Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Outrage Is Deepening And Protests Have Intensified After Another Deadly Shooting in Minnesota; Now As America Watches The Surge Of Federal Immigration Officers In Minneapolis, Questions Are Mounting About The Legality And Constitutionality Of Their Actions; Israel Announced Today That It Has Recovered The Remains Of The Final Israeli Hostage Held In Gaza; How To Fight Against The Attack On Academic Freedom And Why America's Future Depends On It?; Aired 12-1p ET
Aired January 26, 2026 - 12:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[12:00:36]
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GREGORY BOVINO, BORDER PATROL COMMANDER: That agent had a split second to make a decision.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: A nation left reeling after a second deadly shooting by federal immigration officers in Minneapolis. I asked the city's former police
chief, Medaria Arradondo, what it means for policing and public trust.
And I speak to David Bier from the Cato Institute about the expansion of federal power and the civil liberties caught in the crossfire.
Then, Israel retrieves the remains of its last hostage held in Gaza. We'll have the details from Jerusalem.
Also ahead.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LEE BOLLINGER, FORMER PRESIDENT OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: It's only when civil society broadly sort of acts and rises up and said this cannot stand,
that you -- you really have effective resistance.
GOLODRYGA: How to fight against the attack on academic freedom and why America's future depends on it? Former Columbia President Lee Bollinger
tells Michel Martin about his new book, "University: A Reckoning."
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
We begin in Minneapolis, where outrage is deepening and protests have intensified after another deadly shooting. 37-year-old registered nurse,
Alex Pretti, was killed by Border Patrol agents on Saturday, just weeks after Renee Good was shot and killed there by an immigration officer.
Already a battle over the details of what unfolded is dividing the country. Administration officials were quick to claim Pretti presented a threat to
the officers who restrained and then killed him. But multiple bystander videos contradict that claim.
Here's one of them. And a warning, this video is disturbing.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(WHISTLE)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hey, that is police brutality. They are hitting (INAUDIBLE). They are kicking him in the face.
(GUNSHOTS)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What the (BLEEP).
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem says that Pretti intended to kill law enforcement, while White House adviser Stephen Miller
called him a, quote, would be assassin.
But those who knew Alex Pretti described him as a devoted colleague, a friendly neighbor, and a man who cared deeply for his country.
As tensions rise in Minneapolis, local police fear, the city may be heading down the same spiral that began in 2020 after the murder of George Floyd.
So, let's bring in the city's former chief of police, Medaria Arradondo, for more on this. Chief Arradondo, thank you so much for taking the time
and joining us.
As I just noted, we are coming up on the sixth anniversary of the killing of George Floyd in your city. You were chief of police at the time of his
killing.
There had been a lot of resources, a lot of time, blood sweat and tears invested in restoring trust in that community from the police department
and local residents there. Are you concerned that the past few weeks will undo all of the work that has been done to repair that relationship?
MEDARIA ARRADONDO, FORMER MINNEAPOLIS POLICE CHIEF: Bianna, thank you so much for having me.
Yes, I --I am concerned. What we have right now on the ground here, Bianna, in Minneapolis, in parts of the country, are -- are seeing this unfold, is
a crisis of credibility.
Many folks, including and the law enforcement professionals around the country, are questioning the truthfulness of the DHS statements related to
Mr. Pretti's shooting and killing death as it relates to what we see in the videos.
And so as you just mentioned, Minneapolis is a city that has been trying to heal from the pain and trauma of almost six years ago marking the -- the
killing of Mr. George Floyd.
And now what's occurring with both Ms. Renee Good's killing and also now Mr. Pretti, within three weeks of each other, those wounds are starting to
come open and it's really creating a very tense situation. And again, a credibility of a -- of a crisis.
[12:05:17]
GOLODRYGA: In terms of the relationship and any tensions arising from the immigration enforcement agents, the Border Patrol, the ICE agents and the
local police there, I mean we've seen an influx of some 3,000 agents over the last few weeks relative to, I think, it's roughly 600 police officers
in Minneapolis.
From what you were hearing from those officers who you served with, how are they responding to this? And what is the concern about the potential of
added friction between these two separate, one state, one federal law enforcement agency?
We're already having officials casting blame on local police there for not doing enough and responding quickly enough to some of these protests.
ARRADONDO: Yes. Bianna, great question. So, there's really three things that folks on the ground here, local officials are -- are really concerned
about.
So one is, first and foremost, there has not been the sort of traditional cooperation and communication that federal partners and local departments
like Minneapolis Police Department have had standing for -- for many years.
I had a great working relationship with our federal partners during my time and service as chief of police. That doesn't exist. So that makes it
incredibly difficult particularly when you're dealing with these high- profile tragic incidents.
