this year, we will be self-sufficient in terms of electricity, and we are constantly working on developing our services. So, we are moving
to a completely different economic environment, and I believe the investments that we managed to attract will greatly help us achieve
stability. That is why we asked the United States, and we sat down with Congress members a number of times to convince them to lift the Caesar law,
which was imposed on the former regime given the crimes that they perpetrated against the Syrian people.
And therefore, today, this law should not be a tool to starve the Syrian people again. There was great understanding, and I believe we are at the 95
percent point, and the current U.S. administration under President Trump's presidency supports lifting the sanctions imposed on Syria, as you have all
seen. I believe this applies to the majority of the world's countries.
[13:15:00]
And when we talk about the Syrian people, we are talking about 25 million people, and even Syria has great strategic importance and influence on
regional stability. This should not be linked to some people who are not convinced when it comes to lifting sanctions on Syria. So, I believe we are
headed towards the lifting of sanctions. This is the wise thing to do, and this is a result of the interest linking Syria to the rest of the world.
AMANPOUR: I just want to go back to some of the minorities who are afraid. In March, more than 1,400 Alawites, mostly civilians, were killed along the
coast. The U.N. called it possible war crimes. In July, there were hundreds of Druze people killed as well, and many, many displaced.
Can you tell those people from this seat what you will do to make them feel part of a unified Syria and potentially not make them pay for being
supporters of the previous regime? I know how these things happened. I was in Iraq when there was the U.S. intervention. I saw what happened on the
ground when one party felt victorious and another party didn't. And I just wonder whether there's a sense of triumphalism maybe among Sunni Muslims in
Syria, and whether you think that you really can knit the country together.
I know you said 100 percent is not possible, but in terms of law, order, rights, and what you feel about making them all part of a new Syria?
AL-SHARAA (through translator): Today, we cannot say that this revolution, that the revolution in Syria was a Sunni revolution. All the components of
the Syrian society were part of the revolution. The Christians were affected by the previous regime. Even the Alawites had to pay the price of
them being used by the former regime. So, I do not agree with the definition or with saying that all the Alawites were supporting the regime.
Some of them were living in fear. They were fearing the toppling or what will happen if the regime is toppled. When we went into Alawite villages,
we saw a lot of poverty and problems. In fact, we have inherited a big problem where all of us are victims. It is a big problem that we need to
deal with very wisely.
There were confrontations, it is true. We have established a truth-finding committee. We know that there are some crimes that were perpetrated in the
coast or in Suwayda, as you said. But this is, of course, a negative thing. But despite the atrocity of what happened, and we are not justifying
anything here, I insist on the fact that we do not accept what happened.
But I say that Syria is a state of law, and the law rules in Syria, and the law is the only way to preserve everybody's rights. I do not like defining
Syria as a place where several sects and religions live. We have legal experts, physicians, engineers. We have a lot of talent. So, it is only
normal for us to be a state of law. It is not a developing country. Maybe it is poor economically, but it is very rich in culture.
So, reinforcing the rule of law, the principles of law, reinforcing also the role of institutions to build the new Syria is the way to guarantee
everybody's rights and the rights of all minorities.
We did enter into a dialogue with all of the parties, and we tried to instill the spirit of participation and not just divide the quotas between
the different religions and sects. So, we are with the participatory approach to avoid what happened in Iraq. As you rightly mentioned, it is
not healthy to divide authorities among different religions and sects. I think that governments and authorities should be formed by experts, by
technocrats, regardless of their ethnicity or origin.
So, today, you have several parties represented in the Syrian government in a participatory approach, as I said. And I think this is very healthy.
Maybe Syria is proving once again that it is going in the right path. Maybe others will learn from us how to deal with crises and wars the aftermath of
them.
AMANPOUR: I also think you have a lot of fans out there. I've spoken to some nationals. I won't name them up here who say they want to learn from
you. So, I'm going to ask you another question. You are, I guess, the first democrat with a small d who says you want to have participatory government,
you want to have rights for everybody, and you want Syria to be a nation of laws and civil society. That's hard, it's very hard.
