Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Georgetown University Assistant Professor and Council on Foreign Relations Senior Fellow Rush Doshi; Interview with The News Agents Podcast Co-Host Lewis Goodall; Interview with U.S. Justice Department Former Special Counsel and "When Companies Run the Courts" Author Brendan Ballou. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired May 14, 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]
PAULA NEWTON, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
We should be partners, not rivals, the words of President Xi to President Trump. But challenges remain. Rush Doshi unpacks day one of this historic
summit.
Then, uncertainty in Westminster. U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer warns any leadership challenge would plunge the country into chaos. So, how did
we get here? I speak with journalist Lewis Goodall.
Plus, "When Companies Run the Courts," author Brendan Ballou joins Michel Martin to explain how the terms and conditions Americans unthinkingly agree
to on a daily basis are actually shielding corporations from accountability.
And a very warm welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Paula Newton in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
It's been a day of pageantry and flattery in Beijing. On his first trip to China in nearly a decade, President Trump was greeted by cheering crowds
and a red carpet and some warm words in translation from Chinese leader Xi Jinping.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
XI JINPING, CHINESE PRESIDENT (through translator): Both China and the United States stand to gain from cooperation and lose from confrontation.
Our two countries should be partners rather than rivals.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEWTON: Trump, for his part, sounded very positive and confirmed he'll host Xi in D.C. in September.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: Such respect for China, the job you've done. You're a great leader. I say it to everybody. You're a great leader. I
wanted only the top. And they're here today to pay respects to you and to China. It's an honor to be with you. It's an honor to be your friend.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEWTON: So, that's a marked change in tone to how the president used to speak of Beijing, and accompanying this U.S. delegation is a who's who of
big tech. For them and the world, there's a lot at stake here.
Tariff tensions, the A.I. race, and the war with Iran all on the table, along with a stark warning from Xi on Taiwan. China says he warned that if
the issue is mishandled, in his words, it could lead to a highly dangerous situation.
So, what is the U.S. hoping to get out of this summit, and what are the risks and the opportunities? Rush Doshi served as a top official on China
and Taiwan on President Biden's National Security Council. He's now a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, and he joins the program
from Washington. Good to see you as we continue to try and parse this trip.
And if we're thinking about that historical arc of U.S.-China relations, how big of a deal is this summit? Could it be an inflection point or more
of a continuum as you see it?
RUSH DOSHI, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY AND SENIOR FELLOW, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: Well, this is the first in-person meeting in
Beijing between two U.S. presidents in nine years, so that alone is a big deal. And any kind of summit between the U.S. and Chinese president
requires our attention.
But that being said, I think this summit has been heavier on symbolism than it has been on substance, and that's in part because the issues that divide
the two countries are very hard to resolve quickly. We saw President Trump was quite taken with the welcome that he received in front of the Great
Hall of the People. And we also saw that President Xi went out of his way to show respect to President Trump and vice versa. But on the hard issues
of the day from Taiwan to trade to technology and artificial intelligence, and especially Iran, it's not clear that these two countries are seeing eye
to eye.
So, is this an inflection point? Perhaps not. Is it continuity in a quieter moment in the relationship? Probably. And what comes next over this year is
going to be critical. There's going to be at least three more meetings between these two leaders over the course of 2026.
NEWTON: And yet, the stakes are so high, not just for these two countries, but obviously for the world. Now, as we said, Trump last visited China in
2017. What has changed in the relationship since then?
DOSHI: Well, you know, the biggest change is probably that China feels far more confident today than it did in 2017. This is a China that just last
year felt that it decisively won a trade war with the United States. Let's not forget that the U.S. increased tariffs on China to 145 percent last
year. China responded by restricting the flow of rare earth minerals and magnets upon which, frankly, American manufacturing depends. And that would
have been, you know, a devastating blow to the U.S. economy.
[13:05:00]
And President Trump essentially did fold. He pulled down the tariff rates and decided to pursue a much more stable, even conciliatory relationship at
times with China to make up for that moment in the trade war. Since then, Beijing has felt that it has the wind in its sails, that the so-called east
is rising and the west is declining, to quote Chinese Communist Party texts. That's the single biggest change in the relationship. China now
feels it has the leverage to fully withstand U.S. pressure and return it with pressure of its own.
Today, the question is going to be, you know, exactly how long will this fragile truce between the two sides continue? There are some signs that
both leaders want it to continue for longer. And I think Beijing is hoping to bank in this stability, not just for the rest of the Trump
administration, but really to set this as a new baseline for beyond the Trump administration.
What that means for Americans is it's much harder for Washington to take steps that might be in defense of American economic or technology interests
if Beijing has perceived -- or is perceived to have the upper hand.
NEWTON: And that leverage that you speak of in terms of China having, what can they use that leverage to achieve in this summit and beyond in the next
few months?
DOSHI: Well, really, the purpose of that leverage right now is to just get the U.S. to back off. You know, I think what President Xi's objective is in
this summit, and of course, none of us are in his head, so we're all speculating, but I think one of his key objectives is to basically maintain
a stable U.S.-China relationship, and that particularly applies to the economic, technology, and trade sort of questions.
You know, President Xi does not want to see the U.S. increase tariffs on China. He'd like to keep selling goods to the United States, even if those
goods sometimes put American workers and businesses at risk. The U.S., he'd like to absorb them, essentially. On the technology side, he'd like to see
American technology most likely continue to flow to China in ways that will support China's development, but also its ability to climb the value chain
in key industries.
If you put all that together, what he's looking for is time. And President Trump wants the same thing. And the question of the moment is, if both
sides want to buy time, then who will spend it better?
