Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Stanford University Director of Iranian Studies and "The Shah" Author Abbas Milani; Interview with White House Council of Economic Advisers Former Chief Economist and The American Action Forum President Douglas Holtz-Eakin; Interview with "The Rest of Our Lives" Author Ben Markovits; Interview with The New York Times Los Angeles Bureau Chief Shawn Hubler. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired January 12, 2026 - 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.
Iranian protesters rise up and security forces crack down. Stanford professor Abbas Milani joins me on the widespread unrest and what comes
next.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JEROME POWELL, U.S. FEDERAL RESERVE CHAIR: This unprecedented action should be seen in the broader context of the administration's threats and
ongoing pressure.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- Fed chair Jerome Powell fights back after federal prosecutors open a criminal investigation of him and the Central Bank. We
look at what this unprecedented action means for the economy and democracy.
Also, ahead, author Ben Markovits takes us on a road trip to remember.
Plus --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SHAWN HUBLER, LOS ANGELES BUREAU CHIEF, THE NEW YORK TIMES: The place, in many ways, is built to burn, but these fires were just -- they were just
next level.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- one year after the L.A. fires, reporter Shawn Hubler speaks with Hari Sreenivasan about all that was destroyed and what it will take to
rebuild. Welcome to the program, everyone.
I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
The Iranian people's call for freedom are being heard loud and clear around the world despite authorities' day-long attempt to black out all
communications. What began as demonstrations against the dire state of the economy and the cost of living have escalated into a nationwide challenge
to the Islamic Republic itself.
And now, security forces are aggressively moving on the protesters. Hundreds have been killed in the past few days, this according to a U.S.-
based rights group. One Tehran resident told CNN that the violence is much worse than you can even imagine.
Now, it is crisis time for the Iranian regime, but its foreign minister is trying to project a sense of calm. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ABBAS ARAGHCHI, IRANIAN FOREIGN MINISTER (through translator): From January 10 until now, the situation has entered a new phase and it is
currently under control.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Meanwhile, President Trump is mulling over military intervention in Iran. Let's bring in Abbas Malani, director of Iranian
studies at Stanford and author of "The Shah." He was held as a political prisoner by the former Shah's regime and eventually left Iran in 1986.
Abbas Malani, thank you so much for joining us.
You write in a piece you published just last week that the Islamic Republic is now a, quote, "hollow shell facing its gravest crisis since 1979." We've
had a number of experts say exactly that and lay out the differences in terms of why this current crisis is much more dire for the regime than even
those that we've seen in the past few years, the most recent in 2022. And that includes regional change, post-October 7th change, obviously, the
weakening of the proxies, the strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities and the Trump factor. Lay out why, in your view, this is a much more existential
threat for the regime than previous crises.
ABBAS MILANI, DIRECTOR OF IRANIAN STUDIES, STANFORD UNIVERSITY AND AUTHOR, "THE SHAH": Despotisms like the Islamic regime survive on fear and survive
on creating an image of themselves as omnipotent, both regionally and domestically. That fear has now dissipated. Iranian people don't fear this
bloody regime. And the region and the International Community has also recognized that this is a hollowed regime.
Anyone who had been watching this regime for the past few years would have known that this is a hollowing regime because it is corrupt, because it is
rapacious, because it is cronyist, and because Mr. Khamenei is a dogmatist assured of his own wisdom, unwilling to change. If he had an iota of
realism, he would have known a year ago that the game is up. And unless they change, they're sinking. Now, they're sinking.
[13:05:00]
GOLODRYGA: And you also argue that the real vulnerability is not only economic, but that of legitimacy as well. This is a totalitarian regime
that I heard one statistic say has the highest per capita execution rate in the world. And now, you are saying they are losing that fear factor of
legitimacy, of repression from their own population, this as much of the country is in the dark, both electricity, cellular, internet service,
despite some Starlink availability. What is the next step? Because we have seen where this repression can still be successful, and that is in the mass
murder of those that are protesting on the streets.
MILANI: I don't think repression can be successful. And again, if you look at the past 10 years, Mr. Khamenei and his regime have used increasing
violence every time the people of Iran rose up to say, we do not want these policies. We do not want you as a leader. Look at 2009, look at 2019, look
at 2024. In 2024, they killed upward of a thousand minimum. They arrested in their own numbers, 90,000. Two years later, they have this. If they
suppress their way, if they kill their way into security now, they will have a bigger uprising later because the problem is the incompetence of
this regime. The problem is its inability to solve Iran's problem.
Imagine tomorrow, they have quieted the people. What are they going to do with the economy? The president of Iran declared two weeks ago that we
don't have dollars and we have no way to pay our basic expenses. Where are they going to get this money? Who is going to support them? The E.U. just
banned Iranian diplomats from entering offices of the E.U. parliament. I think every government in the world must now follow suit. They must tell
this regime, you cannot kill your way out of people's peaceful demand for change, peaceful demand for democracy.
