Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with ICRC President Mirjana Spoljaric; Interview with Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center Director Alexander Gabuev; Interview with Representative Shomari Figures (D-LA); Interview with Actor and Musician Rita Wilson. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired May 07, 2026 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: They want to make a deal. We've had very good talks over the last 24 hours, and it's very possible that we'll make a
deal. Yes.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: While the U.S. and Iran move closer to an agreement to try to end the war, how are the people there coping with death and destruction?
I'm joined by the International Red Cross President, Mirjana Spoljaric, who recently visited Tehran.
Then, as Russia prepares to celebrate Victory Day, its war on Ukraine continues. Regional expert, Alexander Gabuev, games out Putin's next moves.
Also --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. SHOMARI FIGURES (D-AL): I grew up with a history and an understanding and an appreciation and a respect for what the Voting Rights Act meant.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- after the Supreme Court ruling on voting rights, Alabama moves to break up its largely Black congressional districts. Hari
Sreenivasan speaks to Representative Shomari Figures, whose district is on the line.
And later --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- singer-songwriter and actress, Rita Wilson, takes a cathartic, deeply personal look at the arc of a woman's life.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in New York.
Now, could the United States and Iran be close to an agreement to end the fighting? Iran says it's studying the latest U.S. proposal, while the White
House again expresses optimism. Apparently on the table, a one-page plan declaring an end to the war, followed by a 30-day negotiation period on the
stickier deal points, including nuclear issues and security in the Strait of Hormuz.
In Rome, the U.S. secretary of state, Marco Rubio, met with Pope Leo amid the tension between the Vatican and the White House. According to the State
Department, the two discussed their, quote, "shared commitment to promoting peace and human dignity."
Now, human dignity is often one of the first casualties of war. Iran reports more than 3,000 people were killed during the U.S. and Israeli
attacks, and amidst all of the destruction, up to 4 million more people could fall into poverty due to the conflict, according to the U.N.
Very few reporters or Western officials have been permitted into Iran to see the devastation, making the experience of our first guest tonight all
the more important. She is Mirjana Spoljaric, the president of the International Committee of the Red Cross, and has recently returned from a
visit to Tehran, meeting with government officials and others, and she's joining us live from Switzerland, which is -- the ICRC headquarters.
Now, welcome to the program, Mirjana Spoljaric. We really want to know from you what you have seen because it is, as I said, so rare to get a good
view, a bird's-eye view, from the people's position.
MIRJANA SPOLJARIC, PRESIDENT, ICRC: Thank you for having me. I've returned from Iran with a firm conviction that we have to protect civilian life in
the entire Middle East region. This is extremely urgent. I want to be optimistic. I want to be able to be sure that there will be no further
escalations harming potentially millions of people because this is what they are coping with at the moment.
It's not the actual humanitarian situation that they're in, but it's the fear of an escalation that will really have a very strong impact on them
because this conflict risks, if it continues, turning against them specifically.
AMANPOUR: So, tell me about the humanitarian -- you said it's not specifically that but more the fear of what could happen. Is it a bad
humanitarian situation for the civilians? What did you see?
SPOLJARIC: What I saw is that thousands of people have been impacted by the recent escalation. The Red Crescent lost four people. They have had the
premises damaged, and they have seen vehicles damaged, and they have themselves been hurt and injured whilst trying to rescue other people from
the rubble and whilst bringing assistance.
[13:05:00]
We are working in support of the Red Crescent, bringing in medical assistance. We are pre-positioning with kits to be able to treat war-
wounded people, casualties in the event of another escalation.
But whatever we can bring in the face of the largeness of the population and the impact attacks on civilian infrastructure can have of them. What we
can bring at the moment, even though we just brought another 5,000 tons, is very little compared to what could happen to them.
AMANPOUR: Can you give us a sense of how many people out of a population of almost 100 million are in dire straits? How many would you say have been
affected by this war?
SPOLJARIC: Their resilience is very low at the moment. They don't know how to finish the month. They don't know how to make ends meet. Economically,
they are under enormous pressure. So, they are not capable of preparing as much as they need for a renewed war.
But this applies to millions of people in the region. I don't want us to lose the focus on Lebanon, where a million have been displaced, don't know
whether they will be able to return home and back to their villages because they have been destroyed. There are 2 million people still living displaced
and in very dire, if not inhumane conditions in Gaza. The whole region can come under strain, not only Iran, and this is what we have in front of us.
And this is what I realized traveling through Iran, because it's a vast country, it's a vast population, there are many sites that can be attacked.
And people tell me, this is the next target and this will impact us.
AMANPOUR: So, you know, there have been threats, certainly, overt threats from the president of the United States before rolling some of those back,
you know, to bombing civilian infrastructure, you know, power plants, bridges, that kind of thing. At one point, he said, you know, we're going
to wipe out a whole civilization tonight. Remember, that sent, you know, the chills up so many spines, including in leadership around the world, not
to mention inside Iran.