NEWTON: President Xi, perhaps arguably the newsworthy component of the first day, was when he warned President Trump that any mishandling of
Taiwan could, and I'm quoting here, "lead to an extremely dangerous situation." So much talk has been about whether or not the U.S. would
change, officially, its policy towards Taiwan. What leverage does China have now?
I want to note that Marco Rubio has said that, look, U.S. policy on Taiwan is unchanged. That might be the public posture. Rush, do you believe that
behind the scenes something else may be going on here in Taiwan?
DOSHI: We don't know exactly what has happened behind the scenes. When President Trump was asked, when I think he was touring the Temple of
Heaven, did you discuss Taiwan, he didn't answer. And when Secretary Bessent was asked, you know, what will be talked about in the next day,
this is only the first day of the summit so far, there will be a second day, he indicated that there might be some more conversation on Taiwan.
We should be clear, I think Beijing has a few goals on Taiwan. They want President Trump to change U.S.-Taiwan policy, which hasn't changed in over
40 years. They also want the U.S. to basically agree to negotiate the quantity, the quality, the composition of arms sales to Taiwan with China
in advance, which, again, would be a big change from policy over the last 40 years. It would also make it a lot harder for the U.S. to support
Taiwan's ability to defend itself and deter Chinese aggression. So, those are two of the big things that we suspect have been on Xi's agenda. Whether
they were discussed and to what degree President Trump made a commitment, we don't know yet.
What's interesting, though, and I'll end with this, is if you look at the U.S. readouts of last interactions between President Trump and President
Xi, including phone calls, you often see President Trump talk about what's on his mind, economics, technology, and this time Iran. But President Xi,
for his part, will often emphasize Taiwan in these contexts. He'll talk a lot more about the importance of Taiwan.
So, this is the top issue. It's the most sensitive issue. It's a war and peace issue. And clearly, it's on the agenda. We just don't know exactly
what was said.
NEWTON: That does, though, lead us to the task at hand, which is trying to find some kind of resolution in Iran. I mean, how does China regard this
conflict? And do you think it will actually shape the outcome of what we're going to see in the next few weeks or even months?
DOSHI: You know, I think that China looks at this conflict as basically an own goal for the United States, an unforced error. That the U.S.
essentially has once again put itself into a Middle East quagmire. It is expending large quantities of the munitions that it needs to be able to
deter China in the Taiwan Strait. And it's spending lots and lots of money to do so. And the net result might end up being that the U.S. essentially
loses the ability to stop Iran from throttling trade in the Strait of Hormuz. That we end up essentially worse off than we were.
And the Chinese know, and Venezuela and Iran show this, that U.S. military power projection around the world is unmatched. The U.S. has incredible
capability. But a military victory, or rather an operational victory, can also be accompanied by a strategic defeat.
[13:10:00]
Now, what does President Trump want from China on Iran? Well, China is the biggest purchaser of Iranian oil. He'd like, I think, ideally, China to
purchase less of it. Maybe none of it. He'd also like Iran to not receive Chinese dual-use items that could support its military or weapons. And
there's been some reporting just yesterday indicating that China is looking for ways to deliver weapons to Iran, perhaps through covert, if not overt
channels, and through third countries. All of that would be used against American forces.
So, I'm sure these issues were discussed between the two leaders. But what President Trump, I think, wants is China's help in solving this issue. And
from China's perspective, look, it's a long-term problem to have the Strait of Hormuz closed. But in the near term, they can weather it. They're not
exactly excited to help the United States out of this quagmire.
NEWTON: No, in fact, as you point out, they might be working against the United States' interest even at this hour. I want you to listen now,
though, to Marco Rubio, what he said before this trip started in terms of Iran.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARCO RUBIO, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: Well, of all the countries of the world, economies are melting down because of this crisis in the Straits,
they're going to be buying less Chinese product, and the Chinese exports are going to drop precipitously. So, it's in their interest to resolve
this. We hope to convince them to play a more active role in getting Iran to walk away from what they're doing now and trying to do now in the
Persian Gulf.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEWTON: I'm not exactly sure how what he said translates to what is going on in the here and now in China. But what was your takeaway from that?
DOSHI: Well, the U.S. has a long history of trying to tell China what's in its interest, especially when it comes to regional hotspots like Iran, like
North Korea. And it doesn't always work out. And I'm not sure it's going to work out as quickly this time. I think the secretary is right that
essentially, you know, China does suffer, right? It'll suffer if there's a global recession, if your countries are buying Chinese goods. It'll also
suffer if energy prices stay high.
But we also can't forget that China has a 1.2-to-1.4-billion-barrel stockpile of crude. And it imports about 5 million barrels a day from the
Strait of Hormuz. So, when you do the math, they have a lot of time that they can use to kind of watch and see us flounder before they face really
serious problems. And even then, they might be able to adjust those problems by paying more for oil or simply, you know, using other ways to
get around oil consumption.
So, it's not clear to me that China is feeling the heat the way other economies in the region with less robust stockpiles and more dependence on
crude are feeling the heat. And ultimately, if they think that the conflict is putting the U.S. at disadvantage and distracting us from China, they
don't really have an incentive to see it end that quickly.
NEWTON: Yes, it's been staggering to me. I didn't realize before this conflict exactly what they had achieved in terms of having those stockpiles
for this such conflict. I do want to get to the tech billionaires that are in tow. And Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent talked to CNBC about his
expectations for an agreement on A.I. Let's take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SCOTT BESSENT, U.S. TREASURY SECRETARY: We're actually going to be discussing the A.I. guardrails with the Chinese. Well -- because the
Chinese are substantially behind us, but they have a very advanced A.I. industry here. So, the two A.I. superpowers are going to start talking.
