Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Trump Tightens His Grip On The Republican Party As His Picks Win Key Primaries; Putin Visits Beijing, But Is He On The Back Foot In Ukraine?. Aired 12-1p ET
Aired May 20, 2026 - 12:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[12:00:58]
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: Hello everyone and welcome to "Amanpour". Here's what's coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. THOMAS MASSIE (R-KY): I have called and conceded the race. We've been honorable the whole time. And we're going to stay that way.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Trump tightens his grip on the Republican Party as his picks win key primaries. What does it mean for the midterms and the future of the
GOP? Journalist David Graham joins me.
Then.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VLADIMIR PUTIN, RUSSIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): Today, our relations have reached an unprecedented high-level, serving as a model of
comprehensive partnership and strategic interaction.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Putin visits Beijing, but is he on the back foot in Ukraine? I speak to exiled Russian journalist Mikhail Fishman author of the new book,
"The Successor."
Also ahead, the men who want women to be quiet. Hari Sreenivasan speaks with "The Atlantic's" Helen Lewis about how the Christian right, the
manosphere and MAGA have formed a powerful new coalition against feminism.
Welcome to the program everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York City in for Christiane Amanpour.
Donald Trump's hold on the Republican Party appears as strong as ever. And primaries held this week, Trump-backed candidates advanced in Georgia,
Alabama and Kentucky.
A show of force that comes despite the president's weak polling, growing concerns about the midterms and questions about whether Republicans will
lose control of Congress.
Perhaps the most striking example, Congressman Thomas Massie, once an ally and more recently a critic of the president on issue -- issues ranging from
the Epstein files to Israel and Iran.
Massie lost to retired Navy SEAL Ed Gallrein who says that he'll be loyal to the president's agenda.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ED GALLREIN, U.S. HOUSE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE: I want to thank President Trump for his support, his endorsement, and his counsel as I navigated this
campaign, which is a journey of and to itself and for his courageous leadership of our nation at this critical time. I want to emphasize that
this critical time and juncture in history. Thank you, Mr. President.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: And Massie wasn't alone. Other Republicans who sought to stay in Trump's good races have also found themselves on shakier ground politically
like Texas Senator John Cornyn.
On Tuesday, Trump chose to endorse the controversial Attorney General Ken Paxton over Cornyn in the Texas Senate race with the primary runoff vote
happening next week.
So, what does this moment tell us about the future of the GOP and the upcoming midterms? Joining me now is journalist David A. Graham, the author
of "The Project: Examining How Project 2025 Is Reshaping America." David, welcome to the program.
So as we just listed there from Thomas Massie in Kentucky to Brad Raffensperger in Georgia, Bill Cassidy in Louisiana to five state senators
in Indiana. They all crossed Donald Trump, and this week, they all lost.
So, is it now an established fact of life that at least within the GOP party, if you cross Trump, you lose politically?
DAVID A. GRAHAM, JOURNALIST: That does seem to be the case. We've seen an impressive kind of revenge spree from Trump on these things. All of these -
- these candidates who have crossed have lost.
And you look at somebody like Marjorie Taylor Greene who wasn't up for reelection, but who he basically pushed out of the party and out of
Congress, we can see now. So, he does seem to retain a very firm grip on what goes on inside the Republican Party.
GOLODRYGA: And Donald Trump just endorsed Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton for Senate and Texas over incumbent John Cornyn which was rather a surprise
because most of the party establishment believed that endorsement would come in Cornyn's favor. He is someone who's boasted voting alongside Trump
99 percent of the time. Paxton brings a long history of scandals. He is quite controversial. There are fraud allegations as well.
[12:05:15]
And this is what Trump said of Cornyn. He said, "He was not supportive of me when times were tough."
So, is this the president putting a safe Republican seat now in jeopardy just to settle a score?
GRAHAM: I think there's a couple of things going on here. I mean, it's clear that despite Cornyn's record, he has been maybe a less enthusiastic
Trump backer, even when he's voted for Trump. He doesn't seem like he's really -- he's really in on it in the way that Ken Paxton is.
I also think though, there is a little bit of a sign of -- of Trump's weakness here. You know, when his primary -- when it went to runoff, it was
expected that Trump would endorse Cornyn.
There were lots of reports to those effects. And then Trump dithered. And one reason he dithered, I think, is he was afraid of backing a loser.
And then we started seeing polls showing Paxton up. And in fact, polls showing that even if Trump endorsed Cornyn, Paxton win.
And so in this case, I think Trump is following his voters a little bit and trying to -- to sort of retroactively make himself into somebody who's on
the right side of the coming primary.
GOLODRYGA: So given the dynamics now in Texas, many in the party establishment had viewed Cornyn as the favored to beat James Talarico, who
-- who's a rising Democratic star, a congressman in the state. There are no illusions that Texas is about to turn blue.
But we've been here before with previous run-offs that have been rather close. And in questions about whether Texas was at least borderline purple.
Does this make that likelihood that much more possible, given that Cornyn, I mean, we'll see what happens next week. But if he's expected to lose, and
you do see someone like Ken Paxton going up against Talarico. Does that up the odds for Talarico?