Did you get a sense that the government of Iran is actually prioritizing whatever humanitarian aid for the people? There are many questions always
about where governments put the kind of aid that comes to them, whether they hoard it or whether they actually distribute it.
SPOLJARIC: Look, my conversations with the government remain confidential. But what I can say publicly is that the responsibility for a government to
protect its own people is a primary responsibility. It applies to all states. So, you are bound by the Geneva Conventions in the event of
conflict. You have to spare civilian lives of your adversary, of the people living in the neighboring countries in the region, anywhere in the world.
But you also have to protect civilian life in your own country at all levels, under all conditions.
AMANPOUR: And, Mirjana Spoljaric, can you tell me about human rights? Because the ICRC is also very much involved. You just mentioned the Geneva
Conventions, and you have, you know, an incredibly responsible role. I know it's of neutrality, but to talk about human rights.
So, as you know, there have been many reports of executions committed by this government in Iran, under the cover of this war that's being waged
against them. You know, arresting people they say were responsible for the last round of protests. Were you able to talk about that to the government?
Did you make it clear that, you know, ad hoc arrests and, you know, show trials is not meeting your ideals, nor the Geneva Conventions?
SPOLJARIC: Look, my mandate through the Geneva Conventions applies to armed conflict. Now, irrespective of whether the Geneva Conventions apply,
any detainee through customary law or other laws deserves humane treatment and access to health and access to due process, irrespective again, of
whether my mandate applies. So, it's not necessarily relevant what I say. It is a fact that any government has to treat its detainees humanely and
provide the services that they need for survival.
[13:10:00]
AMANPOUR: You've talked about, you know, the broader Middle East and, you know, focusing on Gaza and Lebanon as you did as well as on Iran. And you
were talking now about the Geneva Conventions, not only in the manner that I just posed the question, but also in terms of, you know, strikes on
hospitals, on religious centers, mosques, churches, et cetera, synagogues, cultural heritage, basically civilian structures. This is going on, and we
can see the pictures all over these places that I've just mentioned.
Are you concerned with all your experience and the experience of the ICRC that there is a diminishing respect for the Geneva Conventions? And I'm now
talking about, you know, those who are bombing Iran or Gaza or Lebanon.
SPOLJARIC: Across the Middle East, across the last years, and probably across all the different horrible sites of conflict that we operate in,
including in, let's say, in the Horn of Africa, in Ukraine and other places, I see a hollowing out of the Geneva Conventions, and it's
unbearable to acknowledge that, you know, civilians are systematically reduced to numbers and statistics.
We are losing sight of humanity, which has to be put at the center of all of this. We cannot accept the levels of destruction. We cannot accept the
levels of suffering anymore, numbers of casualties and displaced people. And the rhetoric around this is most problematic, because it lowers the
barriers. It lowers the moral frontiers to doing the worst.
Now, we have to be aware, whoever, and many people do that, uses dehumanizing language. Whoever says there are no rules dehumanizes its own
military, because they're being de facto asked to do things that are illegal, but also immoral and unbearable for them. We have to put humanity
back at the center. I hope that the leadership of any country involved in this will do that, because it will help find a solution, a negotiated
solution that will hold, that will bring respite to the people, but also to us, because we are extremely worried about what we have seen in the Middle
East and beyond over the last few years. It has to be reversed. And I'm saying this with an acute sense of urgency.
AMANPOUR: You know, I'm glad you mentioned that, because we also recognize it. We reported the dehumanizing language, the language of violence. So,
look, I don't know, you know, you express hope that it has to stop, but it comes from very senior government officials. Let's just take the Israeli
defense minister, Israel Katz, who has explicitly said that tactics used in southern Lebanon are modeled on what the Israeli military did in places
like Rafah or Beit Hanoun in Gaza, areas where entire neighborhoods were reduced to rubble.
You know, Israel has the upper hand right now. It is acting with a sense of freedom and opportunity. And I wonder whether you're able to make the case
that you've just told us to them and what the response is.
SPOLJARIC: Turning the enemy's land does not increase security. On the contrary, it sows the seeds for the future conflict being even worse than
the present one. We need to deescalate. I'm not singling out specific parties to any conflict, because generally what we see is a systematic
dismissal of the rules that were created to preserve a pathway back to peace.
Now, if we want to be serious about peace, we have to start with applying the rules of war according to the spirit of the rules of war, which is to
avoid trauma that will not be remedied for decades, if not generations. We have to find ways to peace. But the worst deeds that are committed are for
the populations, the more difficult it will be to return to the table and to actually agree on what needs to be agreed at the moment.
