Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Texas A&M University Bush School Professor Emeritus and Middle East Institute Associate Fellow F. Gregory Gause III; Interview with WFP Assistant Executive Director for Global Operations Matthew Hollingworth; Interview with Center for Reproductive Rights President Nancy Northup; Interview with "Here Be Dragons" Substack Author and UC San Diego Professor of International Affairs Barbara F. Walter. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired May 05, 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)
PETE HEGSETH, U.S. DEFENSE SECRETARY: Iran is the clear aggressor, harassing civilian vessels, threatening mariners from every nation.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: The ceasefire on shaky ground and the UAE caught in the crosshairs. Regional expert Gregory Gause gives us his analysis on rising
tensions in the Gulf.
Then, fertilizer shortages cause global food insecurity. The Middle East conflict is pushing vulnerable communities to the brink. The World Food
Program's Matthew Hollingworth joins me.
Plus, reproductive rights under threat in America. CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, Nancy Northup, joins me on whiplash from the courts
over access to an abortion pill.
Also, ahead --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARBARA F. WALTER, AUTHOR, "HERE BE DRAGONS" SUBSTACK AND PROFESSOR OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, UC SAN DIEGO: It spikes as democracies are
declining, especially if they're declining rapidly. And once they get to the middle zone, that's peak violence, peak instability.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- growing fears after a third assassination attempt against Trump. Professor Barbara F. Walter tells Hari Sreenivasan why she believes
political violence is here to stay.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
Is the ceasefire holding in Iran? Since the U.S. launched Project Freedom, a plan to guide ships through the Strait of Hormuz, the Iranian and
American militaries have traded threats and fire.
Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, says that Iran attacked U.S. forces more than 10 times since the ceasefire was announced. But the
attacks are, quote, "all below the threshold of restarting major combat operations." President Trump declines to say whether the ceasefire is
holding. But in a Pentagon briefing, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth says it is still in effect.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETE HEGSETH, U.S. DEFENSE SECRETARY: No, the ceasefire is not over. Ultimately, this is a separate and distinct project. And we expected there
would be some churn at the beginning, which happened. And we said we would defend and defend aggressively, and we absolutely have. Iran knows that.
And ultimately, the president is going to make a decision whether anything were to escalate into a violation of a ceasefire. But certainly, we would
urge Iran to be prudent in the actions that they take to keep that underneath this threshold.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Among Iran's targets, the United Arab Emirates, which today says that its air defenses are currently dealing with a missile threat from
Iran. A drone attack on an oil port in Fujairah Monday caused a fire that injured three Indian nationals. When the UAE quit OPEC, it exposed a
growing rift with Saudi Arabia that is reverberating through the Persian Gulf and beyond.
Gregory Gause is an influential expert on Saudi Arabia and the region. He's also an associate fellow at the Middle East Institute and joins me now from
Delaware. Gregory, welcome to the program. So, as we heard there, the Pentagon announcing that Iran has hit the United States' assets more than
10 times during this ceasefire. And that all qualifies as being below the threshold of restarting major combat operations. From your view, is
Washington's definition of constraint at this point sustainable?
F. GREGORY GAUSE III, PROFESSOR EMERITUS, BUSH SCHOOL, TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY: AND ASSOCIATE FELLOW, MIDDLE EAST INSTITUTE: I think that the
ceasefire holds as long as President Trump wants it to hold, no matter what the Iranians do. The idea of getting back into large scale military
operations against Iran, I think, is something that the Trump administration wants to avoid. And I think that that means that the
definition of the ceasefire is going to be very elastic.
GOLODRYGA: So, does that work in Iran's or to Iran's advantage at this point, or is the pain still being inflicted that the president was hoping
to unleash? And that is the economic pain of blockading the Strait.
GAUSE III: Right. The blockade keeps going no matter what happens in terms of exchanges of fire, because the blockade is outside of the Straits. So,
we're blockading ships from coming into the Persian Gulf and coming into the Iranian ports that are outside of the Strait.
[13:05:00]
So, it's -- it really is a kind of a test of wills who can last longer. Can the Iranians endure the economic pain of the blockade or does the domestic
and global pressure to open up the Strait lead the Trump administration to try to restart negotiations with Iran?
GOLODRYGA: So, is that the big unknown here? Because depending on which analyst or expert you're speaking with, Iran is either days away from
having major economic damage and irreparable damage, perhaps leading even to regime change, possibly as a consequence, or that they are months away.
And at the same time, you have President Trump saying people said oil prices were going to go up as high as $200 a barrel. And yet, here they are
hovering around $100 a barrel, some $25 plus higher than they were before the war began. But nonetheless, much, much lower than many experts had
imagined at this point. So, which is it? It's very hard depending on which different analysts that you speak with.
