Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Institute for National Security Studies Senior Fellow and Former Head of Iran Brance of Israel's Military Intelligence Danny Citrinowicz; Interview with Former U.S. House Republican Adam Kinzinger; Interview with Former U.S. Ambassador to Hungary David Pressman; Interview with "The Middle-Class New Deal" Author A. Mechele Dickerson. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired April 13, 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)
J.D. VANCE, U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: The bad news is that we have not reached an agreement, and I think that's bad news for Iran, much more than it's bad
news for the United States of America.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: No deal and more escalation after marathon talks failed in Islamabad. What comes next? I ask a military intelligence expert.
And as Americans put the bill for the conflict, are fractures emerging within MAGA and will it hurt Republicans at the polls? Former Republican
Congressman Adam Kinzinger weighs in.
Also, ahead, a political earthquake. Why Hungary turned the page on 16 years under Viktor Orban's far right government, former U.S. ambassador to
the country explains.
Plus --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
A. MECHELE DICKERSON, AUTHOR, "THE MIDDLE-CLASS NEW DEAL": It is increasingly hard for young adults to be able to attain the markers of the
middle-class.
GOLODRYGA: -- "The Middle-Class New Deal." Is the American Dream, still within reach? Author Mechele Dickerson joins Walter Isaacson to discuss.
Welcome to the program everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
Peace is off the cards for now between the U.S. and Iran after diplomatic talks in Pakistan. If anything, it seems to be slipping further away.
President Trump is putting the blame squarely on Iran now ordering the U.S. Navy to impose a blockade on Iranian ports and threatening to sink any
Iranian ships that come near them. Speaking to reporters at the White House, he stressed. That he won't let Iran, quote, "blackmail the world."
And the president has appeared unbothered by whether this could stop Iran from returning to the negotiating table.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: I don't care if they come back or not. If they don't come back, I'm fine. Their military is gone. Their missiles are
largely depleted. The manufacturing capability for missiles and drones is largely defeated. We've been very nice. We haven't ripped down too many
bridges. We did one. Only because they broke their word. They broke their promise. And remember, their promise was that they were going to open the
Hormuz Strait. They didn't do it. They lied.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Well, this move is intended to delay devastating blow to Iran's already fragile economy, but will it force to concede defeat? Well, with
oil prices surging, once again, Iran's top negotiator warns American consumers will soon be, quote, "nostalgic" for lower gas prices.
To discuss all of this, I'm joined now by Danny Citrinowicz, senior fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies and former head of the Iran
branch of the Israeli Military Intelligence. Danny, welcome to the program. It's good to have you on. I've been following all of your analysis on
social media for a while now.
So, the U.S. blockade has now officially gone into effect, Iran responding before this even began by saying that no port in the region will now be
safe. Military experts acknowledge that given the might of the U.S. Navy, they can technically maintain this blockade, but policing over 1300 miles
of coastline against IRGC drones and mines is a different story. So, militarily, just walk us through some of the challenges that the U.S. will
be facing as it initiates this blockade.
DANNY CITRINOWICZ, SENIOR FELLOW, INSTITUTE FOR NATIONAL SECURITY STUDIES AND FORMER HEAD OF IRAN BRANCE OF ISRAEL'S MILITARY INTELLIGENCE: Hi
again. Thank you and good evening from Tel Aviv. I have to say that just before attack the military aspect of things, I have to say that in terms of
strategy, I don't think that it'll change, in terms of the fact that don't see the Iranians didn't capitulate in 40 days of war won't capitulate in
marathon blockade, unfortunately.
Now, what the U.S. is trying to do is trying to put a blockade using the might of the American Navy. But the thing is, when you're getting closer to
the coastline, the Iranian coastline, then you're exposing yourself to the Iran capability, especially the drones and the surface-to-sea missile that
they still have. So, that is one aspect.
Second, of course, we have to remember that there're going to be friction between presence, the Iranian presence in the Hormuz Straits, and of course
the U.S. presence over there. And on top of that, the Iranians can retaliate not by attacking of the -- the U.S. presence, but also attacking,
for example, tankers, not Iranian tankers, that actually we're trying to cross.
[13:05:00]
And we have the big question of the Chinese tanker, that -- I think that the Iranians will allow them to cross the Hormuz Straits, and then what the
U.S. will do, depending on what the president said, I think they're supposed to stop them, and then maybe there will be an escalation in their
relations between the U.S. and China.
But the bottom line of things is that, despite of this move, there is no silver bullet solution to the Iranian problem, and I don't think the
Iranians will capitulate from it.
GOLODRYGA: And yet, there definitely would be a significant financial price that Iran would pay each day that this blockade is enforced. We're
talking in hundreds of millions of dollars. You mentioned China, and I'd like to pick up on that point, because it does seem like China is the wild
card here, obviously the recipient of more oil than any other country.
If the United States holds firm, do you think there's an opportunity for not only China, but other countries, including India, who have been able to
get their vessels through and their oil through and delivered, for them to now put more pressure on Iran with this blockade, preventing them from
receiving the oil they so desperately need?
