Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with The Atlantic Staff Writer Susan Glasser Interview with The New Yorker Staff Writer Anne Applebaum Interview with "Red Card" Author Jules Boykoff. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired June 09, 2026 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: Hello everyone and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: You see that's what's happening in California, they're rigging the election.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Trump falsely claims a stolen election again, this time in the L.A. mayoral race. I speak to the New Yorker Susan Glasser about what it
means for American democracy and the midterms ahead.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOMANA KARADSHEH, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): As soon as she got here, doctors told us to save her life. They had to amputate both her arms and
right leg.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- a year ago, the world met Habiba, a two-year-old girl in Gaza fighting for her life. Now, correspondent Jomana Karadsheh visits her
and witnesses an extraordinary story of survival.
Plus, President Zelenskyy tours Europe seeking support. With the war entering another critical phase, what comes next for Ukraine?
Also, ahead --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JULES BOYKOFF, AUTHOR, "RED CARD": FIFA has a real problem with greenwashing, which is to say talking a big green sustainability game, but
not actually following through on the ground.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: The World Cup is finally here, but so are questions about climate, costs and FIFA's power. Hari Sreenivasan speaks to Jules Boykoff,
author of "Red Card," about the controversy surrounding this year's tournament.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
Once again, President Trump is falsely claiming election fraud, this time after Democrats advanced in the nonpartisan primary for the Los Angeles
mayoral race. Trump has blamed mail-in ballots for the result, reviving false claims that have become a familiar feature of his presidency.
Pressed for proof on NBC's Meet the Press, the president offered none and cut the interview short.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KRISTEN WELKER, HOST, "MEET THE PRESS": Let's talk about --
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: You're elections in this country, we're like a third-world country. You're elections are crooked. And you're crooked.
And "Meet the Press" is crooked.
WELKER: But, Mr. President --
TRUMP: And so is ABC and CBS and CNN.
WELKER: But, Mr. President --
TRUMP: You're one-sided crooked networks. Let's call it quits because I've had enough. Thank you, darling. Have a good time.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: The New York Times reports that he is privately urging aides to investigate what he calls a rigged system. Even as election officials
maintain there is no evidence of widespread fraud.
Now, the controversy is spilling into a national security fight in Washington. Trump has said that his acting director of national
intelligence, Bill Pulte, will investigate and he, quote, "may find out some things about the rigged elections." That's despite offering no
evidence that such fraud exists.
Democrats strongly object to the appointment of Pulte, who is a housing official and close ally of the president with no intelligence experience.
They are now revolting and vowing to block the reauthorization of a controversial foreign surveillance program.
So, what does that tell us about the president's mindset right now in the state of America's democracy heading into the midterms? For more, I'm
joined by Susan Glasser of The New Yorker. Susan, always great to have you on the program.
So, let's start with these baseless allegations about both the mayoral race in California, in Los Angeles. And President Trump also touched on the
gubernatorial race there as well, where you do have a runoff between both a Democrat and a Republican candidate. We'll get to that in a second.
But in terms of Los Angeles, progressive Democrat Nithya Raman moved ahead of the Republican, and that was Spencer Pratt, to face off incumbent Mayor
Karen Bass in November. Trump is saying that because Spencer Pratt just a few days ago was in the lead and it looked like there could be a scenario,
which would be quite unusual for a blue of all blue cities like Los Angeles to have a Republican vying and running off running against a Democrat.
The president is saying now that these new votes have been counted, something is fishy, and that is evidence enough of election fraud. Just
give us your take here. Do you think he really believes that? And I guess the bigger question is, does that even matter?
SUSAN GLASSER, STAFF WRITER, NEW YORKER: Look, Bianna, Donald Trump, there's no election that he was concerned about the outcome of in his life.
And that includes, you know, elections to win Tony Awards or Oscars as well that he hasn't called rigged.
[13:05:00]
And, you know, it's dignifying the absurd to suggest, you know, that Donald Trump has any basis for making any claims right now about California to do
so in the absence of any kind of process, of any evidence. You know, that's not how it works in a rule of law society.