[13:20:00]
There are a lot of people who are wondering whether you do actually -- because you know in this part of the world, some people get into power and
stay forever. Do you see elections as a means to an end for your nation, or is it about, you know, staying for a long time and consolidating all the
power you can? I'm just saying because that's what happens in this part of the world a lot.
AL-SHARAA (through translator): The Syrian system is based on elections. Maybe elections were used in the wrong way, let's say, in the previous
times, and I do not believe we are ready right now to undertake elections, parliamentary elections, but still we did this in a way that is compatible
with the transition phase.
And I think that the principle of people choosing their leaders is a basic principle. It is even a part of our religion in Islam. Rulers have to gain
the satisfaction of the majority of people in order to rule properly. So, this is what we believe in, and I think that this is the suitable path for
Syria.
I think that Syria should not be -- or building Syria, should not be linked to people or individuals, but rather institutions. This is a challenge for
the four or five years to come, because we are rebuilding the country, rebuilding our laws, redrafting our laws, while relying on the rich
cultural heritage of Syria that dates back to thousands of years.
So, I think that Syria will move forward on this path, and it is a healthy and good path. Building institutions in Syria will guarantee the continuity
of the state, not relying on people, because a person can fall sick, they can die. So, you cannot link a whole people to one person. That is very
risky. Even developed countries that still have kingdoms today have their systems, their institutional systems. So, it is not wrong for a country to
be a kingdom, but Syria is in a different place, it is a republic.
So, whether it is a kingdom or a republic, the important part is to have an institutional system that does not rely on people.
AMANPOUR: Could you just give us, you know, like a broad idea of when we'll have actually proper representative elections, like for a president
or a prime minister?
AL-SHARAA (through translator): After the liberation of Damascus, we organized a national conference, and we have a declaration for the
constitution as a result of this. This declaration, until we have a final constitution, gave the current president a mandate of five years, and then
there will be elections. During these five years, many laws will be enacted, and the constitution also will be drafted during these elections,
and it will be presented during this period, and it will be presented to the people. So, the constitution, as you know, will be the main source of
power, so I would say in five years. There's already one year that's gone. So, we still have four years.
AMANPOUR: And finally, as you know, you have a past of being a terrorist. I mean, you worked for al-Qaeda. What do you say to people in this room, in
foreign capitals, about where your heart and your mind and your allegiance is now? We see that in parts of Syria, not only, you know, the T word, but
also the Islamic caliphate. OK, there's no Islamic caliphate in Syria. Women seem to be fairly liberated in quite a lot of the areas.
Where do you see your history and how you deal with this country going forward in terms of the rights of women? You know, what would you say to
maybe some guests sitting in this room who have yet to fully empower and some who absolutely deny women's rights?
AL-SHARAA (through translator): I think that the question has a lot of issues in it and contradictions, but still, I will try to answer the
question.
[13:25:00]
Saying that I was a terrorist and judging me as a terrorist is politicized. You know that there are many politicized opinions today. Judging on people
as terrorists need to be proven because what is the definition of terrorism or of a terrorist? It's been 25 years of us hearing this word in the world,
but there is a lot of confusion in understanding the word terrorists. Terrorists, in my opinion, are those that kill innocent people, Children
and women and that use illegitimate means to harm people.
If we try to extrapolate this description on several countries in the world, we find that the number of victims in Gaza, 60,000 people, most of
them are innocent. The Syrian regime during 14 years has killed more than 1 million person in Syria. And until now, you have 2,000 and 50,000
disappeared persons with their destinies unknown or their fate unknown. We have liberated all prisons, but we still do not know anything about these
people.
And this person is not called a terrorist or this regime is not called a terrorist. We saw wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, all of those that were killed
were innocent. And it is the killers that describe others as terrorists. So, I think that after 25 years, people are now more aware about who is a
real terrorist and who deserves to be called a terrorist.