GRAHAM: I think Democrats are -- are much more optimistic about the possibility of beating Paxton than they are Cornyn.
You know, Cornyn has a long history of winning in Texas. He's been the senator for a long time.
Paxton is so scandal plagued. You know, he had this messy divorce from his wife. There was a failed impeachment, a very closely failed impeachment
over many allegations of impropriety coming from other Republicans. It was an impeachment effort led by Republicans.
So although voters in Texas seem to like Paxton or Republican voters, there's clearly a lot of either a flawed candidate.
And so I do think it makes it much more likely Democrats could contend or perhaps even win. And given how much different one seat could make in the
midterms in the Senate, I think you'll see Democrats putting a lot of money into that race.
And whether Republicans are going to have the same stomach to back Paxton, I think, is an interesting question when we'll have to be watching.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And at the very least, Republicans will have to put much more money in this race where they weren't expecting to, assuming that
Cornyn would win in the primary. And obviously would get the president's endorsement.
Let's talk more about what happened in Kentucky and the race against Thomas Massie. That was the most expensive House primary campaign ever, totaling
some $33 million, including some $9 million, from AIPAC, alone and other pro-Israel groups.
Massie seemed to nod to this in what was the opposite of a gracious concession. Listen to what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MASSIE: Listen, I would have -- I would have come out sooner, but I had to call my opponent and concede. And it took a while to find Ed Gallrein in
Tel Aviv.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: So aside from that blatant anti-Semitic trope, how much of Massie's loss do you think was attributed to AIPAC's funding here? Or were
there other issues given his concerns over the lack of focus and the lack of attention that the Democrat -- that the Republican Party and the
president himself were giving to the Epstein files and obviously the economy and the war in Iran?
GRAHAM: Look, I think funding against Massie certainly didn't help him, but I think this fundamentally comes down to his feud with Trump.
Massie has always been a very heterodox Republican. You know, he's sort of libertarian. These eccentric views and sometimes eccentric ways of
expressing them. And he's still been elected seven times in that district.
So the fact that he lost here, I think, comes down essentially to him crossing Trump. And -- and that is on -- on the question of backing Israel
and the war with Iran. It is on the Epstein files.
You know, these are -- again, these are places where -- where we have seen Massie be consistent over the years. And what has changed is the
willingness of Trump and people working with Trump to really put a concerted effort into knocking him out.
GOLODRYGA: So again, if Trump had, if he had won Trump's endorsement, then are you suggesting he likely would have won this race?
[12:10:10]
GRAHAM: I -- I think there wouldn't be a race. I mean, Ed Gallrein was basically handpicked by the White House to run here. You know, somebody
might have run against him because he is a little bit unusual, but it would not have been this kind of thing. It would have been a rump.
And, you know, I think in the past, Massie has courted Trump's endorsement for exactly that reason. He understands that Trump is the kingmaker in
these primaries. And that has -- that has worked for him in the past, this time, he went too far to make nice with Trump.
And he -- and he ran on that too and sort of the renegade outlier who was up against Trump on some of these issues.
Let's turn to Pennsylvania. We saw a range of Democratic candidates when their primaries across the political spectrum from far left Chris Rabb to
progressive populist Bob Brooks, who's the state's firefighter's union president.
Looking at these Democratic wins, what was the unifying message here?
GRAHAM: Well, I think it's really interesting to see these candidates who are backed by really a wide swath of the party. They often have this
backing from the left, but they also have backing from people like Josh Shapiro.
I think in this election so much of -- of the midterms is going to be simply about pushing back on Trump. And so, in that sense, it's very easy
for Democrats to unify.
But I think we're starting to see more hints of what a -- a Democratic Party might look like in 2028 and how the party will sort of try to shape
itself when it has to run a more constructive platform than it does in these midterm elections.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And Josh Shapiro, all along, has said that he's not focused on 2028. He's focused on doing his job serving as governor, but that's not
the first time we -- we have heard that line from a potential presidential candidate.
And Josh Shapiro himself is actively trying to flip four House seats blue in November as he's running for re-election himself. How much of that is
shaping his strategy if, in fact, he were to look ahead to 2028?
GRAHAM: I think one thing that's interesting about Shapiro is he's not only saying that he's not looking forward to 2028, but there are places where he
seems to be pushing against the kind of conventional wisdom in the Democratic Party. And I think that's interesting positioning.
You know, what matters, I think, to so many Democrats right now is winning. And they might have favored candidates or favored strange of the party, but
what they really want to do is to defeat Trump.
And so, Shapiro is able to carry other candidates along with him. I think that -- that sets him up in a good place for him.
GOLODRYGA: And that does appear to be his message, at least, right? Is focused on the defeat of Trump.
How does that align with what has historically been, or at least most recently been the Democratic strategy in their line describing themselves
as a big tent party?
Because now, we are seeing this sort of back and forth as to whether there's room for some of the more centrist candidates versus some of the
more far left progressive candidates.
Who do the Republicans, at this point, see as more of a threat?
