Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Former White House Director of Legislative Affairs and Former Chief of Staff to Mike Pence Marc Short; Interview with Former German Ambassador to the U.S. and Munich Security Conference Chairman Wolfgang Ischinger; Interview with Hammer & Hope Co-Founder and Princeton University Professor of African American Studies Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired March 23, 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]
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
180-degree pivot. President Trump touts very good talks with Iran and postpones obliterating its power plant. Is this de-escalation or placating
the markets as energy prices soar? I asked Marc Short, former White House Director of Legislative Affairs.
Then, the Allied view. The U.K., France and Germany say they'll help open the Strait of Hormuz but refuse to get involved militarily. How long can
they stay out of this war? Former German Ambassador to the United States Wolfgang Ischinger joins me.
Also ahead, white supremacy in Donald Trump's White House. Princeton Professor Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor speaks to Michel Martin about Trump's war
on DEI.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London.
Productive conversations. President Trump posts that the United States and Iran have had talks regarding a, quote, "complete and total resolution of
our hostilities in the Middle East." Well, there's one for the books. He says he's postponing military action against Iran's energy facilities for
the next five days. Here's what he then told reporters.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: We have had very, very strong talks. We'll see where they lead. We have points -- major points of agreement. I would
say almost all points of agreement. We're doing a five-day period. We'll see how that goes. And if it goes well, we're going to end up with settling
this. Otherwise, we'll just keep bombing our little hearts out.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: All points of agreement, bombing our little hearts out, well, Tehran denies any dialogue with Washington, dismissing Trump's claims as an
attempt to lower energy prices. The International Energy Agency warns the global economy is facing a major, major threat, in its words, worse than
the 1970s oil crisis and the gas price surge after Russia's invasion of Ukraine combined. This is a total volte-face as the world was just hours
away from Trump's deadline to obliterate all Iran's power plants if they don't reopen the Strait of Hormuz.
Meantime, Israel strikes the heart of Tehran and continues its air campaign against Lebanon, which the Lebanese president calls a prelude to a ground
invasion and a clear violation.
Marc Short served as director of legislative affairs at the White House during Trump's first term. He joins me now from Washington, D.C., to try to
make sense of what we are hearing and seeing and what this strategy is. And to note, you are also chief of staff for the vice president, Mike Pence.
So, welcome to the program.
MARC SHORT, FORMER WHITE HOUSE DIRECTOR OF LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS AND FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF TO MIKE PENCE: Thank you, Christiane.
AMANPOUR: Can I just ask you, can you make head or tail strategically of actually what is coming from the White House? We've had all this sort of
reasons and differing morphing rationales for the war and now escalation, de-escalation. Very good talks. No, there aren't any talks. It's hard to
understand.
SHORT: Sure it is. And I do think that the president actually likes it that way. I think he likes to hold the cards in his hand he likes to have
people guessing. I think the president has had an opportunity to transform the Middle East after 47 years of Iran being the greatest sponsor of terror
to really change the situation there. I think there's been really successful military operations.
But, Christiane, I also think that the reality is that similar to Liberation Day roughly a year ago, I think there's also been concern in
both the equity and the bond markets, and particularly when treasuries are spiking the way they were, you know, early pre-market today. I don't think
there's -- I think it's fair to say there's probably a correlation between those.
And as you mentioned, even though energy prices are down today with this announcement, I think most energy experts will tell you there's so much oil
that is captured there in the Straits or is now offline in the Middle East that high energy prices are going to be an issue for quite some time. And
so, as here domestically, obviously affordability is being the number one issue, as you had in the midterms. These are all escalating challenges for
the administration and for Republicans.
[13:05:00]
And so, I do think the president is looking for somewhat of an ability to de-escalate now but still leaving the option for additional military
engagement five days from now.
AMANPOUR: Let me take a few of those issues. You talked about the bond markets and the soaring oil prices. As you know, the president's critics
are always questioning him, including the credibility of the latest post about great talks and et cetera.
Here's Democratic Senator Chris Murphy. This isn't a message to Iran. It's a panicky message to the markets. No war escalation until markets close on
Friday. Your response?
SHORT: Look, I think that there is some reality that the president follows and tracks markets. And I think that, again, it's not just the energy
prices, but it was also the bond markets. I do think that -- you know, one of the point I'd make to you, Christiane, is I probably don't agree with
much of the Democrat criticism about the president's ability to engage here without congressional approval. I think the Constitution gives the
executive branch wide latitude on foreign policy.