GAUSE III: Sure. If we knew the answer to that, we would know how this war is going to end. What we can't judge is the tolerance of the Iranian regime
for imposing economic hardship on its own people. Myself, I judge that tolerance as being extremely high.
This is a regime that killed thousands, if not tens of thousands of its own citizens to stay in power just earlier this year. And thus, I'm not sure
that the blockade, while certainly imposing costs on the regime and on the Iranian people, is something that's going to break the regime's will any
time in the near future. I think that you would probably have to measure its impact in months, not weeks.
GOLODRYGA: And as we noted, the UAE has been on the receiving end of most of Iran's missiles and drones, even more than Israel in this matter. And
speaking of Israel, we know that Israel rushed advanced prototype lasers, the Iron Dome, and a significant number of troops actually to the United
Arab Emirates.
You studied security architecture in the Gulf for decades. How seismic is that, that you have an Arab country that is now essentially being protected
in large part by Israel, not its other GCC neighbors?
GAUSE III: It's unprecedented. The nature of the Israeli-Emirati relationship since the Abraham Accords in 2020 has really escalated. And I
think that given the fact that that the Gulf states have had somewhat different responses to the Iranian attacks, they were all attacked by Iran.
They all are, of course, against Iranian domination of the Gulf and Iranian control of the Strait. But the various Gulf countries have dealt with Iran
in different ways during this war.
The Emiratis, I think, feel a bit abandoned by their Gulf neighbors and have looked to Iran, looked to Israel and to the United States, of course,
to backstop their defense. I think that their declaration of leaving OPEC, which had really no market effect because the Strait is closed. The
Emiratis can produce more oil if they want. They just can't get it to market. It was more of a signal that the Emiratis are going to go their own
way in terms of security and economics when this war ends.
GOLODRYGA: And perhaps it's even valid to go as far as saying it's a doubling down on reliance with the United States and Israel and a slap in
the face for Saudi Arabia. I mean, a decade ago, you had these two countries united over the war in Yemen. Today, they're backing opposing
sides. Saudi forces recently bombed an Emirati weapons shipment.
Have Abu Dhabi and Riyadh moved completely past a diplomatic rift to an active proxy war? Because you have Yemen, you also have Sudan, where there
are opposing ends potentially as well, at least the UAE.
GAUSE III: I wouldn't go that far. The Emiratis and the Saudis have not broken relations. There's nothing on the level of the boycott that the
Emiratis and the Saudis placed on Qatar back in 2017. But it clearly is the Emiratis telling the Saudis, we're not going to follow your lead. To be a
member of OPEC, in essence, meant that you were going to follow the Saudi lead because the Saudis are the dominant player within OPEC. So, that was a
clear signal.
But as you said, just three, four years ago, these two states were very closely allied. And given the fact that all of these governments on the
Arab side of the Gulf are really personalist monarchies, the king calls the shots, these things can change.
[13:10:00]
Qatar and Saudi Arabia at daggers drawn five years ago, six years ago, are now cooperating pretty directly. When Mohamed bin Zayed, the president of
the UAE, the emir of Abu Dhabi, and Mohammed bin Salman, the prime minister, crown prince of Saudi Arabia, decide to compose their
differences, the atmosphere will change very quickly.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And talk about the relationship between these two men, Mohamed bin Zayed, at one point playing the role of a mentor to a younger
Mohammed bin Salman. Two of them had engaged in a weekend camping trip at one point in the desert. Now, it seems like they are more like rivals. How
did that happen?
GAUSE III: So, I resist going into psychological explanations of this. I think it has to do with interests. Saudi Arabia is trying to take some of
the business away from Dubai, basically. Saudi Arabia wants to be the business hub of the Gulf, and Dubai has been that business hub for decades.
The Saudis have adopted regulations that basically say that if you want to do business with the Saudi government, you have to have your regional
headquarters in Riyadh. That was an effort to draw business away from Dubai.
I think that this is very much an interest-based difference. The Emirate is taking a very different view of Israel and Israel's role in the region than
the Saudis have. And so, I wouldn't put too much weight on the psychological element between the two leaders. As I said, if the situation
changes, they will be able to restore their friendly ties very easily.
GOLODRYGA: And what they both have in common is their skepticism and, at this point, animosity towards Iran and their leadership. Though, as you
noted, the two countries treated Iran quite differently and approached that dynamic quite differently. The UAE much more hawkish than Saudi Arabia has
been.