And I have to say that breaking the fear factor, we owe a great deal to Iranian women. They fought for 44 years incrementally to show the world and
to show this misogynist regime that they're not going to be second class citizens. That broke the back of this regime. And now, they and virtually
90 percent of Iranian society says no to the status quo.
GOLODRYGA: So, you have the fearlessness of the society, as you point out, specifically the women. And as I noted earlier, the Trump factor of it all,
following through on his threats to take out and join Israel, following their 12-day war with Iran and striking their nuclear facilities, and then
deposing the head of Venezuela as well. The country with Iran have longstanding relationships going back many decades. So, what are the
options that you think would be best suited for the United States to take?
MILANI: My sense is that the best options are to again, isolate the regime diplomatically, freeze all of their assets, freeze the assets of their
oligarchs, which are spread through Canada, United States, Europe, Malaysia, Singapore, freeze their assets, close their diplomatic offices,
which are often centers for terrorist activities, tell the Iranian regime that it is no longer considered a viable representative of a great
civilization that wants to leave peacefully.
Iran has been one of the closest allies of Israel before this regime came. This regime has made the destruction of Israel its strategic preference.
Why? Iranian Jews have lived in Iran for 2,500 years. Iran had the biggest number of Jews living in Iran in 1979. Still, Iran has more Jews living in
Iran than any Muslim country. Why should Iran's interest be the destruction of the state of Israel? This is the idiocy that Mr. Khamenei and his
ideologues have followed for 45 years, put Iran on a warpath with Israel for 45 years. The Shah of Iran defended the right of Palestinians to a
state, but also was a very close ally of Israel.
GOLODRYGA: What I haven't heard you mention is a military option for the United States, which the president is reportedly weighing as soon as
tomorrow. He is set to meet per the Wall Street Journal with his top military officials to discuss some of the options for the U.S. Here's what
he said on this subject over the weekend on Air Force One.
[13:10:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: We're looking at it very seriously. The military is looking at it, and we're looking at some very strong options. I
think they're tired of being beat up by the United States. Iran wants to negotiate, yes. We may meet with them. I mean, a meeting is being set up,
but we may have to act because of what's happening before the meeting.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: OK. So, two points I want to raise with you. First is the president really laying out a red line last week, saying that if the
Iranian regime targets and kills those civilian protesters, that the United States is locked and loaded and ready to respond. If he doesn't, then what
message does that send? Has he boxed himself in? And then what do you make of possible talks that, as we've gotten more details, include the foreign
minister actually reaching out reportedly to Steve Witkoff, the president's envoy?
MILANI: Again, it's very difficult to predict what President Trump will do. I think the idea of negotiating with this regime at this time is folly.
I know one thing about President Trump, I think he is very worried about his place in history. If he wants to go down in history as someone who made
the Abrahamic Accords possible, you cannot then make peace with the regime that has been the most serious enemy of the Abrahamic Accord.
No country in the world has ever made in the Middle East has worked more against the Abrahamic Accord than the mullahs in Iran. So, the idea that
when the mullahs are on the ropes, you're going to negotiate with them and give them a lifeline, to me, seems contrary to everything that Mr. Trump
has said in the past.
And I am for negotiation. I've always been for negotiation. But right now, the negotiation should be about how to ease this regime out of power.
Remember, this regime came to power with the help of the United States. During Jimmy Carter's time, the United States helped this regime by
essentially telling the military not to intervene on the Shah's behalf. Now, this regime wants to use the United States again to stay in power. The
same mistake of the past, I think, I hope, shouldn't be made now.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, you wrote that Western governments misread Ayatollah Khomeini as a stabilizing force in the late '70s. In the last hour, I
interviewed Jack Goldstone, who I'm sure you know is a political scientist and specializing in revolutions, and had co-authored a piece that has
received a lot of coverage over the weekend as well with Kareem Sadjadpour.
And what he told me is that he thinks that following, of course, the Supreme Leader, his removal or his death, however, that ends following his
leadership, he thinks there's room for a deal with the Revolutionary Guard and some sort of civilian secular leaders to remove the clerical leadership
in exchange for at least a temporary stabilizing leadership from these forces. What do you make of that idea?
MILANI: I think that's a very -- that's a possible idea. But I think if they want peace, they cannot have any semblance of the current regime in
this. And I think if that coalition is formed in Iran, they cannot ignore the Iranian diaspora. The Iranian diaspora is absolutely indispensable for
saving Iran out of this morass. And unless they are included in this grand coalition, in political science, they call it a pact of transition.
I have written about pact of transition in Iran for four years. And I said to me, that is an ideal way to move forward. But now, with a very
increasingly organized diaspora, with the power that the crown prince has accrued, the name of Pahlavi, the political capital that has accrued to his
name and to his family's name, the inclusive pact, an inclusive pact that includes everyone who wants a democratic, secular Iran is, I think, very
much in the realm of possibilities.
GOLODRYGA: In the final few seconds here, how critical is it for the U.S., for Western companies and countries, any sort of technological wherewithal
to lift this information blanket on the country and expose through the Internet, through access, what is going on on the streets?