CITRINOWICZ: Well, just in terms of the Iranian strategy, it's important to say the fact that they are -- they know they're going to suffer, but
they believe that the world will suffer more, and quickly. Because we should remember that Iran has the upper hand in the way that in the last 40
days, their tankers sold oil, and they got the waivers from the American administration, and of course the price of oil was high, so they earned a
lot of money. So, they had this kind of cushion until they would feel actually the blockade.
And they actually think that time works for them and not against them in a way that until they would feel the pressure, at the end of the day, the
implication, the first, second, third order implications on every one of us in terms of what's happening in the Hormuz Straits will actually pressure
the U.S. to stop this blockade. So, they are hoping actually they're going to be with the upper hand after the blockade will end.
Regarding China, I think the Chinese have no intention of intervening directly, and don't think they will put the pressure on Iran to stop the
war in a way, because it's not really correlated with how the Chinese are working, the foreign, their way of interacting with Iran in general. I
think they will try to ease the pressure. They're working with the Pakistanis to renew negotiations. But at the end of the day, I don't think
they will do something dramatic.
Of course, if their tankers will be stopped, this is something else. But I think that they are hoping that at the end of the day, they will enjoy the
fact that Iran is supporting them, allowing the tankers to move. They don't think the U.S. will stop the tankers, and they can still enjoy the flow of
oil coming from the Gulf itself. I won't rely on China to help us finding some sort of peaceful solution to the problem that we are facing right now.
GOLODRYGA: The president just moments ago in comments to reporters outside of the West Wing said that there had been some calls to the U.S. from,
quote, "appropriate people," the right people, he said, in Iran. And he says they want a deal. We don't know who these calls were from, if these
calls actually took place, who they spoke with.
But it is notable that you posted on X that treating someone like the parliament speaker, Mohammad Ghalibaf, like Delcy Rodriguez of Venezuela is
pretending that Iran has indeed experienced regime change. And the president constantly says that. Well, in a sense, Iran has already
experienced regime change. The ayatollah, the leader, has been taking out, a number of military, top military brass and officials and government
officials have already been killed.
So, is this the president, in your opinion, trying to justify the regime change that he, whether -- you know, depends on the day you ask him,
whether he initially sought for in the launch of this war or not? And why is Ghalibaf not the Delcy Rodriguez of Iran?
CITRINOWICZ: Yes, I'll divide it by my answer to two sections. The first one is connecting to the fact that I think that both sides are interested
in reaching a deal in general. The problem in Islamabad was the expectations in a way that, you know, both sides came to negotiation
thinking that they have the upper hand. And especially the U.S. thought that they can actually reach some sort of agreement that using their -- of
course, their advantage on the battlefield. Unfortunately, the Iranians had the same notion, meaning that we have the upper hand in battlefields. This
is why we can require or demand our own conditions to be met.
So, I think there are chances of therefore reaching agreement depending on how the expectation would change for both sides, especially from the
American side. Regarding regime change, I have to say something important. There wasn't a regime change. There was a change within the regime, and
unfortunately a very bad one.
[13:10:00]
We got a more radicalized regime, decentralized regime, controlled by Mojtaba Khamenei, a very radical guy, much more than his father, controlled
by the IRGC, and it would be very hard to reach an agreement with them. It's very hard even for them to finalize something together because of this
centralization way or characteristics of the system itself.
The thing is, I don't know who called President Trump or the U.S. Mohammad Ghalibaf, you have to remember. He was a high-ranking official in the IRGC.
He was the IRGC Air Force commander. And even if he wanted to do some sort of an agreement with the U.S., he had to go through Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi,
the commander of the IRGC. He had to go through Mojtaba Khamenei, and he's not the sole decision-maker in Iran, on the contrary.
So, I don't think you can expect that he would change something in their basic demands regarding nuclear, regarding missiles, and regarding proxies.
So, I think it's a hopeless cause in a way.
GOLODRYGA: Prime Minister Netanyahu today told his Cabinet that he spoke with J.D. Vance and that the U.S. goal remains of zero enrichment inside of
Iran for decades to come. And you argue that zero enrichment is a fantasy and instead laid out a framework that you think could possibly work in its
place. And you argue that Washington should acknowledge a right to limited enrichment while Tehran agrees to a time-bound freeze of a few years, not
decades, and also dilutes its existing stockpile in exchange for sanctions relief.
At this point in the war, where there's essentially zero trust in all sides, why would Iran agree to this deal, and how do you then get the
United States and Jerusalem on board with it as well?
CITRINOWICZ: Well, Israel would be against any deal with Iran, it goes without saying, but we don't have any way to influence that. Well, we can
behind the scenes for sure, but if President Trump will decide to reach an agreement with Iran, that's it. We'd rather -- you won't see Prime Minister
Netanyahu turning back, giving speeches in the Congress again, this deal. So, it will only depend on what President Trump will decide to do. This is
one aspect.
Second thing regarding nuclear, we have to remember one important thing, that for Iran, enrichment is much more the question of yes or no nuclear
bomb, is a testimony for the strength of the technology of Iran. It's a part of the ideology of the regime, like missiles and like now the almost
trades. So, I'm not going to forego that.