GRAHAM: I think Republicans are worried about somebody like a Josh Shapiro because he -- he seems able to appeal to the middle. But they have
questions about whether or not he can make it through a Democratic primary.
Certainly, we saw in 2020, a lot of Democrats felt like they had to run left to try to win the primary. But the person who won, Joe Biden, is the
person who didn't really move as far as left in that primary. So, it's a little bit of a paradox there.
All of these things, I think, can -- can coexist for now. But it is in a -- a 2028 race where -- where Trump is out of the way and is not the major
topic. They were going to see some, I think, messy fights among Democrats. Or else we're going to see somebody who's able to come together and kind of
synthesize those strains into something that can win.
GOLODRYGA: So let's talk about 2026 because there is also this paradox of Trump showing his strength within the MAGA base, within the party. But
nationally, he's seeing now some of the worst approval ratings in either of his terms at 36 percent. Obviously, you have Americans really concerned
about the economy, the direction of the economy here, rising gas prices, and obviously an unpopular war in Iran.
And I'm wondering how this line from the president, which he seems to be doubling down on, is going to sit with voters going into the midterms.
Let's play it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: When you're negotiating with Iran with the president, to what extent are Americans' financial situations motivating you to make a
deal?
TRUMP: Not even a little bit. The only thing that matters when I'm talking about Iran, they can't have a nuclear weapon. I don't think about
Americans' financial situation. I don't think about anybody.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: That was May 12th. Just today, he doubled down when asked a similar question about the state of the economy concerns amongst Americans.
He said that's just peanuts compared to what a nuclear capable Iran would look like.
[12:15:05]
How concerned are Republicans with that messaging? And are we seeing it help Democrats at all at this point?
GRAHAM: Well, I think Republicans are beside themselves listening to this. And we see Democrats, you know, although very unpopular in their approval,
doing well in the generic ballot for the House.
And I actually think there's a connection between these sorts of comments and these primary races. I think the irony is that Trump would really
benefit from a Republican Congress that was more able and willing to push back on him, that might have restrained him on the Iran war, that might
feel like they can challenge these kinds of statements and -- and push him to focus more on these kitchen table issues.
But because he, you know, will come down hard on any Republican who crosses him and makes an effort to defeat them in a primary like Thomas Massie, or
like John Cornyn, to some extent, they're afraid to do that.
And so the strength that we see in these primaries, I think, is also the root of the weakness that we're seeing with the general electorate, and
that may cause problems for Republicans in November.
GOLODRYGA: Well, we have a potential blue wave now crashing into real time, gerrymandering Republican-led states are now aggressively redrawing their
voting districts following Supreme Court's weakening of the Voting Rights Act.
Which force do you think ultimately will drive voters to the polls in November, the -- the blue wave that -- that Democrats are hoping to
anticipate or the Supreme Court tending to seem to help their opponents?
GRAHAM: Look, the -- the Supreme Court decision and these also redistricting cases in the states are obviously very good for Republicans,
but there's only so much they can do.
You can draw districts that are helpful, but I think you can only -- you know, it's like building a seawall. It will hold back some of the flood,
but it can't back -- hold back all of it. And so that's why I think a lot of the smartest -- I know they still see Democrats says a favorite, maybe
not a favorite to take a huge lead in November, but -- but certainly the favorite to take the House.
Because voter sentiment comes down to these -- these really basic issues. They're upset about the war. They're upset about affordability. And they
would like -- you know, they -- they don't particularly like the way Trump conducts himself on the job.
GOLODRYGA: And so based on the data that we're now seeing from these primaries, what -- what is the one headline that you are -- listen,
anything can happen, especially under a Trump administration, months feel like years.
But from what we're seeing today, how can that reflect upon some of the results we should expect in November?
GRAHAM: I think what I'd say is that the MAGA base remains very strong. It's not splintering, but it is shrinking. And -- and that's going to be a
problem for Republicans. That's why Republicans are -- are at a disadvantage in November. They -- they simply don't have as many voters,
and Trump seems to be driving some of the ones they have away.
GOLODRYGA: All right. David A. Graham, always a pleasure having you on the program. Thank you so much for joining us.
GRAHAM: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: And still head on "Amanpour," how might Russia and Moscow's strongmen react? Exile Russian journalist Mikhail Fishman joins me.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: Next, to China and hot on the heels of President Trump's visit, Vladimir Putin has been in Beijing today, embracing Xi Jinping and hailing
ties between their countries as stronger than ever.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
[12:20:02]
PUTIN (through translator): Our goal is the well-being and prosperity of the Russian and Chinese peoples. These unshakable foundations have enabled
our relations to successfully withstand repeated tests of strength and resilience.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: But as the Russian president looks east for support, the war in Ukraine is testing his power at home.
So, how did Putin become Russia's forever leader? And could history have taken a different term?
Mikhail Fishman is an exiled Russian journalist and author of "The Successor: Boris Nemtsov, Vladimir Putin and the Decline of Modern Russia."
And he joins me now from Amsterdam.
Mikhail, welcome back to the program. Congratulations on the book. It's a fascinating read. And I want to get to the book in just a moment.