MILANI: I think it's absolutely indispensable. I hope they do it. I hope Starlink is available. I hope other technologies that I know are available
is made available by Silicon Valley to help Iran from this new prison that the Iranian regime has created around these people.
[13:15:00]
It's a war crime. It is a war crime to deny people access to telephone. Domestic lines of telephone are shut down. And at this moment, this
shameless foreign minister of Iran takes U.S. -- European ambassadors and tells them all is quiet on the Iranian front. It isn't.
GOLODRYGA: And the death toll continues to rise. Abbas Milani, thank you so much for your time and for your thoughtfulness. We appreciate it.
MILANI: My pleasure.
GOLODRYGA: And do stay with CNN. We'll be right back after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: Alarm bells are ringing on Wall Street and in Washington after federal prosecutors opened up a criminal investigation of Fed Chair Jerome
Powell and the Central Bank. Right after the news broke, Powell looked straight at a camera and told the world that Trump is threatening him for
not doing what the president wanted on interest rates.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JEROME POWELL, U.S. FEDERAL RESERVE CHAIR: The threat of criminal charges is a consequence of the Federal Reserve setting interest rates based on our
best assessment of what will serve the public, rather than following the preferences of the president. This is about whether the Fed will be able to
continue to set interest rates based on evidence and economic conditions, or whether instead, monetary policy will be directed by political pressure
or intimidation.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: The independence of the Federal Reserve is a bedrock principle of U.S. economic policy, and the DOJ's actions appear to be the latest in a
string of moves against the president's perceived enemies. Here to discuss is former Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin.
Douglas, it is good to see you. As I said to my last guest in the last hour, I think we've over exhausted the term unprecedented, but it is apt in
this case. A criminal investigation of a sitting Fed Chair. I guess maybe the writing could have been on the wall, and it is still a stunning
headline to read. From an economic and institutional standpoint, because I know there are a lot of legal experts, and by the way, we should note that
Jay Powell also is a trained lawyer.
There appears to be no legal standing for this case, but just the headline itself and the economic damage that something like this could do for the
gold standard of the United States around the world. What is that? How alarming is that to you?
DOUGLAS HOLTZ-EAKIN, FORMER CHIEF ECONOMIST, WHITE HOUSE COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS AND PRESIDENT, THE AMERICAN ACTION FORUM: It is
tremendously alarming. The Fed's independence is, as you mentioned, a bedrock principle of U.S. economic policy. It is one of the things on which
the strong dollar, which has served as a reserve currency, is built, and investors' lack of confidence in the stability of the dollar would lead
them to shy away from treasuries. That's bad for U.S. interest rates. That's bad for the pace of global trade, basically for the global economy.
So, this isn't a minor skirmish of a political nature off on the side. This is at the centerpiece of global financial markets, and it is central to the
operation of things as they are now configured.
GOLODRYGA: Let me pick up on that last line that we heard from Powell in that video, where he says this is about whether the Fed will be able to
continue to set interest rates based on evidence and economic conditions, or whether instead monetary policy will be directed by political pressure
or intimidation. Explain what happens to a country, to an economy, when the latter happens, because that's something that we've actually seen play out
in real life. It's not a hypothetical.
[13:20:00]
HOLTZ-EAKIN: We've seen this in Argentina with Peronistas and the takeover of the Central Bank, the issuing of money for political purposes and
timing, you're going to go buy an election in blunt terms. We've seen it in Turkey where Erdogan has cowed the Central Bank. The outcome in both cases
is tremendous amounts of inflation, pardon me, enormous amounts of poor economic performance, and it's not a hypothetical for the United States.
It wasn't that long ago, the 1970s, that then-President Richard Nixon cowed the sitting chairman of the Federal Reserve, Arthur Burns, and Burns
operated monetary policy for the purpose of Nixon's re-election. We saw sustained high inflation, sustained high unemployment in the '70s, and most
of the efforts of the Federal Reserve since have been to avoid that kind of a situation.
GOLODRYGA: Let's remind our viewers how this particular headline and narrative came about, and that was when the president really, as he's been
expressing his frustration with Jay Powell for a number of years now, honed in on the cost of renovating the Federal Reserve Building itself. There's
video from, I believe over the summer, where the two men in hard hats were touring the facility, and the president took out a sheet of paper where he
talked about how the expenses and projected costs have just increased significantly. You see Powell then confront him, saying those numbers are
just wrong.
First of all, federal projects, including the President's, and you're looking at the renovation of the White House right now, the ballroom, they
routinely go over budget. But just that this alone is what Jay Powell describes as a pretext for this all, what do you make of it?
HOLTZ-EAKIN: Well, look, if cost overruns were a criminal offense, most of Washington, D.C. would be in jail. I mean, that's the blunt reality of it.
And this is not that. What the president did was, you know, put on a show to try to intimidate Powell. He used the wrong numbers. He gave the cost of
renovating three buildings, not two. Certainly, if you're going to renovate two historic buildings that are adjacent to the Washington Mall and are
built on top of some highly questionable asbestos foundations, it's going to cost a lot of money. We know that. These are historic buildings.