But even before the war, in Geneva, they offered to dilute the fund for the kill for 60 percent, and they offered to cap the enrichment capability that
they have. So, I think if the U.S. will acknowledge the right to enrich, I think there is a room for negotiation, a serious negotiation. Because now
we're discussing whether the Iranians that are not enriching right now need to freeze their enrichment capacity to five years, 10 years.
When it's numbers and it's not principle, you can reach an agreement. And I think even more than that, what Benjamin Netanyahu said today is actually,
I think, reflect a change in the U.S. policy. Because U.S. policy is not insisting any more about no enrichment whatsoever. They're talking about
freezing and then enrichment. And while we're in this room, I think that there is a common ground to be found.
Again, returning back to expectation, if the expectation will be right, I think the nuclear thing will be something that they can solve. I think
regardless anything related to missiles or proxies, if the U.S. will raise that, it's not going to work with this regime in Iran. But in terms of the
enrichment, in terms of what's happening now in the negotiation, there is a room, maybe some sort of a small room, but a room to negotiate and moving
towards an agreement.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. You also write that it's time for Israel to go back to the drawing board as it relates to its policies vis-a-vis Iran and the region,
that it accomplished some of its military goals, but strategically it hasn't accomplished any of the major goals that it set out.
Finally, the last few seconds we have here, knowing that a large ground invasion is essentially off the table here, you don't have enough
Republican support for that. As this blockade unfolds, we do have a number of U.S. assets and troops still in the region. We heard the president say
that we have to collect the dust, the dust being the highly enriched uranium buried underground. Do you foresee the possibility of a special
military operation to retrieve that in the short term?
CITRINOWICZ: Well, in theory it can happen, but practically, I think it will be very hard to do so. We have to remember that the front porticoes of
60 percent enriched uranium are not in one location. As the head of the IAEA, Grossi, mentioned, it's located in Isfahan (INAUDIBLE). So, you have
to do two separate commando activities. You actually have to conquer that because of the command and control of the Iranians that actually will try
to attack.
And of course, the Iranians know where it is, so they will hide it, so you need to find it, you need to have cranes and special equipment, and you
need airplanes to take it outside. So, theoretically it's possible, but practically I think it's not. And I think that the only solution to take
out the (INAUDIBLE) or to dilute them is by peaceful means, meaning nuclear negotiations. This is what -- this is why it's so important to reach an
agreement with the Iranians on this issue.
[13:15:00]
GOLODRYGA: Danny Citrinowicz, great to have you on. Thank you so much for your perspective.
CITRINOWICZ: Thank you. Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: Well, President Trump is attacking an unlikely target, the Pope, after the Catholic leader called for peace in Iran. Trump called the
pontiff weak on crime and terrible for foreign policy, praised Pope Leo's MAGA-supporting brother, claimed the Pope was fine with Iran getting a
nuclear weapon, and said that he only became Pope because of Trump. He then posted a picture of himself looking like Jesus healing the sick. After much
backlash, the president deleted the image about 12 hours later and said that he thought it was him as a doctor.
Let's bring in former Republican congressman and Trump critic Adam Kinzinger. Adam, I just have to reiterate, everything that I just laid out
there actually happened. It's all true. It's not something that -- it's not hyperbole. That is the state of play right now, the President Trump
doubling down, saying he will not apologize to Pope Leo.
You wrote recently on a subset that the president's threat to wipe out an entire civilization in Iran damages America's soul and defies its military
core values. Can you elaborate more on this and sort of weave in the impact that this new battle with the Pope, what that does to U.S. standing
globally?
ADAM KINZINGER, FORMER U.S. HOUSE REPUBLICAN: Yes. Look, I mean, you know, I'm a military veteran. One of the things I always was very proud of about
the United States military, not that we were sinless and we never got anything wrong, but we did have a code of honor. That code of honor was we
did our best to basically follow the law of armed conflict to ensure that, you know, we weren't intentionally bombing civilians, et cetera, right?
You're trying to achieve the objective and not create any more harm than possible.
What Donald Trump did in that first tweet is basically -- I mean, regardless of what the action ends up coming from that, you destroy our
moral authority, which is something that I think worked very well for the United States until recently. Same thing happens, by the way, when you bomb
civilian boats in the Caribbean, or specifically when you do the second and third missile strike and there's a couple of guys hanging off the boat
simply trying to survive. It damages our soul.
And that has a moral impact, not just from, you know, us and how we feel, but in our ability to actually do foreign policy. The more we destroy that,
I think the more it's likely we actually have to use military force because people don't trust us. They don't want to be near us. They don't -- you
know, they don't believe it.
And so, with the Pope stuff is like, look, there's never been a war the U.S. has engaged in where the Pope, whoever it was, usually didn't say we
should try to avoid war. This is the first time I've seen a president directly take the Pope on, and especially an American Pope who is very well
loved in the United States. It just goes to show me that Trump is like, it feels like he's really losing his grip on reality, or at least his grip on
politics, which he actually, you know, used to be good at, believe it or not.
