Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Turk; Interview with "The Secret Agent" Actor Wagner Moura; Interview with "The Secret Agent" Director and Writer Kleber Mendonca Filho; Interview with The New York Times Investigative Reporter Jodi Kantor. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired February 06, 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.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VOLKER TURK, UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS: We're the lifeline of millions of people. If you cut that lifeline, you will have
more chaos and anarchy in the world, and that we cannot afford.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Conflict rages around the world, devastating countries like Sudan. The U.N.'s High Commissioner for Human Rights tells me why the work
his office does is more vital than ever.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): I'd kill him with a hammer.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): Carry a gun?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): no, but I know how to use a hammer.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: "The Secret Agent," the Oscar hopefuls sparking conversations about corruption, dictatorship, and how we stop them. I speak to star actor
Wagner Moura and director Kleber Mendonca Filho.
And how the Supreme Court made itself more secretive. Investigative reporter Jodi Kantor speaks to Michel Martin.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
Displacement, geopolitical tensions, and warfare. Conflict is raging in more than 30 countries around the world, that's according to the Institute
for Economics and Peace. With fighting in Ukraine, Haiti, Myanmar, and the Democratic Republic of Congo, just to name a few. And each conflict is
creating a dire humanitarian situation for innocent civilians.
Just look at Sudan. Many aid organizations now call the situation there the world's worst humanitarian crisis. The U.N.'s World Food Programme reports
more than 24 million people suffer from acute hunger, and two million face famine or the risk of famine. More than 11 million are displaced. These are
just staggering figures.
Both warring parties, the Sudanese Armed Forces and the paramilitary RSF, continue to obstruct aid from reaching a truly desperate population. People
are subjected to harrowing atrocities, including mass killings and sexual violence. It is a war that needs far greater attention.
Volker Turk is the U.N.'s High Commissioner for Human Rights. He just visited Sudan personally and told me what he saw there when we spoke
earlier this week.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: Mr. High Commissioner, thank you so much for taking the time to join us today. Let's start with the horrific situation in Sudan. This war
has now been ensuing for years. I know you just returned after a five-day trip there. The last time you were there was prior to the war, so you have
real perspective in the before and after. Just tell us what you saw and how horrific that situation currently is right now.
VOLKER TURK, UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS: So, it's an all-out war, and the situation at the moment is really characterized by
massive human rights violations, especially in Darfur, which we heard what happened last year in El Fasher. Within three days, thousands of people got
killed. We have accounts of, and I myself have these accounts because I had a chance to interview nine survivors of sexual violence, women and girls.
So, it's a horrific situation.
And I remember so vividly when I first went, it was the first country to visit when I took over as High Commissioner for Human Rights, and I wanted
to meet the people, the young people and the women who were leading the revolution against a 30-year-old military dictatorship under El Fasher. And
there was so much hope, and there was so much, I would say, freedom, a struggle for freedom that was so palpable.
[13:05:00]
And to see four years, three years later, a country in total disarray and basically fighting each other is really horrific. And it's essentially
these two armies that fight each other and all their allied militias along with it. And the people suffer enormously. And I met some of the ones who
had been part of that revolution, especially some young people. And they were telling me that, yes, some of what they had been doing had been
crushed, but their spirit has not been broken.
So, it also gives me hope that within that society, you have people who still believe that Sudan will emerge and come out as a country where there
is a vision that actually brings people together, despite a very gloomy environment.
GOLODRYGA: That is amazing, that people are still telling you they are willing to fight for their country and for their own freedom and self-
determination. The U.N., as you know, now calls Sudan the worst humanitarian crisis in the world. In concrete terms, just tell us what
daily life is like there, from what you saw, from what you heard from some of those civilians.
TURK: So, I went to a camp for internally displaced people. These are people who had fled El Fasher. So, first of all, they had to get out of El
Fasher. And let's not forget, El Fasher was under siege for 18 months. They were telling me that during that siege, at the end in particular, the only
thing they could eat was animal feed. Peanuts, you know, peanut type things on the ground that they found. I mean, horrific situation.
When El Fasher was attacked and taken over by the RSF, there were horrific massacres that were conducted. Some people could not flee, they were
actually shot. Some people were abducted for ransom. I mean, I heard stories from women who told me that their husbands either were shot in
front of them or their brothers and sons were taken away and they had not heard of them ever since.
When they finally, some of them managed to get out, I met them in this camp, in this IDP camp in northern state of Sudan. I mean, their
conditions, they live in plastic sheets, in tents basically. The humanitarian assistance is not very advanced because we don't have enough
funding and you probably have heard this from our humanitarian colleagues. They are traumatized.