We're going to set up a protocol in terms of how do we go forward with best practices for A.I. to make sure non-state actors don't get a hold of these
models.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEWTON: Rush, what kind of A.I. guardrails are really realistic here? You've been in the room. What kind of discussions were you a party to when
you were with the Biden administration?
DOSHI: Well, it's a great question. In 2023, we actually pushed for an A.I. dialogue with Beijing. We also pushed to basically ensure artificial
intelligence would never be connected to nuclear command and control. Seems obvious. But, you know, we didn't have agreement on that very basic
principle, so we pushed for that, too. And basically, we got both those things. The latter one was announced in 2024.
What we heard from the Chinese side essentially was that they are interested in a dialogue. And as Secretary Bessent mentioned here, I think
the Trump administration wants a dialogue. We haven't had one since 2024. It's probably about time, given the leapfrog capabilities these models have
made, especially the new model from Anthropic, the Mythos model. That's like a cyber master key to a lot of networks around the world. So, there is
a real need for dialogue between the two countries.
I think here's the question I'd ask, and this is where I think public pressure will be important. Will these dialogue mechanisms matter? In 2024,
it isn't the case, in my recollection, that China sent the right people to the dialogue. They sent kind of your standard diplomats, people who didn't
know the issues.
If they want to take it seriously, they're going to have to change the participation that they send to a dialogue on artificial intelligence. And
they frankly will have to pick up the phone if there's a crisis involving artificial intelligence, which the administration has suggested they want
to set up a crisis mechanism that both sides can use.
All of that will take time. It will take a lot of trust, and it won't happen overnight. But I think it's a good sign that both sides are talking
about artificial intelligence. And as Secretary Bessent noted, the U.S. and China are the two A.I. superpowers. So, you know, they're the countries
that matter the most when it comes to figuring out how to govern this technology.
NEWTON: Yes, that would make all of us feel a little bit better, and the fact that it's likely not in China's interest to really have this go bad
poorly for them as well. Some kind of cooperation is likely needed, as you say.
[13:15:00]
I do want to turn to another topic, though. Earlier this week, President Trump said he will discuss the case of jailed Chinese media executive Jimmy
Lai with President Xi. And yet, it seems the Trump administration has really dropped any pretense of pressuring China on human rights, including
even the repression of Uyghurs. That's just to mention one human rights issue.
Is the new phase of U.S.-China relations over in the sense that this relationship is now fully transactional? There is no pretense of bringing
this up. And, Rush, I have to mention, it's not like the Biden administration had a lot of luck on that score either.
DOSHI: Yes, you know, the first Trump administration did make human rights a priority, including on Xinjiang and Hong Kong. But a lot of that work was
done by Congress, and it was done by President Trump's staff and his Cabinet. I'm not sure President Trump ever thought it was a priority. You
may recall he is rumored to have told President Xi to go ahead and build those internment camps in Xinjiang. On Hong Kong, he once said, I'll stand
with President Xi, not with the people of Hong Kong. In effect, I'm paraphrasing.
And so, you know, I'm not sure it's high on his list, but I will say that I think the president does view human rights in transactional terms, which
means that he sees the possibility of getting a few folks out like Jimmy Lai, the billionaire media tycoon who was imprisoned in Hong Kong,
effectively given a life sentence for doing nothing more than in Hong Kong, expressing his views and supporting others in doing the same.
That case, along with a few other cases, are probably going to be passed to the Chinese side, often it's done with a piece of paper you give to them,
and then there's a message that accompanies it from the president. And my hope, and I think the president's hope, might be that this sort of ends up
being a kind of an instance of deal making, where you're able to get a few of these folks out as a show of good faith.
But comprehensive systematic pressure on China to change its human rights record is very challenging given how strong China is today. If the U.S.
couldn't get China to change its behavior on our economic priorities, which are very important for Americans and for American companies, it's much
harder to do it on human rights in China, where we have even less direct leverage.
NEWTON: You know, it's interesting that you say that, because the Trump administration has had some success on these kinds of human rights wins,
but even that has a more transactional character.
To that end, I know Michael Kovrig, who I'm sure you're familiar with, is a former Canadian diplomat who was arbitrarily detained for years in China.
And he wrote just in the last week that this is really a dangerous precedent. And he does couple that theory with the fact that the loss,
certainly of any kind of commercial leverage against China, means there will be virtually no leverage when it comes to human rights. I mean, he's
saying that, look, Western countries should have some kind of a coalition here to make sure they have more strength against the mercantilism, as he
calls it, but also the dangers that may come with it, like arbitrary detention.
What do you think, Rush? I mean, because to me it seems, even from when you were sitting down with the Biden administration, things have seemed to
change with China in warp speed here.
DOSHI: Yes. Look, China is very powerful. And, you know, recently Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell and I -- former deputy secretary under
President Biden, we published an article talking kind of as Michael does about the need for allies to band together. China out scales the U.S. in a
lot of metrics. It's two times America's manufacturing now value add. It's 30 percent bigger than our economy in purchasing power terms. It produces
three times the power the U.S. produces. These are enormous statistics, and we could go down the list.
So, the U.S., our ability to compete is really going to be driven by creating scale with our allies. If China out scales us, then we should
create scale with our friends, and together we can sort of out scale them. And if you do that, you look down every list, right, every metric. You look
down trade. You look down defense spending. You look at who's the top trading partner or top scientific publications or patents. That group of
countries comes out on top.
And so, I think what we need to see is a kind of more humble and more modest America that understands if you want to have leverage on the issues
you care about, whether that's human rights, trade, technology, or other issues like artificial intelligence, you simply can't do it alone as
effectively. You have to do it in common with like-mindeds. And I think the Trump administration in some ways by alienating some of these allies has
left itself open to a world where China can run the field and America can't keep up. And I think that is the risk that we currently face. We can fix
it, but it has to happen soon.