And the president has a very, very clear-cut playbook. We are a decade into this, you know, not just a year into this now. We know how this works with
Donald Trump. He makes baseless claims. He doesn't need any evidence. In the 2020 election his own attorney general, Bill Barr, told him to his face
and in public interviews that there was no basis to claim any fraud of any substantial nature in the 2020 elections, that it did not affect the
outcome. He even left the administration.
Here we are, years later, Donald Trump has converted these lies into the new ideological litmus test for membership, essentially, in today's
Republican Party or senior level appointment. So, no, he doesn't have any basis and no -- to suggest that he really believes it on the basis of what?
What -- how would he actually really be in a position to really believe that there's fraud here? And what does that matter?
GOLODRYGA: Right. And as we spent time on last week with Jonathan Martin, really focusing on the primaries in California in particular, we introduced
our audience to what's been called the jungle primary. That is the nonpartisan primary system in which anyone can run from whichever party.
And it would be, as I noted earlier, more surprising and it has been more surprising to see Republicans really rise in popularity, obviously not
going to the runoff as it's looking at this point for the midterms. And that's going to be in November. But it does give a sense as the weakness of
Karen Bass and also the grievances of many voters in California as well.
But I did mention Steve Hilton and he is going to likely be running against the Democratic candidate for governor. And President Trump said this. He
posted on Truth Social about both the mayoral race and the California's governor's race. And he said, not possible for Spencer Pratt to have lost
the L.A. runoffs after the big lead he had. Third world nation rigged elections. Now, they'll be working on great guy Steve Hilton.
And to that point last night, my colleague Erin Burnett asked Steve Hilton if his team had seen any indications of election fraud as well. And here's
what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEVE HILTON, REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE FOR CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR: We've got teams standing by lawyers standing by. And actually, it's the same answer
that actually I've been giving for a few days now. We've seen nothing that would give us cause to intervene in that way.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: So, are you are you surprised by that, that when a Republican is actually on track to win, potentially it's a free and fair election?
GLASSER: No, I'm not surprised by that. I mean, come on, right? Like, I mean, again, we are 10 years into this. Donald Trump's claims, for example,
about the 2020 election, which he lost in, relied on the most massive possible allegations of conspiracy. Basically, in the history of the world,
if you want to take what Donald Trump said at face value in many of the states that he claimed there was fraud because he didn't win the election.
Republicans won for Senate. Republicans won for governor.
Are you imagining that these conspiracy theorists were out there in this devious plot where they were going to elect Republicans to every office in
many districts except for Donald Trump? I mean, it's just -- these are farcical in their face. In a rule of law society if you have an
investigation, if you have evidence of fraud, you bring it to the authorities, you investigate it, you take it to court.
And courts have found again and again and again, wherever specific claims have been advanced by Trump and his allies, they have not found that this
is a rigged election. In fact, they have found again and again and again that the United States has quite a safe and relatively fraud free election
system.
So, you know, this is trolling on an epic scale that comes right out of Donald Trump's playbook.
And I think you're right to set up the question of, you know, what does it mean in terms of the possible approach we may see to Donald Trump based
with his party making major losses in the midterm elections this fall?
GOLODRYGA: Well -- and I know that it's exhausting at this point so many years later to have to relitigate this question, as you've noted. So, many
court cases have proven that there was no widespread fraud. Many of these judges are Trump appointed judges as well. And Trump is reminded of this
every time he makes these baseless allegations. And yet he is still dug in here. And that's led many to think, OK, outside of California, is he
potentially setting up for a bigger protest, scandal reaction to results that he may not like in the midterms?
[13:10:00]
GLASSER: Yes. I mean, look, his effort to undermine the possible Democratic pickups in the midterm elections literally began more or less
the day he returned to office in 2024. He's already had a very preemptive effort to undermine Americans confidence in the legitimacy, fairness and
integrity of our elections. He has, as you know, had a years long campaign in effect against mail in ballots, often to the frustration of many
Republicans who believe that there are many states and districts around the country where mail in ballots would benefit them.