But I think one thing of concern is when you talk about, you know, reports of Israel confirming that Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner are the ones
having conversations with the Iranian parliament. You know, for two real estate developers to be in charge of foreign policy with Ukraine and Gaza
and now, in theory, with Resolution Iran, I think there's a reason that you want people to be Senate confirmed because they can be brought to Congress
to be questioned about any deals that they're making. And I think having two real estate developers who are not part of that confirmation process is
somewhat, I think, certainly concerning.
AMANPOUR: That is about as diplomatic an analysis of that as I've heard from somebody on your side. There has been a lot of issues raised, and I'm
not doing this as a gotcha. These are two incredibly important global issues, the threat to Europe and Ukraine from Russia and the threat to the
whole Middle East from Iran and all these wars, you know, Israel, in the -- everywhere.
So, I do think you're absolutely right to talk about who should be best positioned to actually have these negotiations. And I would just ask you if
you were the Iranian regime and you were being asked to negotiate again with these same people, when both times previously that you did it, the
very next day, while you thought negotiations were still on, wars started against you in June, the 12-day war, and now this one.
What do you -- if you -- just look at the other side for a minute, put yourself in their shoes. What do you think they're going to ask for? I
mean, talk about transactional. They're going to ask for a lot more.
SHORT: Well, Christiane, look, I don't think that -- I think the reality is that in past negotiations, there's plenty of evidence that Iran has
broken those deals behind the scenes as well. And so, I think probably they're looking for who's going to give me the quickest and easiest deal
out of this military barrage at this moment. And I don't know that's necessarily in the best interests of America either.
But I -- if I'm in their shoes, you're asking that question, I don't think they've actually been the most honest and faithful negotiators across the
pond there. So, I would imagine that they'd be looking to say, who's going to give me the best deal to end this quickly? And then we can continue
going about our business, particularly if there's not regime change that's requested.
AMANPOUR: Yes. Well, see, that's my point. I wasn't talking about honesty and good faith and all the rest. I'm just saying the facts. And, you know,
there are plenty of analysts who say that they actually -- well, you tell me what you think.
You know, the president and Israel laid out some rationales. So, there was the nuclear issue, the ballistic missile issue and also the treatment of
the Iranian people. You can very credibly claim that the nuclear and ballistic missile issue has been severely degraded. Nuclear probably even
more than missiles. As you can see, they're using a lot of missiles to retaliate right now. But they've moved away from talking about regime
change, from talking about the Iranian people.
What do you make of that? Because there was a promise to the Iranian people that they would be liberated. There was a promise.
SHORT: I think that the reality is that previous administrations, I think, failed when there was a Green Revolution in 2009 to actually support the
Iranian people. The Iranian people, I think, have been terrorized for 47 years. And I think America should stand with them.
But I think you're exactly right. Initially, there may have been some notion of that. But there's been a significant backing away. And I think
that the president, to be fair to him, when he campaigned in 2024, promised no foreign wars, but also no like efforts for regime change. And as you've
seen in Venezuela, even though Maduro was replaced, the administration chose to leave in place the same leadership that had been, I think,
brutalizing the people in Venezuela as well.
[13:10:00]
So, it doesn't appear that that has been as much of a priority for this administration. And I think it begs the question, if there's not regime
change, will you just simply allow the current leadership in Iran to, as you say, rebuild, particularly if they continue to get resources and
support from China and Russia in the years ahead?
AMANPOUR: Can I ask you, because, you know, politically in the United States, how do you view, because there are plenty of polls and there's
fracture, really, in terms of Republicans, obviously the whole country, the majority, is against the war, some 60 percent or so. But we also hear that
major MAGA leaders and influencers, former Congress people, et cetera, are very much against this, very much believe that the U.S., Donald Trump, has
been dragged into this by Israel.
You saw Joe Kent, who was the chief anti-terrorism, you know, official, resign, saying the very same thing. And actually, I had the former Israeli
prime minister, Naftali Bennett, this past week, telling me there was no imminent threat. It was just we had to get to them before there was an
imminent threat. So, my question to you is, where is his base on this? And is it politically compromising or not?
SHORT: I think that the president's base is with him. I think the reality is a lot of influencers have proven they actually don't have that much
influence. I think the reality is that most of MAGA is really supportive of Trump personally, more so than a set of issues.
And so, that's why it enables him to recalibrate or change his position so quickly. And I think that he's continued to have significant support behind
him, even inside the Republican Party, who had expressed resistance to foreign wars, are very supportive of this. Again, I'm also very supportive
of this military engagement. I think the president's done the right thing.
I do think that they could have explained to the American people the American interests on the front end of this far more clearly, because,
again, the number one issue domestically remains affordability. And I think that the Republicans have significant challenges heading into midterms,
when I think this current trade agenda has continued to elevate prices for Americans.