AMANPOUR: Let me just ask another question about Gaza, because you operate, I think, one of the very, very few, if not the only actual
hospital. It's located in the southern part of the Strip. Can you tell me the conditions there? Who rules that area where your hospital is located?
What is the state of not just medical aid, but humanitarian aid to the people of Gaza? Because there are continuous bombings. We get continuous
reports of civilians being killed practically on a daily basis, even under a so-called ceasefire.
[13:15:00]
SPOLJARIC: I visited the hospital during hostilities, and it is now two years into its existence, being just now in the process of being upgraded.
That hospital had been originally designed for one year. It is still there, and it is still the only fully functional hospital in the area where people
can access the necessary services.
The health system needs to be rebuilt. You cannot only survive based on an increase of food. Nothing has come in at scale that is necessary to recover
from the conflict and to create humane conditions for the two million people remaining. That needs to happen, and it hasn't happened yet. So, the
situation, indeed, is still very bad.
AMANPOUR: And, Ms. Spoljaric, I want to ask you one last question about Iran. You remember that on the very first day of the war, the United
States, basically with a tomahawk missile, wiped out an entire girls' school, and more than 100 girls, young girls, schoolgirls, were killed.
Have you yet brought that up to the United States? A lot of the forensic evidence by the press, by others, have concluded that it was a U.S. missile
that caused that amount of death and destruction.
SPOLJARIC: Look, when I travel to war zones regularly and every time, children ask me when they can go back to school. Not going to school is
very difficult for them to absorb because for many reasons, it gives them a sense of there's something happening that is not good for us.
Now, parents will fear sending their kids back to school, and the kids haven't returned back to school in Iran for most parts. It's the cannery in
a coal mine in the sense that we should reverse the patterns of warfare before it's too late, and because things like this happen at scale. We
cannot repeat the patterns that we have seen in Gaza, in Lebanon, in Israel, and elsewhere. We have to reverse the tide before we reach a point
of no return. And an escalation in Iran and surrounding countries can be of a scale where it will come out of control.
This is why I'm so serious about it. It's not about the actual humanitarian situation in Iran. It's about what can happen and the urgency to find an
agreed solution, and I hope it will happen. It will depend on the leadership of the respective governments and on their commitment to
actually stay at the table until this is the case.
AMANPOUR: I just want to press you a little bit and maybe ask you to explain what about your position, a position of neutrality, a position of
the way the ICRC operates, why you are unable to answer my question about whether you put that catastrophe to the United States.
SPOLJARIC: I can -- no, no. Christiane, I can answer your question. I will never justify.
AMANPOUR: Oh. Good. OK.
SPOLJARIC: Never, the killing of children in a classroom, never.
AMANPOUR: No, no, I know that. You're not justifying. I'm just trying to figure out whether your office, the office of the ICRC, has put the case
and asked the United States what it was thinking, why that happened, and to make sure that the United States doesn't do that again.
SPOLJARIC: Our reports that we submit to the warring parties anywhere in the world are always detailed, and whatever we can substantiate, we can
ascertain, we submit it, and these reports are archived. But if everybody were always listening to us and following our advice, our reading of the
Geneva Conventions, we wouldn't see the levels of suffering.
But I do also have to underline that our cooperation with the U.S. has always been a very frank one, a very regular one, and the dialogue with the
U.S. authorities relevant in these conversations has -- never been suspended, and this I need to recognize here as well. The U.S. remains a
country that works with us, even if they hear things from us that they may not want to hear or may not agree with. The U.S. is still our biggest
funder, and this is how we operate.
AMANPOUR: Well, I really think that's an important clarification. Thank you very much indeed, Mirjana Spoljaric, the president, the head of the
ICRC. Thank you for joining us.
[13:20:00]
Now, later in the program, gaming out a Russian attack on Europe, I speak with regional expert, Alexander Gabuev, who played Vladimir Putin in a
German war game.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
AMANPOUR: Now, the top Ukrainian negotiator has arrived in Miami for meetings with U.S. representatives hoping to restart stalled peace talks
with Russia. But back home, the killing continues. Russian attacks did kill more than 20 people across Ukraine on Tuesday, and now Vladimir Putin is
demanding a weekend ceasefire to ensure protection of his National Victory Day celebrations in Russia. The Kremlin says any efforts to disrupt their
parade would prompt a, quote, "retaliatory, massive missile attack on the center of downtown Kyiv."
So, how will European leaders deal with Russian aggression as the United States steps back a little bit from the region? Late last year, a war game
organized by a German newspaper found that a dangerous time for the continent may be coming. In that exercise, the role of Vladimir Putin was
played by regional expert Alexander Gabuev, and he's joining me now to discuss this. Welcome to the program.
ALEXANDER GABUEV, DIRECTOR, CARNEGIE RUSSIA EURASIA CENTER: Great to be with you, Christiane. Thanks for having me.