I've rarely seen a population that is so traumatized. You can feel it. I mean, I met children and they wouldn't talk to you. They wouldn't even
smile because the normal reaction would be, you know, they smile, but they wouldn't smile. Mothers told me that some of them are basically in a state
of shock and they haven't come out of it. So, that really gives you a picture of what it is like to have been affected by this horrific war.
GOLODRYGA: You mentioned that unspeakable brutality committed in El Fasher and just some of the witness accounts that you've relayed to us right now.
And more figures have come in over the past few weeks just in terms of the death count alone. What is the official death count from the massacre at El
Fasher that you know of? And would you call this a genocide committed at the hands of the RSF?
TURK: So, we don't have exact figures, but we know that at least 5,000 people got killed. But the death toll is probably much higher because we
are only, and we are only really putting the pieces of the puzzle together. And, you know, that's part of our work. We have, when we document, when we
monitor, we need to do it on the basis of verified information. So, we are always lagging behind what the reality is because that's just the work that
we do. But this is extremely important, including for accountability purposes.
What we have seen committed, definitely war crimes, potentially crimes against humanity, whether or not is genocide is not for us to decide
because usually that's decided by courts. But I have to say that the elements of the ethnically motivated violence that we have seen is
definitely an element to take into account, as well as the hate speech that we have heard from those who had suffered this, and that the way that these
things were conducted. So, indeed, we are talking about atrocity crimes here.
GOLODRYGA: And so, many experts we've had on, we've spoken to, and I believe that you are in the same camp now are warning and very concerned
about the same atrocities that were committed in El Fasher back in October of last year being committed in Kordofan as well and what can be done to
prevent a repeat of what we saw in El Fasher.
[13:10:00]
TURK: So, we have seen a pattern. And it started already earlier last year with an IDP camp, so-called Samsam camp, where we saw mass killings,
abductions for ransom, sexual violence, illegal -- I mean, sieges. That's what repeated itself in El Fasher.
By the way, I issued a very stark warning, I remember, end of September, about what could happen in El Fasher. And unfortunately, it did happen
because the international community did not wake up to that situation. There wasn't enough political energy that would go into this situation.
And as a result, I issued another stark warning coming out of my Sudan visit about the situation that you mentioned in Kordofan, where you have
similar tactics being applied as sieges. But what we fear is that if, for example, the RSF were to take over Kadugli, or whatever city or town they
would get in South Kordofan, that the same pattern would repeat itself. And as a result, it is so important for everyone, any state that has any
influence over these warring parties, to use that influence to say, you cannot do this.
I did it myself. I had a chance to talk to the RSF and to the SAF. And I gave them all warnings about the seriousness of the situation and the need
and their responsibility, their command responsibility when it comes to troops under their command.
GOLODRYGA: And do you think they heeded those warnings or do they need to come from higher level governments, primarily the United States? You talk
about the difficulty of just getting humanitarian aid in. President Trump has addressed this briefly when he was meeting with the crown prince of
Saudi Arabia, MBS, a few months ago. We haven't heard much traction since.
TURK: I mean, we need all hands on deck. I mean, it's clear that those who have influence over the parties, including, of course, the U.S., but many
others as well, need to use that influence now, in order not only to achieve a truce, because we need a humanitarian truce, but also a lasting
ceasefire and a peace agreement. And I can only hope that the fact that there's more visibility to the situation in Sudan and to the suffering of
the people in Sudan, that this would actually galvanize political action to achieve precisely that. And I really hope for that.
GOLODRYGA: Let me ask you about another hotspot, another crisis that we've been covering now for two years, Gaza. Things have quieted down a bit.
There is a technical ceasefire in place, though we do know that a number of people still have been killed since that ceasefire went into place late
last year. A milestone of sorts, at least symbolically, was reached this week with the official reopening of the Rafah border. But we know that
there's just a trickle of people being able to cross the border on both sides, from the Israeli side, as well as the Egyptian, those civilians that
are desperately in need of aid.
From your perspective, from a human rights perspective, just talk about, A, that moment of the importance of this border opening, but the fact that we
are not seeing enough aid going in and not enough civilians coming out to get the help they need.
TURK: So, it's absolutely critical for the ceasefire, and we were very much welcoming the ceasefire. But it is also extremely critical that
humanitarian assistance is delivered, and that those who have suffered severe injuries are able to get out.