GOLODRYGA: How does this feud, or maybe one-sided feud with the Pope, how does that play politically for the president? Maybe we take his MAGA
support base out of this, but just with independent voters, with Catholic voters, and with Republicans who are not ideologically aligned necessarily
with the president.
KINZINGER: This is where he's doing damage to himself, because in the deep MAGA sphere, like, look, if you call yourself MAGA, you call yourself that
because you specifically have an affection or a love for Donald Trump. And it's really not about policy. It's like, it's a him thing, right? I call it
a cult for a reason.
But the few Republicans that exist, and there's a handful, that don't call themselves MAGA, these independents, you know, he's certainly lost all kind
of leaning Democrats. But those people have turned against him in a huge way, which is why you're seeing potentially November is going to be like a
Hungary level landslide for the Democrats. Because people that maybe have never voted Democratic, or usually just don't vote during a midterm are
going to vote. And that's where the difference is, with like, how dumb it is to take on Catholics and how dumb it is to take on Christians, is maybe
they were never with you, maybe some of them were, but now they're really angry, and they're going to make sure that they vote in a midterm.
And you know, in the United States, midterms usually have about half the turnout you have for a presidential election. So, again, you know, as much
as I don't like Donald Trump, one of the things I would always say about him is he has this like ability to kind of feel his base and understand
what his base voter wants. This makes me think he's losing grip on that, or he really doesn't care because this was done politically.
[13:20:00]
GOLODRYGA: Yes, and speaking to the larger issue of the war, some of the risks that he's willing to take here on Fox News over the weekend,
admitting that gas prices, oil prices could remain as high as they are, perhaps even higher. He hopes they won't be, but that could be the case
come the midterms in November.
To your point that he doesn't care perhaps, I mean, he's not on the ballot, obviously Republicans are and control of the House and the Senate are on
the ballot, but is there, do you think, the possibility that the president is thinking longer-term about his legacy and if indeed he believes that he
can be the president that brought in regime change in Iran one way or the other and took away the nuclear threat, that all of this could be worth it?
KINZINGER: It's possible. I just -- I have a hard time seeing that this deep-seated narcissist actually really cares much about his legacy. It's
more about this current moment. If he - look, if he wanted to do real regime change in Iran, we actually could do it. We would have to send
ground troops and it would be very bloody and messy.
And so, the fact that he's not willing to do that, I don't know if regime change is his final legacy. I just think he's -- since he is not on the
ballot in November, he doesn't care as much because it's not about him. Keep in mind, Donald Trump called himself a Democrat just until basically
he started running for president. So, he's not somebody that has this deep affection for Republican values. In fact, I would argue, which is the
reason that I basically left the GOP, that GOP values are not -- in fact, the Republican party has gotten rid of all its values to support Donald
Trump.
And I think what would work with him, and so if I was a Republican leader talking to him, I would say, look, you are going to be tied up in
investigations for the last two years of your presidency, unless we win the majority. And I think that may do a little bit to motivate him, but there's
-- it's clear when he's up at 2:00 in the morning tweeting and posting and everything else, this is not somebody that's sitting around thinking about
what the best political move for him to do is. This is a man that's driven by the emotion of the moment. And that is very dangerous when you are the
president of the most powerful military in the world.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And to be objective here, he is not the first president to bypass Congress for an AUMF as it relates to foreign entanglements. But it
is notable that when the question has constantly come up as to when Republicans would draw a red line and what that would be about, it does
seem to fall with U.S. boots and troops on the ground.
So, given that, what, what do you think are the military options that he has that could be most effective right now, given the situation in Iran,
given that we're there for six plus weeks and this blockade that has just gone into effect?
KINZINGER: Yes. I mean, this is the big key is, look, I don't like Donald Trump, but we, my kid, my family, Americans are going to have in the world
actually are going to have to live with the consequences of this much longer than Donald Trump. So, I don't want to let my dislike of Donald
Trump affect what I think we should do now. I wouldn't have launched this war, but the fact is we're in it. So, what's the answer?
And I think quite honestly probably this blockade, although if he did it selectively against Iranian oil, that may be smart. I do think the Kharg
Island operation has merits, but it's very dangerous, which is basically now you're inflicting strong economic pressure and strong motivation on
Iran to basically come to the table. But I think when he stopped bombing and then put a red line in terms of using ground troops, I think he took a
lot of his options off the table.
Even if he never intended to introduce large amount of ground troops, you never want to say that because you want your enemy to not know what you're
thinking. And he was every day making comments and tweets and everything else, arguing with himself. And that sent a very clear message to the
Iranian regime, which is, we just have to wait this guy out because he wants out of this. And I think that's some of the big mistakes he made just
tactically on this.
GOLODRYGA: Well, the regime knows exactly what the American public wants, and that is lower gas prices and not to be entangled in a forever war. But
my final question to you is a lot of this does seem to hinge at this point on how far the United States is willing to push or stand up to China and
China's role in all of this to finally getting Iran to back down.