The other thing is, Bianna, more doesn't mean better. So with situation that it's already tense, adding in additional federal agents within the
city, again, it's -- it's increasing the uncertainty and -- and the fear for many of the residents.
And -- and I would also just say that, you know, Minneapolis Police Department right now is staffed at 600 personnel. They are stretched thin.
Minneapolis Police Chief O'Hara has mentioned that. They still have the main responsibility of providing 911 service.
And when they have to respond sort of intermittently to -- to these incidents that flare up within the city, involving ICE agents, it really
just hampers their effectiveness to really to make sure that they're prioritizing their service for their residents.
GOLODRYGA: And we want to remind viewers that as we speak right now, federal judge in Minneapolis is hearing an argument to consider whether or
not the Trump administration's search in these law enforcement agents is violating the state sovereignty. So that's happening right now. We'll talk
more about that with my next guest.
But I do want to play some sound from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and the U.S. Border Patrol Commander Greg Bovino over the weekend, who
right after the shooting, when little information was known, other than the video that was already put online, they publicly labeled Pretti an armed
suspect and described the encounter as self-defense.
Let's play sound from both of them.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KRISTI NOEM, U.S. HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: An individual approached U.S. Border Patrol officers with a nine millimeter semi-automatic handgun.
The officers attempted to disarm this individual, but the armed suspect reacted violently.
Fearing for his life and for the lives of his fellow officers around him, an agent fired defensive shots.
BOVINO: The suspect also had two loaded magazines and no accessible I.D. This looks like a situation where an individual wanted to do maximum damage
and massacre law enforcement.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: So first of all, we've seen multiple angles of this incident between Pretti and law enforcement officials there. And it doesn't seem to
be matching what we heard from Secretary Noem or from Greg Bovino.
But separate from that, is it appropriate, is it standard protocol in the minutes, hours after a shooting like this, to have the heads of these
agencies cast such blame already on the -- I mean, they call him a suspect. I don't even know. Is that the right term? Would Pretti be described as a
suspect at this point?
I believe we have lost audio from Mr. Arradondo. I'm so sorry. We're going to work on fixing that. We're going to come back after a quick break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[12:10:13]
GOLODRYGA: All right. Welcome back to the program. I believe as we are continuing to try to reconnect with Chief Arradondo, you can hear me. Thank
you so much. Sorry about that. Former Minneapolis chief of police.
Before we got disconnected, we had played sound from both the Homeland Security Secretary, Kristi Noem and U.S. Border Patrol Commander Greg
Bovino, where they really seemed to assign blame before an investigation even unfolded to Alex Pretti, even calling him a suspect.
And I asked if that is the appropriate language to use and term and what you make of their characterization of what happened in the moments right
after the shooting.
ARRADONDO: Yes. Well, traditionally and typically when you have a high- profile crime investigation that you have, you're -- you're not going to make those types of statements, particularly when there's been no
investigation completed.
The other problem you run into is if you make those statements, you got to sort of own them. And so if you're releasing video that appears to be
contradicting the very same statements you're making, that is a problem. And that's where we have this crisis of credibility right now.
GOLODRYGA: I want to play the video for our viewers again and we'll play two different versions and angles. The first question I want to ask you is
about the pepper spray that-- that happens where Pretti is sprayed by these officers before he's actually taken to the ground and shot.
So let's put the video up. You see a woman who is shoved to the ground. There you see then Alex Pretti stepping up to help her. An agent then
begins deploying pepper spray at close range.
Is that consistent that in and of itself, the spraying of pepper spray at close range with police training?
ARRADONDO: So and with local police departments across the country, we're - - you know, you're taught de-escalation. Using that sort of tactic with -- with using the pepper spray that -- that would seem to escalate situations.
There's a lot of training that local police departments, particularly the Minneapolis Police Department does when they're handling situations of
crowd control. That would be a situation that would be deemed. You're -- you're sort of escalating things and not de-escalating them.
GOLODRYGA: And we also know that Alex Pretti had in his hand, a phone and he was also armed. He was licensed to carry a firearm in Minnesota, does
allow for concealed carry.
So the question then turned to when these officers became aware of his firearm. Let's show the video then after he has taken to the ground and
sprayed. There you see at least half a dozen agents surround Pretti, forcing him prone.
At what point in your view of just watching this video, does he still pose a threat to officers? And you see one of them remove his gun and walk away,
but it seems that the more officers that are there, the more chaotic the scene actually becomes before they start shooting at him.
ARRADONDO: Yes. So when you look at that video, when I observed the video, and I think of the statements from DHS, first of all, claiming Mr. Pretti
was attacking law enforcement officers. I don't see that with the video that they've released.