So, the Rafah opening was very welcome, but it needs to be fully implemented, which means that people have to get out. And we have not only
50, but there are hundreds of people who need urgent medical assistance outside. And we need much more massive humanitarian assistance to come in.
So, I hope that this opening will actually lead to some real change on the ground.
GOLODRYGA: We'll go from Gaza to Ukraine, as this war, sadly, is approaching the four-year mark now. Civilian infrastructure continues to be
targeted and attacked by Russians, despite the fact that President Trump had proclaimed that he and President Putin had agreed to a one-week
ceasefire in their attacks on infrastructure sites. That was broken, I believe, after about just three days' time. We know how cold it is in
Ukraine right now and the impact this is having on civilians.
[13:15:00]
Just talk to us from your perspective, from your colleagues there, how are they able to help those civilians that are struggling right now just to
stay warm?
TURK: So, I think it's really important, first of all, to say that attacks against critical civilian infrastructure are a serious violation and they
are war crimes and they should never happen. And we see this, unfortunately, in too many wars, including in Ukraine, that this type of
infrastructure is being destroyed.
It means -- I was in Kyiv in December '23 myself. It was in -- during the winter. I mean, it was very, very low temperatures. It's probably even
lower than what you're experiencing right now in the U.S. And just imagine, for weeks on end, the electricity goes down to a trickle. Those who are
disabled would not be able to use lifts, for example. They would not be able to go out. They would not be able to shop. It means that people who --
I mean, including my own staff, who told me that they are sitting with three coats in order to write their reports, but then suddenly electricity
goes off and they can't even do that.
So, we -- yes, the daily life is affected in a massive way, particularly for vulnerable groups. I mentioned particular people with disabilities, but
also older people. And it affects the whole system of response. So, yes, these attacks, these are the indirect consequences of war that we don't
often talk enough about. We only talk about civilian casualties, but we don't talk enough about the impact on the environment, but also the impact
on daily livelihoods, on hospitals, on schooling.
And I think it's important to describe war in the most graphic form, because people need to realize it affects each and every aspect of daily
life. And that's what's happening right now in Ukraine.
GOLODRYGA: Mr. Commissioner, we haven't touched on nearly all of the conflicts that are taking place around the world right now. And the ones
that we have touched on have been ongoing for years. And this must seem like an uphill battle for you and for your colleagues as well. And it's
coming at a time when the U.N. itself is claiming that they are facing a funding crisis and projecting financial collapse within just a matter of
months.
In terms of how that impacts you and the work that you're doing, explain to our viewers what that could mean.
TURK: I mean, in the case of human rights, it means that we are not able to monitor human rights situations around the world, which means that those
who commit them get away with them much more easily. It means that we are the lifeline of survivors and human rights defenders and independent
journalists who report about what's happening in the world.
We are not able to deliver to them in the same way as we were in the past, which means, again, that, for example, those who end up in -- as political
prisoners, we are not able to go to the detention centers anymore in some countries because we had to cut down. We had to cut our operation in
Colombia, which is a very important part of the peace agreement. We had to close down and we had all the, I mean, especially human rights defenders,
indigenous populations coming back to us, begging us to stay because we are, in a way, a protective shield for them and we provide assistance and
support to them in their important work. So, yes, it has weakened us enormously.
And I just want to say, because there's a lot of sometimes very uninformed talk about the value of the United Nations, the United Nations is the
backbone in all countries around the world for what is fundamentally so human about us. And I can tell you in each and every situation that I have
gone to, we are the lifeline of millions of people. If you cut that lifeline, you will have more chaos and anarchy in the world. And that we
cannot afford. That's not good for anyone. And I just hope that there is a bit more of a reappreciation of the value of the work that we are doing on
a daily basis.
GOLODRYGA: High Commissioner Turk, thank you for joining us.
TURK: Thank you very much for having me.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: Coming up, the brilliant Brazilian drama taking the film world by storm. Wagner Moura, star of "The Secret Agent," joins me alongside the
movie's director.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:20:00]
GOLODRYGA: The Oscars are just weeks away and one non-English film is getting a lot of buzz. It's an exploration of corruption, autocracy, and
how we remember it. Sounds pretty timely. "The Secret Agent" is a political thriller set in the late 1970s Brazil, when the country was under military
dictatorship. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): This is the person.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): I want --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): Yours is the case I want most to solve.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): You're telling me hitmen are out to get me?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: You probably know its star, Wagner Moura, is Pablo Escobar in the Netflix hit "Narcos." He won the Golden Globe for Best Actor and is
nominated for an Oscar. While Kleber Mendonca Filho won Best Director at Cannes. I sat down with both of them here in New York.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: Wagner, Kleber, thank you so much for joining us. What an incredible film. What a powerful film. I understand why it's getting such
global praise. So, congratulations to the both of you.