NEWTON: Yes, and to be noted, China rolled out the red carpet for a lot of those Western leaders in the last few weeks as well. Rush Doshi, I kind of
feel like I was in the room speaking to you. Thanks so much. Really appreciate your insights.
DOSHI: Thank you very much.
NEWTON: Now, we turn to the United Kingdom, and it is once again engulfed in political drama. You'll remember the chaos of the post-Brexit years when
the Conservative Party churned through four prime ministers. And now, it's the ruling Labour Party who has their own issues.
Keir Starmer's party performed terribly in last week's local elections, prompting a growing chorus from within his own party calling for the prime
minister to step down. Well, today the drama kicked up a notch with his health secretary, Wes Streeting, resigning in an attempt to trigger a
leadership election, and a Labour MP standing down, hoping to give another leadership contender, stay with me, Andy Burnham, the chance to re-enter
Parliament. He is currently the Mayor of Manchester and he needs that seat.
[13:20:00]
Now, it's already a tough time for the country. The post-Brexit years have been turbulent with the high cost of living in particular leading to
widespread dissatisfaction.
Joining us to discuss all of this is prominent British journalist Lewis Goodall, formerly of Sky News and the BBC. He is the co-host of the very
popular News Agents podcast. We will lean on you to figure out what the heck is going on here.
Wes Streeting just resigned as Britain's health secretary saying bluntly, he's lost confidence in Starmer's leadership. Streeting is seen by many as
the most likely challenger but now we have, you know, the Mayor of Manchester trying to enter this race perhaps. What is going on? What does
it all mean and what do you believe the next steps are here?
LEWIS GOODALL, CO-HOST, THE NEWS AGENTS PODCAST: Almost makes American politics look simple, doesn't it? Look, British politics at the moment,
what we're basically seeing is an ongoing crisis of confidence in Keir Starmer, the prime minister. Why? Well, we just had local election and
national election results in the U.K. last week. They were catastrophic for Keir Starmer's Labour Party and you've got tons of Labour MPs who were
elected less than two years ago, worried about not only the idea that they would lose their seats to the Conservatives having the kind of traditional
swing of the pendulum, that's the sort of normal thing in politics.
They're worried about the idea of the entire system, the entire clock from the pendulum being smashed to bits in the form of the populist, almost
Trump-lite, Nigel Farage and his reform party who did well in council election, local area in those elections last week. They swept all before
them and what they're worried about is that Keir Starmer simply does not have the political chops, the political vision, a loyally figure, not very
political figure, someone who has for whatever reason become despised by a lot of the British public, that they don't believe that he has the vision
or the political nous to lead them out of this crisis.
And so, what you're seeing in a series of different people gingerly come forward suggesting maybe they're the person. Is it Wes Streeting, the house
secretary you suggested? Well, he would dearly love to have it. He's basically been desirous of being prime minister since he was basically came
out of the womb. The problem with him is he doesn't have enough support in the parliamentary party. You've got Andy Burnham who is the mayor of
Manchester as you say. The problem for him is he doesn't have a parliamentary seat. We've got Angela Rayner, the former deputy prime
minister, until today she had a tax investigation dogging her.
So, you've got a situation where you've had the prime minister who is deeply unpopular both within his party and within the British public but a
series of pretenders to the throne who have their own individual problems and individual reasons as to why they can't become prime minister or leader
of the Labour Party.
So, what do you have? A good old-fashioned British political mess with a Labour Party basically in a situation where it's sort of having a coup,
sort of not having a coup, leaders who are sort of half in the race and not in the race and a prime minister who is so loyally that he seems to think
that you need to have a coup only when the proper form has been submitted and it's all in triplicate.
NEWTON: It's all a mess. Lewis, you have given us a very good and precise oversight of that mess. When you are on the doorstep though, and I know
that you have been on the ground, I know you speak to so many people, what is the kernel of the discontent here? Why did they turn on Keir Starmer who
we have to say had an impressive majority when he was actually elected? Why? What is it? Is it all about cost of living? Is it about the culture
war? What is it?
GOODALL: Well, we've got to remember that you, as you rightly say, you know, Keir Starmer was elected with a very, very impressive majority, one
of the biggest parliamentary majorities in history, but we've got to remember it was a loveless landslide. He was never a very popular political
figure to begin with. He got less than 35 percent of the vote. That was a record for an incoming majority government. He was never a much-loved
figure.
What he was, was not the Conservatives. He was the kind of like default option, the person that you needed to vote for in order to get rid of the
Tories who by that time were much reviled by much of the British public and they went to their worst election result in history in 2024.
But that meant that he had neither built up much of a relationship with the British public and to be honest, he didn't really develop much of a sense
of what he wanted to do. It seemed very much when you talked to Keir Starmer that he thought that it would be enough for him simply not to be
the Tories, that he would have more integrity, he would be more sensible, he would be more competent and that would unlock all of the, or solve all
of the problems that Britain had been afflicted by. It was never going to happen because Britain's political and economic problems are simply too
decent.
You've got to remember we've had 20 years now in Britain, unlike the United States, of declining living standards. Living the average person in Britain
today is no better off than they were in 2004 and the British public consistently are voting for someone, anything, anyone who might try and
deal with that problem and each time seems to be rolling double ones and that's a large part of the answers to why Starmer has ended up not just
being disliked, and you might think this is unfair if you're in Britain or you know Starmer because he's quite a mild-mannered kind of guy, but not
just disliked but in many cases actively despised by a lot of voters.