And Axios is reporting that Trump advisers Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff were actually alarmed at how quickly the war in Iran has frayed relations
between these two countries. Both of them, like other GCC countries, Qatar comes to mind, as well, invested heavily, billions of dollars, in relations
in the United States, hoping for the most part to get U.S. military support out of this.
How has that played out thus far? I mean, when you look at the landscape over this war going back to February 28th, has that been a fruitful
investment from their perspective?
GAUSE III: So, on the military side, it's been largely American technology and American advice that's helped all of the Gulf countries resist the
Iranian missile and drone attacks. Although some have gotten through, I've actually been surprised about how many, what a large percentage of the
Iranian missiles and drones have been intercepted by the Gulf states.
I think that at the end of this war, all of the Gulf states are going to have kind of mixed feelings about the United States on this. On the one
hand, none of them really wanted this war to happen. And they were dragged into it by the United States, which really didn't consult them about it. On
the other hand, I think that the war has demonstrated the importance of the American security relationship for all of them.
Now, all of them will be looking to build the resilience of their air defense systems. That might be for the Emiratis going to the Israelis. It
might be for other Gulf states looking toward Europe, looking toward China, looking toward East Asia. But that doesn't mean replacing the United
States. That means just kind of getting a backup to the United States.
GOLODRYGA: To your earlier point, despite what looks like bad blood now, Mohammed bin Salman did place a call to the Emirati leader and expressing
his support after Iran strikes, a reminder that they both still view Iran as a threat. So, if Iran emerges from this war with its missile arsenal
somewhat intact and a lingering chokehold, or at least that option available to them, what does that mean for the future of the region?
GAUSE III: Well, if Iran remains in control of the Strait of Hormuz in a way that allows them to impose costs, impose tolls, in effect set up a
tollbooth on the Strait of Hormuz, then all of the Gulf countries lose, and the United States loses, and the world economy loses, frankly. That would
be the clearest signal that the United States lost this war.
GOLODRYGA: All right. Gregory Gause, great to have your perspective and expertise on today. We really appreciate the time. Thank you.
GAUSE III: My pleasure.
[13:15:00]
GOLODRYGA: Well, on today's press conference, Defense Secretary Hegseth said the operation to guide ships through the Gulf will significantly
benefit the world.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HEGSETH: This is more than strategy. It's also humanitarian. By breaking Iran's illegal stranglehold, we're protecting the lives and livelihoods of
sailors from dozens of countries, securing global energy routes, and preventing shortages that hit the world's poorest people the hardest. Once
again, America is using its strength to lift up others.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: And it's true, the shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz has a major impact on fertilizer exports and food security. The United Nations says a
third of global fertilizer passes through the Strait. The World Food Programme warns that 45 million people could be pushed into acute hunger
due to the conflict.
Matthew Hollingworth helps run the WFP's global operations contending with crises from Lebanon to Sudan. And he joins us now from Somalia, where
increasing fuel and food prices are having particular impact.
Matthew, welcome to the program. You are on the ground there in Somalia visiting displaced communities after three consecutive failed rainy
seasons. So, the atmosphere was already ripe for much suffering, and now we have this war. Crucial humanitarian deliveries are now behind. Some six
weeks you are dealing with those that needed most, some as young as five and under. Tell us what you're seeing as a consequence.
MATTHEW HOLLINGWORTH, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR GLOBAL OPERATIONS, WFP: Good evening from Somalia. Today, I was in Puntland State meeting
families who've been displaced over the past few months. And they are absolutely desperate. They may have left homes with their goats, with their
sheep, their animals. Perhaps half of them lived through the journey as long as 200 or 300 kilometers, trying to get to places where there's enough
food, trying to get to places where there's pasture land for their animals so that they don't die. They've lost their livelihoods. They've lost their
health in many ways.
I was in a health center where we are literally having to turn children away from receiving emergency nutrition treatment because we and UNICEF
don't have the stocks anymore to provide everybody and every child with the assistance. It is a terrible, terrible situation. The dryness, the drought,
the lack of pasture land for animals means that people that rely on those animals to essentially stay healthy and live are really at a desperation
point.
GOLODRYGA: So, given everything that you've just laid out, is the threat of an official famine back on the table for the Horn of Africa?
HOLLINGWORTH: I think it's too early to tell, but what we are seeing is all of the signs that the situation is worsening week by week. There are
some rains that are coming now, late, sporadic and scattered around the country. It's going to be too little, too late for many. Too many animals
have already passed away. Too many people, too many families' livelihoods have gone. It is getting worse, and we should be concerned, and we need to
redouble our efforts to get support into Somalia and to help families try and ensure that they don't lose even more because nobody wants to exist
dependent on aid in Somalia.