AMANPOUR: Yes, thank you for being with us. We have a little bit of a delay, but let me start by asking you, I will get to the war game in a
moment, but it is quite extraordinary, the latest from Putin, the threats, the demand for a weekend ceasefire, the fact that they have dramatically
scaled back their massive annual parade to commemorate this, you know, victory day in World War II, that he apparently is barely visible these
days, Putin. What are you understanding from the latest moves from the Kremlin?
GABUEV: I think it tells you about one thing, and that's the Ukrainian new ability to strike targets deep inside Russia, at scale, and hold strategic
locations in Russia at risk. That, of course, causes a lot of worry by the Russian top brass and by President Putin himself. And this is why we are
seeing fewer of him lately, and this is why the Kremlin is so worried about the prized military parade on the Red Square.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, CNN is reporting this week, and it's based on a European intelligence dossier, that Putin himself has, as I said, dramatically
tightened his personal security, apparently fearing assassination, perhaps fearing a coup, and this whole, you know, document complains that he's now
working mostly from bunkers dispersed around southern Russia. Reuters is saying that Putin's approval rating has just fallen to 65.6 percent, which,
still over half, is the lowest since the war began.
What can you tell us, or what more do you know about how this is going for Putin and what kind of public dissent is brewing?
[13:25:00]
GABUEV: I guess that we don't have a crystal ball to read Vladimir Putin's mind, although we wish. All the data points available show that there is a
growing concern about his personal safety, that his protection detail is really worried about Ukrainian ability to kill him the way the supreme
leader of Iran was killed. And this is why, indeed, they're going an extra mile to take precautions.
And then on the second part, indeed, we see that the approval for the war and the current course in Russia is diminishing because Russia is feeling
the economic heat of the sanctions and the war. Ukrainians are bringing message back home with their strikes. And then the Kremlin has shut down
internet in most populous city, which is deeply unpopular.
AMANPOUR: It is extraordinary to hear all this because up until now, we've heard that Putin, you know, keeps a very, very tight leash, that no -- none
of this is at all public, and we're just talking about several public revelations of the worry that Putin and the Kremlin are under.
Listen to what The Economist has written. As recently as last spring, everything was we and ours. Mr. Putin's war on Ukraine may be reckless and
failing, but it was shared. We were inside it, and it would soon be better for all of us if it ended sooner. Now, they describe what's happening as
his story, not ours, not our project, not our agenda, not our war. And what they're doing is quoting a shift in rhetoric by senior Russian officials.
Do you think -- I know we can't read Putin's mind, but do you think, is there any evidence that Putin might want to declare victory and get out
while he can?
GABUEV: The unfortunate news, Christiane, is that there is absolutely zero evidence that Vladimir Putin is ready to change course. And yes, we see
growing concern about his personal safety. We are seeing growing dissatisfaction. We see the economy flashing red. However, he most likely
believes that he still maintains resources to continue the war.
And his position at the negotiation table is pretty stubborn. And maximalism, he's continuing to throw tens of thousands of people in the
mid-grinder on the front lines every month. And there is zero indication that all of this dissatisfaction that is real can lead to any change in his
course.
AMANPOUR: And just to be very clear, I've heard from several very well- placed individuals in Western governments that actually Ukraine is not doing as badly as Putin would like the world and certainly the Trump
administration to think, that he's not doing as well. And you've just mentioned this uptick in Ukrainian deep strikes that is very worrying to
the Kremlin.
What do you know about how Ukraine is doing on the battlefield? And what the -- you know, Rustem Umerov from Ukraine may seek to tell the
negotiators in Miami?
GABUEV: I think that Ukraine is going through tremendous hardship, tremendous loss of life, tremendous loss of economic and other assets.
However, the resilience and the willingness to fight is still there. They have the tenacity. They have the technological edge. And most importantly,
they also have now the European financial lifeline, the 90 billion euros credit line that will bring them over to the next year and they'll finance
both our fiscal needs and their needs to purchase weapons.
AMANPOUR: And let's get to the war game that you wrote about recently. And now, I know it was conducted before the beginning of the year, I think at
the end of last year, and it just was made public and you've been writing about it.
You, ironically, since you, I think, fled or left Russia with this invasion of Ukraine, the full-scale invasion, you played Putin. What was your -- how
did you feel about that first and what was your conclusion at the end of this war game?
GABUEV: That was a very awkward feeling. I was a reporter before I joined the Carnegie Endowment in Moscow. I was covering the Kremlin. So, I know a
lot of the principles or the evil team that is my country that is unfortunately destroying country of Ukraine where my mother was born. So,
it's a very sad feeling.
However, I felt that this exercise needs to be done and this exercise needs to inform the public debate because this guy has risk appetite and
resources that some people underestimate given the miserable performance of Russia at the battlefield. However, it's still very dangerous and this is
why bringing this reality to the public domain is important not to scare the people, but to prepare them and to give them mental frame to think
about those issues.