[13:25:00]
NEWTON: And it is incredible that someone who comes across, as you said, lawyerly and like a technocrat can be so despised and we hear that, but if
we try and turn the page on Keir Starmer, what can any of these new candidates offer? And I ask you, so many people saying that you can't
govern the U.K. anymore, are we seeing the breakdown of the two-party system?
GOODALL: Well, we certainly appear to be seeing the breakdown of the two- party system. You only have to go back to 2017 to see the Labour and Conservative parties getting 83, 84 percent of the vote and most of the
polling now, they're barely getting 40 percent between them.
So, for now at least, we do seem to be seeing that. That is leading to fragmentation, it's leading to panic, it's leading to all sorts of
political outcomes that we've never seen before and it's all being funneled through the same electoral system the United States basically has, which is
first past the post, which basically means that in a non-two-party system, you only need to sometimes be getting 20, 25 percent of the vote to win a
seat and that is creating chaos and dysfunction everywhere.
My own personal view is I don't think the British system is ungovernable. I think it looks ungovernable at the moment because there is no one governing
it terribly well. On paper, Britain should be easier to govern than say the United States with its separation of powers or France with its complicated
constitution with power levered and distributed in different directions.
In the British system, if you've got a majority of one in the House of Commons, as someone once said, you are an elected dictatorship. You can do
whatever you want, the House of Commons is sovereign. The problem right now is that party after party and prime minister after prime minister have not
had a political vision or the political space to be able to truly prosecute true government and true reform of the country and until you have that,
then what you're going to basically see is more and more of what we have, which is drift, which leads to division, which leads to instability, which
leads to coups and the prospects of us facing I think what would it be our seventh prime minister in 10 years.
NEWTON: Yes, perish the thought for many people in Britain right now. Like Donald Trump and Magadha, Nigel Farage has really stoked up the anti-
immigration fervor. How do you view reform rise? Of course, Nigel Farage, do you expect that he will be the next prime minister? But at the same
time, we have to counter the fact that in local elections, the left, the Green Party also had success. So, where do you see voters going here?
GOODALL: Well, look, it's very easy to overestimate the sort of reform for our surge. It is impressive. There's no way two ways about it. It is very
rare for a party, which isn't the Conservative Party, the Labour Party or to some extent, the Liberal Party, from getting serious traction in local
government reform is really doing that. They're doing well across England. They're even doing well in Scotland and Wales, which is not something that
Nigel Farage has done before, because he's been around British politics in one form or another for 20 years.
That said, you've already alluded to it. In terms of how they're doing nationally, they're probably getting 25, 26 percent of the vote. That for a
party which has pretensions to government isn't that great. It's just that all the other parties are doing somewhat less well.
And it's also true to say that Farage is a very well-known figure. He's adored by some, much like Donald Trump. He's adored by some and reviled by
others. There are a few I think who do not have an opinion about the man. If you talk to Labour Party people and Conservative people, they think that
he's still beatable. They think that with the right leadership and with the right approach, that actually this guy who's quite chequered, he's very
associated with the Brexit legacy, which many British people don't think has gone so well. They think that he is someone who can be taken on, but
you need someone with the power and the vim and the argument to do it.
Because there's no doubt, much like Donald Trump is a great hero. He's a very good performer on the media. He's a certain charisma, which is
undeniable, but they think that it is possible to take him on. For the Labour Party, they've just come to the conclusion that Keir Starmer is not
the man to do it, or many of them have anyway.
NEWTON: And when it does turn though to the left here and the Greens, do you believe that they could carry a lot of agency with voters, depending on
what happens with Labour in the next few years?
GOODALL: Well, of course, I mean, this is the Labour Party's problem. It's now finding itself bleeding, hemorrhaging votes in both directions, which
is basically the electoral valley of doom for any party, right? You've got Labour ceding votes to its left with the Green Party, and Zack Polanski,
who's this new force in British politics, or the new leader in British politics, anyway, who's moved the Greens, who historically in Britain were
a rather sort of slightly hippie-ish kind of force, slightly conservationist, mainly concerned with environmental issues, animal rights
issues, and so on.
He's moved them more to the sort of economic populist left, kind of Bernie Sanders plus, plus, plus. And that has had a certain resonance with Labour
voters who are frustrated that Keir Starmer's government is too incrementalist, too gradualist, not radical enough.
And at the same time, you've also got reform bleeding votes for the Labour to its right. And in many of those local elections that I just spoke about,
it was usually, very often Greens wouldn't win a seat, but their votes taken away from the Labour vote allowed reform to slip through the middle.
[13:30:00]
So, it is absolutely true to say that any incoming Labour leader has to deal with both the problems for the left and their right, and of course
great political leaders are able to do that while still managing to sort of maintain their initial coalition. And that's kind of what I think Labour
are looking for, because they're not convinced that Starmer's the guy to do it.
NEWTON: And as dramatic as this all is, coming at a point in time when global politics is really fraught as well, certainly both on the economy
and geopolitics, really tense times ahead for the U.K. You've given us quite a picture there, Lewis Goodall. The podcast is News Agents. We will
have to listen in a little bit more apparently, because it's about to get even more dramatic. Lewis Goodall for us, thanks so much. Really appreciate
it.
GOODALL: Absolutely.
NEWTON: Stay with CNN. We'll be right back in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEWTON: Now, despite an apparent ceasefire, the people of Lebanon are still living under Israeli airstrikes. 22 people were killed on Wednesday
alone. That's according to Lebanon's health ministry. And the IDF says it continues to intercept attacks from Hezbollah.
Meantime, peace talks are continuing with Israeli and Lebanese officials. They're meeting for a third round in Washington today. Jeremy Diamond joins
us from Jerusalem, where it is Jerusalem Day, in which many nationalist Israelis march through Palestinian parts of the Old City.