They all want to look after themselves, seek and make better lives for their family, but they are being tested beyond the limit. As you rightly
said, after three consecutive years of rain failure, this is a really dangerous situation we're going into.
GOLODRYGA: So, how can families look after themselves realistically when you've got a country that imports some 70 percent of its food? Fuel costs
have surged by 150 percent in some areas. What are they left to tend with and to deal with on their own?
HOLLINGWORTH: Yes. People are making really tough, tough choices and, you know, selling assets that they once would have never thought of selling,
like their animals that are living, who are taking difficult decisions on which children go to school and which don't. They're taking difficult
decisions on which children eat and which don't, and humanitarians are taking tough decisions on who we can help and who we can't. That means
targeting and prioritization, giving less to fewer people, and we're seeing that right now.
The World Food Programme represents about 90 percent of the food assistance that's provided in Somalia, and today, sadly, we can only help one in ten
of the people that we want to help. Like I said, tough choices by families, tough choices by humanitarians, tough choices by the government as well.
[13:20:00]
GOLODRYGA: And choices no one wants to have to make. So, I don't know how you come to these decisions and have to turn families away in person. You
estimate that even right now, if the situation improves, if the war were to come to an end right now, maritime operations will take four to five months
to stabilize. How do you bridge that four-to-five-month gap?
HOLLINGWORTH: With great difficulty. Let me tell you right now, across the world, we're seeing obviously freight rates going sky high, back to the
levels of 2022 after the invasion of Ukraine, back to the levels of COVID, war risk insurance going through the roof. But everything slowing down
deliveries and making it more expensive.
And right at the outset, you mentioned fertilizer. Countries that are, you know, food -- net food importers, dependent on importing food, now having
to deal with the reality that those food prices are going to go up. Because even richer nations, nations that can grow and do grow using fertilizer,
will use less because it's less in terms of available and it's much more expensive. Their exports will reduce and poorer countries will suffer even
more.
So, this is a tough, tough time for us. And we are trying to do everything in our power to be as efficient and as effective as possible to stretch
every dollar that we can receive in order to help people in places like Somalia. But it is a very difficult time for us. And there's no easy way
out of this.
And what will happen, of course, is that we know when prices go up, they stay high. Even if there was a resolution in the Middle East tomorrow, as
you rightly said, we already know we are helping a million and a half fewer people today than we were before the war started because of price
increases.
If it continues another three months, we will help even nine million fewer people than we plan to help. And as you rightly said, in the meantime, the
overall numbers of people really facing hunger in the world are rising. So, we're helping fewer people at a time when the situation is getting worse.
It's a bad, bad situation. And clearly, the ceasefire and the bringing down of prices is what we're all praying and hoping for.
GOLODRYGA: And when you look at those other countries that have traditionally been the source of additional aid, the United States cutting
its foreign humanitarian aid, as we've been covering for a while now, the United Kingdom as well cut its aid budget to fund its defense budget.
You are from the United Kingdom. These aren't easy choices, I would imagine, for especially European countries that are so focused on the war
in Ukraine to be making at this point. But it has real-life impact and implications on those desperate in Africa and other poorer countries for
that aid. Just talk about that conundrum and what can be done, perhaps. What is your message to those leaders who are having to face these
decisions?
HOLLINGWORTH: I mean, clearly, the world has benefited from contributions from richer nations for many years. It's absolutely critical that while we
realize there are political reasons why other expenditures become prioritized by different countries, the suffering that many people in
poorer countries are facing today, the food insecurity, the hunger is going to increase instability. It's going to make the world a less peaceful
place. That just makes the situation worse.
We do need to understand that our efforts to support the poorest, the most vulnerable in the world, is an investment in future stability of the world.
It's an investment in future productivity in the world, better economic growth in poorer countries.
When you see those -- that is actually part of the investment when we're talking about humanitarian and development assistance, it's really
important that it doesn't suffer or doesn't reduce to a point where it's no longer actually meeting the needs and the desire, efficacy and objective of
that aid. We can't be in a situation where we are seeing more countries fail because their citizens are suffering, and we do need to see more and
more solidarity and unity of action when it comes to making sure we don't see multiple famines at the same time across the world.
[13:25:00]
GOLODRYGA: Do you think that that is being heard in Western, in richer capitals around the world?
HOLLINGWORTH: I think it's a struggle that this message continues to be given, and, you know, there's a lot of oversimplification at times. People
are dependent on aid, that this is handouts, and what about folks at home?