Do you think the president, who says that he has a great relationship with Xi, has postponed his meeting in Beijing now for May? Do you think that he
ultimately will be able to stand up to China?
[13:25:00]
KINZINGER: No, he hasn't yet. I mean, he can't even stand up to Russia, which is a failing, collapsing country that's losing in Ukraine. He can't
even find the courage to stand up to them. I mean, I was in the Oval Office when he came in with a group of seven or eight of us in Congress and asked
us to please take China's ZTE off of our sanctions list in a bill because Xi Jinping called him and asked him personally for a favor. That's not a
guy who wants to stand up and defend America against China. That's somebody who frankly does not have the courage to do it.
So, no, I don't think he's to be able to stand up to China to stop this. And the fact is, if he actually did, he could actually be successful in
then forcing a better compromise with the Iranian regime. But there's just something -- some blind spot or something I don't understand that exists
within him.
GOLODRYGA: Well, and also new CNN reporting that U.S. intelligence says that Beijing is preparing to send new air defense systems to help Iran
rebuild what America has spent weeks and billions of dollars taking out, similar to Russia's position here. So, I think you're right to point out
the question as to why the president can't stand up to either one of those leaders. Adam Kinzinger, always good to see you. Thank you so much.
KINZINGER: Anytime, you bet.
GOLODRYGA: And do stay with CNN. We'll be right back after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: And now, Donald Trump threw the weight of the White House behind Hungary's strongman leader Viktor Orban, and yet it didn't matter.
Hungarian voters on Sunday ousted Orban after 16 years in power, instead electing a former ally of his, Peter Magyar, to become the country's next
prime minister. E.U. leaders were delighted by the results. Orban had been a thorn in the bloc's side for years over a wide range of issues, including
Hungary's recent tilt toward Russia.
David Pressman was a U.S. ambassador in Budapest under President Biden, and he joins me now from New York. Ambassador, welcome to the program. It's
good to see you. So, we should remind our viewers that you constantly clashed with the Orban government over its democratic backsliding, which
transpired over his 16 years in office.
And so, given the system that he was able to build over that time, gerrymandered districts, state-captured media, packing the courts, were you
surprised by not only his loss, but the margin at which Peter Magyar was able to come out the victor?
DAVID PRESSMAN, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO HUNGARY: Well, thanks for having me. I mean, first, let me just start by saying I've noticed that many
governments have congratulated the Hungarian people on their election, including Russia. And to date, the United States government has not done
so. So, as a former U.S. ambassador to Hungary, let me just say this has been an extraordinary exercise in strength and bravery and democracy to
watch from afar.
And in answer to your question, it is a surprise that a candidate in an environment as controlled as the one that Viktor Orban has created over 16
years and control is able to emerge and break through and connect with constituencies across the country. I mean, Peter Magyar was generating
rallies and movements and huge presence of voters in constituencies in rural Hungary that were thought of as completely written off to be
supportive of Orban and the Fidesz movement.
[13:00:00]
So, for I think it's important for your viewers to understand that, you know, for this entire 16-year period, Orban has effectively been using a
propaganda apparatus to distract Hungarians from things that are real with things that are not. He's told them stories about civilizational struggles
and about Brussels attempting to invade and undermine Hungarianists, about Hungarians having to go to Ukraine and give up their lives in a war.
But meanwhile, Hungarians are watching their economy become the poorest economy in Europe. They're watching their country become the most corrupt
country in the European Union. And they're looking for answers. So, there's a disconnect between what they're being told by their government and their
lived experience. And Peter Magyar went straight after that in a very, very effective manner.
GOLODRYGA: So, then do you think this election should be interpreted as a repudiation towards the tilt of populism in Europe, but around the world or
a focus more specifically on kitchen table issues like the economy and as you noted, corruption?
PRESSMAN: Well, you know, it wasn't a focus on kitchen table issues. I think this is an important clarification. It was a focus on -- I mean,
Peter Magyar, even in his press conference this morning, refers to Viktor Orban and Viktor Orban's government as a criminal organization. What Peter
Magyar ran and won on was attacking a system, a system of kleptocracy, a system of corruption. And then to your point, connecting that with people's
lived experience, connecting that with, you know, the fact that their hospitals are swelteringly hot is because these guys are stealing from you.
But I think one of the things one of the lessons to be learned if there are lessons to be learned, is this wasn't a policy debate. You know, I mean,
candidly, I think a lot of us have questions about what are going to be Peter Magyar's policies, and he may not know what his policies are. But
what Peter Magyar focused on was on kleptocracy and corruption, and the need for there to be transparency and accountability. And that brought
Hungarians to the street in a way that I think no one could have predicted.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, it is notable that as you know, as you mentioned, the White House has not put out a statement congratulating Peter Magyar yet,
and President Putin or the Kremlin did issue somewhat of a statement saying that they would be open to working with whoever is in government, another
ally, Benjamin Netanyahu, I think, also recently congratulated Peter Magyar. So, if that is true, that the White House has yet to put out an
official statement, that is something worth noting.