Now, on a personal level, I have never harmed a civilian. I fought on several fronts and I fought for more than 20 years with honor. On the
contrary, I used to put myself in danger and all of those with me in danger so that civilians are not put in danger. And the last battle that you saw
while you were sitting here in Doha and you said that the agenda was deviated, I think that it was a merciful battle.
Have you ever seen a terrorist that prepares a whole plan for 11 days to enter big cities like Aleppo, Damascus, Latakia, Tartus, and Suwayda
without one person being harmed? We were in a military battle that should normally kill people or lead to people dying, but there is nobody that left
these villages and these villages.
We broke the doors of prisons with our own hands. We are the ones that liberated people from the Saydnaya Prison where the bones of people used to
be burned with acid. However, dual standards sometimes change things, but I think that reality prevailed, or the truth prevailed at the end, and people
now know that this description is not accurate. That is why I am no longer listed as a terrorist by the Security Council.
AMANPOUR: And you guarantee women's rights? That's a separate question, but women are fully empowered?
AL-SHARAA (through translator): There are a number of headlines that are being circulated, but women are empowered sort of automatically in Syrian
communities. When we were in Idlib, we actually established a major university in the city, a major university with roughly 26,000 students,
two-thirds of whom were women, and women were studying at those universities so that they could later join government institutions as
employees or join the job market.
So, I believe Syrian women are empowered, their rights are protected and guaranteed, and we constantly try to ensure that women are fully
participating in our government and our parliament as well. And I believe you should not fear for Syrian women, fear for Syrian men.
AMANPOUR: President Ahmad al-Sharaf, thank you very much indeed.
AL-SHARAA (through translator): Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: All right. Our thanks to Christiane for that very thoughtful interview. Ahead on the program, a whirlwind day of diplomacy for President
Volodymyr Zelenskyy as he brings Ukraine's allies up to speed on U.S. negotiations. We'll have those details for you in just a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:30:00]
GOLODRYGA: Today is a busy day of diplomacy for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. First meeting with leaders from Britain, France and
Germany at number 10 Downing Street in London and then off to Brussels and Rome for more leadership meetings. President Zelenskyy's negotiating team
reported no significant breakthroughs at peace talks in Florida over the weekend.
But President Trump voiced criticism at the Ukrainian leader for the impasse, saying that he's a little bit disappointed that Mr. Zelenskyy
hasn't read the White House peace plan. Correspondent Clare Sebastian joins us now with the latest from London and I understand that the President's
comments last night raised some alarm bells once again both for Ukrainians and also European leaders.
As we said, President Zelenskyy was meeting with President Macron, Prime Minister Starmer and Chancellor Merz, and his big point and theme was that
for Ukraine to succeed there needs to be unity from all of its partners. Here's more of what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT: Things which are very important for today, I think unity between Europe and Ukraine and also unity between
Europe, Ukraine and the United States. There are some things which we can't manage without Americans, things which we can't manage without Europe and
that's why we need to make some important decisions.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: So, the Europeans along with President Zelenskyy seem to be these days much more on the same page than that of the U.S. President now
suggesting that President Zelenskyy hasn't read this 20-point plan. I guess it's been amended from the original 28-point plan that was highly favorable
towards Russia. What is the reaction among Europeans both to the President's comments and this meeting today?
CLARE SEBASTIAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes. Look, I think, Bianna, from what we could gather from this meeting and we got some brief statements from
those leaders as they sat alongside Zelenskyy in 10 Downing Street just before they went into private discussions was that the mood was pretty
bleak, honestly.
We heard from the U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer, he said we want a just and lasting settlement for Ukraine if we get that far, which was a phrase
that I certainly can't recall hearing from him at meetings like this in the past. We heard from Chancellor Merz of Germany speaking fairly frankly. He
said that some of the details in the documents, assuming he's referring to the peace proposals coming out of the U.S., he said he's skeptical about
them.
So, look, I think there's a real concern in Europe having been sidelined from this U.S.-led process involving direct talks with Ukraine and
separately with Russia over the past couple of weeks of what exactly is going to come out of it.