WAGNER MOURA, ACTOR, "THE SECRET AGENT": Thank you very much.
KLEBER MENDONCA FILHO, DIRECTOR AND WRITER, "THE SECRET AGENT": Thanks for having us.
GOLODRYGA: "The Secret Agent," we should tell our viewers, is a political thriller set in Brazil in 1977 during the military dictatorship there. And
Wagner plays Armando, a couple of other characters. We'll get to that in a second as well. But you're a man in hiding from powerful forces.
Kleber, why did you decide to create this film? And tell us about the name, "The Secret Agent," because I think it was a bit deceptive, but maybe I
missed something.
FILHO: Well, I wanted to develop a film with Wagner, someone that I've known for 20 years now. And you really got to sit down and write a script.
And once I sat down to write the script, I felt like going back in time. In '77, I was nine years old. I have this muscle memory of that time. Of
course, at that time, Brazil was going through the military regime, which ended in 1985.
And I also have to say that once I got down to write the script, the logic of the 1970s had come back to our country because Brazil went, took a very
hard turn to the right. And the former president was democratically elected. But he was really bringing back the values and the aesthetic and
the logic of the military dictatorship.
Right now, Bolsonaro, of course, is in jail. But it was a very tough four years, which now I understand really inspired me in terms of giving me many
of the ideas that went into the writing of "The Secret Agent."
GOLODRYGA: And the title?
FILHO: The title is a short and sexy title, and it would take me back to some of the films that made me want to make films like "North by Northwest"
by Alfred Hitchcock or "Three Days of the Condor" by Sydney Pollack.
I think also the whole idea of "The Secret Agent" is something that, to this day, I still enjoy people discussing on the Internet, in the media,
and even outside the screening room. Who is the secret agent? I have my own ideas, but I would never really go into details.
[13:25:00]
GOLODRYGA: Wagner, your character, Armando, one of them, he also plays Marcelo, and that's his assumed identity. He is a man on the run. He is a
man. trying to save his son and start a new life. He's also an academic. Tell us about his character.
MOURA: It's interesting because, like Claudia just said, we kind of experienced that feeling again in Brazil, like when Bolsonaro was the
president, which is when they -- the first thing that they do is to attack universities, academics, scholars, journalists, and artists. You know, and
we both, as very vocal artists against that particular government, suffered lots of consequences of what we were saying, and especially what we were
doing with the things that we do, the films that we produce.
I, myself, had produced and directed a film in Brazil that also took place during the dictatorship, and this film was censored. And I'm talking about
Brazil in the 21st century, Brazil from 2018 to 2022, the biggest democracy in South America. So, I think that this kind of things always make me think
of how we cannot take democracy for granted.
FILHO: And I'd just like to point something out. I think that once the democratic system breaks down, any normal, honest citizen in a society may
begin to feel like a secret agent, just because the things you stand for and the things you think and say, and you could be an academic or a
journalist or an artist, that will immediately put you in the position of being under persecution.
So, I think a lot of the idea for the secret agent and the title, the secret agent, came from the notion of society breaking down and you having
to deal with a situation where the values are upside down.
MOURA: Yes, the majority of the victims of dictatorships are not freedom fighters, are not people that are trying to overthrow a government or
regular people, like that just -- are persecuted just because they are who they are, not just because of their skin color or because it depends on
their religion or their political beliefs.
GOLODRYGA: You mentioned that it was going back to the conversation about Bolsonaro, and I don't want to spend too much time talking about politics,
but you've said before that you think it was the amnesty law that actually brought Bolsonaro to office.
MOURA: Yes.
GOLODRYGA: Explain the dichotomy there, because unlike a military dictatorship, and as you even acknowledged, he was democratically elected.
MOURA: Yes, but it's a matter of memory, I think, you know, like if we don't have our history told correctly or if we forget, if we have things
like the amnesty law, the amnesty law was a law that we have in '79 in Brazil that basically forgave all the torturers and killers and people that
did very despicable things to civilians in Brazil. If we have things like that, and if we make people believe that attempting against democracy or
attempting against human rights are -- is something that's OK, then we have a memory problem, you know, and we had that in Brazil for -- you know, for
decades, for centuries, I would say.