Viktor Orban was rather quick to concede his loss, and here was his message to Hungarian voters.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)'
VIKTOR ORBAN, HUNGARIAN PRIME MINISTER (through translator): Dear friends, the election result is not final yet, but it is understandable and clear.
The election result is painful for us, but clear. The responsibility and possibility of governing was not given to us. I have congratulated the
winner.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: So, Magyar's Tisza Party did win a super majority, which gives him a lot more leverage in pursuing his policies, whatever that may be. But
we also heard Orban say that he will remain leading the opposition. So, given everything that he's been able to cement in the government over the
past 16 years and within its institutions, what role do you think he could continue to play in government?
PRESSMAN: Well, a significant one. I mean, the challenge now for Tisza and for Magyar is to unwind the state capture of what were public assets and
have been transformed into the assets of a political party, now what will be the minority political party, Fidesz. And by that, I mean, take the
universities in Hungary. I mean, public universities in Hungary were moved from the control of the public purse, and they created foundations. And the
boards of directors of those foundations were appointed for lifetime tenure, and they were all Orban loyalists.
And so, they effectively moved the assets of the educational system from public control to a political party's control. Now, if Tisza is going to
stand a chance of reinvigorating Hungary's democratic institutions, including educational institutions, judicial institutions, there's going to
need to be a whole scale unwinding of this kind of state capture.
I mean, one of the things that Magyar said last night, which I found important and noteworthy, is that he began to list all of the senior public
officials that need to submit their resignation, beginning with the president of Hungary, because it's simply not going to be feasible for a
government that is now -- government structures that are now entirely controlled by loyalists to an individual, being Viktor Orban, to adopt a
different approach and different policy.
And the other thing I would just note is this focus on corruption. I mean, you hear him, even Peter Magyar this morning, speaking about the need for
an international investigative effort and asset collection and tracing.
[13:35:00]
I mean, this has been a very lucrative time for those family and friends of Viktor Orban. And I think that if Hungary is to repair its economy and
restore its rightful place within the European Union, there's going to need to be a degree of accountability to follow.
GOLODRYGA: Well, and there's also going to be sort of more explicit outlining of what his policies are. We know that he was part of the Fidesz
government and party up until just a couple of years ago. He knows Orban very well, he himself and his party. Tisza is a center-right party. Where
they differed, obviously, were on the issues of corruption, on how to address the economy, and on the war in Ukraine. And Magyar said that he
would reduce Hungary's dependence on Russian energy by 2035. So, still a while out that Hungary will have to depend on some sort of energy coming
from Russia.
But he said he's going to strive for pragmatic relations with Moscow. And speaking today, here's what he said about Putin's war specifically.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETER MAGYAR, TISZA PARTY LEADER (through translator): If Vladimir Putin calls me, I will pick up the phone. But I will not call him myself. But if
we were to speak, I can say I will ask him to please stop the killing after four years, stop the war that has no point at all for them either. Tens of
thousands -- or hundreds of thousands of Russians also died and families destroyed, including Russian-speaking people living in Ukraine, killing
them, bombarding their cities, raping them, et cetera.
But -- so, this is what I will tell him. And I think that will be a very brief discussion. I'm afraid that he will not stop acting on my advice, but
I hope that he will be forced to end the war soon.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: So, despite their close ties, Viktor Orban publicly said that he was never pro-Russia, he was just anti-war. So, what is the message and
the policy going to be now from Peter Magyar as it relates to Ukraine?
PRESSMAN: Well, first, let me quibble a little bit with the prime minister's characterization of his policy, because his policy was not just
anti-war. And in fact, on issue after issue, the Moscow could continue to rely upon Viktor Orban's Budapest to advance its interest in international
fora, including the European Union, and including within the NATO alliance. So, that was something more fundamental.
And you're right to raise questions about what Peter Magyar's policies will be on really important issues confronting Europe and the United States. And
there are question marks around where he will come out on many of these.
But one thing that is already different and very clear from the statements he's made and the campaign that he's run is that he will change the
practice of Viktor Orban's Hungary, of instrumentalizing their membership in what are consensus-based organizations like the European Union, like the
NATO alliance, in order to basically leverage their veto in these organizations to secure personal, pecuniary political interests of Viktor
Orban and his political party. And that is a tremendous step forward.
I mean, we have disagreements with our allies on any number of issues. But what we expect from our allies is alliance, is a commitment to a set of
values and principles. And I think Hungary has taken a tremendous step forward in that regard.
GOLODRYGA: Well, we'll see how President Trump responds to all of this, whether there will indeed be a phone call made at some point to
congratulate Peter Magyar with his win. David Pressman, good to see you. Thanks so much for joining the program.
PRESSMAN: Good to see you. Thank you for having me.
GOLODRYGA: We'll be right back after this short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:40:00]
GOLODRYGA: Now, owning a home, having a stable job, and a well-funded retirement plan. All of these are key attributes of America's middle-class.
But many young Americans fear attaining middle-class status is increasingly out of reach. That's according to Mechele Dickerson, author of "The Middle-
class New Deal: Restoring Upward Mobility, and The American Dream." She tells Walter Isaacson how the middle-class was first established and why
it's struggling to stay afloat today.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Thank you, Bianna. And Mechele Dickerson, welcome to the show.