Believe me, as a person that has seen firsthand what real hunger, what real desperation, what starvation looks like, and what it does to a country,
what it does to the mindset of a youth, what it does to actually hinder and hamper their futures and how they see the world and the rest of the world,
I think no country, no individual wants to go to their maker not knowing that they've done everything they can do that is possible to actually, you
know, mitigate those levels of vulnerability and deprivation.
I think that message still comes across. I know that countries across the world, governments take this very seriously. Like I said, we're not
pointing fingers, we're not accusing any nation of taking decisions themselves, but we do need other citizens of the world to show that level
of solidarity that we know they can when it comes to places and people who through no fault of their own are suffering today.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, it's perhaps a moral responsibility, but as you point out, it is something that stabilizes the world as well. Matthew Hollingworth,
thank you. Thank you for the work that you're doing. Thank you for the time.
HOLLINGWORTH: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: And do stay with CNN. We'll be right back after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: There's a new threat to reproductive rights in America. On Monday, the Supreme Court restored telehealth and mail access to the
abortion pill Mifepristone, at least for now, putting on hold a ruling from the conservative Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which requires the
medication to be obtained in person. Mifepristone is one of two drugs used in the medical abortion regimen. A CNN analysis shows that it's
overwhelmingly safe.
The Fifth Circuit ruling caused chaos for patients planning to access the pill. Such appointments have grown more widespread since the Supreme Court
overturned Roe v. Wade.
Let's discuss now with Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights. Nancy, welcome to the program. It's good to see you.
You actually clerked for the Fifth Circuit, the very court that just ruled to pause telemedicine access. With the Supreme Court now weighing its next
move here, what is the immediate impact of this at least temporary pause on the ground?
NANCY NORTHUP, PRESIDENT, CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS: Well, the immediate impact, as you pointed out, is that it is legal right now to be
able to obtain medication abortion through a telehealth visit and then having the pills mailed to your home or pick them up at a pharmacy in any
state where abortion is legal.
But to just back up and sort of look at what Louisiana is up to here, I mean, after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, they sent it back to
the states to decide for each state whether abortion would be legal.
[13:30:00]
And we have a lot of states in the United States where millions and millions of people live where abortion is legal and those states follow
what the FDA has said is safe and effective, which is that you can have a telehealth visit, get your abortion pills by mail or pick them up at a
pharmacy.
Louisiana is trying to stop that in every state in the U.S., which would be the consequence if the Supreme Court lets that Fifth Circuit decision go
into effect.
GOLODRYGA: Doesn't -- is -- doesn't that go against what the Supreme Court initially argued, though? I'm thinking of Justice Kavanaugh in particular
that this should be a state's decision. So, if a state where abortion is illegal can now have a say and determine what happens to access in a state
where abortion is legal, what does that say? Does that not seem like it's the Supreme Court going back on their own arguments?
NORTHUP: Absolutely. The Supreme Court, in the end of the day, should make sure that the FDA's decision that you can get a telehealth visit and get
your pills by mail is safe and effective. That scientific decision, that decision based on studies should stand.
And again, what Louisiana is trying to do here is take its onerous abortion ban and try to stop other states from being able to have access to
medication abortion. And it's been so important, as you pointed out, one in four abortion patients in the United States today gets their abortion pills
through a telehealth visit. That's how one in four are doing it, because if you don't live near a clinic, if you have to take time off from work, the
reason that all of us use telehealth for many of our medical appointments, it is much easier to access care. That's true for abortion patients, too.
And that should continue.
GOLODRYGA: Louisiana is arguing that mailing these pills deliberately circumvents the state's abortion ban. And they go on to say that dealing
with potential complication from the drugs drives up health costs. What is your legal response to that claim?
NORTHUP: Well, the response to that claim is number one, in terms of driving up costs, medication abortion has been established by many studies,
safe and effective. In terms of saying that because we can't seem to enforce our own criminal law, we can stop and influence what's happening in
other states is completely wrong.
I mean, think about it. Voters in a lot of states in the United States have put abortion rights into their state constitution. For example, Arizona
just did that in 2024. They used to have a ban on using telehealth. That has been struck down in a case that we tried earlier this year. But now the
Arizona voters could have their own, you know, their own policy preferences taken away because Louisiana is saying, you know, we can't seem to enforce
our law. So, we're going to go into other states and stop what patients in those states are able to access. That's simply wrong.
GOLODRYGA: It's important to take a step back and remind our viewers that several decades ago, the FDA had ruled for Mifepristone to be safe and
effective for women to use. And then we heard the arguments leading up to the 2024 case. The Supreme Court actually threw out a challenge because
they said the physicians bringing the suit lack standing. Now, that you've got Louisiana, a state as the plaintiff, do you think that this gives the
justices, the conservative justices at least, the legal opening that they perhaps have been waiting for to override the FDA once and for all?