Now, energy prices are significantly elevated. Many are forecasting they're going to remain elevated through the summer, regardless if this wraps up in
the next five days. And so, as you head into the fall, I think there's going to be significant political pressure on Republicans. I think it's a
different issue than whether you support this war, it's a question of, well, what about my pocketbook? And I think that's where there's
significant vulnerability for Republicans.
AMANPOUR: And in the immortal words of actually a Democrat, it's always the economy, stupid, right? So, I mean, here we are again. And when, you
know, Trump cabinet secretaries like the energy secretary, Chris Wright, says, and actually the president, Hegseth, the secretary of defense, et
cetera, Americans need to suffer short-term pain for long-term gain. They've actually stopped saying that, I might add, as the short-term pain
is massively painful. How does that go over with voters, do you think?
SHORT: Well, again, I think that there can be, I think voters can tolerate that on the front end if it's explained to them. But if it's not on the
front end, and then it's basically anticipated or expected that they're supposed to just swallow that cost, I think that there's a political
ramification for that.
And, Christiane, I think one thing that we talk about the energy prices, but really is not getting a significant amount of coverage in America, is
truly the cost of fertilizer. That has, you know, been basically risen 40 to 50 percent and probably still going higher because its base components
in many cases come from natural gas. And, as you know, the UAE was one of the largest exporters of fertilizer to the United States.
And the trade agenda, if anyone's been harmed the most, it's been the farmers of America. And so, the heartland of America is the one that's
getting hit, not just with energy prices and trade agenda, but also fertilizer costs. And I think that's a political weapon as well coming into
this fall.
AMANPOUR: Indeed. And, of course, just so people understand, the fertilizers mean crops, which means the price of food and everything at the
grocery store. And the way you, again, delicately put the trade agenda, these are the massive tariffs. You talked about Liberation Day, which also,
apparently, you're now confirming did hit Americans in the pocket and also American farmers.
What do you think, though, now, given all of these extra layers of pain and economic pain that's gone on, do you think President Trump will abide by
what the Supreme Court said, which these are not constitutional, they should be Congress's prerogative, but he wants to do again by, I think,
executive order or whatever? What do you think he will do?
SHORT: I think the president will continue to use a lot of different levers that he has on the trade agenda to continue to push a very
protectionist worldview that he has. And so, he'll use 232 and 301, which allow investigations to then assert unfair trade practices. He's also going
to use a section 122, which, Christiane, honestly, I think he'll lose that legally, too.
But I think the president's posture is, so what? I'll have this opportunity. It's going to take them many months to form a case, to have it
work its way up to the courts, to be heard in the Supreme Court. And by then, you know, we're another year, year and a half down the road of me
enforcing a trade agenda on the American people.
[13:15:00]
And so, some of it I think has been established under previous presidents as well. Some of it he's going to push an envelope and allow the courts to
play out. In the meantime, take advantage of it because you'll feel like, again, I have the levers that I want to basically put the power in my hands
to negotiate with foreign countries.
AMANPOUR: That's another good question or a good segue to foreign countries. The president needs help. He's actually called now for help from
NATO, from Europe, from Asian allies and all the rest of it, particularly around the Strait of Hormuz. And they are not rushing to help, not because,
you know, they -- but because their interests are being harmed by this war and because they don't want to get dragged into a war that could see them
being attacked, you know, as collateral damage.
Do you think it's been positive for the United States or negative for the president to have spent the entire year really dumping on allies every time
he possibly can, calling them names in public like cowards or this or that, when really the strength of America overseas anyway has been the strength
of its alliances?
SHORT: Well, Christiane, I think America needs to lead the free world. And if we're not, then I fear that the free world is not being led. And I --
look, I think that there's a couple of different parts of that question. I think in Asia, you're right. In many cases, they import most of their
energy from this part of the world. And so, they have a self-interest in not getting engaged.
But at the same time, the president has, you know, assessed enormous tariffs on South Korea and Japan, who in the first Trump administration we
wanted to partner with to isolate China, viewing China as our number one adversary. And now, it's more this unilateral approach to people who have
been our best allies.
And I think in Europe, it's a different equation where I think the president, you know, looks for NATo come to his side in this battle. And I
think that they should. But at the same time, obviously, the president has been very critical of NATO and has not been willing to take the same stance
that NATO has when Russia is attacking, you know, Eastern Europe.
And so, I think that there's kind of two different equations here. But you're right that it's not has been the most diplomatic approach to how can
we be partnering together to isolate who are true enemies in my mind, China and Russia.