So, no one believes there's any substance. The question was, could they find a way to get Powell to do their bidding? They have not found a way.
They've now decided to try to remove him one way or another. They've come to the conclusion the president can't fire the chair chairman of the
Federal Reserve. So, they've stopped that calls for that. And instead, they're now trying to get the Department of Justice to remove him on their
behalf. So, none of that is honorable and none of it is something that should ever happen.
There are two real great fallouts to this. And number one is the impact on the Federal Reserve's policies, the perception of the global capital
markets and global and U.S. economic performance. The second is the future of the Fed, which has been damaged already by the president's actions. And
this will damage it further.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, I believe Janet Yellen this morning responded by saying we're sort of on the precipice of Banana Republic territory here. Do you
agree?
HOLTZ-EAKIN: Yes, this is what you see when the rule of law is simply discarded and instead you use the rule of the authoritarian. That's what
they're trying to do here. He is trying to intimidate Jerome Powell into going away.
And there's some firewalls here. I think it's important for listeners to know about. One firewalls, in fact, global capital markets. It is not in
the president's interest to have long-term interest rates in the United States, though, up 50, 100, 200 basis points. So, if markets react poorly,
he's got a problem.
The second firewall is the U.S. Senate, which has to confirm anyone he might choose to replace Powell. He could lose the votes in the Senate to
get that done. And then then it's a pyrrhic victory. He gets rid of Powell and he can't replace him.
GOLODRYGA: Yes.
HOLTZ-EAKIN: And then the third and the most important one is actually Powell himself. Powell can stay at the Federal Reserve through 2028 --
GOLODRYGA: On the board?
HOLTZ-EAKIN: -- and he can make the president's life miserable on the -- so, yes.
GOLODRYGA: Right.
HOLTZ-EAKIN: He's on the board.
GOLODRYGA: Because -- yes. His tenure as Fed chair ends in May and he had been expected to just leave the Fed in total. But this may actually keep
him on the board longer for this very reason to see any sort of attempt to maintain the Fed's independence.
Can I just ask you quickly on a separate note to weigh in on the president, a Republican floating a one year 10 percent cap on credit card interest
payments and on housing by boosting large investors from buying -- from booting, sorry, large investors from buying single family homes while also
talking about buying $200 billion in mortgage bonds to lower costs. What do you make of that policy?
[13:25:00]
HOLTZ-EAKIN: All three of those look like the panicked moves of a president whose party is up for reelection, the following is in trouble.
None of those by themselves make any sense whatsoever. Some are incredibly counterproductive. The 10 percent interest rate cap will simply eliminate
access to credit cards for the low income, riskier borrowers that he's trying to help.
And so, these are counterproductive sort of publicity seeking efforts that that allow a politician to say, gee, I'm on your side. But when push comes
to shove, don't make things better.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, you believe on your blog have described as bad policy with superficial political appeal. Douglas Holtz-Egan, thank you so much. It's
good to see you. Come back.
HOLTZ-EAKIN: Take care.
GOLODRYGA: All right. Well, next to an acclaimed novel that explores themes of aging, privilege, parenthood and more, "The Rest of Our Lives"
was shortlisted for the prestigious Booker Prize. And it tells the story of Tom, an East Coast law professor who drops his daughter off at college and,
well, just keeps driving west. He revisits family and old flames and stews on the past, all while trying to ignore his increasingly alarming health
issues.
British-American Ben Markovits is the author of the book, and he joins the program from none other than the Nashville bookshop owned by award winning
writer Ann Patchett. Ben, welcome to the program. Congratulations on the book.
I read it, I believe, in a day and a half. My stepdaughter, we all read it on vacation and it's a page turner. You can't put it down. So, bravo to you
on writing a great book.
As I laid out, it's a story of a middle-aged dad of two, currently suspended college professor. He's in an unhappy relationship, which he says
dates back to an affair that his wife had, quote, "When our son was 12 years old, my wife had an affair with a guy called Zach Zirsky." We learn a
little bit more about Zach and how mediocre he was and nonetheless, had an affair with Tom's wife.
And then you decide to set a deal -- or Tom decides to set a deal for himself, which he follows, which he discusses in the following passage,
which I believe you're going to read for us.
BEN MARKOVITS, AUTHOR, "THE REST OF OUR LIVES": Yes, should I read that now?
GOLODRYGA: Yes, please.
MARKOVITS: Perfect. All right. You fall in love with somebody when you're 26 and you see them in all kinds of different lights and according to their
potential. But after years and years of marriage and shared parenting and all the other shared decisions you have to make just to get through the
days, you accumulate a lot of data about that person that after a while just seems more or less accurate. If you continue to have illusions, that's
your fault.
So, if you stay married, it's because you've accepted that this is what they're like and what your life with them is like and you stop expecting
them to do or give you things you know perfectly well they're unlikely to do or give you. It's like being a Knicks fan. But I also made a deal with
myself. When Miriam goes to college, you can leave too.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, Miriam is Tom's daughter. Tell us about the premise of the book and what drew you to write this story.