NORTHUP: Well, I certainly hope not, because Louisiana should not be able to be making policy for the FDA across the nation. That should be done by
the FDA, which has said that it's safe and effective. You know, litigating that case, unfortunately, the Trump administration is trying to take a
second look at that decision.
But again, all of this, whether it's what Louisiana is doing or what the Trump administration is doing, is politics. The science, the research are
clear. Medication abortion is safe and effective. It's been on the market in the U.S. for over 25 years, even longer other places in the world. And
it should be accessible for patients in the United States.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And the Trump administration hasn't officially reversed the FDA's telemedicine rules just yet, but the HHS is currently conducting,
quote, "a complete review of Mifepristone." I'm just curious, what does a complete review at this point, so many decades later look like? Is it
warranted?
NORTHUP: It's certainly not warranted. You'll have to ask the Trump administration what is going on with that review. It is not warranted. It
has been proven again and again to be safe and effective. The FDA took steps along the last 25 years in terms of what kind of restrictions were
placed on access to medication abortion.
[13:35:00]
And we learned during COVID that it can be done through telehealth, mailing the abortion pills to your home. And it's so important, as I said before,
for people who do not live near clinics, who cannot take time off from work. It hurts those who are most vulnerable. And they're the ones that
need, as with all health care, the best way to be able to access that care.
GOLODRYGA: So, if Mifepristone access is restricted, clinics will likely have to pivot to Misoprostol-only protocols, which have a higher rate of
side effects. If we see a nationwide surge in Misoprostol-only abortions, what is the medical reality going to look like in this country for women?
NORTHUP: Well, look, there are safe protocols for using the other medication that is used in abortion pills, which is using Misoprostol. But
that should be a decision that each provider is making based on the patient's circumstances, based on the experience of the evidence. So, there
are other safe protocols. But the point is, you don't take a safe method away from providers to make a decision for political reasons, which is what
Louisiana is up to here.
GOLODRYGA: What are you worried at the consequences in the short-term and longer-term will be from all of this?
NORTHUP: Look, I'm worried that exactly what we feared would happen, which is that returning abortion to the states to decide, is not where it's going
to be left. I believe that those who are opposed to abortion are seeking to get a nationwide ban. And this is the first step of it, what Louisiana is
trying to do, which is ban the use of telemedicine for medication abortion. But it will not be the last step.
And so, it's really important that supporters of access to safe and legal abortion be aware that even, I was talking to someone this morning who
lives in California, they said, I didn't think that a ban would apply like within California to telehealth. I said, absolutely. That is what would
happen. You could not call your provider within California, you're living in California, and get your medication abortion pills by mail.
GOLODRYGA: So, how are you actively preparing clinics in those states where abortion is legal for when the court fully weighs in?
NORTHUP: Look, we have clients, providers across the country. We counsel them on what the law is they're preparing based on their own circumstances
of what will be the best thing to do. The important thing is for patients out there in the United States to call their trusted providers in their
communities and find out what the situation is.
There are still brick and mortar clinics that people can go to. There may be other options for telehealth, as you were just describing. The important
thing is to call your trusted provider and find out. Don't just make assumptions listening to the news about what you think is available or not.
Call your trusted provider.
GOLODRYGA: Nancy Northup, we were hoping to have you on the program for a while now. I'm glad that you were able to join us today laying out a lot of
the reality that so many providers, women, families across the country are having to deal with now. Thank you for the time.
NORTHUP: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: And we'll be right back after this short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: Now, the temperature of American politics has been rising for some time.
[13:40:00]
The United States has seen a troubling spate of violent attacks across the political spectrum, including yet another attempt on President Trump's
life. And Americans are asking, what is causing this dangerous uptick in political violence? In a recent Substack article, Professor Barbara F.
Walter offers her answer to that question. She joins Hari Sreenivasan to discuss.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HARI SREENIVASAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Bianna, thanks. Professor Barbara Walter, thanks so much for joining us. You wrote a
Substack recently titled, "Political Violence is Here to Stay." America has all the conditions for violence and no signs of change. And we're really
having the conversation just in the wake of the third presidential assassination attempt on Donald Trump's life. And what does this say about
political violence in the U.S. today?
BARBARA F. WALTER, AUTHOR, "HERE BE DRAGONS" SUBSTACK AND PROFESSOR OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, UC SAN DIEGO: What we know about political violence
is it happens under these conditions. It happens most frequently in countries that are pseudo-democracies. Most people think, oh, you know,
full democracies are really safe and you don't have a lot of violence. But the closer you get to being a North Korea or China, the more violence
you're going to see. And that actually is not true.