Glad to have you here, Jeremy, as we continue to parse exactly what's going on. I do want to turn to that Jerusalem Day march, where every year we
often see violence and far-right crowds marching through the Old City. Controversially, the national security minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, went to
the Temple Mount, the Al-Aqsa compound, and waved the Israeli flag. I mean, what did you witness today? And what do you think it tells us about Israeli
politics at the moment?
JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT: What we've seen on Jerusalem Day in previous years and in recent years in particular, which is, once
again, the Muslim quarter of the Old City was effectively shut down by Israeli authorities, as they prepared for these hundreds of young
teenagers, mostly ultra-nationalists, who then storm the Muslim quarter of the Old City, begin chanting racist anti-Arab slogans, such as, may your
village burn, and oftentimes try and deface some of the shops and property in the area.
We saw some of them putting stickers on some of these Palestinian-owned shops in the Old City, talking about Mayor Kahane, a notorious Jewish
terrorist, saying that Kahane was right. We saw also some of these, you know, young far-right nationalists attacking journalists, and also, you
know, some of these peace activists who tried to protect Palestinians who were trying to get through the Old City.
But I must say, overall, it does seem like there was less violence than we had seen the last two years of Jerusalem Day in the Old City. What we did
see, once again, as well, was Itamar Ben-Gvir, the far-right national security minister, going to the Al-Aqsa mosque, known as the Temple Mount
in Judaism. He went there alongside other far-right lawmakers, and he declared that the Temple Mount is in our hands.
[13:35:00]
Ben-Gvir has been critical to trying to change the status quo at the Al- Aqsa mosque, at the Dome of the Rock, to allow Jews to be able to pray there, which has been something that the Israeli governments, over decades
now, have prevented Jews from doing at the Temple Mount. But Ben-Gvir has really been testing the bounds of this, which falls in line, of course,
with, more broadly, his efforts to assert Jewish supremacy over Jerusalem and across Israel and the West Bank as well, of course, as well. Paula.
NEWTON: And, Jeremy, we do want to turn to developments between Israel and Lebanon. I mean, what can you tell us about any possible deal? They are
meeting in Washington, and how is the Israeli government viewing efforts to end the war in Iran as well?
DIAMOND: Well, listen, we saw the third round of negotiations take place today between the Israeli and Lebanese ambassadors to Washington, mediated
by the United States. Interestingly, today, there was also the addition of a few other officials on the Lebanese side.
You had the former ambassador, Simon Karam, who had previously led negotiations, direct negotiations, with Israel back in December that took
place before this current round of negotiations. And then you also have, on the Israeli side, the deputy national security adviser now involved. And
their inclusion perhaps signals that the negotiations are deepening, getting to the more substantive issues of how exactly to work towards
disarming Hezbollah.
Of course, the critical issue that they had to address today as Well, was extending the ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah, guaranteed
effectively by the Lebanese government on the Lebanese side. We haven't officially gotten confirmation that that happens. It was set to expire
tomorrow. But of course, what we have seen is that this ceasefire in many ways has led to a reduction but not a halt to the attacks on both sides,
frankly. We have seen daily Israeli airstrikes in Lebanon and also near- daily Hezbollah attacks against Israeli soldiers in southern Lebanon, as well as today, for example, a drone that Hezbollah fired that impacted a
northern Israeli community, wounding at least one Israeli civilian in that attack.
NEWTON: Jeremy Diamond for us. I mean, again, as you point out, the civilians on both sides of that conflict really wondering what the
ceasefire will mean as, you say, continues the violence on both sides. Jeremy Diamond for us in Jerusalem. Thanks so much.
Stay with CNN. We'll be right back with more news after a quick break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEWTON: So, when you're signing up for something new, are you reading the fine print in the terms and conditions page? Most of us check off the box
without a second thought. Guilty as charged there. But our next guest says we should be much more vigilant. Brendan Ballou is a former federal
prosecutor and founder of the Public Integrity Project, an organization challenging corruption and abuses of power. He joins Michel Martin to
discuss how companies are quietly limiting Americans' access to the courts in order to evade accountability, as he highlights in his new book.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, Paula. Brendan Ballou, thanks so much for talking with us once again.
BRENDAN BALLOU, FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL, U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND AUTHOR, "WHEN COMPANIES RUN THE COURTS": Thank you for having me.
MARTIN: Today, we want to talk about something that a lot of us don't even think about, like when you open a new credit card account, or you maybe
open a bank account, or maybe if you sign up for a streaming service, you know, you're going through the terms and conditions and you hit the thing
and the thing. And you're saying that there are consequences to that that we're not thinking about, most of us aren't thinking about. What is that
consequence?
[13:40:00]
BALLOU: Yes, it's a profound consequence, which is you are essentially signing away your right to the public justice system if one of these
companies harms you. So, what you are almost certainly signing is called a forced arbitration agreement, and what it means is that if one of these
companies harms you, hurts you, defrauds you, even potentially injures or kills somebody that you love you cannot sue them in public court. Instead,
you have to go to a private alternative to the justice system called forced arbitration where the judge, called an arbitrator, will most likely, or at
least, you know, there's a good chance that will be paid for by the very company that you're suing.
MARTIN: How does that work? I mean, how is that -- forgive me, this sounds like such a naive question, but how is that legal?
BALLOU: It works because the Supreme Court has made it so. So, there's an old law called the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925 that was really meant
for some very specific purposes, to really bind sophisticated parties, merchants that had disputes with one another, into arbitration so that it
would be faster and more informal than using the ordinary court system.