[13:30:00]
AMANPOUR: And very finally, we're running out of time. Do you believe that the possible future targets if any of Vladimir Putin, Europe is ready, you
know, learning and beefing up especially as the U.S. is tending to pull back?
GABUEV: I think that European politicians understands the sense of urgency. However, the timeframe is not very beneficial because the armament
process takes a long time and the decision of President Trump to withdraw troops and not position long range fires that President Biden has promised
is sending a very bad signal to Vladimir Putin where his desire to test NATO's commitment to its Article 5 to protect all the members might be
tempted, unfortunately.
AMANPOUR: Alexander Gabuev, thank you so much for joining us. And later, I'm joined by singer, songwriter and actress, Rita Wilson. We talk about
her new album, "Sound of a Woman."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
AMANPOUR: Now, elections are about voters choosing their politicians. But what happens when the map lets politicians choose their voters? Well, many
argue that the Alabama State legislature's push to redraw congressional districts is doing just that. And people are protesting. This follows a
Supreme Court gutting the key provisions of the Voting Rights Act, making it harder to challenge plans that dilute voting power along racial lines.
Our next guest, Democratic Representative Shomari Figures, joins Hari Sreenivasan to discuss the implications of the court's recent ruling.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HARI SREENIVASAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Christiane, thanks. Representative Shomari Figures, thanks so much for joining us. You are a
representative, Democratic congressman from Alabama. I guess let's start, you know, a little bit further back. You ran back in 2023. Growing up, what
did you know about the Voting Rights Act?
REP. SHOMARI FIGURES (D-AL): Well, look, I had the privilege of being raised by parents who were both elected officials. My father was one of the
first black senators elected in the State of Alabama post-Reconstruction. My father integrated University of Alabama's law school. My mother was on
the city council in the City of Mobile, whose city form of government was formed through a challenge in a very well-known Supreme Court case, Bolton
v. City of Mobile. It was actually cited in this most recent Louisiana case as well.
So, I grew up, you know, under the shadows of it, understanding what it means, what it meant, the role that it played in both of my parents being
in elected office. And so, you know, I grew up with a history and an understanding and an appreciation and a respect for what the Voting Rights
Act meant.
SREENIVASAN: So, what did the creation, really, of your district, the one that you represent now, what did that mean? How did that impact black
voters in your area?
FIGURES: After the decision came down from the Supreme Court in 2023, which effectively allowed the lower court to impose a requirement on the
state to redraw its districts, you know, it created an opportunity. It created an Opportunity District, which was exactly what the court designed
its remedy to do. It gave the State of Alabama the opportunity to do it. They refused to do it. And so, the court essentially had the district
redrawn by an independent party.
[13:35:00]
And it gave, for the first time, a legitimate opportunity to a significant portion of the state and the African American population in the state the
legitimate opportunity to elect a second member of Congress. My district is not a majority black district, contrary to popular belief, it's about 47
percent black, 46 percent white. So, it's a very racially diverse district. And within that district, it provided a legitimate opportunity for myself
and candidates like me to have a shot at actually being elected.
SREENIVASAN: Just to back up for our audience, at that time, the Supreme Court said that essentially Alabama lawmakers had created and adopted a map
that discriminated against black citizens, right?
FIGURES: Correct. So, when it went to the Supreme Court the first time, they had -- you know, these Voting Rights Act cases work on a preliminary
finding. And so, the original part of the case that went to the Supreme Court, the lower court had found that there was a likely violation of the
Voting Rights Act in '23. And then the court ordered that the districts be redrawn. And then there was a subsequent trial held in 2024 where the court
actually made the finding that there was discrimination, that there was intentional discrimination.
And, you know, by that time we'd already, you know, been running for election and been elected. So, this all began with a finding, ultimately a
finding of intentional discrimination that the lower court found that the State of Alabama had actually engaged in.
SREENIVASAN: OK. So, here we are, fast forward now to the present day. And because as a ripple effect of what happened with the Supreme Court in
Louisiana, what is the conversation today at the Alabama legislature? What are the maps that they want to put back in?
FIGURES: So, Alabama wants to do something that we don't want them to do. They want to go backwards. Backwards in terms of using maps that they had
previously tried to use. And also, backwards in terms of what those maps, the outcomes that will ultimately come from, you know, having elections
with those maps. We also got to remember that in this case, because of how the state acted in the litigation, they refused to comply with several
court orders.
There's actually a court order in place with the lower court that prevents the State of Alabama from actually redrawing its districts until after the
2030 census, unless the Supreme Court overturns the case, which has not happened. So, what the state legislature is essentially doing now is trying
to lay the groundwork that would allow them to move very quickly in the event that a court does allow the state to redraw its maps.