AMANPOUR: Yes. And many people are saying that both of them, and most particularly China, are making out like bandits from this current
situation. But can I ask you, because you say it very diplomatically, but it's clear you have your own set of ideas of how to conduct diplomacy and
other such things.
So, if you were still in the White House, how would you advise the president right now to get out of this bind? If maybe you don't think it's
a bind, but a lot of other people do.
SHORT: Well, again, I think that that Iran has posed an enormous challenge. I think they have been the largest sponsor of terror. They have
murdered many Westerners, many Americans, many innocent Americans. And so, I think that this has been overdue for America to take this action against
Iran. And so, I applaud of that. I just think on the front end, there could have been a better case made to the American people to explain it.
Now, that we're here and where we are, I think that, you know, what I worry about is having gone this far and then pulling back, because, as I said,
the beginning of your show, if you basically leave the current ayatollah in charge, then the likelihood is that they're going to get refunded by China,
by China and by Russia. And it can be basically an even greater nemesis because they'll look to get retribution for this latest round of attack.
AMANPOUR: Yes. Can I just end with something that shocked many, many people? And that was President Trump's very unchristian reaction to the
death of Robert Mueller. He died of complications of Parkinson. We understand, of course, Robert Mueller, previous head of the FBI, was tasked
with investigating Russian interference in the elections in 2016 elections. And Trump says, good. I'm glad he's dead. He can no longer hurt innocent
people. When a president says something like that. I mean, what do you think?
SHORT: Christiane, I served in the first administration. I believe that in many cases, the Russian investigation was a hoax. I think it was harmful to
American democracy. Having said that, that sort of response is totally inappropriate. Robert Mueller, whether you agree with him or disagree with
them, not just was head of FBI, he was a Marine who served America in battle, was honored for his valor, received the Bronze Star and was married
for 60 years. The man was an honorable man who should be given the respect that that he deserved for his service to our country.
AMANPOUR: Well, I'm very glad to hear you say that. Thank you. I'm glad I asked you. Thanks for your perspective on all of these important issues.
Marc Short, thank you.
[13:20:00]
And stay with CNN because we'll be back right after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
AMANPOUR: America's European allies are welcoming Trump's decision to delay destroying Iran's power plants, which would also lead to Iran
retaliating on energy facilities around the Persian Gulf region and maybe beyond.
The German chancellor expressed concerns about the dangers ahead, while Germany, Britain, France and other allies resist joining Trump's and
Israel's war on Iran. They say they will try to help facilitate the safe passage of commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz.
Meantime, the world's attention is distracted from Ukraine's plight against Russia, with President Vladimir Putin even enjoying a reprieve from some
energy sanctions which fill up his own war chest.
So, where does that leave European security? And how much influence do they have in wars that affect them all? Wolfgang Ischinger served as Germany's
ambassador to the United States, and he's currently chairman of the Munich Security Conference. Joining me now from Munich to discuss all of this.
Welcome back to our program.
WOLFGANG ISCHINGER, FORMER GERMAN AMBASSADOR TO THE U.S. AND CHAIRMAN, MUNICH SECURITY CONFERENCE: Welcome. Thank you very much, Christiane. It's
a pleasure to be on your show.
AMANPOUR: Thank you. Tell me a little bit. You guys are very, very deeply impacted. You didn't join the war. I don't even think you were. I know you
weren't consulted about it. And now, you're being asked to help square all those circles for us.
ISCHINGER: I think, Christiane, the first and the most important concern here in Berlin or in Munich, where I'm currently sitting, was that this war
and the consequences and the implications of this war would deflect, would take us away from our most important challenge, which in our view happens
to be the Ukraine war.
In other words, you know, I remember I remember during the Iraq debate 20 years ago, when I served as ambassador in Washington, I wrote a piece in
The Washington Post titled "First Wars First," arguing that we should now focus on Afghanistan before we turn to Iraq. And I and I'm really reminded
of that. For us, the concern is huge that in terms of ammunition that in terms of weapons, in terms of political energy, in terms of military
support, Ukraine is going to suffer because it's going to be seen as less central to current American ambitions, which are now focused on the Middle
East. And that for us is a major, major, major concern.
AMANPOUR: So, I want to just ask you, because you obviously for Europe, the Russian invasion, the Russian war is your biggest concern. What do you
say to people who will say whether they're American, whether they're Israeli, whether they're Gulf Arab states, that Iran was actually such a
present threat, such a clear and present danger that they had to do this even at the expense of diverting attention and Patriot missiles and all of
those things from Ukraine?