We, of course, know that this started with the 28-point peace plan, which included many of Russia's maximalist demands. It's now been whittled down
and obviously brought around a little bit to the Ukrainian perspective, but certainly, Europe is now under increasing pressure, and I think that was
very apparent today. It was obviously about the optics. They had the warm hugs, the warm words, and Ukraine needs that, but it needs a lot more than
that. It needs Europe now to really step up and fill the gap left by the United States when it comes to weapons supplies, and critically, it needs
Europe to fund it through next year. At this point, we don't have a clear plan from Europe as to how to do that, and obviously a lot of that will
boil down to whether or not they're willing to use those frozen Russian assets, many of which are parked in Europe.
[13:35:00]
There was a broader European conference call that happened alongside this in-person meeting in London. We heard from Ursula von der Leyen, the E.U.
Commission chief, coming out of that, and she said, securing financial support will help ensure the survival of Ukraine, and it is a crucial act
of European defense. So, that pressure is mounting in Europe.
There's a European Council meeting next week with European leaders, I think that topic is going to be a key point of discussion there. Bianna.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And he also said -- President Zelenskyy said a Coalition of the Willing meeting will take place this week as well. And I think a lot
of this trepidation, Clare, understandably so, is coming after the White House sort of quietly released its national security strategy last week,
and a lot of deviations from previous strategies and documents released on national security from the U.S. and even from President Trump's first term
in office.
There's a lot of hostility directed towards Europe, focusing more on their domestic policies than its cohesion with regards to supporting NATO, and
seemingly more of a neutral role as it relates to Russia, this being viewed quite warmly by the Russians and welcomed not as much by the Europeans. How
are they responding?
SEBASTIAN: Yes, we've had some response from Europe to that, Bianna, today, and I think on the one hand, look, perhaps they shouldn't be
surprised. It definitely seems to be following on from the tone that Vice President J.D. Vance struck in that Munich speech back in February, but the
response comes from the E.U. spokesperson for foreign affairs and security policy, and, you know, it was very diplomatic.
She focused mostly on the positive. She said, we welcome the strong priority the strategy places on ending Russia's war against Ukraine. We
fully agree, she said, that Europe remains strategically and culturally vital to the United States, but it definitely seemed to bristle at the
criticism that we heard in this strategy towards Europe's regulatory climate, towards the accusations coming from the U.S. of censorship of free
speech in Europe.
The statement says, when it comes to decisions relating to the European Union, they are taken by the European Union for the European Union,
including those relating to our regulatory autonomy and protection of freedom of speech.
So, clearly, I think this is yet another measure alongside what we saw at 10 Downing Street today of the diplomatic tightrope, this incredibly
difficult balancing act that Europe has to walk. On the one hand, dealing with these issues that are both unpalatable when it comes to European
sovereignty and, of course, the war in Ukraine, while also, you know, staying diplomatic so as to keep the U.S. on side and make sure they stay
engaged in this Ukraine issue, and also within NATO. Bianna.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And, Clare, there seems to be an increasing, I guess, more willingness to speak publicly, European leaders I'm referring to, about
their concerns that Russia won't stop at Ukraine, that what may have just been mottos and words in support of Europe saying -- or Ukraine saying that
your war and your fight is our fight may actually become a reality that they're starting to envision themselves.
SEBASTIAN: Yes. And I think the moment where that may well have started the real sea change that we saw, Bianna, was when Poland had to actually
physically shoot down Russian drones over its territory back in September. Obviously, we've seen more drone incursions since then. We've seen fighter
jets in Estonian airspace. I think this sort of hypothetical threat that President Zelenskyy has spent the entire war warning about is now much more
real to European governments. We hear lots of talk and, frankly, action when it comes to societal preparedness as well. I think this is now a much
more real and present issue for Europe.
GOLODRYGA: Which is why so many of those countries have beefed up their defense spending as well. Clare Sebastian, thank you so much.