And so, they are amending the primary election schedule. We're already in the middle of a primary election. It's already started for absentee voting.
I've already voted myself because I will not be in the city on election day. They are amending the primary schedule and also passing contingency
maps. These are both maps that the state legislature had previously adopted, but that were declined to be used by the federal court.
And so, in the event that the court lifts the order, they could use these maps and hold the election at a later date than is typically allowed under
our current law.
SREENIVASAN: You know, at the core of this is this idea that how districts are drawn will inevitably predispose the outcome. If I have X number of
black people in this district, they are likely to vote Democratic. If I don't, they're likely to vote Republican. This is a solidly red state.
So, how much of that plays out when it actually comes to people pulling the lever? Is it all sort of an automatic kind of party line vote? Is it by
demographic? Is it by race?
FIGURES: Look, I'd have to pull the exact data points in the State of Alabama, but at the end of the day, I mean, this decision has essentially
said that it's OK to end up in a place where you have discriminatory outcomes as long as you tell us that they were done for partisan reasons.
And so, another way of kind of saying that is that it's OK to discriminate against Democrats who are black as long as you don't discriminate against
black people who are Democrats, which leads to this very awkward sort of conundrum, right, of how do you -- of, you know, almost a chicken and egg
conversation, right, which comes first.
And so, you know, this is going to have real impacts in the State of Alabama, not just at the congressional level, but at every single level of
partisan election government. So, you're looking at state Senate maps, which is also involved in some litigation here in the state where they also
made a finding there. You're going to be looking at state representative maps, state school board maps, judges, and other officials. So, this is a
pretty significant impact.
SREENIVASAN: You know, A black Republican state representative in Ohio, Josh Williams, he was talking about the Louisiana decision. He said, look,
the idea that black Americans need special districts carved out just for them is complete nonsense. It's a violation of the law and blatantly
unconstitutional.
[13:40:00]
Of course, the White House is cheering this decision in the Supreme Court. They called it a complete and total victory, and that the color of one's
skin should not dictate which congressional district you belong in. What's their response to that line of thinking?
FIGURES: Look, I think it's misleading, first and foremost. The Voting Rights Act is not about carving out districts for black people to win. The
Voting Rights Act is about carving out districts that create a legitimate opportunity for fair representation so that you can't water down the black
vote in a way that essentially makes it meaningless in terms of having a legitimate opportunity to influence the outcome.
You know, that's a -- I think that's generally a principle that most people can't agree with, right? And it's unfortunate that the gentleman from Ohio
doesn't see it that way. But look, I think, you know, to the White House's point of this being a complete and total victory, that's not the case. It's
far from the case. They were hoping that the Voting Rights Act would be deemed unconstitutional, which the court did not do.
It certainly was not a complete and total victory for the State of Alabama, because in the decision, Justice Alito specifically says, we are not
overruling the Alabama case. In fact, he goes so far as to highlight the fact that in the Alabama case, the state did not even attempt to defend its
map as being drawn for partisan reasons. And so, I think that speaks volumes to what the State of Alabama did and how the Supreme Court views
what they did.
SREENIVASAN: Even if it's not Alabama, are you concerned that there's going to be ripple effects throughout the South here? I mean, we already
see kind of moments in movements in Tennessee and possibly in other states as well.
FIGURES: Oh, for sure. There will certainly be ripples across the country. Those ripples will certainly be more pronounced, if not exclusively
pronounced, in states that have a Republican trifecta, have a Republican governor, Republican-led Senate, Republican-led State House. It's also
going to be disproportionately across the Old South, which was the place that the Voting Rights Act was born out of because of historical
discriminatory practices that we saw across states like Alabama and Louisiana and Mississippi and Texas and Georgia and Tennessee and South
Carolina and a handful of others.
And so, we're definitely going to see it. So, there'll be ripple effects not just across the country, but again, across every level of government
that runs partisan elections.
SREENIVASAN: How much of this, what's happening in Alabama, what's happening in Tennessee or in other places, Louisiana, are part of this
national arms race, if you will, to try to shore up districts for the presidential or the midterm cycle?
FIGURES: Well, what started in Alabama was not part of that, because this case in Alabama started right after the 2020 census. This lawsuit was
originally filed in 2021, and it was still sort of ongoing. And now, unfortunately, because we're seeing the president, you know, regardless of
which term you want to use, whether it's rig the election, stack the deck for the election, move the goalposts of the election, or changing the rules
of the game during the game, whatever term you want to use, because he is leading that effort, you are seeing states grasp at every opportunity that
they have to pick up seats.
This is something, obviously, that started in Texas. California responded and appropriately responded, didn't have an option, but to respond. We've
seen other states pick up the charge from Donald Trump to act in the same manner. And we most recently saw Virginia come in and respond as well. And
we expect other states to get involved in this.