You know, so, again, Donald Trump has gone out of his way for many years now to take a preemptive approach of undermining American confidence in the
legitimacy of our elections right out of, I might note, an authoritarian playbook used around the world and not just here in the United States.
Looking forward to the midterm elections, what I found very striking about what Trump is doing in California is jumping in with sweeping, unfounded
assertions and no evidence while the counting is still going on. We will remember that he started doing this in 2020 as well as the counting was
still occurring. It's in order to really call into question for his followers the legitimacy of an outcome in which Republicans don't win.
The question many people have is given how much Donald Trump has been willing to make sweeping claims of executive power and to deploy federal
assets on the ground in ways that are very questionable and at times ruled illegal, whether that's what he's looking at potentially doing in the
middle of the counting this fall in key states and districts around the country. That's the fear I think that many people have is that it's not
just going to be inflammatory rhetoric from Donald Trump, but that he may attempt to use federal agents to intimidate voters or to intimidate vote
counters for example. He may file preemptive lawsuits. I mean, who knows what's possible?
GOLODRYGA: Well, then that leads to my next question about appointing as acting DNI, Bill Pulte, someone with no intelligence background or
experience. He's a housing finance official, someone who has been a stalwart supporter of the president. And President Trump came out when
asked about what qualifications Pulte has for this job, saying, well, maybe he'll find some things out about the rigged elections.
What does that mean about putting someone like Bill Pulte at, I guess, marrying these two concerns about the outcome of free and fair elections
and not intimidating voters? And at the same time, this is a very important job. And it's a role that was established after the 9/11 commission.
Looking back as to what pieces were missing leading up to the 9/11 attacks, to have someone like him running this organization at the same time when
there are concerns about election security. What does that tell us about the state of the country from a national security perspective, Susan?
GLASSER: Absolutely. I'm so glad you brought that up, because, first of all, we should say to people, after a history of many scandals in the, you
know, '40s, '50s, '60s and '70s, the whole principle of the U.S. Intelligence Community is that it's not meant to spy on Americans, that
it's not meant to intervene in our domestic politics. It's meant to protect us from foreign national security threats. That is the explicit statutory
role of the U.S. Intelligence Community, not to get involved in domestic political disputes.
And it was already, I think, a breathtaking breach of our laws and customs that his predecessor, Tulsi Gabbard, why did she show up in Georgia, where
Donald Trump continues to make baseless claims about his defeat in the 2020 election? And has used his Justice Department to go after election records
there.
Tulsi Gabbard showed up in the middle of that as the DNI. It's never been explained exactly what she was doing. It seemed when Donald Trump made
reference to his new acting DNI, Bill Pulte, that he was also going to be involved in looking into the, quote/unquote, "rigged elections." That
Donald Trump has exploded the distinction between our Intelligence Community, which is meant to be focused on foreign threats, and is now
using them to carry out his domestic political errands. That's number one.
And then number two, with Pulte, it's very notable that Trump is making him only his acting director of national intelligence. He's basically bypassing
the U.S. Senate and saying, I'm not even going to bother to pretend to have him confirmed for this role, even though the job is a Senate confirmed job.
Why? Donald Trump learned in his first term he'd rather have very problematic characters in sensitive roles like this who are accountable
only to him.
[13:15:00]
And I think it's very notable that he's saying on the front end to Congress, basically, I dare you to do something about this.
GOLODRYGA: And the Democrats, obviously the minority party here, are using FISA, the reauthorization of FISA, that is Section 702 of the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act, as some sort of leverage that they can hold over President Trump as they are fighting against this Pulte nomination. Is
that a wise move on their part? And briefly, in the last moment we have here, so explain to our viewers again what FISA is.