[13:25:00]
ISCHINGER: Well, no doubt about it, Christiane. You know, let me let me take you back, you know, 20 years. It was not the United States, it was
Germany, France and the United Kingdom that started in 2003 to focus on the challenge of Iranian nuclear, you know, experiments of nuclear -- Iranian
nuclear ambitions. We started this process then and the United States joined the effort later. And then in 2015, after 12 years of negotiating,
we had the famous JCPOA.
In other words, we recognize and we continue to recognize the importance of finding a solution that would eliminate the risks and the dangers
associated with a nuclear capacity by Iran. But quite frankly, Christiane, I've been hearing rumors that just a couple of days before the military
activities were started by Israel and the United States, Iran was apparently willing -- I hope this is not an unfounded rumor, Iran was
apparently willing to actually give up in some shape or form the 450 kilos of highly enriched uranium. If that's true, I would say then it would have
been worth pursuing that further rather than taking military action at that moment without -- and that's the important point, without any effort of
bringing in the Europeans.
Again, you know, since 2003, we've been worrying about this Iranian capacity. We were not consulted. We were informed after the fact that there
is now a war going on. To this day, we don't know exactly -- at least I don't know exactly what exactly are the war aims. Is it regime change or is
it to finally get rid of the nuclear enrichment facility and ballistic missile production capacity, or what exactly is it?
So, in other words, for us in Europe, we need to take our parliaments along. We need to explain to our citizens what the purpose of this is. And
we have not really been brought along. That's a huge political problem for the leaders of European allies of the United States.
AMANPOUR: And to your thinking about what Iran might have been willing to do, there's a very interesting article written by the foreign minister of
Oman who talks chapter and verse about what they almost had, you know, regarding ending enrichment for many years and all the rest of it. And then
the bomb started falling. He was the mediator, obviously, between the U.S. and Iran just before the war started.
But I want to ask you this because you are obviously Europe has always been in range of Iran's intermediate range ballistic missiles. And we understand
that Iran's ambassador to Germany has asked Berlin for an explanation over whether the U.S. base at Ramstein has or had been used to attack Iran. Do
you know what the status there is? And is it a worry for Germany?
ISCHINGER: Not really. No.
AMANPOUR: OK.
ISCHINGER: I mean, the Ramstein airbase is -- has been used and is being used by the by the U.S. Air Force, by the United States to transport
military and other equipment to other parts in the world. But it is not, you know, a launching point for attacks on third countries, including on
Iran. So, I think this is this is not a serious point.
AMANPOUR: OK. Now --
ISCHINGER: I can take that serious.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, what about Trump writing -- again, we're talking about the alliance now. Without the U.S., NATO is a paper tiger. He said now that
the fund -- the fight is militarily won -- this, he said on Friday, by the way, the fight is militarily won with very little danger to them, they
complain about high oil prices they're forced to pay but don't want to help open the Strait of Hormuz. A simple military maneuver that is the single
reason for the high oil prices. So, easy for them to do with so little risk. Cowards. And we will remember.
What does this reveal to you finally about the U.S.-Europe relationship right now?
ISCHINGER: Well, you know, I think we had a very positive NATO summit last year in the Hague, where the where the United States and European allies
got together.
[13:30:00]
We collectively, European allies, committed ourselves to spending a lot more on defense. That's happening as we speak. What I find regrettable,
quite frankly, is the language which President Trump uses in this regard. He speaks of NATO as if NATO were some foreign organization. In fact, from
my vantage point, Donald Trump is, is -- as president of the United States, is the president of the lead nation of NATO. In other words, I would hope
that when he speaks of NATO, he would speak of we and us and us together rather than them. He speaks of NATO as if it were some kind of foreign
group of nations which he likes to criticize. That's not correct.
And I'm not aware, Christiane, that the United States has actually seized the NATO Council in a meaningful, formal way to present the case of
attacking Iran or going to war against Iran in -- and with NATO. It hasn't happened. And this is why it is, in my view, a little bit unfair to
criticize European allies for not jumping up immediately.
We have -- as you know, we have in the meantime come up with language which says, yes, we're ready to help. We're willing to help. But of course, not
in a war situation. If the United States doesn't like to go into the Gulf at this moment, into the Strait of Hormuz because of the dangers associated
with it, there is no American warship as far as I can tell. Why would German or French or Italian warships be supposed to go in there, risking
the lives of their crews and risking being drawn into a war?
So, I think we are all willing to help and work with the Gulf states, work with the United States, work with Israel to keep the Straits of Hormuz
open. But there needs to be a ceasefire first, an end of hostilities. Otherwise, I don't see a realistic opportunity for Europeans to get into
that very, very dangerous space at the moment.