The history -- our history is based on many beautiful things, but also, it's based on like Brazil was the last country in the western world to
abolish slavery, so we live with many contradictions in that country. So, I really believe that Bolsonaro wouldn't have been elected if it wasn't
because of the amnesty law, as right now we are finally getting even with our memory when we sent Bolsonaro to jail and we sent military, for the
first time in Brazil, we sent people that, military people that attempted against democracy to jail.
So, I truly believe that the new generations of Brazilians are going to grow up with a different sense of understanding of what -- of our history
and of our memory.
GOLODRYGA: You mentioned memory, memory plays a key theme in this film and you go back and forth between the 1970s and then more present day where
your character Armando as he is on the run is actually aided by two individuals who want to help him and he's telling his story, talk about the
role of memory here in that genre.
FILHO: Well, I'm fascinated by the idea that cinema is memory, each film will be put away in the CinemaTech and will become a piece of archive, the
conversation we're having right now will hopefully become part of an archive to be seen in the future and I think that's one of the basic
premises in the film.
[13:30:00]
The story we're living now is our own story in the present time but there might be someone listening in the future and the story of Wagner's
character in the film is in fact just a fragment in the future which helps you understand, you know, the country and how society evolves.
But there was a lot of discussion around "The Secret Agent," you know, in many countries and in Brazil and here in the U.S. about being a film about
memory. But it's, in my mind, it's really a film about amnesia. And many countries and many societies, in fact, they want to forget because it's not
comfortable or it's not political to remember.
So, I really believe that one of the stronger aspects of the film is really about amnesia without giving anything away from the plot. But towards the
end, I think that's a very strong point that the film makes.
MOURA: I just saw Donald Trump saying that he -- that America should move on with the absent thing, you know. You know, we should move on. No, I
don't think America should move on. I think America should check that out, you know, and go deep on what that means and the people that are involved
in that. The moving on thing of it all, that's what caused our -- the amnesia in Brazil.
FILHO: Once again --
MOURA: Let's move on. Let's forget about it. Let's just -- you know, let's start over. Let's have a fresh start.
GOLODRYGA: Keep it in the past.
MOURA: Right now, yes. Keep it in the past.
FILHO: Once again, the files, they're pieces of archive and they're being examined now. So, the files are, they go back 15, 20 years and now there
are people looking at the files. So, that's an interesting point that the film makes.
GOLODRYGA: I do want to go back to that scene where your character is being interviewed and recorded about this corrupt businessman who has now
put hitmen out to find and kill your character. And you don't come across as an aggressive, violent person, but when it comes to this particular
character, here's what you had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MOURA (through translator): Not a violent person. But this man, I'd kill him with a hammer. I'd bash his head in with a hammer.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): Do you carry a gun?
MOURA (through translator): No, But I know how to use a hammer.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Talk to us about that scene.
MOURA: That was one of my favorite scenes in the film because I love the way Kleber, as a writer, he doesn't follow any script rules. So, you kind
of -- you see in the film, you kind of only start to understand, really understand what's going on in the film, in that scene. And that's like an
hour and a half already, like of movie.
GOLODRYGA: Because I thought I missed something. And then I was like, no, no.
MOURA: Until you get there, it's sort of like putting the pieces of the puzzle together and then you get to that scene --
GOLODRYGA: You make us work, Kleber, yes.
FILHO: Yes.
MOURA: -- and then you understand what's going on with him. And I remember that that was a scene that we shot in one -- like we spent like 20 -- it
was a one-er, right? With two cameras, but we shot for 20 minutes. And for me, it felt like theater. It felt like it had like one minute had passed,
like when they said cut was like, you know, that feeling that you have when you're in a set that's, oh, what just happened?
So, I thought that there was a very -- that's a very important scene for the film and for the character, because like you said, he's a human being,
he's been -- it's a very silent character, right? He doesn't -- he cannot respond to the threats and to the injustices that he's going through with
explosiveness or with -- you know, with the necessary anger that a situation like that would require because it's a dictatorship, you know,
it's -- and he had to protect his kid. And so, he's a very silent character.
So, I really love when in that particular scene, he says something like that, like, I would just use a hammer to -- that doesn't mean that he had
done anything like that before, but he could do it.
There's another beautiful thing that I love about that scene is that when that scene ends and when is the scene that he realizes that there are hit
men trying to find him, he goes downstairs in the movie theater and carnival is going on outside. And he goes outside and he was with that --
you know, he's thinking, well, there are hitmen trying to find me, but he just gives himself to the carnival.