GLASSER: Yes. I mean, this is the very -- you know, sort of the heart of the American Intelligence Community's ability to conduct, you know,
electronic surveillance wiretapping. It must be reauthorized on a regular basis by Congress. And right now, they're saying we won't do that as long
as Pulte's in this role.
Now, Trump is not nominating him, and that's part of the problem is that it's a very limited role.
Republican senators, sometimes they talk a big game when it comes to being upset with various extreme actions Trump takes. But again and again and
again, they folded when it comes to the vote. So, we'll see if -- and how many of them are willing to join with Democratic colleagues to actually do
anything about it right now. It's not clear.
GOLODRYGA: All right. Susan Glasser, to be continued. Always great to have you on. Please come back soon.
GLASSER: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: And do stay with CNN. We'll be right back after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: Next to a story we first brought you more than a year ago. Habiba is a three-year-old Palestinian girl from Gaza with a rare genetic
condition. When we first met her, she was running out of time. Denied medical evacuation for weeks by Israel, her limbs and her life were at
risk. But then the king of Jordan stepped in and brought her to Amman for treatment.
Now, our Jomana Karadsheh returns to visit Habiba and witness a remarkable story of survival and recovery.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JOMANA KARADSHEH, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The little girl that captivated the hearts of so many on her journey to the brink of death and
back. A journey that we brought you a year ago that began in Gaza's hospitals, where doctors had nothing left to save Habiba al-Askari. The
Palestinian toddler was suffering from a rare medical condition with gangrene spreading in her body.
Her mother, through CNN, appealed for help. Following our report, Jordan's King Abdullah ordered Habiba's evacuation for urgent life-saving treatment.
We're now back in Amman to visit Habiba. Seeing Suhaib, her only brother, and their mother Rana again is an emotional reunion for me and producer
Abeer Salman.
We found a totally different Habiba, a happy and chatty chil
HABIBA AL-ASKARI, EVACUATED FROM GAZA (through translator): Matchy, matchy.
KARADSHEH (through translator): Habiba, how old are you?
KARADSHEH: It's three and a half. That's how old Habiba is now.
AL-ASKARI (through translator): Come here.
KARADSHEH (voice-over): Her spirit and smile almost makes you forget what she has been through. A life-altering triple amputation.
RANA YOUSIF, HABIBA'S MOTHER (through translator): If she arrived earlier, they wouldn't have amputated her arms, neither her leg. They delay of her
arrival delayed everything and caused everything that happed to Habiba.
[13:20:00]
May God not forgive those who were responsible. I do not forgive them.
KARADSHEH (voice-over): Israeli authorities never gave a reason for repeatedly delaying Habiba's evacuation last year. As soon as she got here,
doctors told us to save her life, they had to amputate both her arms and right leg.
YOUSIF (through translator): Habiba couldn't stop asking me, mom, where are my fingers? Mom, where is my leg? So I told her, your hands are in
heaven. So, we had two options, Habiba, either, God forbid, you die. And I explained her what death means, or we amputate them so you stay alive. So,
I asked what would be her choice? She said, I don't want to die.
KARADSHEH (voice-over): Habiba is excited to take us around this compound that's now home, the SOS Children's Village, a refuge for Jordanian orphans
that's now also hosting families from Gaza receiving treatment in Amman. Rana is a mother on a mission, making sure nothing feels out of reach for
her baby girl.
The other rock in Habiba's life has been Suhaib. His sister is his whole world, and he is hers. But beneath that brave face and warm smile is a 12-
year-old boy's trauma that has, in many ways, been overshadowed by his sister's ordeal. As we sit down for a chat, it doesn't take long to see
that Suhaib, too, carries the hidden scars of Gaza.
SUHAIB AL-ASKARI, HABIBA'S BROTHER (through translator): What I went through cannot be forgotten. A child's mind cannot comprehend these things.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): What are these things.
S. AL-ASKARI (through translator): Bombardment, hunger, destruction, martyrs, bodies strown in front of me. When we were displaced, I would have
to skip over bodies.