At the end of the day, this is a race to the bottom. And at the end, when it's all said and done, I think the margins are going to look very similar
to what they look like now in terms of legitimate seats that a Democrat or a Republican can win when you, you know, aggregate the results across the
country. And so, this is just not the place that we should be in. But Texas started this. Donald Trump started this. And this was certainly not
something that was going on back in 2020 when this matter first started in the State of Alabama.
SREENIVASAN: What are the next steps here in Alabama? And is this primarily a resistance to this decision and this kind of framing in Alabama
State legislature by Democrats and the left? Are there people who are Republicans and independents who are also concerned by this?
FIGURES: Look, I think concerns are abound across the board from a variety of reasons. You look at, for instance, the district that I represent right
now, one of the counties, my hometown county, Mobile County, Alabama. We now have two members of Congress, one on each side of the aisle. A lot of
people, Democrat and Republican, like that dynamic. They like the fact that regardless of who's in control in Congress, regardless of who's in control
of the White House, that we have a legitimate opportunity to be able to further the legislative priorities that matter locally, that we have
legitimate opportunities through both sides of the house to be able to pursue federal appropriations requests.
So, it's something that not everybody is just in lockstep with it in terms from a voter base. In terms of what's next, first and foremost, in the
State of Alabama, we are business as usual in terms of me being in Congress and Congresswoman Terri Sewell being in Congress. Nothing has changed in
the State of Alabama. The law has not changed.
[13:45:00]
In fact, the Supreme Court explicitly said, we're not overturning the Alabama case. And so, the state is grasping at straws. They're literally
pulling out every stop. They're trying to file every type of motion that they can possibly file at the Supreme Court and at the lower court. And to
this point, nothing has resulted in anything that's going to allow the State of Alabama to redraw its congressional maps.
SREENIVASAN: How much of this comes down to kind of national political allegiance versus doing what's good for your specific state and what's good
for your specific constituents? Because that's kind of what you're elected to go do, right? To keep the interests of the people in Mobile that sent
you there.
FIGURES: Yes. And for me, that interest extends not just from Mobile, but all the way up to Montgomery, the birthplace of the civil rights movement,
which is why this case has even more relevance and significance to me, like the Voting Rights Act ultimately came out of what started in Montgomery in
1955, in the civil rights movement. And places like Tuskegee, in my district as well, with their long-storied history.
I think a lot of it comes from more of an allegiance to party than it does to country. And that's, you know, especially this sort of race to the
bottom now, where you're literally seeking to minimize. And in the State of Alabama's case, they're coming out saying, hey, we're going to eliminate,
eliminate. And this is coming from people in leadership in the state legislature, that they want to eliminate every single opportunity that a
Democrat has to win in the State of Alabama.
And that is nuts. That sort of philosophy, if that was the mindset when we went into a constitutional convention, we would not have emerged with the
United States of America. If you told smaller states, if you told, you know, people who may have been in the minority of a political party at that
time, that, hey, we want to create a system, we want to create a nation of laws that's going to allow us to mute you, to remove your ability to have
legitimate opportunities to be represented in federal government, they all would have pushed away from the tape.
And so, at the end of the day, this sentiment is just un-American. It's not right, it's not fair, and it's not making us the best nation that we can
possibly be.
SREENIVASAN: Representative Shomari Figures, Democratic from Alabama, thanks so much for your time.
FIGURES: Thank you. Have a good one, man.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And finally, "Sound of a Woman." That is the title of the new album from singer, songwriter, and actress Rita Wilson. It's a raw and
vulnerable record which follows the arc of a woman's life with unflinching honesty, as well as performing. Wilson co-wrote and co-produced the record.
Let's have a listen to a little bit of the trailer.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What is the sound of a woman?
(MUSIC PLAYING)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's disruptive.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A purr.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Soft, spoken, sexy.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Letting out a sigh.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A whoosh.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: And Rita Wilson joins me now from New York. Hi, Rita. Welcome to the program.
RITA WILSON, ACTOR AND MUSICIAN: Hi, Christiane.
AMANPOUR: It's a wonderful, wonderful song.
WILSON: Thank you.
AMANPOUR: And it's amazing. And I just want to know why and what led you to that. This is, I think, your sixth album.
WILSON: It is. What led me to it? Well, part of it was I had been writing for a while, but this felt very personal. My co-writer, Amy Wadge, and I
wanted to tell the story of an arc of a woman's life from the experiences that she's had over the course of her life and starting from being a young
woman to being the age that I am now. And we really wanted to explore that.
AMANPOUR: And is it something that was easy or revealing even to yourself? Because you've had a very, very, you know, varied career. Singing came, I
mean, in the way you're doing it now, late in your career. You'd been on stage. You had really successful TV, been in movies, et cetera. What about
the songwriting, the collaborating and the willingness to be publicly vulnerable?