But if we can talk about sort of the current lay of the land with the war, the president of Russia visiting China just after President Trump was
there, and reports from "The Economist" and publications like ours and others showing that Russia's spring offensive has essentially stalled.
Ukraine, for the first time in months, is actually clawing back more territory and -- and inflicting up to 35,000 Russian casualties a month.
From your vantage point, is this just a temporary lull on the part of Russia? Or are we really witnessing a strategic turning point here in the
war?
MIKHAIL FISHMAN, EXILED RUSSIAN JOURNALIST: Well, first, thank you for having me, and I'm really flattered.
Now, getting back to your -- to your question about what's going on at the battlefield and wider in Putin's war with Ukraine.
The -- it's probably too early to say if it's a strategic turning point of this war, but it certainly looks like the balance of military strength in
this war has shifted, at least for now.
As you have mentioned correctly, for three months already, the Russia's offensive at the battlefield is stalled.
And to a large extent, this is due to the A.I.-powered new Ukrainian mid- range drones who successfully hunt Russia's military supplies behind the frontline, which makes the so-called, I think that everybody knows this
term now, kill zone at the battlefield, much more reinforced, I can say.
And it's getting harder and harder for Russian military to -- to get through using its infiltration tactics.
And with, as -- as again you mentioned, the Russia's contract soldiers recruitment problems are beginning to show.
And given the fact that Ukraine is pouring billions of dollars, not only Ukraine, but with European allies, billions of dollars into production of
drones, it is very likely, it's likely. It -- it may happen that in some point, in few months' time, this -- this kill zone will become largely
impassable at all, which makes -- will make Putin's main goal to capture the whole Donetsk-Donbas area more elusive than ever.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And we've witnessed with our own eyes over the last four years, the evolution of modern-day warfare with this drone technology that
the Ukrainians themselves have been able to capitalize on as a business model now that they are sharing with the rest of the world, I mean,
including the Middle East with the war in Iran by -- by now.
But if you look at what Ukraine has been able to do, and that is bring the war literally to Vladimir Putin's doorsteps there in Moscow with its
largest drone assault of the year, I think of some 600 drones that Ukraine launched towards Moscow and Russia, 500 of them were intercepted. But some
did hit refineries, residential suburbs of Moscow.
How much of bringing the war to the capital there shakes Vladimir Putin's narrative and message to the Russian people that they essentially will be
shielded from much of this war, the (INAUDIBLE) that he described as the special military operation for so long?
[12:25:59]
FISHMAN: Exactly. It's -- it certainly does. It certainly affects Putin's position and the understanding where this war is going.
Even the most prominent, which means the most hypocritical state propagandists, now acknowledge that the war with Ukraine has entered a new
phase in which Russia is forced to defend itself at home against Ukrainian drones and -- and missiles in Moscow these days.
But before that, in -- Ukrainian drones are steadily, week by week, expanding the -- the area of their strikes inside Russia. They now have as
far (INAUDIBLE) mountains, as everybody knows. And that's a totally different situation.
We also have -- Putin have to squeeze his military parade, which was designed to -- which is initially designed as his most valuable show of
strength, which now, before our eyes, turned into a demonstration of his weakness -- weakness as he was afraid that the Ukrainian drones would
strike his weaponry before the parade as they were -- they're housed in waiting for -- for the show to begin, right?
So that's a very different story now. And it's actually very visible. And the mood in -- across the Russian elite, the Russian military bloggers,
even as I mentioned, Russian most infamous propagandists is now different than it was a month or two -- two months ago.
The mood is now that this Putin is not winning this war. And this will -- and the mood across Russian society. And we know that from independent
pollsters, as well as from state pollsters, that the -- the mood is also darkening, that this -- there was a huge hope when Donald Trump entered the
scene more than a year ago that he would help Putin to end this war on whatever terms, but the war would end, and things would get back to normal
as they were before the war started in February 2022.
And now the mood is totally opposite. This would never end. And the feeling of insecurity is growing with every day. Everyone can be -- every building,
every Russian region can be hit with Ukrainian drone and missile any moment now. That's now the general feeling.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And the fact that Vladimir Putin had to essentially ask President Trump to agree to a ceasefire with President Zelenskyy over the
course of those few days leading up to the parade is very telling as well.
I want to ask you about the reporting that -- that all comes to a head about where Vladimir Putin is at this point today, whether he is hidden in
a bunker daily now, even more so removed from society, more paranoid, his cooks and bodyguards banned from public transport. He's seeing more and
more of his top generals being assassinated in the country's capital as well.
That's led some publications like "The Economist" to question whether Vladimir Putin is actually losing his grip of control over the country.
And I was watching your weekly show, which I have for many years now, "I Tak Dalee." It's -- in English, it's "And so on." And your interpretation
is the opposite, at least temporarily, that you think this is a sign of Vladimir Putin actually holding more control over the country becoming more
repressive because of what he fears may be external or even internal forces trying to -- trying to see him out of office.
FISHMAN: Well, that would be an exaggeration of what I said on my show probably, a slight exaggeration.