Also, you know, as it's been mentioned, Mr. Pretti was a licensed conceal and carry owner, which is -- which is legal in -- in Minnesota. And -- and
more so when it appears that one of the agents removes what appears to be the -- the firearm that Mr. Pretti owned, that is taking place, at least
with the video that I've seen certainly with CNN has released before the shots ring out.
[12:15:06]
So you have to ask -- a -- a -- a reasonable officer has to ask, what was - - what was the threat where you would need to use deadly force on Mr. Pretti? And that's where it's in conflict with what DHS statements are and
what you visually see in that video.
GOLODRYGA: You mentioned that police officers are trained to de-escalate in a situation like this. And I want to play sound from your successor, the
current Minneapolis police chief, Brian O'Hara, from over the weekend, who made clear that officers find themselves routinely in dangerous situations
in situations where they have to remove guns from suspects as well.
And here's how he described how they are trained to handle those types of situations.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BRIAN O'HARA, MINNEAPOLIS POLICE CHIEF: People have had enough. This is the third shooting now in less than three weeks. The Minneapolis police
department went the entire year last year, recovering about 900 guns from the street, arresting hundreds and hundreds of violent offenders and we
didn't shoot anyone.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: So, how do you explain the contrast from what you've heard there from the police chief? I would imagine the same applied to when you were
chief of police and what we've seen play out and not one but now two shootings.
ARRADONDO: Yes. I --I think it's to what Chief O'Hara of the Minneapolis police department noted. His officers, his men and women, they work that
community day in and day out. They respond to a wide range of calls from whether it's protesting to domestics to traffic stops. They're trained
extensively in de-escalation.
And so they're -- they're able to use that and use those tools and that training to effectively build trust with their communities.
I'm not sure quite honestly the type of training that those federal agents have. They certainly it's seeming to go against what local police
departments would train in.
And so -- and by the way, if they're not also communicating with local police department, it's a recipe for these -- these tragedies to -- to
happen, and sadly, to continue to happen if it's not addressed.
GOLODRYGA: It is interesting how the White House, how President Trump has responded to this shooting relative to the shooting of Renee Good. He said
that there's an investigation going on.
And he also sent border czar Tom Homan to Minneapolis said that he will be reporting directly to him. There had been some reports of perhaps some
tension between Kristi Noem and Tom Homan that perhaps she -- she was marginalizing his role here. It sounds like the president is giving him
more broader authority.
And then there was just this post on Truth Social that the president put up just moments ago where he said Governor Walz called me with the request to
work together with respect to Minnesota. It was a very good call. We actually seem to be on a similar wavelength and then said that he is happy
that there's so much tremendous success in Washington, D.C., in Memphis, Tennessee, New Orleans, other places where there have been federal officers
deployed.
But what do you make of this language from the president? Does that suggest to you that given the reaction that he's seen nationwide from Democrats and
Republicans that -- that he is also aware that things need to deescalate quickly?
ARRADONDO: Yes. I'm -- this is the first time that I'm hearing this from you. Thank you for sharing that information.
I think that certainly the folks in the state of Minnesota have been looking to try to deescalate this situation to -- to not have federal
agents, ICE, doing this Operation Metro Surge.
It sounds to me from the president's statement and having that communication with Governor Walz of Minnesota that they're trying to seek
some common ground.
I -- I think that it's clear the optics and the messaging that's coming out of -- of Minneapolis and certainly Minnesota with the federal agents. The
recent deaths of Miss Good and Mr. Pretti. It's bad. It's -- it's -- it's - - it's not -- it's not going well in terms of the court of public opinion.
And so if there is an opportunity here with the statement that you just read from the president and the governor to come to some sort of off-ramp
or some sort of mutual agreement that lessens the risk of these tragedies from happening, then I think that's important as a way to move forward.
GOLODRYGA: On -- on a personal note. I'm just wondering how this has been for you this past month just as a civilian now not commanding a police
office and -- and other officers. But actually as a former officer yourself just watching all of this play out in a city. I know you love in a
community that you've invested a lot of time in as well.
[12:20:00]
ARRADONDO: Yes. You know, my -- my heart is still here with Minneapolis. This community, it's -- it's strong, it's resilient. I know that you
probably knew just a couple of days ago. It was 30 below wind chill, 50,000 people went outside to peacefully protest and assemble and just to be in --
in community with each other. That's how Minnesotans are.
I also think about the men and women who wear that uniform who will be here in our communities long after the federal operation ends.
And that trust, they need to build those relationships each and every day. I -- I know it's -- it's hard on them. Chief O'Hara's department is
limited.