But beginning in the 1980s, the conservative justices of the Supreme Court began to reinterpret the Federal Arbitration Act, really expanding it
beyond whatever the history or text would have allowed to bind us into arbitration when we're consumers, when we're employees when we sign those
click-to-accept contracts that we were just talking about. None of that was necessarily in the text of the statute, but over several years, several
decades, the Supreme Court has expanded this practice to encompass virtually all of us.
MARTIN: Your book is titled "When Companies Run the Courts." I mean, that's a pretty blunt assessment of the situation. Is that your view, that
companies now run the courts essentially?
BALLOU: Well, you know, the specific title refers to the system of arbitration, so, you know, we're talking about a system where, as you said
businesses often pay for the effective judge. And so, you know, unsurprisingly, the statistics show that overwhelmingly companies win in
these things. You know, consumers win something like 89 percent of the time in small claims court. In arbitration before the largest providers, they
win somewhere in the order of 20 or 30 percent of the time. You know, if they don't have a lawyer, it might be less than 10 percent of the time. So,
in a very real way companies dominate the forced arbitration system.
MARTIN: Give us some examples of how you say this has worked, and you have several examples. I mean, in fact, you open the book with one. It's a man
named Jeffrey Piccolo, who went on a vacation to Disney World with his wife, who had severe food allergies. They went to a restaurant and were
assured that her allergies would be accommodated. What happened then?
BALLOU: Yes. So, you know, according to the subsequent allegation his wife, you know, had severe allergies, were repeatedly assured that the food
would be OK. It ultimately wasn't and contained allergens, and not only did she have anaphylactic shock, she died. But when Piccolo sued Disney for
wrongful death, Disney moved to compel him into forced arbitration, again, a system where the company, Disney, would pay for the arbitrator, and they
moved to do so because he had signed an arbitration agreement when he signed up for his Disney+ account several years earlier.
And, you know, in that specific case, the publicity from that story was so overwhelming and so overwhelmingly bad that Disney eventually backed out.
But to be clear, the law was on Disney's side, and there's example after example of companies being able to compel people into arbitration when
they're suing over racial discrimination, when they're suing over the murder of their son, when they're suing over their own rape or wrongful
birth allegations of that sort, all of which have been compelled into arbitration.
MARTIN: And after this backlash, Disney issued the following statement, at Disney, we strive to put humanity above all other considerations. And that
the case warranted a sensitive approach to expedite a resolution for the family.
You cite another case in the book where a woman who was a crew member on a cruise ship accepted an invitation from a colleague to join him for
Christmas and New Year's. She woke up in pain, realized that something had happened, realized she had been raped. According to your account, the crew
member admitted that he had raped her. She was discouraged from going to the police. She was discouraged from filing a complaint. And then what
happened?
BALLOU: Yes. So, according to the allegations, this woman was raped. The crew member admitted to the rape, and the company discouraged her from
going to the police. She ultimately sues the cruise ship company, and she had a binding arbitration clause and was compelled into arbitration, not
just arbitration, but private arbitration in the Philippines, her home country.
[13:45:00]
And we don't know what the outcome of that arbitration was because arbitration is overwhelmingly kept secret. And I'll say, you know, Congress
did make one meaningful improvement in the past few years, which was to exempt allegations of sexual assault and harassment from forced
arbitration.
But virtually, any other potential violation of the law can still be arbitrated, whether you're talking about age discrimination, racial
discrimination, or, like we were talking about earlier, injury and wrongful death claims. So, if somebody that you love dies, you may nevertheless
still have to arbitrate a case as serious as that.
MARTIN: What you're saying is that there's a huge power imbalance now, that most people don't know that they're going to be put into forced
arbitration. And if they do, the arbiter is generally somebody paid by the company. So, what's the court's reasoning here? I mean, the whole point, I
think, of a court system is to balance competing interests. So, what was their reasoning in allowing it to be expanded in such a way?
BALLOU: Yes. And I don't think that there was really a strong textual or legislative basis for actually expanding this. And there's been broad
criticism of sort of the reasoning in a lot of these decisions. You know, really, I think it boils down to a real animus towards consumer and
employee lawsuits, which many conservative justices see as frivolous, and against class actions specifically.
So, you know, class actions being this idea that rather than each person who's similarly harmed having to bring their own case, everybody who's
experienced the same harm can go under one umbrella, which saves enormous costs. And it's had enormous impacts in American history. You think about
Roe v. Wade was a class action, Brown v. Board of Education was a class action.
But the conservative justices have a real aversion to class actions, and forced arbitration was a way to potentially kill them in a very specific
way, which was that many of these arbitration agreements require you not just to arbitrate your claim, but to do so individually. Each person who's
harmed has to bring their own case. And why that matters is, you think about all the ways that a company might harm you. You know, those little
$30 fees that a bank might add that don't seem to make sense or don't seem fair.
You know, they can only get resolved through a class action. And if you can kill the class action and force people to pursue their claims individually,
what that means is it becomes economically impossible for anybody to actually do anything about those.
And so, I would say, you know, to viewers who feel like companies are increasingly sort of scamming them or increasingly beyond the reach of the
law, forced arbitration is a large reason why that's the case.
MARTIN: Because there's no recourse. I mean, your argument is that that's how they can afford to get away with terrible client service, terrible
customer service, because what are you going to do about it?
BALLOU: Exactly. And that's a change over the last 15 years. So, if you really see companies behaving differently to their customers than they did
a generation ago, it's because they cannot be held legally responsible by their consumers or employees for all but the biggest harms.
Now, the rejoinder to that, of course, is that, you know, this is the responsibility of state attorneys general, prosecutors, the Department of
Justice and so forth. But these are dramatically overwhelmed institutions. And even if they weren't, you know, think about the current Department of
Justice does not seem to show a great deal of interest or empathy towards ordinary consumers or employees on issues like this.