WILSON: That -- you've nailed it. It's something when you're acting or doing something else, you're using other people's words. And the whole act
of songwriting that I did come into in my '50s really allowed me to use my voice in a way that I couldn't really do in the kinds of parts that were
being offered to me. And I realized that it was such a very vulnerable place to be. You're really exposing yourself. And I've been very lucky and
comfortable to be in a very public profession and still be a very private person.
[13:50:00]
So, this album being more personal is a little bit scary to be out there with it, you know, in that way, talking about these subjects. But it's also
because as women, we come into the world immediately with identities that are attributed to us. You know, you're such a sweet little girl and you're
a sassy teen or a tomboy or -- and throughout our lives, we sort of adopt these identities, but they're not really fully who we are.
And to me, becoming a woman or finding your voice or this sound of a woman is not necessarily eliminating those identities, but allowing the more
essential parts of yourself to be explored and exposed and shown to the people that you love and the people that are out there. And that was sort
of the intent.
AMANPOUR: And what was the reaction? Because you're used to getting the reaction from being in front of the camera. But what was the reaction from
people you love, people you know, people you don't know to Rita Wilson, the singer?
WILSON: Well, I think it's different now. I mean, I would probably start with myself on that. Like I still had to convince myself that I was going
to be doing it. But now that I've been writing for about 13 years, 14 years, it's been I've learned and I'm more comfortable with identifying as
an artist and a singer-songwriter.
And yet, I think I'm not alone in that. There are so many women out there who are doing really incredible things after the age of 50. And, you know,
our dear friend Nora Ephron was a great inspiration to me because she said great things happen after the age of 50. And she didn't start directing her
first movies until she was 50.
So, as far as having any kind of a role model in music, there wasn't one. There wasn't anybody I could look at and say, well, she's done it at that
age. And so, in some ways, I was finding my own path and my own way to do it, but not alone, because there were so many songwriters along the way who
believed in it also and entrusted themselves to me and to the process so that when we were writing songs, they believed in what the ideas were. And
I'm really grateful for that.
AMANPOUR: You know, you mentioned Nora Ephron, the great director, writer. You've been in a film of hers. You were part of a very high profile married
couple. Tom Hanks is your husband. He's been directed by Nora Ephron. And one of your songs is called "Marriage." And you talk about 50s in your 50s,
you were diagnosed with cancer.
WILSON: Right.
AMANPOUR: And you went through -- all that you had to go through. You're now 10 years free.
WILSON: Eleven.
AMANPOUR: But I'm fascinated by what you've recently revealed at the 92nd -- 11 years free, 92nd Street Y that you told Tom to make you two promises
in case it didn't work out.
WILSON: Right. One was when you don't know what your prognosis is and you're just scared and you have these very deep, real conversations. One
was I have two requests. And the first one was I want you to be sad for a very, very long time.
And the second one was that I wanted to have a party and a celebration, which inspired a song of mine called "Throw Me a Party," which is really
about that. Life is a celebration. It's a joy. When you have cancer, you realize how important every day is. And really, it is a gift. And there's a
liberation to it when you realize that you have this second lease on life. And you really stop caring about things that don't really mean anything.
You really focus on the things that are the most important.
AMANPOUR: And you are doing a great service to everybody out there, because high-profile, telling people about what happened to you, but that
it is survivable if you catch it early enough, if you get it diagnosed.
WILSON: Correct.
AMANPOUR: And it's manageable because of medicine and the great progress right now. So, it's a great example to be out there. And you've also -- I
want to play another of the songs, release a snippet. This is called "Jury of One," all about female guilt.
WILSON: Yes.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: It's always women saying, sorry, really, even at your stage and age, even in our position?
[13:55:00]
WILSON: Yes, it's true. I mean, I like to joke that guilt has a twin sister called apology or sorry. But those two seem to go hand in hand. It's
almost like no matter what you're doing, you're feeling guilty that you're not doing something else. Either, you know, when I was younger and the kids
were at home and if I were working, I would feel guilty about not being there for them. If I was, you know, if I was doing something else, I would
feel guilty about not with them. I was distracted or feeling apologetic that I couldn't get to my work in the right way.
And then I also think that there's general apology for being a woman in the world in some ways, you know. I find that it's sort of -- we come into the
world feeling like we should be apologizing for things. I can't tell you how many times a day I say I'm sorry for things. If someone kicked me in
the shins, I'd say I'm sorry. But it's something to explore. I don't think I'm alone in that.
AMANPOUR: No, but no more. Sound of a woman means never having to say you're sorry. That's -- I'm just making that up.
WILSON: I love that.
AMANPOUR: Rita Wilson, thank you so much and we look forward to you on tour.
WILSON: Thank you.
AMANPOUR: Good luck.
WILSON: Thank you.
AMANPOUR: And that's it for now. Thank you so much for watching, goodbye from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