And so I do hope, and that from your statement you just -- you just read today from the president. I hope that this is a -- a new pathway sort of a
-- a middle roadway for them to -- to come to some sort of arrangement where there can be some sort of peace moving forward here.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And I just have to say as an American, you know, I -- I live in another state, but we're all Americans here and so none of this is
something anybody wants to see play out on the streets of a country we all love so dearly.
Medaria Arradondo, thank you so much for the time. We appreciate it.
ARRADONDO: Thank you very much.
GOLODRYGA: And now as America watches the surge of federal immigration officers in Minneapolis, questions are mounting about the legality and
constitutionality of their actions.
A "New York Times" poll taken just before Alex Pretti's killing, finds that a majority of American voters believe ICE has gone too far.
Well, now, some Senate Democrats are vowing to block a government funding package, a move likely to spark a government shutdown at the end of the
week.
Well, our next guest has been sounding the alarm about the dangers of expanding the budget and mission of ICE. David Bier is Director of
Immigration Studies at the Cato Institute. He joins me now from Washington D.C.
So, David, I know you were listening to my conversation there with the police chief and also heard the post that President Trump put on Truth
Social about his conversation with Governor Walz, an attempt to deescalate.
Hopefully it's how many people are interpreting this and perhaps it is related to the potential budgetary crisis and potential government shutdown
we may see in just a few days time with Democrats now saying after what's played out they will not vote in favor of funding these programs.
Let me ask you though your reaction to what we have been seeing and this debate over the infringement of state rights and the ins -- the -- the
search of troops, some 3,000 far outnumbering the police force there in Minneapolis.
DAVID BIER, DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION STUDIES, CATO INSTITUTE: Yes that's absolutely right. This is happening for two reasons. One, Minneapolis has
been singled out among all cities and locations in the United States. It really does not have very many people who are in the country illegally.
This is a reaction to some fraud allegations dealing with some people who are largely in the United States legally, either refugee status, legal
permanent residents, or -- or U.S. citizens has nothing to do with Immigration and Customs Enforcement arresting people in the country
illegally.
The other reason that this is happening is that they have taken border patrol who's supposed to be patrolling the U.S.-Mexico border and moved
them, you know, 1,500 miles north to Minneapolis where now they are on our streets.
And look, you -- you pointed out the number of agents is so disproportionate to anything that could be considered a legitimate law
enforcement purpose here that you have literally dozens of agents on the streets patrolling and not having anything to do except interact with
bystanders and observers and other people who are watching their activities.
The result is these tragic incidents where people are being harassed and -- and assaulted by -- by law enforcement for exercising their first amendment
rights, either protesting or in the case of Alex, he wasn't a protester. He was an observer. He was there to document the -- the operation that was
happening what these agents were doing.
He was taking video. He was not trying to interfere in any way. He was not even really trying to protest. He was there as an illegal observer which is
his constitutional rights and they approached him which resulted in ultimately his death. And so that's really what's happening here is that
Minneapolis has been singled out.
The other thing to note is, it's not random, it's not unexpected that they are approaching these bystanders and these people who are observing them.
They have said that video a -- videoing and filming these ICE operations, these Border Patrol operations are -- is illegal, is -- is against the law,
is impeding, is doxxing their agents.
[12:25:06]
And so when you have the mindset coming from the head of the Department of Homeland Security saying that this is illegal and what -- what these
individuals are doing on the street is a threat to you, then you are going to interact with them in a very hostile way. And that's what we've seen.
So you really need to change the entire dynamic by focusing on the legitimate purpose of law enforcement, which is to protect our rights, to
protect our rights against people who would do us harm, that's violent people, people who would violate -- violate our rights in other ways.
GOLODRYGA: So just to be clear, we -- we don't know the intention of Alex Pretti leading up to what was documented on video. We don't know if he
intended to protest. The officers there would suggest that he was intervening in what was happening there in an operation. It does appear he
-- he is stepping in to help someone who had fallen and was pushed to the ground.
That having been said, he also didn't appear to be brandishing a weapon or seemed to be a major threat to law enforcement, as had been described by
Kristi Noem and others.
As we stated, a -- a federal judge right now in Minneapolis is hearing whether or not to consider the Trump administration surge of thousands of
these federal officers' violation of the state's sovereignty.
Now, the Trump administration has called the state's legal theory a fundamental misreading of the 10th amendment. And from the early reporting
in terms of the line of questioning from this judge, it does appear that she is also skeptical of this argument.
What does that tell you about this question over what rights federal law enforcement have over a state's sovereignty?