[13:35:00]
GOLODRYGA: I was going to say, it's interesting because it's clear that this is all happening during a dictatorship. You see the corruption even in
the opening scene of the film. And yet, you also choose to include culture, life, film, the cinema, the cinema plays a big role in this film as well.
Tell us about that decision and to also include people experiencing life and living life in this moment.
FILHO: Well, I -- as I said, I was about nine, 10 in the '70s. I was a little kid. But I remember life going on normally and, and we had to deal
with all the problems of life, you know, being happy, being sad. The colors were all the same. We went to the beach, we played football, and that is
how I remember the '70s.
I remember early on in this -- when we began pre-production, someone in production asked if the photography would be bleak and dark and gray, and I
said, no, the photography is going to be color. You know, the strong colors of life, because that's how life unfolds. We were living in the
dictatorship, but the word corruption was not exactly pronounced, but corruption was everywhere. In fact, it was one of the most corrupt times in
the history of our country.
Often the word violence is not really mentioned, but violence is taking place. So, I think that's how I wrote the film. I thought about color,
sound, music, cinema, corruption and violence, but all of that had to make sense in this beautiful tapestry of life 50 years ago in our country,
Brazil.
GOLODRYGA: My final question to you, Brazil does seem to be having its moment right now. And it's interesting that this film comes a year after
I'm still here. And it's also set during the same time period. Why do you think the world has turned its eye to Brazil now and really begun to try to
understand that era in the country?
FILHO: Well, it's quite a -- it's really wonderful that in two years we have two strong films. And these are Brazilian films which come from a very
particular period of repression. In my case, I have talked to Walter Salas (ph) about this, but in my take is that we react to whatever is happening.
And I think it's a strong moment for us to do something. And I truly believe that "The Secret Agent" comes from, it comes as a reaction to what
we had to go through and put up with during the, you know, the four years of far-right government in my country. Now, we are in a much better shape,
the Brazilian film industry.
MOURA: Yes, and it's undeniable that culture and democracy walk together. So, we have a democratic president right now that likes culture. And so,
the idea of a government funding culture is something that this government understands as like a big step to the development of the country itself. No
country develops without that, without having, you know, seeing them. We have to see ourselves in our production.
So, I think it's indeed a very beautiful moment, because the right, the far-right, they were very effective in transforming artists in Brazil into
the enemies of the people. Like, they were very effective with that, you know, like to say that we were, you know, taking advantage of the public
fundings and all that. And people bought that.
GOLODRYGA: Yes.
MOURA: I mean, a big part of the country, like Brazil is polarized, and as the U.S. --
GOLODRYGA: As is, yes.
MOURA: -- and the rest of the world. So, it's nice to see -- it's beautiful to see Brazilians rooting for this film, you know, and seeing
this film as theirs, you know, as part of their culture or something that represent them, you know. This is actually, honestly, my favorite part of
this whole thing that's going on.
GOLODRYGA: Thank you both of you. This was great.
FILHO: Thank you for having us.
GOLODRYGA: Truly appreciate it.
FILHO: It was great.
GOLODRYGA: Thank you.
MOURA: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: Stay with CNN. We'll be right back after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:40:00]
GOLODRYGA: In the United States, the Supreme Court wields extraordinary power, handing down decisions that impact everyday lives. But public trust
in the court is at an historic low. And our next guest reports that steps have been taken to make it even more secretive, just as people demand more
transparency into its inner workings.
Jodi Kantor is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist at The New York Times, and she sat down with Michel Martin.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, Bianna. Jodi Kantor, thanks so much for joining us.
JODI KANTOR, INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER, THE NEW YORK TIMES: My pleasure.
MARTIN: You are a very distinguished investigative reporter. You've reported on a lot of institutions. And in recent years, you've been
focusing particularly on the Supreme Court. In a recent piece, you note that the chief justice of the United States, John Roberts, quietly required
court personnel, the clerks, I guess, mainly, to sign these nondisclosure agreements. And this happened back in 2024. The timing, like, why then?
What happened that you think may have motivated this?
KANTOR: Well, let me set the scene for you. So, it's November of 2024. President Trump has just been returned to office by voters. And remember
that the court is a very orderly place. And yet, this is a kind of abrupt surprise announcement, and it comes in the middle of the term. The term has
already started several weeks before. And employees and clerks get called into this big, very ornate conference room. And the chief justice announces
that he wants them to sign NDAs.