MARKOVITS: I was interested in a story of a guy who isn't the one who's done anything wrong and I wanted to explore how that would play out in
their marriage and maybe get him to confront the possibility that his sense that he hasn't done anything wrong is part of the problem.
GOLODRYGA: He's also a bit of a passive man as well. You're right, he hasn't done anything wrong. He's not the one who started the affair and yet
you sense the frustration of his wife and those around him by not being more emotional, by not being and expressing more of his opinions and
objections. Why describe him that way?
MARKOVITS: Well, it seems an interesting kind of male problem to deal with, the one who doesn't get angry enough, who doesn't intervene enough. I
think one of the things he comes to realize is that you have to be willing to get angry even if it puts you in the wrong just to deal with the
problems that otherwise get swept under the carpet.
GOLODRYGA: And/or in the passenger seat of a car, in this sense, because so much of this book takes place as Tom is on a road trip after dropping
his daughter off, as we noted, in college and not returning home, I believe to New Jersey, right, but instead heading out west. Tell us about this --
you know, for a reader it did feel almost like a confessional or as if we were either a passenger in the car alongside Tom. Was that your intent?
[13:00:00]
MARKOVITS: Yes. I mean, I always want to make the prose sound like the kind of thing you could actually say as opposed to the kind of thing you
can only write. And I felt like if you were going to get into a personality like Tom's to have his conversation with you was probably the best way to
do it.
But one of the things that I realized as I was writing the book is something that I do myself I don't know if you do it, but when you're
having an argument with somebody, even when you're not in their presence, you often keep up the conversation. And one of the things that happens to
him as he drives west, the further he gets away from his wife, the more he keeps talking to her in his head and trying to figure out what went wrong
in their marriage, and maybe even what he can do to fix it.
So, that even though the premise of the book is that it's a kind of running away from your wife story, it's also, I hope, a love story. I hope that
comes across by the end.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, of course. And listen, even amongst our producers, there were differing views on Amy, his wife, and whether we were more sympathetic
to her or not. I was more the latter, I have to say.
MARKOVITS: How about you?
GOLODRYGA: I was not sympathetic to Amy. I was more of a fan of Tom's. And I appreciated that he started to open up and to give pause to perhaps his
past behavior, at least by not expressing it enough, as he's driving literally away further and further from his life back home.
It's also a bit of a story about political correctness. You touch on it. This is a middle-aged white man who is currently suspended from his job as
a law professor after advising on a case against an NBA player, an NBA team owner, who allegedly made racist allegations. Where did that point come
from? It wasn't necessary.
MARKOVITS: You mean the NBA thing? I mean --
GOLODRYGA: No, not the NBA. I know you were a basketball player, too, but just the, you know, sort of white, middle-aged man who I know Tom's
daughter, Mary, chants, you know, angry white male. That comes up, too. But it seems as if it's told from a perspective, we don't hear much about, and
that is a middle-aged white male.
MARKOVITS: Yes. I mean, I guess I figured if you take a guy like that and you send him off across the country, what's he going to talk about to his
old college buddies and ex-girlfriends as he visits with them? And it occurred to me probably he would want to talk about the way the culture has
left him behind.
I don't mean to say that I think the culture has left him behind or he's even justified in those thoughts, but he gets in an argument early on in
the book with his son, who basically tells him more or less, look, I don't want to hear about your sex problems, Dad. Which is totally fair. I don't
really want to hear your political opinions because I think, you know, you're a bit of a dinosaur. And I also don't want to hear your privileged
complaints about life.
And all of these arguments seem totally reasonable to me from the point of view of the son. But Tom says to him in response, you know, when his son
says, why are you telling me this stuff? And Tom says, look, I'm not yet ready to lead a totally secret life. And I think the danger of his position
is that increasingly he's somebody who's going to feel that nobody really wants to hear from me. And that forces him to lead a secret life. And I
wanted to show that that's, you know, there's something right in him to resist that, even if it, you know, it risks him getting into trouble.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, that was, I thought, really sort of a powerful and painful revelation that you exposed from Tom and his relationships, even with his,
you know, closest, nearest and dearest, his children, his wife, that he never felt close enough to go that deep. And when he attempted, you know,
he was told, you know, to his face, I don't want to be talking about this.
But you mentioned his son. And where I did get frustrated with Tom was not taking his health seriously enough. And that's what his son really, kudos
to him for focusing on, to constantly say, you know, you need to go to the doctor, something's wrong with you.
As you started writing the book, you started experiencing some of the same symptoms as well. Breathlessness, a puffy face, broken veins. Tom just
dismisses it as, you know, COVID, long COVID. Can you talk about the similarities between what you were going through, ultimately diagnosed with
cancer and what Tom's experiencing?
MARKOVITS: Yes. I mean, I gave him those symptoms early on in the writing process because I thought it was part of the general picture of a guy who
feels like things are breaking down in his life, and he can't quite understand why. And then as I kept writing, I got sicker and sicker too.