BIER: Yes. I mean, this goes back to the founding era concerns about having a federal police force, about having a standing army, about having --
people who are unaccountable to the locality in which they are operating, which is really the case here.
I mean, these people have no accountability to the residents of Minneapolis. They don't really worry about the -- the popularity of their
operation there.
They are -- so, the end result is they are operating in a way that they never would operate if the voters of Minneapolis had a say. And so there is
a conflict here. It is a real conflict. It was one the founders are worried about.
Unfortunately, we've created a government that is so large and has such so many powers and so many duties that ultimately we've really gone so far
beyond what the founders imagined the federal government would be doing. And this is just another example with immigration policy.
GOLODRYGA: Right. And really a question our First Amendment rights and now Second Amendment rights because we have gun rights groups that are warning
that these heavily militarized federal agents are operating amongst armed civilians who have a legal right.
And as in the case of Alex Pretti was a licensed gun owner, and again, in the state where you could walk with. It was legal to walk with his weapon
as well. He didn't appear to be brandishing it in front of the -- the law enforcement officers.
I'd like to play sound of what Greg Bovino said about this particular issue.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BOVINO: We respect that Second Amendment right, but those rights don't -- those rights don't count when you riot and assault, delay, obstruct, and
impede law enforcement officer.
It's too bad the consequences had to be paid because he injected himself into that crime scene.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Do these operations create a --a Second Amendment conflict that the courts haven't even fully begun to grapple with?
BIER: I mean before today, I mean the statements that are coming out, not just from Bovino, but from the Department of Justice about our right to
carry arms during a protest, absolutely fundamental Second Amendment right, First Amendment right to do so.
We saw that be carried out numerous times throughout the -- the Biden administration protest. You had individuals carrying arms. It is an
absolute ironclad right that we all enjoy.
So the idea that somehow the fact that he had a gun is in of itself some reason that he should have been approached or that he should have been
assaulted by law enforcement makes no sense, has no legal or constitutional basis to it.
The actual official statement for the Department of Homeland Security on this incident is he approached law enforcement with his gun. That's what --
the only base -- and then they said, they tried to disarm him.
Now we all seen the video. It doesn't look like that at all that, you know, his -- his gun is concealed. He's not really approaching them as much as
they're approaching him.
[12:30:09]
But that is -- their official position is if you walk down a street and you end up approaching an officer, they can stop and try to disarm you. Of
course, that's going to result in people dying if you try to assault the Second Amendment in that way.
GOLODRYGA: Attorney General Pam Bondi, over the weekend, following the shooting said all of this can end, these ICE agents, federal agents will
leave the state of Minnesota if the state turns over all welfare data, voter rolls and an end to sanctuary policies. Governor Walz called this a
provocation.
Is this a legitimate law enforcement request in your view?
BIER: No, not at all. This is really getting at the strongest part, in my opinion, of Minneapolis and Minnesota's case here, is the fact that they're
trying to clearly coerce the state into totally changing its laws and its policies by imposing this many agents on the street and conducting these
chaotic operations, which are not protecting public safety. They're causing more problems for public safety, diverting the state's resources and -- and
the -- and law enforcement resources into this.
And so, no, it is not a public safety focused mission. We know who is being arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Just five percent of the
people entering Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facilities this year had any violent criminal conviction.
So the idea that this is all about protecting the public from violent criminals is just not borne out by what ICE is doing right now. And so,
yes, there's a serious concern that this has nothing to do with law enforcement and this is about something political.
GOLODRYGA: Quickly, in the news that we just got, the president posting about his productive conversation with Governor Tim Walz, do you find that
reassuring in terms of de-escalating?
BIER: No. We've -- we've heard similar types of walk backs from the president before. He is the one who sent all these agents to Minnesota. He
is the one who said it would be retribution for essentially not supporting him and his policies.
This is a -- a president who has consistently followed just one path and that is a path to have Immigration and Customs Enforcement unchained from
any level of accountability or responsibility. And I do not believe that we will see a serious change in policy as a result of this.
GOLODRYGA: All right. David Bier, thank you so much for the time.
BIER: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: We turn next to Israel, which announced today that it has recovered the remains of the final Israeli hostage held in Gaza.
Ran Gvili, a police officer who was killed and abducted during the October 7th attacks. His recovery marks the first time since 2014 that there are no
Israeli hostages living or deceased inside the Palestinian enclave.
The Israeli government had made the return of all hostages a condition for reopening the Rafah Crossing and advancing to the second phase of the Gaza
ceasefire and peace framework.
Correspondent Jeremy Diamond joins us now from Jerusalem with more on this.
So, Jeremy, if we just reflect on this moment, the symbolism here finally closure for these hostage families, for Ran's family, the remaining hostage
held in Gaza. Just talk about the -- the feeling there amongst Israelis of this milestone.
JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT: Well, in many ways, Bianna, this marks not only closure for the family of Ran Gvili, but really for
Israelis as a whole.
This is a nation that knew the names of almost every single hostage by heart. They have held those names in their hearts for 843 days with Ran
Gvili being the last among them to be returned to Israel today.
And indeed, 843 days after October 7th, not only have all of the hostages who were taken on that day now been returned, dead or alive, but it also
marks the first time since 2014 that there are no Israelis being held hostage in Gaza.
And so certainly a milestone moment and also the closing of a very dark chapter in Israel's history.
We have seen today videos of politicians and -- and regular people alike taking off those yellow pins that have come to symbolize the fight for
these hostages, for the -- every single hostage to ultimately be returned to Israel.
One slogan that's going around the country today is first to enter, last to return. That is a reference to the fact that Ran Gvili, who was a 24-year-
old police officer on October 7th, 2023, that he rushed to Kibbutz Alumim, one of those Kibbutzes (ph) on the Gaza border on the morning of October
7th to try and defend that community from invading Hamas and other Palestinian militant forces.
[12:35:15]
We're told that he died while combating those Hamas militants on that day only after he ran out of ammunition.
The Israeli military said that it began this operation to recover Ran Gvili's body yesterday morning in the Shuja'iyya neighborhood of Gaza City.
This all happened on the Israeli side, I should note, of that yellow line. And it came after the Israeli military received intelligence last week
indicating that Gvili's body was buried in a cemetery in that area.
I should note though that Palestinian Islamic Jihad, one of those militant groups in Gaza, said that it provided the mediators with coordinates of
where Gvili's body was held three weeks ago and accused Israel of deliberately stalling the coordination and recovery process.
Regardless of that, what is clear is that now phase two can indeed move forward with fewer, at least Israeli objections.
We know that the opening of that Rafah crossing in both directions to allow Palestinians to finally be able to both leave and also to return to the
Gaza Strip is set to be opened this week.
Now as a result, Israel had previously held up the opening of that crossing which should have taken place in the early weeks of this ceasefire due to
the fact that Gvili's body had not yet been returned.
Another call also from Gaza's civil defense for heavy machinery to be allowed to enter the Gaza Strip so that the bodies of thousands of
Palestinians buried under the rubble in Gaza can finally perhaps also have a chance of being recovered. Bianna.
GOLODRYGA: And yet, Jeremy, today with the return of Ran Gvili's remains, Prime Minister Netanyahu addressed the Knesset there in Israel and said,
quote, the next stage is the disarmament of Hamas and the demilitarization of Gaza not its reconstruction.
We have an interest in advancing this stage, not delaying it. How is that being interpreted amongst mediators?
DIAMOND: Well, listen, it certainly contradicts what we've heard from the Americans. American officials, in recent weeks, have made clear that their
top priorities during this next phase of the ceasefire agreement are, on the one hand, yes, indeed, the disarmament of Hamas, which is going to be a
very contentious and thorny issue.
But on the other hand, also, the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip. And I can tell you from speaking with sources involved in this process, they
understand the mediators and -- and the officials involved in the next phases of this agreement.
The enormous need that exists for housing in Gaza right now where tents and tarps simply are not enough to withstand the -- the cold conditions that
have existed there in recent weeks, and that a lot more is obviously needed to allow the people of Gaza to begin to move forward and also so that this
new Palestinian technocratic committee, which is supposed to take over governance from Hamas, can actually show that it can govern the Gaza Strip
and deliver for its people.
GOLODRYGA: All right. Jeremy Diamond reporting live from Jerusalem. Thank you.
We'll be right back after this short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[12:40:01]
GOLODRYGA: And now after years of turmoil at Columbia, the university has named a new president, legal scholar Jennifer Mnookin. You'll recall the
school was home to major protests after October 7th.
And now along with other U.S. higher learning institutions, it is struggling to manage threats from the Trump administration.
Lee Bollinger is one of America's most well-known academic leaders, including as Columbia's president for over 20 years. And his new book,
"University: A Reckoning," is a call for academic institutions to stand up against the pressure from the White House.
Here he is with Michel Martin.
MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, Bianna.
Lee Bollinger, thank you so much for talking with us.
BOLLINGER: My pleasure.
MARTIN: I should say, Mr. President, because you've led two of our most prestigious and competitive universities, University of Michigan and
Columbia University.
And I actually should mention that these were not placid times when he were leading these institutions. There were student protests. There was
congressional scrutiny. There was political pressure. There were sort of political currents.