Autocracies tend to be almost as peaceful and stable as full, healthy democracies. But if you look where the violence happens, it all happens in
the middle. It spikes as democracies are declining, especially if they're declining rapidly. And once they get to the middle zone, that's peak
violence, peak instability. And it's -- and that's based on pretty much every data set out there. So, that's the first and the most important
condition.
The second condition is when politics in these partial democracies gets defined by identity rather than ideology. So, it's when voters join parties
not because they're conservative or liberal. That's a healthy political system. It's when they join a party because they're Black or they're white,
they're Christian or Muslim, they're Serb or Croat. Those two are the most destabilizing conditions, a partial democracy with these really tribal
politics.
But then you add a few additional features. You add easily accessible guns, right? The United States is has the highest per capita gun ownership of any
country in the world by a lot. And gun ownership is rising and it's now rising across a wider swath of people. It used to be that most guns in the
United States were held by a small percentage of the population. They tended to be conservative. Since 2024, you've started to see more women,
more minorities, more people on the left buying guns.
And then the fourth thing we know is that the type of violence that we're seeing today, you could call it domestic terrorism, you could call it
political violence, is overwhelmingly caused by what we call lone actors. These are individuals, they're acting alone. They're overwhelmingly young,
male, and they've been radicalized online.
SREENIVASAN: Let's break that down a little bit, right? You say that the data from the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism in response to
terrorism shows that terrorism and targeted violence events increased by more than 30 percent between 2024 and 2025. And a different analysis found
that more than 520 plots and violent incidents happened in just the first half of 2025. And that's up 40 percent within a year's time. I mean,
clearly there is -- there are more people who are willing to say that political violence is OK.
WALTER: Yes. And so, then the question is, why do they think this? And I think there's a multitude of reasons. One is that we have a president and
we have party leadership on the Republican side who are willing to condone it, normalize it, give immunity to it. And that was not the case even 20
years ago.
When there was an assassination attempt on a politician, both parties would come together and immediately condemn it, would immediately show real
sympathy towards the target. And now, you don't see that anymore. Now, it's just like, well, he deserved it, or that's what happens when you do X, Y,
and Z. So, you have this sense of hate, this sense of, you know, violence in pursuit of your political ideals is justified. And that's in part why
you see it growing.
[13:45:00]
SREENIVASAN: We've been hearing about the impacts of social media and the filter bubble and the echo chambers, specifically around young men who seem
impressionable. They have their own frustrations about the economy or job loss or dating or whatever it is. And they seem to go down these rabbit
holes. And I wonder, is there any idea of how that's contributing specifically to this sort of lone wolf type of attack, this type of
political violence?
WALTER: So, I think the single biggest driver of this increase in political violence is the social media environment, full stop, period. And
we know that young men are struggling. We're trying to figure out why that's the case, but they are disproportionately drawn to a lot of these
more extreme sites and chat rooms.
And what usually happens is there's some underlying grievance. So, they've lost -- here in the United States, they've lost their job or they're
looking around and they're seeing immigrants in their community who are getting good jobs or they -- you know, they see the people who are becoming
billionaires in Silicon Valley, and a lot of them aren't -- you know, weren't born here and don't look like them. And they have that grievance.
Why is this not happening to me? Why am I getting worse off? This is my country. My country is changing. I want it back.
SREENIVASAN: Sure.
WALTER: And then they go online. And what the studies have shown is that they've tracked exactly how they become more radical the longer they stay
online. And it's not -- it doesn't happen initially. They might go online and they'll say -- you know, they'll tape something like Muslims in
America, right? The algorithm then feeds them more and more extreme. Doesn't stay neutral. It doesn't stay at the same level. More extreme
material. And that's how it slowly happens.
The big question that researchers still have is, OK, you become more radical in your beliefs, in your ideology, in your hatred. But there's a
big difference between your attitude and actually picking up a gun and killing somebody.
SREENIVASAN: I wonder, how does despair key in to political violence? You know, some of the people that have been behind the attacks, whether it's on
Charlie Kirk or the president or the United Healthcare CEO, I mean, there's just a core frustration that they express in manifestos or testimonies
where it just seems like they're in a system that isn't going to work. So, I feel like maybe I should take matters into my own hands.
WALTER: You talk about despair. I frame it as a loss of hope that people will work within the system. They'll go through conventional political
channels as long as they think that there's some hope that that will actually fix the problem that they care about. But when they come to
believe and they despair that anything will ever change, then suddenly they shift and they go from, OK, I'm not going to work within the system
anymore. I'm going to turn to violence.