KARADSHEH (voice-over): But it's remembering how Habiba once was that breaks him.
S. AL-ASKARI (through translator): I remember how she used to run. When I was carrying the water, she would run to me and wanting to help me.
KARADSHEH (voice-over): He notices Habiba's looking at him. It seems he has to hold it all in.
After running around all day, Habiba has had enough of her prosthetic leg. She wants to show us her ouchie.
KARADSHEH: She feels pain, that's why she asked to take her prosthetic off.
KARADSHEH (voice-over): To try and get her mind off the pain, I ask what she enjoys doing.
H. AL-ASKARI (through translator): I like to sing.
KARADSHEH (through translator): Sing me a song.
KINKADE: Habiba enjoys singing.
KARADSHEH (voice-over): For Rana, being separated from her husband and her children from their father is incredibly hard. But returning to a Gaza in
ruins could be a death sentence for Habiba, she says. Habiba has found a new chance at life. She's starting nursery now. The road ahead will not be
easy, but nothing seems impossible for this determined little warrior, who is ready to fight the odds.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: The resilience of a child never ceases to amaze. Our thanks to Jomana Karadsheh for that report there.
Well, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is in Estonia today for a summit with Nordic and Baltic leaders as Kyiv ramps up its diplomatic push.
Earlier this week, he was also in London, meeting with the leaders of Britain, France and Germany. This comes as Ukraine looks to inject new
momentum into stalled peace efforts and secure continued military support.
Zelenskyy says Russia is losing the initiative on the battlefield, even as Moscow intensifies its attacks on Ukrainian cities. Meanwhile, Europe is
weighing a bigger role in any future negotiations as U.S.-led diplomacy struggles to gain traction. So, is the balance beginning to shift here?
Anne Applebaum is a staff writer at The Atlantic, and she joins me now from Warsaw, Poland. Anne, always great to have you on the program.
[13:25:00]
You also agree with President Zelenskyy's viewpoint here and his assessment that Russia is losing the initiative and it can't win. And so, it's
interesting then to hear Vladimir Putin dismissing Zelenskyy's ceasefire letter. He called it rude, saying he sees no point in a meeting right now.
And here's what he said when he was speaking at the St. Petersburg Forum last week.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VLADIMIR PUTIN, RUSSIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): I don't see any reason for a meeting. The Ukrainian side's only objective is to halt the
advance of our armed forces. That's it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: So, if the battlefield logic is now against him, why is he only hardening?
ANNE APPLEBAUM, STAFF WRITER, THE ATLANTIC: One has to assume that part of the explanation is that he's misinformed. The way the battlefield now looks
is pretty dramatic. The Ukrainian front line is now a 20-mile-wide zone. In that zone, everything is entirely transparent. Ukrainian reconnaissance
drones and other drones can see everything.
That means that any Russian soldier or tank or vehicle that goes into the zone is immediately struck. And this is why the Russians are unable to move
forward. And, of course, it's also why the Ukrainians have achieved so much confidence in recent months. And it's why so many Russians are dying,
because when they do move, when they continually are ordered on the offensive, they're killed. The Ukrainians are saying they're killing
sometimes as many as 1,000 people or wounding and killing as many as 1,000 people a day, and that's 30,000 people a month. And their goal is to kill
or eliminate from the battlefield more people than the Russians are able to recruit.
And in the face of that, Putin has only very bad options. One of them is to continue trying to hit Ukrainian cities. Another might be to expand the
battlefield in some other way. But another would be logically to have some kind of ceasefire. And the Ukrainians are betting that he might be
persuaded to have a ceasefire sometime in the next few months.
And I'll just add one other thing. At that same St. Petersburg conference where he made those comments you just played, the Ukrainians that morning,
the morning of the opening of the conference, hit a refinery in St. Petersburg. So, as the conference was meeting, there was black smoke
billowing over the city from a Ukrainian drone strike, which doesn't seem to show great Russian progress.