AMANPOUR: Can I ask you to cast your mind back some 30 years now? There's been some tweeting or X-ing between you and a correspondent regarding the
differences between Iran and Bosnia and Kosovo. And they were saying, look, what happened? You know, America went in and fixed it and this and that,
and why can't it happen now? And you responded, the key point and the main difference is that then we had an established contact group that developed
and executed policy together. You said, I was the German chief negotiator then. Today, allies learn from the Internet about decisions taken by their
U.S. partner, not a promising method.
Yes. Just so -- yes. So, comment on that, because I'm not even talking about the announcement. I'm talking about what happens when you try to put
Humpty Dumpty back together again, as you did in Kosovo and Bosnia.
ISCHINGER: I think, Christiane, that's a great question. I think we would be -- we as allies together in NATO, the United States and our European
allies, we would be in much better shape together if we did use this wonderful model of the contact group, which was actually invented by
America. It was invented during the Clinton administration by extremely gifted diplomats like Richard Holbrooke and others.
And we developed the policy together. We executed the policy together and we were in the same boat together throughout these crises, which were
difficult to manage with different interests by the United States and certain European countries. But we managed to do that.
In the current environment, neither on Ukraine nor on Gaza nor on Iran has the United States felt it was necessary or interesting or important to
bring in their allies. I remember watching the ceremony in Sharm el-Sheikh where the -- you know, the Gaza peace was celebrated and European leaders
were being brought in, sitting in the third row. They weren't even invited to sign the document. They were simply sitting on the sidelines watching
this.
[13:35:00]
If we want to have an active, dynamic alliance relationship, Europeans need to be brought in and not only share the task of getting rid of the debris,
but sharing the responsibility and sharing the war aims and the strategy, and that hasn't happened there.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, let me ask you then --
ISCHINGER: (INAUDIBLE) as --
AMANPOUR: Why don't you demand it? I mean, you are the alliance. Why don't you all get together like you did after Zelenskyy was ripped apart in the
Oval Office? European leaders rushed to Washington to try to make sure Trump stayed on side as to who's the victim and who's the aggressor in this
war. Why not now? All your interests are being harmed, I hear from Europeans, why don't Europeans get up and go, the alliance, and talk to
President Trump face to face? In one minute.
ISCHINGER: I think it's a great idea. I think it's a great idea. I can't give you the answer why a repeat performance hasn't been orchestrated yet.
Maybe it is being considered. I think it would be a great idea to do a repeat, you know, White House Oval Office session between a bunch of
European leaders and President Trump. That worked quite well last summer, and there is no reason why it shouldn't work again.
I think you're making a perfect point. I'd be fully in favor of that. But, of course, somebody needs to start an initiative. I'll be happy to
disseminate this idea when I talk to my European friends.
AMANPOUR: And I'd be happy to share with you the name of the former European diplomat who suggested it. So, I'm glad it rang a bell with you.
Walter Ischinger, thank you so much indeed for joining us. And we'll be back after this short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
AMANPOUR: Since the start of his second term, President Trump has signed a number of executive orders targeting DEI policies, uttered rhetoric deemed
racist at immigrants and is generally eroding the, quote, "melting pot identity" the U.S. once prided itself on.
Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor is a Princeton professor of African American studies and she's the co-founder of the black politics and culture magazine
Hammer & Hope. In her recent piece, she describes a white supremacy in Donald Trump's White House and joins Michel Martin to discuss the rollback
of civil rights.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Professor Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, thank you so much for joining us.
KEEANGA-YAMAHTTA TAYLOR, CO-FOUNDER, HAMMER & HOPE AND PROFESSOR OF AFRICAN AMERICAN STUDIES, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY: Thank you for the invitation to be
here.
MARTIN: You wrote an interesting piece where you talked about a through line of not just the rhetoric, but the policies of the Trump
administration. A lot of the rhetoric of this administration has been sort of focusing on how white Americans are being disadvantaged and that white
Americans are being sort of taken advantage of. They're being overlooked. They're being sort of bypassed.
In your piece, one of the things that you point out is that, for example, of the federal job cuts that took place at the very early stages of the
second Trump administration, black women were the hardest hit. In fact, another essayist who contributes to your magazine pointed out that black
women are the dominant group that lost jobs during that whole job-cutting initiative, initiated or headed by Elon Musk.
[13:40:00]
So, the first question I had for you is, why is that? Black women could not have been specifically targeted. I mean, it's illegal. You can't say we're
going to fire all the black women. So, how did that happen?