But, obviously, you wrote this book thinking that there's something special about this moment. So, what is it about this moment that strikes you as
different?
BOLLINGER: Well, I think the first thing is the federal government assault and intrusion into the academic affairs of university. So that has not
really happened. Certainly not to this degree for decades.
I mean, you really have to go back to the McCarthy period, which was really about one senator leading a campaign of intolerance. You have to go back to
that for something comparable.
And so the -- the level of intrusion, the threat to academic freedom, the need to think about universities and their role in the Constitution and the
First Amendment is much more imperative today than it really has been in modern history. So that -- that's really the precipitating reason for the
book.
MARTIN: In your book, you write, "We are in short witnessing a tectonic shift in America toward the use of authoritarian tactics that threaten our
democratic form of government. The university is among the first, along with the press, of the major independent institutions in society to feel
the brunt of this new and frightening transformation."
I mean, so your point here is that, yes, the universities and the press are on the leading edge of this, but this is really about democracy. What --
what convinces you that? Why do you say that?
BOLLINGER: I think it's both about democracy and about fundamental values in the -- in the country.
I mean, we've seen from the very start of the administration efforts to try to silence and -- and really attack law firms, media, civil service,
independent agencies that provide the nation with objective information like the Bureau of Labor Statistics and then universities and the business
community has also faced this.
If there's any kind of opposition, there's an effort to -- to come down very hard on them and to try to silence them.
So -- so this is -- this is something that you -- you really cannot have if you're going to be committed to a democracy and if you're going to be
committed to a nation that values knowledge and independent information and knowledge, and that's where we have been for the past century and it would
be a tragedy to lose that.
MARTIN: As a person who, you know, presumably just through your own work, as a scholar, as a lawyer, as a leader of these prominent institutions,
you've met a lot of these industry leaders.
And one of the things that you pointed out is that a lot of them folded over pretty fast. Amazon, you know, was going to or talked about having
some sort of indicator on their website of the cost of the Trump administration's sort of tariff scheme on different products and, of
course, he threatened them and they immediately folded, a number of law firms, right? Some of the finest, most distinguished lawyers in the
country, he threatened them. They folded.
But just curious why you think they've capitulated so quickly?
BOLLINGER: Yes. So I -- I think this has come -- the whole sort of affair has taken people by surprise. People have been shocked by the level of
assault on basic values and basic institutions and so we were not prepared for it.
I think it's just, you know, a combination of very, very difficult to face a situation in which the government's full power, which is immense, can be
brought down on you and face what everybody will always say, an existential choice. Do you capitulate? Do you try to find a way out of this? And even
that means sacrificing some of your values? Or do you stand up and try to fight? Fight back.
[12:45:27]
That's a really hard problem. And I'm very sympathetic to the people who have felt an institution, so it felt that they had to find a way to save
their institutions by -- by negotiation and conciliation.
But it is the case that the only way in which you can effectively counter this is by collective action. It's not by an individual institution or a
single sector of the society.
Everybody who writes about the democracies, the end of democracies, and so on, I mean, all the scholarship points out that it's only when civil
society broadly sort of acts and rises up and said this cannot stand, that you -- you really have effective resistance.
MARTIN: A lot of people, you know, see universities in -- in lots of different ways. I mean, some people see colleges and universities as places
you go to learn stuff so you can get a job. They're engines of the economy. Why should someone, perhaps, who didn't have the chance to go to a
university, embrace that idea?
BOLLINGER: I think people understand in their hearts that having major institutions, but of all kinds, from community colleges all the way through
to the highest research universities, that it is really valuable for the society to have this kind of effort, human effort, to -- to expand
knowledge.
Because it benefits the society in all kinds of ways, everything from economic development to simply making it possible to understand life. And
it applies not just to the people who come and our students or to the faculty who are there, but it benefits everybody in -- in the society.
I think also that, you know, there is a campaign that's been going on for many years, as people who want to characterize universities as in very
negative stereotypes, as filled with intolerance, ideological, not scholarly, too costly, et cetera, et cetera.
And -- and while there are fair criticisms about universities, many of which I have made myself, the fact of the matter is if you look at all the
parts of the society and you say where -- which ones have the most integrity in pursuing what their mission is, I think universities are at
the very forefront of that.
And the proof is in part that everybody in the world wants to come and -- and attend universities in America because they really are the standard for
this.
MARTIN: Well, they did. That might not be the case anymore. I mean, the number of international students coming to the United States has really
fallen precipitously.
You know, it's interesting. The irony being --
BOLLINGER: Not because of -- yes, but not because of the quality of universities.
MARTIN: No, no. But because of the political environment.
BOLLINGER: Yes.