And this is a real shift, because the court has always had a vow of silence. People who work there are not supposed to reveal what they know of
the real story of how the justices decide the law. However, it had always been kind of more of a compact and a trust thing. There were some written
agreements in the past, but much lighter. He was actually asking them to sign NDAs, according to our reporting, that had real legal force, that
basically threatened people with consequences if they violated this.
A couple of pieces of context, a couple of things that we think spurred this. I mean, first of all, as we know, trust in the court still is, and at
that point was just languishing at a historic low. Number two, there had been some really unusual disclosures coming out of the court. There was the
Dobbs leak, of course, in 2022. But there --
MARTIN: There was a decision that essentially outlawed nationwide access to abortion.
KANTOR: Correct. And somebody leaked it to Politico early. And so, it was published in this newspaper weeks before the justices had intended to make
it public. And then finally, we, The New York Times, had been reporting on things going on inside the court. Adam Liptak and I had done the behind-
the-scenes anatomy of major cases.
And just a few weeks before the chief justice imposed these nondisclosure agreements, Adam and I had done a behind the scenes reconstruction of the
immunity decision, which, as you know, was truly one of the most consequential decisions of our era. This was before the presidential
election. President Trump was going to be prosecuted for what he did on January 6th. And the Supreme Court awarded him very broad immunity from
prosecution. And we had a story showing how Chief Justice John Roberts guided that process and sort of what the behind the scenes was, what the
justices were thinking.
[13:45:00]
MARTIN: So, it's the idea that they're deliberate. The decisions that they make are public. But the process by which they arrive at them, they want
that to be secret.
KANTOR: They want that to be secret. There is some real debate about how transparent the court should be. Well, what I would say, like the
traditionalists say, is that the judiciary needs confidentiality to operate, that we want judges to be able to change their minds, to have very
open discussions. We want them to be free from influence. And so, that requires a kind of seal around the place.
Other people push back and say, first of all, that's too extreme. I mean, you may need secrecy while you're deliberating, but why can't you explain
what really happened afterwards? And what they also say is that it's preventing a real examination of the court at this critical moment, because
we just don't have enough information about how the law is being decided. That point is gathering strength, Michel, because of the court's shadow
docket opinions.
As you know, with some of the major decisions in the last year or two awarding President Trump a lot of power to implement his agenda, the court
has not explained its rationale. It's issued some cryptic orders that don't even really, like, pretend to be explanations. And that's very surprising
in some ways, because courts get their authority from explaining their decisions to the public, from saying, even if you don't disagree with us,
here's how -- we're going to show our work. Here's how we did the math and came to this conclusion.
MARTIN: So, another question about this, are the justices bound to these nondisclosure agreements?
KANTOR: So, we asked the court that question, and they would not comment.
MARTIN: Transparency. OK. So, it's interesting --
KANTOR: I mean, suffice it to say that I think you're asking an excellent question, because, you know, are they -- is this a requirement that was
imposed just for the little people, for the clerks and the employees, you know, or are they adopting the same standards? It's a good question.
MARTIN: Do we happen to know what the consequences of violating it are?
KANTOR: So, I haven't seen the document, but the consequences were described to me as very hazy. And what's often the case with NDAs is that
they are more meant to intimidate than to really be legally binding instruments. Enforcing an NDA is really hard, because there's a paradox to
that kind of document, which is to enforce an NDA, you generally have to bring somebody to court. And if you're bringing somebody to court, you're
making something more public. You're taking the secret thing that you're trying to conceal and putting it right out there for society to examine.
Some NDAs are quite enforceable. Like, Michel, if you and I worked for a chocolate company and we signed NDAs, and if you and I secretly sold the
ultra-exclusive recipe for the chocolate to a competing chocolate company, I really think, you know, you and I could be in trouble in court because of
those NDAs.
But this kind of NDA that's about workplace knowledge is a little bit harder to enforce because of what I mentioned. I mean, the legal experts I
talked to were kind of puzzled by the whole question. They were like, OK, so the Supreme Court is going to go to which court to try to enforce its
NDA? And which is the lawyer who's going to represent the Supreme Court?
So, anyway, we don't know for sure, but it seems likely that this was an internal show of force at the court designed to say to this population, we
are really serious about nothing getting out.
MARTIN: Do you know whether any lower courts have imposed a similar process on their clerks and court employees?
KANTOR: They have to an extent, but it's not that common. They were kind of lighter confidentiality agreements. Think of them more like pledges, you
know, like I promise, you know, that I'm going to obey so-and-so. But I should say it's not terribly common.