And if you look historically at all the -- like the violent terrorist groups, Hamas, the IRA, the Tamil Tigers, they didn't start as violent
organizations. They started as political organizations. The IRA has been around since the 1920s. And they actually modeled their organization and
their movement. They modeled it against the civil rights movement, Martin Luther King's civil rights movement here in the United States.
They had marches. They had strikes. They did all of that. It was only after they saw that nothing was ever going to change as long as they worked in
the system, that the more extreme members of that group who were in the background saying it's not going to work, it's not going to work, you need
to turn to violence, that the moderates in that group eventually said, yes, you're probably right. And that's when you see the shift to violence. So,
despair plays a really important role in all this.
SREENIVASAN: I wonder, one of the things that we have been familiar with over the past few years is the rise of political violence from far-right
groups. And we saw that even when the president came into office the first time around, we continue to see an increase in that. But what you also
document here, and that there are studies that are kind of looking at this is that there's now an uptick in political violence from the left. How
significant is that?
WALTER: It's small, but meaningful. So, the vast majority of political violence, you know, since about 2008 has been perpetrated by the far-right.
[13:50:00]
And even today, after this, an uptick on the left, it's much, much more lethal, has killed, you know, more people by a magnitude of 10, you know,
so it's much, much bigger on the right.
But the left had been quiet until recently. And since 2024, so since Trump came back to office, you are seeing more attacks from the left that
continues in 2025. In fact, there's one statistics that shows that 2024 was the first year where there were more attacks from the far-left than the
far-right. That is in large part because attacks from the far-right decreased in 2024. You know, they're guys in power, right? Yes, they have
the keys to the Cadillac. So, they don't really need to turn to violence right now. But still, you're seeing it from both sides.
They they're different, their -- the way they use violence is different and who they target is different. The far-right has overwhelmingly been
violence driven by white nationalism. It tends to be targeted at minorities. The three big targets are black Americans, Jews and LGBTQ
citizens. They're there, Latinos are also included in there and women. So, these are white nationalists who want to research white male dominance. And
this is the way some of them are choosing to do that. So, they tend to target individuals.
The left tends to target infrastructure and the government. So, it's law enforcement, it's politicians who are voting ways that they don't agree
with. So, it's different. And it's driven by a different set of grievances on both sides.
SREENIVASAN: The more troubling part of your recent note was you kind of end the piece by saying that we are entering the United States is entering
a period of 10 to 20 years of elevated instability and political violence. How do we know that we've gone from isolated incidents to elevated
violence, to civil war? I mean, put us in that continuum there.
WALTER: Yes, it's overwhelmingly insurgencies, it's guerrilla warfare. And it's usually quite decentralized. So, you'll have militias, paramilitary
groups. And sometimes they're working together, but sometimes they're actually, you know, doing their own thing, sort of parallel play.
It's interesting, I actually think the risk of civil war under Trump has declined somewhat. Because the militias and the groups that were training
for war, were all on the far-right. So, the Proud Boys and the Accelerationists and the, you know, the Boogaloo Boys and all these groups
that actually wanted a civil war to essentially clean house and to make America, you know, pure and white again. They've become quite quiet under
Trump. And again, that's because their grievances have declined.
And in their place, you're seeing more of these lone actors. And lone actors from a civil war perspective, an insurgency, guerrilla warfare
perspective, are less threatening. They're not organized for that. They're not training for that. There -- they would be much less lethal than very
well-trained militias, which every state here in the United States has.
So, you know, who's in the White House matters. The far-right, these white nationalists, you know, if we were to get a Democrat in the White House
again, if that Democrat was, you know, a woman of color, for example, they're ready to train again. And their goal is to prevent America from
becoming a non-white majority country, which is going to happen in the next 20 years.
And so, they're just going to be reinvigorated. So, it really depends on who's in power and how threatened those really radical groups that are
well-armed, trained, organized, who want war, whether they feel threatened or not.
SREENIVASAN: Author and professor Barbara Walter, and political scientist as well, thanks so much for taking your time.
[13:55:00]
WALTER: Thank you, Hari. It was a pleasure to be here.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: And finally, we've all heard of the first man on the moon, but what about the first American in space? On this day in 1961, NASA astronaut
Alan Shepard piloted the Freedom 7, completing a 15-minute suborbital flight before safely returning to Earth. The U.S. may have fallen behind
the Soviets in putting the first man in space, but Shepard's short journey paved the way for Armstrong's iconic lunar landing eight years later. Of
course, fast forward to today, the Artemis 2 mission set the record for the farthest distance a human has traveled from our planet, all thanks to a
trailblazing voyage 65 years ago.
All right. That does it for us for now. Thank you so much for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