GOLODRYGA: No, we're showing a video of that black smoke billowing right now. And to see it in St. Petersburg, I mean, we've been reporting more and
more on these assassinations, the drone attacks, not only just on the border in Russian territory with Ukraine, but most recently in large cities
like St. Petersburg and Moscow itself.
I want to go back to that 20-mile-deep kill zone that you have described for us. And you sketch a future where this could actually become a Korea-
style DMZ, de facto border. If this becomes a frozen war, does that not just benefit Vladimir Putin, that as long as he's in power he will have
time to regroup, rearm, and at his choosing restart a war?
AMANPOUR: So, as I wrote recently in The Atlantic, I described exactly this, that the border becomes the front line. You know, as the front line
gets wider, and it is beginning to get wider as the drones become more powerful, it will become as uncrossable as a mountain range. I mean, it
will be a DMZ like -- exactly as you say, like the one between North and South Korea.
But that is not a victory for Putin. I mean, you're right that it freezes the war rather than ending it. It doesn't bring justice to Ukraine. It
doesn't return the territory of Ukraine that was legally occupied. But it is very much not what Putin said the war would be. He described to Russians
and has told them over and over again, including in recent days, that the point of the war is to destroy Ukraine as a country, to eliminate it from
the map, to change its government, to make it into a kind of Russian satrapy or a Russian province. And none of that will have been achieved.
A halt to the war, I think the Ukrainians believe would be good for them. They would like respite. They would like some sense of peace and calm.
Ukrainians have suffered a lot over the last four years. And I think they're betting that in the long-term it would work in their favor. They
are the more dynamic society. They have the more innovative defense industry. They would have -- they would be able to really build their links
with Europe. They would -- you know, there are already European companies that are investing in Ukrainian companies. There is Ukrainian production
happening in some European countries that would give them the basis to really protect themselves and move forward.
[13:30:00]
I mean, the key, of course, is -- as you hint in your question, is what happens in the long-term. Are there security guarantees? I think the
Ukrainians still have some hopes of involving the United States in that process, maybe forlorn hopes.
There is some discussion of Europeans sending troops to Ukraine or having some role in monitoring the situation in Ukraine. I think they would need
some feeling, some sense that the war wasn't about to begin again in order to rebuild their country and rebuild their society and bring people home.
But even just as a start, I think they've decided that a ceasefire would be good for them.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And to go back to what you just touched on, bring people home, I mean, a battlefield scenario that is finally working in Ukraine's
favor and that potentially could lead even to a frozen conflict would give the economy a chance to revive and continue to revive, but also for the
millions of Ukrainians who fled as the war began over four years ago, an opportunity to return home, because this is a key concern for Ukrainian
officials as well, that the longer these refugees are living outside the country, the lower the chances continue to be for them to actually return
if they've already started to reestablish their lives in other countries.
It's interesting in your piece, you spoke with a woman who says she's given up on ever living a normal -- or living in a normal country again. She
said, quote, "That beautiful life will never return." So, how do you as a journalist and someone who's been covering this for so long and speaking
with Ukrainians, how do you reconcile the strategic optimism on the battlefield with just this overall human exhaustion from Ukrainians?
APPLEBAUM: It's funny, she said that to me not as an illustration of exhaustion, but as an illustration of how much she and her friends had
readjusted. They just rethought their lives. The things they'd planned to do weren't the things they wound up doing, and everything was going to be
different from what it was. I think returning some optimism to Ukraine will be difficult, but that's not quite the same thing as saying everybody's
exhausted and can't function anymore. It's more that they're living a new and different life.
GOLODRYGA: I just go back, if we go back to February 24th of 2022, you think about the life that Ukrainians were leading then, and people as
Russian troops were starting to roll in, the initial bombs were starting to fall, and people were sitting in restaurants, having a normal life at
dinner, going to theater. It still was something that no one could fully grasp was happening. In 2022, so many years later, this war is continuing.