A. MECHELE DICKERSON, AUTHOR, "THE MIDDLE-CLASS NEW DEAL": I'm glad to be here. Thanks for having me.
ISAACSON: Your book is "The Middle-class New Deal." It's filled with prescriptions of how we can restore a secure middle-class in the United
States. But let's start with how did we get a middle-class in the first place? It's not part of American history. It seems like it was created
right after World War II by intentional policies.
DICKERSON: Right. And I would say it's part of recent American history. Everyone wants to pretend that we've always had a middle-class. We haven't.
Political leaders decided after the Depression and World War II that we needed to have a stable middle-class. We needed to make sure that the large
sort of swath of people in this country could be stable. And they did that by creating the middle-class.
ISAACSON: And they did it through things like housing, you know, which is what -- we're not doing now, right?
DICKERSON: Exactly.
ISAACSON: And tell me all the things they did.
DICKERSON: Yes. They decided that we don't want to keep the depression, pre-depression model where people have to come up with 50 percent for a
down payment, where they have to take out a mortgage loan that's three to five years, which meant that at the end of five years, people didn't own
the home. They then had to take out another loan in order to actually be a homeowner because the loans at that time didn't amortize. So, at the end of
the five years, they still owed money on their homes.
So, although we think that the 15-to-30-year mortgage loans that we have now are the norm and we've always had that, we didn't. Political leaders
decided that they needed to give banks encouragement to be able to convince banks, let people take out a long-term loan, repay it over time to be able
to buy homes.
So, when we have the FHA program, which everyone thinks, oh, well, that's the way that we can that we've always allowed people to buy homes. No, we
have that because the government created it.
ISAACSON: You say it came out of the Depression. But of course, in your book, you also describe it came out of World War II veterans coming back.
So, you have Veterans Association loans and other things. What did the veteran type benefits do to create a middle-class? And was that done just
intentionally to create a middle-class or just out of obligation to people coming back from World War II?
DICKERSON: I would hope it was obligation. I would suspect -- I mean, I wasn't there. I would suspect it was also a bit of PR that you need to do
something so that the servicemen, and although there were some servicewomen, it was mostly men coming back from war, can get a new start.
And so, they did that through the GI Bill and the VA loans.
So, by allowing returning servicemen to be able to buy homes cheaply using VA loans, to be able to take the money with the GI Bill, to be able to
either go get a bachelor's degree or even get training through a trade school or a community college type degree, we told our returning
servicemen, come back, go to school, buy a home, build some household wealth, and you'll be stable and secure.
ISAACSON: Well, let me read you a sentence from the book talking about that not being the norm anymore. You say, because of my parents' grit, hard
work, and determination to become and remain middle-class, I am financially secure. But the next sentence says, I'm not sure what the future holds for
my sons, though. You've got two sons. Tell me why you're not sure this will continue.
DICKERSON: One of the things that we are seeing in this country, I see it a lot because I teach both law students and I also spend a lot of time with
undergraduates, mostly student-athletes at the University of Texas, is the fear and the despair coming from our young adults.
[13:45:00]
My sons are 22 and 25, so they are in that age band. And I would say, really, all young adults under the age of 40. They're saying, we did
everything right. We graduated from high school. Then we realized we have to go to college because the types of jobs that our parents or our
grandparents were able to get when they graduated from high school, those jobs aren't there anymore. So, they work hard and they go to college. Many
of them have had to drown themselves in student loan debt to get the degree.
But even those whose parents may have been able to help them go to college and they didn't have to take out a lot of debt, are now coming out in a
market where the unemployment rates for the graduates of the class of 2025, we don't see those outside of a recession. So, I worry about the future
that we are leaving for our young adults. And we see that a lot in their despair and in their anger.
ISAACSON: Let's define the middle-class. You do it in the book somewhat by income, saying this is the amount of money that a college will give you
free tuition or. And that's sort of a cut off of parameters for the middle- class, right? But what's interesting in the book is you also use markers. The ability to own a home, the ability to get a good education. Explain the
markers to me of what is a middle-class person.
DICKERSON: When we think about what the markers are and when people are interviewed or surveyed about what does it mean to be middle-class, they
point to the ability to help their kids go to college. They point to the ability to own a home. I would say now it's also just the ability to find
affordable housing.
A marker is you can find a good full time 40 hours a week job that has benefits. And you are called an employee and not a contractor. It's the
ability to have savings so that if you blow out a tire, you don't have to take out a payday loan in order to be able to replace the tire so you can
go to work. It's the ability to have retirement savings. So, you're not 55 or 60 years old and thinking I may have to work until I die because I don't
have a pension in the way that my parents have a pension.
Every month my parents get a Social Security and a pension. They have four stable sources of income. And then the final marker is sort of the flip of
you want to have savings. You don't always want to be in debt. And it is increasingly hard for young adults to be able to attain the markers of the
middle-class.