And coming up for us after the break, how RFK Jr.'s changes at the CDC could impact American public health for decades. We hear from one doctor
who resigned from the agency in protest.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:40:00]
GOLODRYGA: Well, 2025 has been a pivotal year in the United States, marked by major, fast-moving changes in politics, the economy, and of course,
healthcare. Physicians across America are grappling with the controversial CDC advisory panel decision to end recommending universal hepatitis B shots
for babies. This after the U.S. government did not commemorate World AIDS Day last week, shaking up its approach to HIV/AIDS treatment and
prevention.
In August, Dr. Demetre Daskalakis resigned from the CDC, accusing the agency under Robert F. Kennedy Jr. of ignoring science. Here he is with
Hari Sreenivasan.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HARI SREENIVASAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Bianna, thanks. Dr. Demetre Daskalakis, thanks so much for joining us. World AIDS Day just went
by, and there was a State Department email sent out that said, refrain from publicly promoting World AIDS Day through any communication channels,
including social media, media engagements, speeches, or other public-facing messaging. And you're an infectious disease physician who's dedicated his
career to fighting HIV and AIDS. What was your reaction to this?
DR. DEMETRE DASKALAKIS, FORMER DIRECTOR, CDC NATIONAL CENTER FOR IMMUNIZATION AND RESPIRATORY DISEASES AND LGBTQ+ HEALTH ACTIVIST: Sadly,
it was one of not being surprised. I think that this was really symptomatic of the bigger problem, which is the current administration dismantling so
many of the systems globally and domestically that have been critical in getting us to a place in the fight against HIV where we could potentially
see the end of the HIV epidemic in sight, not only in the U.S., but around the world.
SREENIVASAN: The State Department's justification for this was saying, look, awareness is not a strategy. This doesn't necessarily solve HIV.
We're doing lots of real work with other countries to try to bring the number of infections down. What's wrong with their thinking?
DR. DASKALAKIS: Yes. I mean, what's wrong with the thinking is that it's, I agree with them, that the commemoration day is not a strategy, but
they're dismantling all the strategies. So, I think that it's a little bit of a bait and switch to say the commemoration day is not a strategy when
they are really attacking PEPFAR, which is responsible for saving 26 million lives. It is critical in making sure that people are getting
antiretroviral therapy and then also accounts for about 90 percent of the global pre-exposure prophylaxis for the world. That is a strategy, and
they're attacking that as well.
So, I think that that's the problem. There's doublespeak, and there's deflection from the reality that, yes, not commemorating World AIDS Day
does not necessarily mean that there's no commitment, what means there's no commitment is the actions that they take in showing that they want to
dismantle the strategies that have worked in the past.
SREENIVASAN: So, let's talk a little bit about PEPFAR. I think for people who aren't that familiar with it, I mean, this was something that has been
supported by every administration since it's been formed, starting with the Republican administrations, right? And this is credited with the types of
life saving that you're talking about, literally in the 24 to 26 million human beings range, and it delivers all sorts of HIV testing,
antiretroviral, antiretroviral therapies, prevention of mother-to-child transmission. But it kind of has in the United States a couple of different
parents, if you will, when it comes to funding. It's got the State Department, and then it's got HHS or CDC.
So, what specifically are happening to those sources of funding that are threatening the success or continuance of PEPFAR?
DR. DASKALAKIS: Yes. So, I think one of the important things is that uncertainty around funding has resulted in paralysis of the program. So,
the first is that USAID was completely dismantled in the first few months of the administration.
For a while, they actually even stopped sending resources to the countries that were being supported by PEPFAR, and through various legal injunctions,
et cetera, some of that money flows again. But ultimately, there has been an interruption in providing life-saving antiretroviral therapy, which has
manifested itself in tens of thousands of people that have already died, per some of the models that I've seen.
[13:45:00]
And so, you know, there's the dismantling of USAID, and now also likely an attack on CDC with the president's budget really not supporting global
public health at CDC. So, that could mean unplugging of what is one of the most important public health interventions globally, which is PEPFAR, that
has, as you said, saved 26-plus million lives.