MARTIN: How did you come to see this? How did this story come to you, especially given that, as you said, it's really hard to know that there's a
pattern?
BALLOU: Well, you know, for lawyers, I think class action -- you know, forced arbitration is a big part of our lives, because it's effectively
ended so many class actions or the ability to get justice for folks. I'll say, you know, what brought me specifically to this story is, you know, my
background was at the Department of Justice, I've been doing antitrust and white-collar work, I had written a book that was very critical of private
equity a few years ago. And in talking to many non-lawyers, through that work, I got the sense that many people, most people feel that the legal
system is just profoundly stacked against them, and really geared towards big corporations, and the very rich, and the very powerful.
And as a practicing lawyer, I wanted to be able to explain to people that, in fact, they are right. But explain it in a way that was specific, so that
people could understand the real mechanisms by which the legal system and the law bends towards the powerful, and also how we might bend it back to
something more just.
MARTIN: So, before we get to that, I will just so ask you, though, that we've all seen stories about the person who sues the fast-food company,
because they said their coffee was too hot. We've all seen these stories that that suggests that the courts are overburdened with ridiculous cases,
like, what would you say to that?
[13:50:00]
BALLOU: I would say it's entirely understandable that somebody might have that belief that we are sort of deluged with frivolous lawsuits that are
burdening our court system and our companies and so forth. But I would implore you that many tens of millions of dollars have been spent to get
you to have that belief. In fact, there has been a multi decade long effort to create this idea that there is a litigation explosion in the United
States. I think what research is out there suggests that actually that litigation explosion may never have occurred.
And in fact, many of the most famous stories that we have about this are much more complicated and vastly more plaintiff friendly on inspection than
we sort of get in the soundbites or in the cultural memes. You know, you mentioned the person suing over hot coffee. That was, you know, sort of
like a national joke in the 1990s.
MARTIN: Yes, it was.
BALLOU: The woman who sued Stella Liebeck was, I believe, in her late '70s. When she spilled the coffee, she got third degree burns on her
thighs, buttocks and vagina, had to have skin grafts for two weeks and physical therapy for several years. She even didn't want to sue. She tried
to settle for $50,000. McDonald's refused. It was only after multiple refusals from McDonald's that they went to court and it was revealed that
the company actually had hundreds of similar burn allegations.
And so, you know, the $2.7 million award, I believe it was, amounted to about two days of coffee sales for McDonald's and was meant to be a
deterrent for McDonald's from doing these sorts of overheating policies. But I think it goes to show that those sorts of cases that are meant to
deter companies from broad sort of systemic harm are just increasingly impossible.
MARTIN: So, what's the fix?
BALLOU: You know, I was saying earlier that I don't think ethical consumerism, you know, all of us reading our contracts really carefully is
going to solve this problem just because there's so many of them. And, you know, in many ways, we can't actually opt out for a lot of these. It's
going to have to be legislation. And in a world where Congress is probably pretty paralyzed on these sorts of issues, it's going to happen in states
and localities.
In particular, California, Maryland, and others have done good work passing legislation to make forced arbitration more fair, more transparent, more
like a regular court system. And importantly, California has passed this really important law called the Private Attorneys General Act, which allows
people who are ordinarily bound by forced arbitration with their employer to sue instead on behalf of the California Labor Department, which isn't
bound by forced arbitration.
So, essentially delegating the state authority to employees. We really need legislation like that in other states and on other issues, not just
employment, but also discrimination, antitrust, consumer fraud, environmental harms, and so forth. If we do that, then arbitration is going
to become a much smaller part of our lives, and hopefully companies are going to start behaving better.
MARTIN: Given that this is a multi-decade long trend that you've identified in your reporting, do you genuinely see an opportunity to push
back against it to equalize things?
BALLOU: Yes. So, a couple of specific things and then a broader answer. So, you know, I actually do have a lot of optimism here on the Supreme
Court. There's really interesting research showing that on the less salient issues, so the things that aren't voting rights or abortion rights or so
forth, the Supreme Court is actually surprisingly responsive to public opinion. And I think the more that we can raise the salience of forced
arbitration, the more that the Supreme Court's sort of expansionist agenda can be not necessarily stopped, but at least slowed.
And I think we can use that time to pass the legislation that we need. And I have a level of optimism because we've seen states already do so. But I
think more generally, I have reason to be optimistic because, I mean, the best part of my job is that I get to talk to a lot of people who have
chosen a specific issue around forced arbitration or private equity or whatever it happens to be, and they stick with it for a matter of months or
a matter of years and have an enormous impact.
And so, I have some optimism that we're going to be able to make progress here because I have seen progress happen so many times on other issues.
MARTIN: Brendan Balloue, thank you so much for talking with us.
BALLOU: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
NEWTON: And finally, for us, Haiti has scored a place at this summer's World Cup for the first time in more than five decades, and the kids are
cheering.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEWTON: The young players you see there are hoping to realize their big dream, one day playing for the national team, despite ongoing gang violence
and conflict in that country. Now, the Haitian squad managed to qualify for football's biggest tournament while playing all their matches in exile.
Think about that. And they're inspiring a generation to train up. Many feel proud to see Haiti represented on the international stage, including 12-
year-old Said Savi.
[13:55:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SAID SAVI, FC SHANA FOOTBALL PLAYER (through translator): I want to play for the national team. My dream is to win a World Cup with the Haitian team
to show others what Haiti is. Not many in the world know Haiti. Some think that it is a little country, a place where there's no football. Haiti has
many talents. I want to show them what Haiti is like.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEWTON: Finally, for Haitians, something to cheer about. That's it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly
after it airs on our podcast. And remember, you can always catch us online, on our website, and all-over social media. Thanks for watching, and goodbye
from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