ISAACSON: Well, let's start with the first of the markers you talk about, which is housing. Now, when I turned 30, that was the average age of people
getting a home. You say that, too, in the book now at 40. Most people don't yet have a stable home. How do we fix that?
DICKERSON: I'll mention a Senate bill, a recent Senate bill that passed through the Senate. I haven't read it in detail because who knows whether
or not they're going to be able to reconcile the Senate bill with the House bill. But the thing that I love about that bill is, well, the main thing is
they have acknowledged that housing is unaffordable.
The second thing is they're thinking outside the box. So, for example, for the first time, at least since I've been paying attention, this is quite a
few years now, they're actually saying things like manufactured housing. Now, do I think that is the solution to the homeownership crisis or the
affordability crisis? Not necessarily, but it may be the solution for some people.
So, the main thing I'm arguing in the book and when I talk about sort of the middle-class new deal is look at your community. Look at your zoning
laws. Is there something about your zoning laws that makes it either harder for developers to construct affordable housing or does it allow people who
are existing homeowners to fence out the middle-class? And make sure they can never live there. So, I would like people to think broadly and also to
focus on your local communities to see what could you do there.
ISAACSON: The second market you talked about was just a good, secure job. Not necessarily the highest paying job in the world, but one that you can
count on and might actually give you benefits like health care and pension.
[13:50:00]
What's gone wrong with that and how do we fix that part?
DICKERSON: Two things went wrong. The first was, and everyone talked about, oh, it's global outsourcing. They're sending our jobs overseas. And
that was true. That's what happened sort of early '70s, early '80s. But then an interesting thing was happening domestically that no one was paying
attention to. And I call it domestic outsourcing. It's when companies took whole units. So, they would take the accounting or they would take the
landscape, the folks that they used to employ to take care of the property if it was a big business. And they basically said, we're firing all of you.
And then they go out and they effectively rehire the same people, but through a contracting agency.
So, these folks would show up, do the same work they always did, but they would be private contractors. So, they would be temporary employers
employed by the contracting servicer. So, if the business decided they didn't want to use that company anymore, you lost your job, even though you
did absolutely nothing wrong.
ISAACSON: Let me go to education. Was the college for all mindset a bad idea?
DICKERSON: The college for all mindset, I think, was a bad idea only because it was forced upon us. And it was forced upon us by businesses that
decided to use the college degree, a bachelor's degree, as the cutoff for will we even interview this person.
So, the college for all, when high schools basically started telling or states started telling their high schools, you've got to make sure that
every single kid that graduates is ready to go to college. There are some kids that either don't want to go to college or aren't necessarily suited
for a four-year program.
We've ignored the benefits that community colleges have done. Community colleges -- and I'm a huge fan of community colleges, although I teach at a
four-year, because community colleges can pivot quickly. If a new manufacturing company is coming into your area and they need a trained
workforce, a community college can create a six-, nine-month certificate that can take people that are there, train them, give a certificate so that
they can work.
I obviously am a huge fan of four-year colleges. I have taught at two. My children went to them. But I think the college for all mantra was used by
businesses because they thought this is the easiest way for us to eliminate a lot of the people. We don't have to hire them. We don't need to look at
their resumes or whatever happens now with the algorithms online. If you don't have a bachelor's degree, you're out.
ISAACSON: When I finished your book, I realized it wasn't just about, you know, middle-class having to struggle in affordability, although that was
huge. It was about a bigger social change. When you say that the median age for buying a home is now 40, the highest it's ever been, and then you look
at the fact that people aren't getting married, partly because of that. They're not having children because of that. There's not family formation.
They don't feel they have a secure job at a secure wage.
To what extent is this more than just about economics and it's just almost tearing apart the fabric of our society?
DICKERSON: One of the things that the middle-class has always meant in this country, ignoring the way that I define it in terms of income, the
middle-class has always meant norm. It's always meant stable. It's always meant secure. If you don't have a middle-class, if you are a person that is
struggling to become middle-class or you wake up every morning in fear that you're going to tumble out of the middle-class, we start getting into a
space of emotional and psychological and not just financial.
To imagine that we are in a country when young adults don't think they're ever going to be able to move out of their parents' home and live
independently unless they have two or three other roommates. When you have young adults that are dating because they don't think they can afford to
get married and many that do get married, their babies are fur babies and they're not grandbabies. For those of us that, you know, maybe thought we
were going to have grandchildren one day, that is a fundamental transformation of the American society. And it's something that our
political leaders really need to be paying attention to.
ISAACSON: Mechele Dickerson, thanks for joining us.
[13:55:00]
DICKERSON: Thanks so much for having me on.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: And finally, diplomacy around the table, but not the negotiating kind. This weekend, young table tennis players from the U.S.
and China came together to mark the 55th anniversary of ping pong diplomacy. In 1971, an American team visited China, breaking the ice for
relationships between the two countries. It was a milestone in sporting and diplomatic history. Three of those original players led the delegation this
year. The attendees also hung wish cards under the trees with messages of hope for lasting friendship, which feel especially important at a time
fraught by division and conflict. Good note to leave you on there.
That is it for now. Thank you so much for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