SREENIVASAN: So, you know, just to put it in perspective for people, I think globally there were 1.3 million new HIV infections, right? This is
not something that we have completely beaten. It is still happening. It is still being transmitted to children from mothers, between individuals.
What's the status of PEPFAR today, I mean, if these sources of funding are threatened?
DR. DASKALAKIS: PEPFAR's future is tenuous at best. You know, it seems as if there is some ongoing commitment to PEPFAR, but it seems as if it is
potentially very short-lived and doesn't really take into account the critical role of PEPFAR in doing two things. Other than doing something
very good for maintaining the health of people globally, it maintains global health security because it creates an infrastructure if we have to
respond to other big infectious diseases.
And so, you know, the writing is on the wall. There is not only a release of the accelerator on the progress to end the HIV epidemic. This
administration is pumping the brakes. So, it's not just slowing down, if PEPFAR goes away, that means stopping the entire story. And, you know,
that's going to not mean just some strange policy issue, it's going to mean that people will die.
SREENIVASAN: You know, the State Department's rationale, we're thinking is, look, we have to stop being the people that are the only ones that are
writing the check. We have to transition this to the host countries. We have to help them get to a point where they can fight HIV on their own.
You know, just Thursday, the U.S. and Kenya signed, I guess, the first, America's first global health agreement, which we're going to see the U.S.
contribute about $1.7 billion towards HIV, AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis treatment and prevention in Kenya. And then the Kenyans have to come up
with $850 million. And they think that there are going to be or they say that there are going to be other countries that will do this. What's wrong
with that strategy?
DR. DASKALAKIS: Yes. I mean, I think really that there's already been a PEPFAR strategy for transition. And it really was one that was metered and
designed to make sure that there were no children or adults left behind who will suffer or die from HIV. Instead, what you're seeing is an emergency
bailout, because for the last like eight or nine months, there has been no planning around what to do with PEPFAR. There's only been destruction and
decomposition of the programs that support the work. And so, one country having an agreement means that we're many, many, many countries away from
having what we need to support the health of people globally.
I think the other part that is important is, you know, the U.S. is the global leader in public health. It is our moral responsibility to support
these countries. And if we decide to change our funding strategy, we need to do it in a way that, in fact, does not let people die. And so, I think
that the argument is a great one in terms of transitioning responsibility and giving, I guess, more dominion to these countries, it's a great
argument, but it needs to be done with a strategy, not with a bilateral agreement that, in fact, makes aid to the country transactional.
Because the other part of those agreements is, you have to give us your data and you have to give us your specimens. And that is really what is
underlying all of this. They're trying to trade aid, support for people living with HIV, for public health intelligence. And that is their strategy
to replace the WHO. And that is not a strategy that is either moral nor potentially one that is durable.
SREENIVASAN: We've talked a little bit about HIV on the global stage. And I want to bring for our American audience a little perspective to this,
too. We've had almost 40,000 new HIV infections in 2023. I think the numbers are fairly similar in 2024. And I wonder, you know, when you have
something like Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis, PrEP, that's available today, which prevents infections from even occurring, how is HIV still this large
of a public health problem in the United States?
DR. DASKALAKIS: Yes. Your answer is what happens when the country decides not to celebrate or commemorate World AIDS Day. This is a stigma and access
game in the United States. People do not access care. They don't access testing because it's scary.
[13:50:00]
It -- people are made invisible because of the stigma that is getting even worse in the United States with some of the activity against LGBT people
are made invisible because of the stigma that is getting even worse in the United States with some of the activity against LGBTQ health, since they
are such an important component of what happens domestically for HIV. You have amazing technology that's going to sit on the shelf because people
aren't going to get tested. They're not going to access Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis, and that's going to mean more HIV infections.
And so, I'm thinking about New York. They do amazing work in HIV, and their new epidemiology shows an increase in HIV. That is not good. And so, that
is a trend that you're going to, I think, see throughout the world and throughout the country. I need to be very clear it's going to be worse in
states that can least afford it. So, I would expect that we'll also see increasing HIV rates in the South, given some of the issues related to
access as well as stigma.