And by the end of the first draft, I was going through chemo.
And I want to say in Tom's defense, it turns out what we had was a very hard thing to diagnose. I mean, Tom keeps saying, I went to the doctor, he
thought it was long COVID. And the truth is, I went to the doctor, and they thought it was long COVID. And I wanted to write also, as I was getting
sick, I had this sense of a physical alarm bell ringing, something telling me that there's something going wrong in your life, and you have to deal
with it.
[13:35:00]
And I think I dealt with it a little bit more promptly than Tom, but that alarm bell seemed like a really interesting thing to write about, even if
it led me somewhere I didn't want to go.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. You also -- as you mentioned, that this is, you know, sort of a love story too, between Tom and Amy, and I don't want to give up and
give out too much of the book. But we are left sort of wondering where things end with Tom, both health-wise and in his relationship with Amy.
Obviously, that was intentional on your part, but are you more of an optimist? Are you -- you know, even my family members and I were
discussing, like, what do you think happened? Would you like readers to walk away more on an optimistic note?
MARKOVITS: Yes, I hope so. I mean, also, I wanted to leave it hanging, because I thought if I made it too conclusive one way or the other, it
would just seem sentimental, and actually maybe ultimately more depressing, that the chance of things turning out OK might, in the end, be more
optimistic than the certainty.
GOLODRYGA: Again, similarities between you and Tom. Playing basketball is one of them, and I believe we have some video of you when you played semi-
pro, right, in Germany.
MARKOVITS: Yes.
GOLODRYGA: This was your submission video of you playing basketball.
MARKOVITS: Yes.
GOLODRYGA: Basketball is -- I mean, when you're not in a car, and when Tom is --
MARKOVITS: Yes.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, when you're not in the car with Tom in this book, you're with him as he's on a basketball court somewhere. Briefly, can you tell us
what you're working on next, Ben?
MARKOVITS: Yes, I want to write -- I'm writing a novel about the other stage of life, the beginning when you start falling in love with people,
and it's told from the woman's point of view. It's a kind of love story set among the academic classes.
GOLODRYGA: Well, we can't wait to read that. Again, in our morning meeting this morning, one of our producers said, I would have loved to have heard
this story from Amy's perspective. So, maybe we'll get a chance to do just that or something similar. Ben Markovits, congratulations on the book. It
is a great read. I hope you'll pick one up, a copy up. Appreciate the time.
MARKOVITS: Thanks very much.
GOLODRYGA: And we'll be right back after this short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: Now, it has been a year since a series of deadly fires tore through Southern California, which left nearly 80 square miles burned,
forced tens of thousands to flee their homes, and claimed the lives of at least 31 people. Many gathered at an emotional vigil last week, mourning
those that had died and the neighborhoods that have been lost. More than seven in 10 of Altadena residents are still displaced, as rebuilding
destroyed homes has proven to be challenging.
Shawn Hubler is the Los Angeles bureau chief for the New York Times, and she joins Hari Sreenivasan to take stock of the progress so far.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HARI SREENIVASAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Bianna, thanks. Shawn Hubler, thanks so much for joining us. You know, unfortunately, it has
become standard now for people to hear about, essentially, fire season in California. And every year, you'll see some headlines and so forth. Here we
are, a year after some of the biggest fires, but help our audience kind of put in perspective what happened last year with the Eaton fire and the
Palisades fire. How significant were they?
SHAWN HUBLER, LOS ANGELES BUREAU CHIEF, THE NEW YORK TIMES: In a lot of ways, it was kind of a perfect storm what happened last year? It was --
wildfire is not unusual in California. It happens. The place, in many ways, is built to burn.
[13:40:00]
But these fires were just -- they were just next level, really. They were - - it felt as if the entirety of Los Angeles was on fire all at once. It had scarcely rained for about six months before the fires broke out. So, it was
very dry last year. On top of that, there had been several years of rain, particularly wet years. So, there was a lot of vegetation. On top of that,
the Santa Ana winds, which are famous here had been kind of supercharged by an upper atmospheric condition that had, you know, really made them even --
it had turned them into extreme, really extreme winds.
And on top of that, I mean, Los Angeles just generally is a place where there's a housing shortage. There are a lot of houses and neighborhoods and
communities that have built up in areas that are fire prone. The -- so, there were a lot of homes, and human fuel in these areas that were near
wild lands, and so, the Palisades are on the coast near the Santa Monica Mountains. The Eaton Fire took place in an area where there are a lot of
communities in the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains. It was, you know, peak -- you know, really peak fire conditions.
SREENIVASAN: You know, the numbers in your story are staggering. This is - - these fires tragically killed 31 people. They destroyed 13,000 homes, 16,000 buildings. I mean, as someone who has seen and covered disasters in
California, earthquakes, wildfires, have you seen anything like this?