But my point was and is that -- that certainly things are changing for -- for Putin. The situation in Russia is changing. The mood is changing. The
mood within the elites is -- is definitely shifting.
That's -- there are -- the major factor, the core factor is the war, which is never -- now never ending war, and the feeling that Putin does not know
how to end it. And nobody knows what's the next step and where it's all heading.
[12:30:08]
Also, very important factor is economy. Just a -- just a few days ago, the Russian government had to allow the expectation of economic growth this
year to basically stagnation. And people are already feeling the pain and have to -- have to spend less on even food.
And third, and this is a very important factor, is Putin's assault on -- on internet freedom and social networks and, most importantly, Telegram and
mobile internet during recent months, which is strongly opposed across the whole nation.
Whoever you are, just a common -- common people from -- from in a small town or a member of Putin's government or --
GOLODRYGA: Or a soldier in the battlefield.
FISHMAN: Or a soldier in the battlefield. There are military blogger. You are absolutely against it. And -- and this actually added to this feeling
that -- that Putin is leading Russia to a totally different direction that everybody expected.
And this is the situation Putin is in. So he has a choice what to do either to back down or there are basically always three options, to back down, to
buy loyalty with money, but he doesn't have much.
And third option is to retaliate and to -- to increase repression. And that's the most likely, as we all now know, who is Mr. Putin. This is the
most likely path that you will choose.
GOLODRYGA: To become even more and more repressive as -- as he's concerned about his hold on power. You've all said that this war --
FISHMAN: Yes, because his -- yes, because --
GOLODRYGA: And you've also said that this war ends when Vladimir Putin's reign ends because you equate Vladimir Putin now with war. And that is
something that Boris Nemtsov, your -- your subject here of your book, "The successor," had been prescient enough throughout his career as he was a
rising politician, perhaps heir apparent to Boris Yeltsin and then an opponent to Vladimir Putin.
That is something that he always signaled to the country, that Vladimir Putin will bring war to the country. And here we are now. Boris Nemtsov was
murdered, assassinated in Moscow in 2015.
And you've talked about him in this book as a leader of what could have been a different Russia. Just talk about what that Russia could have looked
like.
FISHMAN: That's a -- that's -- yes. That's a very, very, very, very good question. And it's always very hard to imagine a different Russia,
especially today, not only when I was finishing my book, which was -- which was even before the war -- the war started, although the English version,
language version, is in the dated version and it actually ends with the invasion -- with Putin's invasion.
But -- but certainly now, when -- when -- when we all know how the story ended, and we all know that this aspiring, young, let's say, pro to
democracy, which new state Russia, which started its journey in late '80s, early '90s, and then brought to life so many aspirations, hopes, and
political leaders, as -- as Boris Nemtsov, now turned into one of the most brutal dictatorships of modern times.
And so how would it -- would it -- could it be different? That's -- that's -- that's -- that's of course, the point.
So my answer to that would be that, should Boris Nemtsov become the president? This story would be very different.
Actually, almost anyone would have become president, the story would have - - except Putin, the story would become very different.
But if Nemtsov would become president, instead of Putin in the year 2000, let's imagine that, he would -- he would still have to oppose this strong
conservative wins, this frustration of Yeltsin era bankruptcy, political bankruptcy, economic bankruptcy of 1998 and -- and this --
[12:35:07]
GOLODRYGA: Corruption?
FISHMAN: -- this current will be very difficult -- would be very difficult to overcome. But if -- but if he would become president, he would most
probably, what is certain, he would not be president today.
He would most likely lose his next election. And what would -- what would have happened is that the -- the -- the question at the core of Russian --
Russian evil circle, which makes it end at the same -- at the same point that started -- it started -- it -- it started, and always making the whole
-- the same -- the same loop inside -- inside -- inside the history. The main question that -- that -- when you are a political leader, you have so
much at stake that if you lose, you lose not only your political position, not only your social status, but also your capital, very likely your
freedom and maybe life.
GOLODRYGA: Yes.
FISHMAN: And that was the crucial question for Russian leadership during the '90s and -- and -- and also now. Imagine Putin losing power now.
So this evil circle would be broken with, if anyone, especially himself, would rule Russia for at least four years.
GOLODRYGA: Let's, as we close now, because we see what the alternative has been, and that is the reality of life now under President Putin for some 26
years with U.N. exile, no real opposition following the murder of Nemtsov and then Navalny. That's when you and I last spoke. And journalists like
yourself now living in exile.
I want to end the show with a brief glimpse for our viewers of what Boris Nemtsov message was for Russians at the time.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BORIS NEMTSOV, FORMER RUSSIAN OPPOSITION POLITICIAN (through translator): We should say no to war. We should say enough of idiocy. We should say
Russia and Ukraine without Putin. Russia and Ukraine without Putin.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Also important to note that from day one, he was against the annexation of Crimea as well.
Mikhail Fishman, I suggest everyone read this book. And thank you, as always, for your reporting. We can still follow it on TV Rain. Thank you.
FISHMAN: Thank you for having me. Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: And we'll be right back after this short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: Now, there may be growing divisions within Trump's MAGA base, but the rejection of feminism appears to be a unifying force for right-wing
males.