I've seen patients in Atlanta, and I've never seen so much stigma actually interact with an infection to result in some terrible outcomes in the
people that I've taken care of. So, I think this is a preview of what's to come.
SREENIVASAN: You know, you recently were at the CDC. You were the director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. And you
very publicly resigned this past August. And in your resignation letter, I just want to quote one phrase, "I am unable to serve in an environment that
treats CDC as a tool to generate policies and materials that do not reflect scientific reality and are designed to hurt rather than to improve the
public's health."
What are some of the specific kind of policies that the CDC was going after that made you say, I can't be part of this anymore?
DR. DASKALAKIS: I think the list continues to grow. I think one great example was the creation of an autism and vaccines webpage that tried to
link autism and vaccines despite decades of science demonstrating that that's not the case.
In effect, without any new data, CDC, like a wolf in sheep's clothing, put up a website that said that there's no scientific evidence that it is not
scientifically accurate to say that vaccines do not cause autism. And that is based on nothing.
What you're seeing is that CDC is being created into a rubber stamp that, in fact, cloaks conspiracy and pseudoscience in the garb of science and
really valid scientific statements. We're literally seeing the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices make decisions with no presented data.
They made a decision about how vaccines should be administered to babies and what testing should be done for vaccines that are based on absolutely
no medical or scientific data. That's why I resigned. If I hadn't resigned months ago, I would have resigned today.
SREENIVASAN: So, you have moved on and you have decided to be the chief medical officer of Callen-Lorde. It's a community organization here in New
York City that provides health services for the LGBTQ plus community. What type of work and why?
DR. DASKALAKIS: Yes. So, it's going back to my roots. I mean, so much of the work that I did in New York before I went to federal government was
around HIV prevention, specifically focusing on the LGBTQ community. So, I'm sort of going back to the roots of what brought me to public health.
The why is that I don't think that there's any point in being involved in the federal government right now because it's actually looking to destroy
public health than build it. And so, one of the things that's part of my career is really moving between local and national and doing it seamlessly.
And so, I think that right now the grassroots is the place that we need to be to protect the health of people because it's quite clear that the
federal government is not.
SREENIVASAN: I think there are also people in the United States who think, OK, fine, you know what? There's going to be a new administration. We can
fix this. What's wrong with that thinking? I mean, you've been talking about kind of infrastructure, which has taken years and decades to build.
How long will it take to rebuild?
DR. DASKALAKIS: The current leadership at HHS, Secretary Kennedy and the people that work for him are able to, in one or two minutes, destroy
decades of work. And so, I think that that's what we're seeing, like creating mistrust, yanking really significant funding for important work.
If you don't have a workforce and you don't have research, what that means is that not only does the workforce pipeline dry up, but it also means that
the innovation pipeline dries up.
So, I think what we're going to see is less science, less scientists. And ultimately, that's going to have ramifications for decades. And again, what
I'm worried about is that this administration will pass and then a new administration will come. But the impacts of what's happening today are
going to be felt for decades because of how hard it will be to rebuild in the environment that's been created.
SREENIVASAN: Dr. Demetre Daskalakis, thanks so much for joining us.
[13:55:00]
DR. DASKALAKIS: Thank you so much, Hari.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: And finally, a child star in India shaking up the chess world. At just three years old, Sarwagya Singh Kushwaha has become the youngest
player in history to earn an official rating from FIDE, the game's global governing board. Already defeating opponents more than eight times his age,
he joins a growing wave of young talent who are reshaping competitions. He picked up the game when he was just 30 months old, and now he practices up
to five hours a day. His father said that within a week of learning the rules, his son could identify every piece on the board and that his family
is already dreaming of grandmaster status. Maybe that'll happen by age of five, six, who knows at this rate.
All right. That was quite impressive. 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, on our website, and all-over social media.
Thanks so much for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