HUBLER: I've seen a lot of disaster in California. It's unfortunate, but true. And these were -- as I said, these were next level. This -- Los
Angeles burns, but not this much of it at once. There were 12 fires scattered in this -- you know, in this firestorm across the region. The
firefighters here were stretched at one point across five fires at one time, and not just regular fires, these are, you know, big, big wildfires.
And the burn scars are -- cover a total area of about 80 square miles. It's an area about three times -- for reference, about three times the size of
Manhattan. So, no, I haven't seen anything in Los Angeles quite like this. This was a historic fire. The Eaton and Palisade fire are among the most
destructive fires in state history at this point.
SREENIVASAN: Now, in your piece, you and your team wrote, one year after the L.A. fires, "Hope, Blame and Debt" was the title of it. You write, more
than 70 percent of residents who were displaced remain. So, while four out of 10 fire survivors have taken on debt and almost half have wiped out much
of their savings, according to the most recent survey by the department of angels, a nonprofit advocacy group for survivors of the L.A. wildfires.
I mean, but put that number that -- those numbers in those people and kind of in perspective here, when you're talking about block after block and
house after house, completely gone, you also are pointing out in this story, some significant inequities. One neighbor has the ability to rebuild
and the other does not.
HUBLER: I mean if you can imagine, in Los Angeles in particular, houses are not just -- they're not just shelter, they're repositories of people's
life savings. And so, for a lot of folks, their retirement was tied up in these houses, you know, there -- some of them inherited, the, you know,
property that -- and so on. So, it was an extreme loss for almost anyone. And even including people of means for that matter.
It takes a long, long time to rebuild after a disaster often. And a lot of folks had issues with insurance, with under insurance with, you know,
houses that were uninhabitable because of toxic smoke contamination. and, you know, there's been an issue with federal disaster assistance, not
coming in. There've been a lot of reasons why rebuilding has taken an especially long time.
But -- and honestly, I have to say, we were looking for signs that the Palisades, which is richer, would be rebuilding more quickly than say
Altadena, which is more middle class, middle income. But at the moment both of them look a lot alike. Only a handful of houses in either place have
been rebuilt to the point where people can actually move back into them. We anticipate that that will change in the coming year though.
[13:45:00]
It's likely that for a lot of folks whose insurance covers living expenses, things like that, that insurance coverage is going to run out and those
folks are going to have to decide, you know, whether to cut their losses or whether to pay -- continue to pay out of pocket and worsen in their debt.
So --
SREENIVASAN: We've talked a little bit about the human cost. The fires are apparently responsible for $131 billion in property and capital losses.
State officials have asked the federal government for about $40 billion, but the federal government hasn't kicked that back. I mean, it's only been
about 6 billion. So, what is the Trump administration's reasoning for withholding any of the funds?
HUBLER: Well, initially the Trump administration seemed willing to help and promised to help. And early on, the fires broke out before the
president took office. And so, initially, there was money to rebuild, about $6 billion kind of flowed to the state for rebuilding. But, you know, the
Trump administration has taken a kind of different approach to emergency management and disaster aid.
In the past, the communities that have been hit by disasters and states have relied on the federal government for this kind of really big-ticket
costs that -- to cover things like infrastructure and school rebuilding and roads and -- you know, and long-term assistance. And not just in
California, but in other disaster areas as well. The administration has been kind of seeking to shift those costs less toward the federal
government more toward the states, more toward the communities themselves. And so, the aid has been slower to flow in a lot of places.
The reasoning isn't entirely clear, but, you know, what it's translated into in California is about a yearlong lag for this money. And it's become
a real point of contention. There's a sense that -- kind of a growing sense that the deteriorated relationship between Governor Gavin Newsom, who's a
Democrat -- a leader in the Democratic Party and the president has -- you know, has played into it, that relationship isn't, you know, what it was
during his first term. But that -- but just generally speaking, there's a different policy toward disaster aid from this administration. In any case,
the money has been really slow to flow.
SREENIVASAN: So, was that any different at the end of the Biden administration versus how the Trump administration is responding to the
state's requests?
HUBLER: No, yes, the Biden administration was very quick to sign emergency orders and declarations and to help financially.
SREENIVASAN: You know, in that year now, we have seen also a re- characterization of the people who right at the fires, let's say the L.A. Fire Department authorities, they were kind of hailed as heroes for getting
some of the stuff done. And now, we have legal proceedings against almost every part of the chain of exactly who's responsible. Was there a reservoir
that should have been filled more? Should the fire department have staged people in places earlier? What did they know? When did they know it?
HUBLER: Yes, there's a lot of blame. One of the issues that's come out of this fire is the extent to which human error, you know, may have factored
into making it worse than it otherwise would have been. One of the things about wildfire is that you have to put them out early. Otherwise, when they
catch on, they're very, very difficult, almost impossible to put out. And there's just been a lot of blame to go around.
The Palisades Fire, for example, is -- has -- an investigation has found that it was a rekindle, that it was caused because of smoldering embers
from a fire the week before, that the fire department thought it had put out, but it hadn't. It had burned kind of underground in the wildland. And
then when the wind started to stir, it had rekindled and burned into the city. That's an issue.