MARTIN: You know, the irony is that these concrete financial pressures being placed on universities are having a deleterious effect on kind of the
research flow. We see that, you know, top scholars, research dollars are flowing to, you know, Canada, to China.
Some $400 million in grants and contracts frozen at Columbia, $510 million at Brown, $1 billion at Cornell, $790 million at Northwestern. Much of it
tied to demands about governance or compliance.
What do you think the -- the consequence of this is going to be down the line?
BOLLINGER: This idea of the Trump administration of suspending that kind of funding, you know, for that kind of resurge is foolhardy, but it's -- it's
also -- it's also striking at the basic values that we have committed ourselves to.
And it may sound idealistic, but the First Amendment, the Constitution of the country, has made it very clear that the value of knowledge and the
preservation of democracy, the making it possible to be a democracy is very, very difficult to do, that these are what the country is committed
to.
[12:50:09]
And the things we're talking about, Michel, of fundamental research in these areas and beyond, in the liberal arts as well, are what are -- that -
- that's threatened by this kind of use of the lever of funding to accomplish intrusions into pure academic decision making faculty, students,
policies of the universities.
MARTIN: In your essay for "The Atlantic" last May, you wrote that "Strategies of appeasement never work out. At some point, when sanity
returns, you will be seen as having sacrificed your principles when under pressure and that will undermine your case forever."
So you draw a contrast between universities that negotiated settlements in Harvard which chose to resist and win an injunction blocking what a judge
called an arbitrary and capricious funding suspension.
Based on what you've seen, has Harvard gotten it right so far? And is that a path that others should follow?
BOLLINGER: Universities, like other institutions, were surprised and shocked by the level of intrusion and demands and the threats that they
faced.
Completely understandable in my view that universities would respond in different ways and it would be very difficult to organize collective
action.
Myself -- I think that the Harvard approach was -- was the right one, especially for Harvard because the level of intrusion was much more than
for other universities at least so far.
So I do think, and the point of this book is to try to say that universities need to be much clear about what their identity is in the
society, their role and responsibilities. They need to make that claim and they need to do it in various ways, but through the courts and the First
Amendment and law is a primary way.
So, yes, I -- I think that standing up and -- and articulating your values and making your defense is the right approach.
MARTIN: And I recognize that this has to be an awkward question for you, as the former leader of this institution, but you do realize that for many
people, Columbia is the poster child for appeasement.
BOLLINGER: So I've made a deliberate choice not to criticize directly -- criticize my institution and the one that I led for 21 years. One has to
be, as I said, you know, very sympathetic with institutions who are trying to struggle with how to deal with the attacks that -- that they have
endured.
MARTIN: So, what do you think people should do right now? People who share the perspective that you share, people who share the concern, the deep
concern that you've articulated, and people who also share the love of knowledge and a free thought that you've articulated.
BOLLINGER: So I think we need to settle on the key -- the core identity of what universities are. So it's just critical to me that we can't fall for
this idea that universities are just businesses or that they are only for elites that, you know, all of these standard criticism, really is important
that universities say who they are and say that with -- with conviction.
I think it's also important that universities find ways to act together. This kind of collective action is critical, but it also has to be across
sectors. So it has to be with the press.
Michel, you would have to agree, I think that the press has also failed to develop a collective kind of response to the various intrusions, saying
with law firms, saying with -- with businesses.
Anybody who is a scholar of democracy and how you preserve it in the face of attempts to undermine democracy will say that it's only when civil
society broadly stands up and -- and resist that you can have an effective resistance to a government that is intent on -- on achieving its goal of
undermining any kind of opposition.
That is something that requires daily work. It requires work of many, many people. And you never know exactly how it's going to unfold. But that has
to -- that has to happen.
MARTIN: Lee Bollinger, thanks so much for talking with us.
BOLLINGER: Thank you, Michel.
GOLODRYGA: And finally, remembering a man who was a giant in more ways than one? Dr. William Foege, one of the brains behind a major public health
triumph, died on Saturday at the age of 89.
[12:55:08]
Known for his ring vaccination strategy, he helped wipe out the highly contagious and deadly smallpox disease in the '70s. He was also a
staggering six foot seven feet tall, seven inches tall.
And one time thousands in Nigeria flock to get vaccinated just to see the, "world's tallest man."
Foege led the CDC under Presidents Carter and Reagan, later advocating for childhood vaccinations worldwide.
His work, which has saved millions of lives globally, earned him the well- deserved presidential Medal of Freedom in 2012, at a time when vaccination policies are now facing rollbacks in the U.S. Foege's legacy is more
important than ever.
All right. That is it for now. Thank you so much for watching. And goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
END
END