With the help of social media, misogynistic views are being increasingly normalized.
"The Atlantic" staff writer Helen Lewis has been keeping an eye on this growing frontier and it's the subject of her new June cover piece. She
joins Hari Sreenivasan to discuss her observations.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HARI SREENIVASAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Bianna, thanks. Helen Lewis, thanks so much for joining us.
You wrote a recent piece in "The Atlantic" and it's titled, "The Men Who Want Women to Be Quiet." Where you describe this ideology called
Masculinism. Just kind of break that down for our audience. Set the table for us.
[12:40:01]
HELEN LEWIS, STAFF WRITER, THE ATLANTIC: Yes. I mean people might have heard already about the manosphere, which is often described as a kind of
network of male influencers, who, you know, talk about whether or not it's boosting your testosterone or making yourself more attractive or working
out, whatever it might be.
And I think this is sort of the political wing of that, essentially. So masculinism is a kind of antidote or a backlash to feminism to say that men
have been shamed for being men, women have feminized society in ways that the masculinists contest.
One of the big examples of that is that they think that empathy is now too dominant in politics. That women are empathetic and too many female
politicians. You know, they feel sorry for illegal immigrants or they feel sorry for violent criminals.
And so, you know, borders aren't being enforced, laws aren't being enforced. So, they have this really top to bottom critique of society. And
everything that's happened really in the last, well, you could say, 100 years or -- or more.
At the very extreme end, you have people who, you know, who want women to be legally paid less than men, or women who don't even vote in some of the
more extreme cases.
SREENIVASAN: Now, you start the article out by talking about someone named Douglas Wilson, who has a lot of policy prescription, and he has also the
ear of Defense Secretary or Secretary of War Pete Hegseth.
You write that, "Wilson believes that women should, quote, not ordinarily, hold political office and should never serve in combat roles in the
military. Husbands should have dominion over misbehaving wives' weight, spending habits, and choice of television programs."
I mean, he's part of this movement, and you -- and you write that he's the co-founder of the Communion of Reform churches based in Moscow, Idaho. Tell
me a little bit more about him.
LEWIS: Yes. He's a really fascinating figure. I mean, he has been blogging for over 20 years now, and he's written an extraordinary number of self-
published books. He has kind of found in a little empire in -- in Idaho.
So, he has a publishing imprint that seven members of his family write for. He has a streaming platform. He makes documentaries. You know, and he has
this church that has planted 170 other churches around the U.S.
And, you know, he's been saying the same things for a really long time, but he feels that his moment has come to some extent. He feels that there is
now an openness to the things that he's saying.
And, yes, that link to Hegseth is -- is really important. So, Doug Wilson went into the Pentagon in February, led a prayer service, and told
everybody there to be unembarrassed, unapologetic Christians.
And now, the interesting thing about that is that there's -- that is not all flavors of Christianity, right? He's a Calvinist. He's a Protestant.
And he doesn't -- you know, and he's -- he would like America to be a theocracy.
And he actually wouldn't really like expressions of Catholicism in the public square. So, he doesn't like processions related to the Virgin Mary
and that kind of thing.
So, he has got a very particular vision of what he thinks America should look like. And, you know, it is -- it is a very narrow one. Very kind of
few people need apply, really.
SREENIVASAN: These voices, like Mr. Wilson, would have been considered fringe. And what you're saying is they are far more mainstreamed, perhaps
because of their -- the people who subscribe to them like Pete Hegseth.
LEWIS: And also because of the reach of the internet. For better or worse, we've moved into a much more of a free-for-all media environment.
You know, there would have been a time when people like Doug Wilson would have been kind of treated as a curiosity. And actually, what's happened is
that he has been able to build his own apparatus, right?
There is no point you or me know platforming Douglas Wilson. He has built his own platform and it's very popular and successful.
And you could say the same thing about, you know, the -- the manosphere influences. You know, lots of them, Nick Fuentes, who I mentioned in the
article, you know, he has been banned from a whole lot of social media platforms, but not all of them.
And also, he has an army of fans who clip up things that he says and then distribute them. That was something that also worked very well for Andrew
Tate.
So, you know, there has been this democratizing of the discourse, which has been wonderful in lots of ways and given a lot of people more of a chance
to speak, but it has also allowed some ideas that would once have been considered pretty extreme to be put in front of millions of people.
SREENIVASAN: How does that kind of overlap, right? You have on the one hand, you're talking about somebody who has kind of religious motivations.
And then how does that slide over into kind of political action and activity when it comes to this younger generation of men who might be
listening to him, but they might also be YouTube influencers that are selling kind of how to look better and how to take the right vitamins or
whatever it is.
LEWIS: Right. And all of its wrap together was kind of anti-elitist message, right? So, you know, they are doing this to you. They are keeping
you from, you know, expressing your natural masculine innate kind of sensibilities. So, there is a kind of anti-establishment tone that goes all
the way through it.
The other thing I found when I was researching this was that this is one of the few things that really binds the entirety of the new right, the online
right, together. And that hadn't really kind of occurred to me before.