There are issues around whether enough engines that were pre-deployed in the area, whether a shift of about a thousand firefighters could have been
held over and wasn't. There was a reservoir that was offline for repairs that was owned by the city. Why did that happen? The mayor was out of the
country on a diplomatic trip at the time the fire broke out. She hurried back, but people in the Palisades didn't really support her to begin with,
and they really haven't forgiven her since.
The -- you know, in Altadena, the evacuations were late in parts of town, and all but one of the people who died there died in that area where the
black community had built up this neighborhood. And so, there's a lot of anger there. There are serious questions about that.
[13:50:00]
Plus, there have been questions for the insurance commissioner. There are complaints that the state has not held the line on insurers. And there are
complaints also, as I said earlier, about the Trump administration and the federal money not arriving yet. So, there's a lot of blame and a lot of
anger.
SREENIVASAN: Are there systems that have now been held accountable that have been made better? I mean, there was a recent report that said that,
while the frontline responders acted decisively, and in many cases heroically in the face of extraordinary conditions, the events underscored
the need for clearer policy, stronger training, integrated tools, and improved public communication.
The L.A. Fire Department themselves said, look, I mean, this -- they're basically saying that this isn't all just our fault. They reflect
leadership decisions, legacy systems, and longstanding structural constraints. So, in the wake of something like this, have those kinds of
changes been made where if something like this were to happen again that we would respond better, faster, save more lives?
HUBLER: Yes. That kind of change is very difficult. It sounds easy, but it's not. There's a housing crunch in Los Angeles. One big lesson from the
fires would naturally be, don't build near the wildland. But these communities are, you know, decades -- hundreds -- you know, they're old
communities. They've been there for a long time. There's -- are we going to take away, as I said, the life savings of these thousands of people and not
allow houses near the -- near high fire zones? A lot of Los Angeles County is in a high fire zone. So, that's an issue.
Even smaller things like building a fire break around your house. There's a push on the state level to make people build -- not have landscaping within
five feet of their house here. Even that has gotten a lot of pushback. People don't want to give up their shade trees, don't want to give up their
English gardens. I mean, the single-family homes in Southern California, that's the California dream. It's sacrosanct and people don't want to give
it up in a lot of ways. So, that's an issue. It's easier said than done.
As for the leadership, this is an election year. The mayor is up for reelection. She's got two challengers, at least, who lost homes in the
Palisades Fire. There are investigations -- there are at least a half a dozen investigations into these fires, into who did what, when, who knew
what when, who dropped -- might've dropped the ball or made an error. And there's also a growing appreciation, I think, though, that there's -- that
these kinds of disasters are -- have gotten worse. I mean, the swings in climate have gotten worse. And so, there's something we're going to have to
face more often.
SREENIVASAN: Yes. I was saying, you know, when you talk about hurricane force winds on the California coastline while there are fires raging, I
mean, how much of this just could have been a fluke incident? That, yes, our climate is changing and our fires are getting worse, but that there
might not have been a way to predict or prepare for something so massive at the same time.
HUBLER: There's a strong argument to say that it could have been predicted. I mean, the weather service was predicting weeks in advance that
this wind was about to kick up. And there's a strong understanding of red flag conditions here. I mean, Los Angeles, if it understands anything here,
people here understand fire. They know fire weather. It's a fair point that the leadership here should have seen it coming. And some leaders, you know,
did see it coming. And the preparation sort of varied across the board that way.
There's -- as for it being a fluke, I don't know that it's going to be that. I mean, the climate scientists that we've spoken to tell us that, you
know, the -- you know, that the dries are drier and the wets are wetter here. And the conditions that kind of conspired to create -- you know, to
nurture this disaster are likely to happen again.
So, the question though is, how adept are we going to become at fighting these fires? And what kind of resources are we going to put into it? And
how much are we willing to sacrifice?
SREENIVASAN: The Los Angeles Bureau Chief for the New York Times, Shawn Hubler, thanks so much for joining us.
HUBLER: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: And finally, for us, movie award season is in full swing with many film and TV's heaviest hitters taking home Golden Globe trophies last
night. Including Paul Thomas Anderson's "One Battle After Another," which bagged four. Chloe Zhao's "Hamnet," and the Netflix limited series
"Adolescence," which saw Owen Cooper become the youngest ever winner of the Supporting Actor Award. History was also made by the secret agent star,
Wagner Moura, who is the first Brazilian to win best male actor in the drama category. Expressing his gratitude, here's a clip from Moura's
acceptance speech.
[13:55:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WAGNER MOURA, GOLDEN GLOBE-WINNING ACTOR: "The Secret Agent" is a film about memory or the lack of memory and generational trauma. I think that if
trauma can be passed along generations, values can too. So, this is -- to the ones that are sticking with their values in difficult moments.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: A lovely message of strength and resilience. All right. Well, that is it for now. Remember, you can always catch us online, on our
podcast, and all-over social media. Thanks so much for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