TAYLOR: Well, I think that it's, of course, impermissible in the law, but I think that it's also not a coincidence. You know, the federal government,
DOGE, at the time targeted certain agencies within the federal workforce to sort of take the harshest budget cuts. And I don't really think it's a
coincidence that many of those agencies and organizations within the federal government were populated by black women.
And if you look at the internal memos and kind of back and forth between people within the agencies, that they have offered an explanation for at
least part of the reason why they were having the job cuts in the first place. And part of those explanations articulated through these memos was
that the federal government for too long had been engaged in equity, anti- discrimination hiring, which to me can be read as a kind of code for the federal government is hiring black people who are not qualified for these
positions.
And so, I do think that there's some overlap between that idea that the federal government has been engaged in discrimination by hiring black women
and with other actions that were taken within federal agencies, which included dismantling the website that allows the public to monitor who is
hired and fired, who works for the federal government as a way to at least look at the distribution of race and gender within the federal workforce.
That website was dismantled. There -- within these memos that I'm describing, people who were involved in the job cuts said not to mention
the race or gender of people who were being laid off.
So, I think that it's not legal, but as we've seen in other aspects of undertakings by this administration, that is not necessarily an impediment
to their actions.
MARTIN: Just to give the data that you cite in your piece, black women lost 318,000 jobs in the public and private sectors between February and
April of last year. That is when this job-cutting initiative was at its most robust. They were the only major female demographic to experience
significant job losses during that period. And as you pointed out, that after the ACLU and other employment lawyers alleged that the Trump layoffs
disproportionately singled out federal workers who were not male or white in violation of the Civil Rights Act, the administration, as you just said,
took down the website to make it harder to actually track this.
You know, one of your colleagues who also writes for the same journal in which you published this piece, Natalie Moore, pointed out that black women
comprise 6 percent of the overall U.S. labor force and 12 percent of the federal labor force. But of those 300 -- more than 300,000 federal jobs
that were cut in 2025, she pointed out that black women were a stunning 33 percent of those cuts. I was just curious, when you looked into these
numbers yourself, what did you think?
TAYLOR: Yes. I mean, the job cuts themselves are shocking. One, just because the federal government has -- the reason why African Americans in
particular have gravitated towards work within the federal government is because of anti-discrimination laws, that this was the kind of last
frontier where the civil rights of black workers would be protected. And to see that just really torn up is shocking.
And even within the private sector, a lot of these layoffs have been concentrated in diversity, equity, inclusion fields that have been
devastated as a result of the kind of Trump directive to the private sector to get rid of these jobs and to get rid of really the people who populate
them.
[13:45:00]
And I think that, you know, it points to a particular way that in this administration, that it's really upwardly mobile black people, black
professionals that have been in the crosshairs of this administration. And I think in some ways, the reason for that is because it fulfills a part of
the Trump narrative that white workers who may be facing unemployment, economic insecurity, and downward mobility should blame black people for
that and should blame also the federal government for in its kind of the Trump administration's rationale, the assumption that the federal
government has been doing something improper, has placed its thumbs on the scales to help black people at the expense of white people, that the
federal government has somehow chosen to assist black people to create this upward mobility by hiring people who did not belong in these jobs, and that
the Trump administration sees itself as correcting this problem.
MARTIN: You make the argument that this is a variation on the welfare queen trope, this notion that these undeserving poor people are getting
stuff from the government. Tell us what your thesis is.
TAYLOR: Well, it's really a shift away from the way that the Republican Party in particular, but also in a bipartisan fashion, that there has been
a focus on black poor people, that there has been a fixation with black people allegedly using up too much social welfare, that has been a focal
point of politics for Democrats and Republicans for two generations.
And part of what I'm arguing in this article is that for the Republican Party in the last decade or the last 15 years, that the base of the party
has changed significantly to now include many more poor white people, poor White people who utilize Medicaid, poor white people who utilize food
stamps and other parts of the social welfare state that have really complicated the typical kind of scapegoating of poor people abusing the
welfare system as a political focal point.
And so, instead of focusing on the plight of the poor, they've now begun to focus on upwardly mobile black people as the real problem, and the role of
the federal government in assisting these people up the ladder into stable jobs, into stable livelihoods, while at the same time that there has been
this pronounced downward mobility of white people that has been discussed over the last decade in the framework of the deaths by despair language.
And part of what I'm trying to argue is that it's untrue, and that if you look at any of the kind of social measures of the quality of life for
people in the United States, black people still come out lower in the social hierarchy than most white people.
It doesn't mean that there's not a hardship among White people, just as it doesn't mean that there has not been an expansion of the black middle class
and over the last two generations, the development of a black political elite or the development of a black economic elite.