[12:45:00]
You know, if we look at the MAGA movement now, there are some pretty deep splits on, you know, whether the tech companies should be better regulated,
whether or not Israel should be treated as a, you know, the staunch military ally of the U.S., which should be treated in more arm's length
way.
Protectionism in trade versus tariffs, you know. There are big ideological divides within that movement. But the one thing that pretty much everybody
can agree on is that there are a few too many bossy women around the place telling everybody what to do and wouldn't actually everybody be happier if
we reverted to a more kind of 1950s model of gender relations.
SREENIVASAN: Yes. You write that, "Masculinism has become the single most important force uniting the American right, bringing together an unlikely
constellation of pastors, posters, senators, preachers, influencers, podcasters and fanboys."
Was there any kind of a triggering event? Is -- do they see the success of President Trump as a license?
LEWIS: I think Trump is definitely a big part of it. You know, he has always been someone who's traded on his kind of edginess and he's willing
to take on whatever you might call it, political correctness.
He's also, you know, he -- he has run against a beaten two female opponents who are presented in this way that the man as fear hates, which is this
managerial bureaucratic coddling idea of like the women are kind of the world's H.R. managers. They're the kind of the world's nannies and moms
telling you what to do. And so, yes, I think you -- you can't see this story without a figure like Trump.
Also just this feeling and lots of online communities that are very popular with men, that being edgy is a kind of passport. It's your kind of
credibility, kind of waiver to get you into that space. You know, that your -- your call, your chill. You don't mind if people use racist words or
sexist words. You know, you're not kind of scold.
All these negative ideas that they have about the left, it's become Richard Hanania who used to identify as a white nationalist calls it the Based
Ritual, right? You show to the other people that you are based, you are cool with this kind of stuff.
And you do that by being -- by being racist or sexist or saying something like, well, actually, I think women shouldn't vote. And it's understood as
being slightly joking, slightly edgy, deliberately edgelord provocative.
But also there are people around this movement who very seriously, if they were allowed to, you know, constitute America's political landscape, that
is what they think should happen.
SREENIVASAN: I could see someone from the -- the White House spokesperson's office saying, hey, look, President Trump keeps his arm's length from this.
We've got the secretary of education, Linda McMahon. We've got the Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard.
We have -- we have cabinet women who are high-ranking officials. So we -- so we're not masculinists. We're not -- we're not trying to court that
vote.
LEWIS: Right. And I think there's a really interesting thing that's gone on there. You might also mention Susie Wiles, who is --
SREENIVASAN: Sure.
LEWIS: -- the first presidential chief of staff.
So, I'm not going to make the claim that Donald Trump is a feminist. I don't think that's a claim he'd make for himself. But he is clearly
actually not completely elitist with women in -- in positions of authority.
Although I think the only person he really likes being in a position of authority is himself. So it's all -- it's all slightly relative.
But there is an interesting thing that some of these people are more extreme than -- than Donald Trump. And that's something that kind of often
gets, I think, underrated.
You know, he kept off from the Republican platform in 2024 and a federal nationwide abortion ban, which the pro-life movement has wanted for a
really long time.
And Donald Trump had a sense that was too far. That was actually the kind of thing. And if you look at where people votes, yes, people have --
genuinely have, you know, concerns about abortion, but lots of Americans do support it in some circumstances. So, Donald Trump correctly identified
that was a step too far.
And there's a similar thing, I think, that happens with, you know, with some of these masculinist ideas. He is, at the same time, he can be very
sexist, you know. He told a female reporter to be a quiet piggy.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: Quiet. Quiet, piggy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEWIS: This very belittling sexist put down that I actually found quite shocking. I can't really imagine George W. Bush or, you know, recent
Republican presidents doing such a thing.
SREENIVASAN: It's interesting right now, we also seem to be in a place where there are a lot of women who are embracing the -- the traditional way
for tradwife philosophy and ideology, which kind of lines very nicely along with the masculinists that where -- but that women are opting into this.
And then all of a sudden it says, well, they're not being oppressed into it. They're choosing it.
LEWIS: Yes. And I think that's very different. If any couple in America, you know, goes, we'd actually like a really traditional split of
breadwinner and homemaker. And maybe, you know, we're going to make some economic sacrifices to do that. Then God bless them. I'm all for it.
The difficulty is about, you know, not being able to make that choice, having it forced on you.
But the interesting thing to me, yea, I think the tradwife phenomenon is a bit related to the, you know, manosphere. In the sense, I think both of
them are entrepreneur led by people who are playing characters on social media that may not be reflected in their everyday lives themselves.
You know, you see lots of people who are preaching things and living a lifestyle for the benefit of, you know, the gram.
SREENIVASAN: Yes.
LEWIS: And the same thing happens with a lot of tradwives, you know. Most of them are essentially small business owners. You know, they're actually -
- their content is their product. Their lifestyle is -- is their product.
[12:50:09]
So they're, you know, they're just as -- just as much as a female CEO, they are participating in that kind of capitalist economy.