MARTIN: Do you have any sympathy for the fact that people feel like it can be damaging to their relationships and also to their ability to negotiate
with each other if their private conversations are put into the public domain?
[13:50:00]
There is an argument that if their internal discussions were made public, that that would make it harder for people to kind of change sides, and that
would be bad for the country sort of overall, because changing your mind in response to new information is what at least some people hope that people
will do.
KANTOR: I think the question is, how come after the decisions are made, we can't understand in so many cases how they got to this result, either
because it's a shadow docket case and there's no explanation or because the opinions and the oral arguments don't tell the whole story.
You know, from a journalistic point of view, as you know so well, the first job of journalism is to scrutinize power. And so, we can't have a Supreme
Court-sized cutout as a kind of exception to that rule. Our goal is to understand this court on a deeper level, to illuminate what's actually
going on there, and to establish an independent lens through which we can see the justices.
There is so much debate about the Supreme Court. Should there be more justices on the court? Should there be age limits or term limits? We're the
only constitutional democracy that doesn't have age limits or term limits for judges, and we've seen some dramatic results of that lack of a rule.
So, when people ask me, like, oh, what should happen with the Supreme Court? What I say is that as a reporter, my stance is that we need more
information. How partisan are the justices or are they not? What are their relationships? Who are they talking to? What kind of air are they
breathing?
MARTIN: You know, what's fascinating to me is that the Trump administration has been very aggressively seeking to control press access.
I mean, many people will remember that the Defense Department, under Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, tried to impose this essentially
nondisclosure agreement. They basically wanted the press corps to only report things that they had decided they were going to announce. Most news
organizations wouldn't tolerate these restrictions, so they left the press room and they turned in their badges.
We also see it's been reported that the defense secretary is administering, you know, polygraph tests to people, trying to figure out who's leaking,
that there seems to be a real concern about people internally disagreeing with them and wanting to sort of make their views known outside of the
bubble. And it's just interesting. I wonder if you see that this move in the court is sort of foreshadowing what happened in other areas of the
government.
KANTOR: I think it's a really different culture than the executive branch, but it is in a way true to the court's own culture, which is highly
secretive. And there has been a struggle for years and years and a push- pull with journalists like me trying to get more information out of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court really resisting. The justices have
built a moat of privacy around themselves.
You know, also remember that the clerk justice relationship is for life. The justice, in a sense, never stops becoming your boss, you know, and
often helps you move forward in your career for years and years afterwards. So, typically, clerks are quite sensitive and nervous about violating any
of the court's rules --
MARTIN: And we also know that a former clerk is now on the court. I mean, Brett Kavanaugh was a clerk. Was he not?
KANTOR: Oh, almost all of them were. And you could argue that the Supreme Court has become a little bit of a closed society because almost all of the
justices clerked, that it has a kind of self-perpetuating quality to it.
MARTIN: So, before we let you go, what about the rest of the term? I mean, what are some of the consequential cases that you're most interested in
coming up?
KANTOR: Look, I know every year in the last couple of years we've said this is really the term to watch. This is really the term to watch. I mean,
it's always true for a different reason. The reason this year is that we are going to get the court's more complete answers on the parameter of
President Trump's powers. They issued a lot of really important decisions last year. They were very consequential. But because they were technically
emergency decisions, you know, on the one hand, they had massive real-world effects.
On the other hand, they were pauses. They were, you know, they were temporary. And I think whether we're talking about the tariff decision or
the birthright citizenship case, we are going to get real and more definitive answers on the question of how this court is responding to
President Trump and whether they are willing to limit his power.
[13:55:00]
MARTIN: I'm starting to see discussions outside of the court, on the workings of the court, and also sort of the lower courts, and asking these
questions is should there be term limits? You know, should there be age limits? Should the court expand? Do you see, you know, outside of the
court, any energy around any of this?
KANTOR: The fact that outsiders can't see everything clearly, that it's a hard place to understand, inhibits the kind of debate that you're talking
about. But I will tell you that I think part of what is spurring debate is the reliance on the shadow docket.
And those decisions last year, like one of them was that the U.S. could deport somebody to a third country, meaning a country they had no
connection to, with very little process. There was very little explanation on that decision. I think that is worrying a lot of people and helping
create a kind of bigger discussion about the Supreme Court and how it works.
MARTIN: Jodi Kantor, thank you so much for talking with us.
KANTOR: It's great to be with you. Thank you so much.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: And that is it for now. Thank you so much for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