But when you look at the sort of average experience of your everyday working class or middle-class black person, there is not a single industry
in which black people are doing better than white people. Within the housing market, black housing is valued at less than it is for white
people. And every step along the way within these social barometers, black people come out worse. So, the federal government really, in trying to
promote this argument, is engaging in dishonesty, really.
MARTIN: I'm not sure if it's the federal government or it's this administration.
TAYLOR: Right.
MARTIN: The president has not made it a secret that he looks with disdain upon the Civil Rights Act and also has engaged in just sort of cultural
language that many people, or sort of discourse that people find offensive. I don't need to remind people of that sort of social media post that he
shared with the, you know, Obama's faces superimposed upon images of monkeys.
[13:50:00]
And of course, his spokesman tried to argue that there were other people who were depicted as zoo animals. But I think that, you know, for African-
Americans, and I think most people who are paying attention, that obviously evokes some very specific stereotypes.
TAYLOR: Well, it's much deeper than that. I mean, the -- I think we can say that this administration really has embraced the politics of white
supremacy in a very open way, probably in ways that are unheard of in the modern presidency. It's not just --
MARTIN: Well, say more about that, because supremacy -- I mean, because when I read your piece is to indicate that they've embraced as sort of a
politics of white victimization. Do you think that that's the same thing, that white people are being victimized by unqualified, unfair systems that
are putting them at a disadvantage? So, why do you say it's white supremacy?
TAYLOR: Well, because part of -- in their calculation, the problem with that is that white people are superior. And I think that if you look at not
just the treatment or discourse around black people, but the idea that Haitian immigrants are eating cats and dogs in Springfield, Ohio, that
Somalian Americans or Somalian refugees can just be dismissed as a fraudulent population, that the entire group engages in fraudulent
practices, that the administration, on the one hand, says that we should look to individual merit as opposed to group rights, and yet, constantly
disparages groups, groups of people, whether they're Haitian immigrants, whether they're Venezuelan immigrants, whether they are Mexican immigrants
or Mexican Americans or black Americans.
And so, I think if you look at the rhetoric of the administration, J.D. Vance goes to Turning Point USA and says that white Americans no longer
have to apologize for being white in the United States. If you look at the rhetoric and the ways that certain groups are being attacked, if you look
at the way that some of the federal agencies are promoting the work of their agencies on social media, the Department of Labor, the Department of
Homeland Security, constantly invoking the tropes and imagery of white supremacy.
MARTIN: How do you understand the fact, though, that the percentage of black women who voted for Trump has increased in every single election in
which he has run? It went from 6 percent or maybe even less in 2016 to 10 percent in 2024, how do you understand that?
TAYLOR: Well, I think that part of that -- and I think this is part of the attraction to Trump for some people, not in totality, but I think that that
there has been a real inability of the Democratic Party to promote policies over a period of time that have really changed for the better the
livelihoods of ordinary Americans. And I think that includes black people as well.
I think that's one of the reasons that the Black Lives Matter movement developed during the presidency of Barack Obama, because people had such
high expectations that things would be different, that things would change. And yet, there was this nagging, gnawing continuity. I think that was the
same thing with the presidency of Joe Biden, which is not to say that the Biden presidency didn't actually do things and act things, but it wasn't
enough relative to the scale of crisis that people were experiencing in their lives.
And throughout this 10- or 15-year period, it is really working class and poor African Americans who experienced the brunt of these crises. And I
think the lack of change in people's day to day reality have opened a small group of them up to looking at different political alternatives. And I
think that has meant looking at even the politics of Donald Trump, who plays with the grievances of many people in many different levels.
MARTIN: Professor Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, thank you so much for talking with us.
TAYLOR: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And finally, one of the world's most famous and enigmatic artists has been unmasked, Banksy, whose work you've likely seen pop up
overnight on street corners and buildings all over the world, has apparently been identified as a British man named Robert Gunningham, who
later legally changed his name to David Jones.
It was his immigration records entering Ukraine a few years ago that apparently gave him away. A series of Banksy murals appeared there at the
same time. Banksy has neither confirmed nor denied this claim.
[13:55:00]
Deemed a national treasure by some, his anonymity is his brand. So, what's the cost of losing it? Banksy's longtime lawyer says the pseudonym allowed
for him to freely speak truth to power without fear or retaliation or censorship. So, we might well ask, was it really worth blowing his cover?
If indeed, it actually has been. The mystery continues.
That's it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. Remember, you can always
catch us online, on our website, and all-over social media. Thank you for watching, and goodbye from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