SREENIVASAN: We've had multiple conversations on this program with different people who've come on and said, you know, look, there is a
problem that young men are facing right now. There's a loneliness crisis. They are -- are struggling for economic viability.
You know, is there something about that audience that makes them more vulnerable to hearing or subscribing to masculinism when they see it
online?
LEWIS: The thing that I hear a lot, particularly from parents of teenage boys, is that there has been this message to boys that they are, in some
way, inherently toxic, that they are sort of stained by original sin, or that they are, you know, mini-patriarchs in waiting. They have all this
power.
And, you know, it's been a while since I was a teenager, but I can imagine that teenage boys feel like this. You don't feel very powerful. You feel
insecure, you know. You -- you -- you want people to like you. You don't really have a kind of C.V. that you can boast about, whatever it might be.
And so I think that audience -- you know, I feel for them. If you are a 17- year-old boy who is, you know, really desperate to find a girlfriend or boyfriend, it doesn't have a, you know, weekend job, who's worried about
being popular at school, and then you get told there are all these ways to be an awesome alpha guy, then I can see why that's a really, really
appealing message.
And I can also see why it's a real turn-off. If you get told that you are - - there's something sort of wrong with you. And that being a man is to be innately in the wrong.
SREENIVASAN: One of the pieces of data that you have in there is that 83 percent of Republican men, under 50 years old, agree that society has
become feminine.
Now, whether they continue to hold those views, I don't know, but that's as an -- that's an enormous number, and that is going to be the group that
takes over the party.
LEWIS: I think it's really interesting that -- that data, because they're - - it's not wrong in the sense that, you know, I went back 20 years and Congress was 16 percent female. Three percent of S&P CEOs were females. So
there have been really big advances, you know.
There are more women around. Some people, for the first time, will have a, you know, a female boss for the first time in their life.
One of the things I wrote about in my book on feminism was, you know, how difficult it can sometimes be for male teachers. You know, they can be the
only man in the staff room. And that was an experience that was uncomfortable for women entering male-dominated workforces, right? And
finding that they were kind of the odd person out.
And the same thing might now be happening to more men, that they -- you know, they might not be in the big dominant group and in publishing or in
academia or wherever it might be.
So, you know, I don't -- I don't think that -- that the criticism is completely invalid, right? Social changes have happened.
But the question is whether or not the -- the slightly overblown claim that this is a kind of threat to civilization, and everything is going to hell
in a handcart, is actually, that's the bit that I think is -- is harder to prove, is -- is women's fault.
SREENIVASAN: You cite different evidence-based claims that are being made by different people. You talk to Helen Andrews, a religious historian. You
talk to a political commentator, Charles Cornish-Dale.
You know, there was a quote in there, "Leftists have now openly embraced emasculation and having low testosterone as part of their identity."
What are they claiming? Why should it be taken seriously? Is this an edge case that they're amplifying? Or is this something that has happened to the
mainstream left?
LEWIS: The thesis from Charles Cornish-Dale, who -- whose internet handle is Raw Egg Nationalist. He believes in eating 12 raw eggs a day in order to
boost your testosterone levels. Just a little bit of news you can use there.
But the idea is essentially that, you know, that sperm counts have been falling, testosterone rates have been falling. There seems to be some
evidence for that. I wouldn't say it's completely obvious and cut and dried.
But the -- the secondary claim is that, actually, if you're a high-T aggressive virile man, then you like inequality. You like entrepreneurs,
and you like striving. You like all those values that we traditionally associate with the right of politics, that kind of competitive energy.
What his claim then goes on to say is that low-T equals liberalism, right? More concern about equality. More concern about making sure everybody's
feelings are kind of solved.
You know, I just -- I feel like that's imposing a kind of frame of gender onto some fairly big and, you know, abstract concepts.
SREENIVASAN: Helen Lewis, thanks so much for your time.
LEWIS: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: And finally for us, Rafael Nadal's Journey to the top. As a 22- time Grand Slam champion, he's known as one of the greatest tennis players of our time.
But Nadal's extraordinary success did not come easy. Now, almost two years after his retirement, a new documentary is unveiling the struggles that he
endured both physically and mentally throughout his career.
And earlier today, Christiane sat down with the tennis star and asked him about it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN ANCHOR: Tell me about the level of anxiety and stress, having to go out, for instance, at one point with a bottle of water
the whole time, you know, and -- and how you work through that.
[12:55:04]
RAFAEL NADAL, 22-TIME TENNIS GRAND SLAM CHAMPION: Probably because I went through a lot of injuries, a lot of pressure, and I arrived a moment that,
in some way, you are not able to handle all of this.
And even if in my mind, I was able to handle all of this, a right point that your mind fails, you know. And that's what -- that's what happened.
So when -- OK. I always thought that I need to fix things for myself in terms of mental -- mental strength, you know. But a right moment that when
I was -- my feeling was, OK, I cannot go out on the street without a bottle of water on my hand.
So, yes, that's a big -- that's a big, big. So I need to find help.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Make sure to tune in tomorrow for the full conversation.
And that is it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast.
Remember, you can always catch us online, on our website, and all over social media.
Thanks so much for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:00:00]
END