You also talk about the deficits here and some of the real needs that Ukraine, specifically on the battlefield, needs right now militarily, more
patriots specifically. We have burned through the United States so many in this war in Iran. Is the United States' pullback of providing weapons that,
as President Trump negotiated, would then be sold to Europeans and then delivered to Ukrainians, is that on pause now, or is there a sense that
that may never resume at the rate that it was happening?
APPLEBAUM: So, my understanding is that it is happening to some degree. There are some things that are still being delivered. And I should say the
most important thing for Ukrainians, the one thing the United States has that nobody else has, is exactly, as you say, these missile defense weapons
just to defend Ukrainian civilians.
On the battlefield, their drone and other technologies are better suited now to fighting than anything the United States gave them at the beginning
of the war. Europeans have funded the war. You know, the economy is functioning and so on. It's just this one particular technology that
Americans have that others don't. And again, it's a technology about protecting cities. It's not even about, you know, the front line.
And there is -- and my understanding is some are being delivered but not in the numbers that are necessary. And look, I mean, the United States made a
choice when the President decided to use those weapons in the war in the Gulf and when he decided to attack Iran, that was a choice not to use those
same weapons elsewhere.
[13:00:00]
Ukrainians, of course, can see this and they understand the significance of it. I think they're still hoping that if the war in Iran ends, that maybe
people will find a way to divert some of that defense. This is just air defense. It's not even attack weapons to them.
Of course, it's been part of the conversation that President Zelenskyy has had with the Gulf states. One of the big changes, I think, in perceptions
of this war in the last few weeks has been the fact that Zelenskyy is now seen in the Arab world as somebody who could help provide security.
The Ukrainians have invented drone interceptors, ways of shooting down the drones that Iran uses, which are the same ones the Russians use. They're
selling those or lending those to the Middle East. I think they're doing so in hopes of getting some anti-missile defense in return. So, the Ukrainians
have other options now that they didn't have in the past.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. You note that more patriots were burned through in three days against the war with Iran than in the entire Russia-Ukraine war. It's
also really interesting that you think bigger picture outside of just the war in Ukraine about the impact of drone warfare going forward. You write
this technology may forever change the future of wars. And you're not the only person to come to that conclusion.
Beyond Ukraine, what do you think some of the lessons are when you look at Taiwan, when you look at the Gulf, when you look at Washington's
perspective as the world's still dominant superpower?
APPLEBAUM: A lot of the really big-ticket military items that we're used to thinking of as like the crown jewels of the army, the big battleships,
the big complicated tanks, maybe even some of the fighter jets, a lot of those things are going to be much less useful in the future than we
imagined.
If a small sea drone, you know, which you can build for some tens of thousands of dollars, can damage a battleship, and that has happened in
Ukraine, if a -- you know, if a tank is useless in a completely transparent war zone where everybody can see it coming miles away and destroy it before
it arrives, that means that a lot of these technologies aren't going to be useful in the future.
You know, attack helicopters are now useless. I mean, they're useless in the war in Ukraine because attack helicopters are very easy to hit with a
drone.
GOLODRYGA: Yes.
APPLEBAUM: So, all of these things are going to be obsolete pretty fast.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. By the way, we should note, it was a sea drone that rescued those two Apache helicopter pilots just last night, too, and that
may be one of the first times we have used a sea drone in that capacity, which is fascinating, but speaks to the point you're making. Anne
Applebaum, thank you so much for joining us. I really appreciate you taking the time.
And we'll be right back after this short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: Now, kickoff for the men's FIFA World Cup is just around the corner. But several controversies are already clouding the tournament.
Africa's top referee, Omar Artan, will miss the World Cup after the U.S. denied his visa, citing vetting concerns. Unease is also growing in the
U.S., following reports on the possible presence of ICE agents at World Cup events.
Jules Boykoff, author of "Red Card" and a former professional football player, says this political backdrop could tarnish how the World Cup is
remembered.
[13:40:00]
He joins Hari Sreenivasan to explain.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HARI SREENIVASAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Bianna, thanks. Jules Boykoff, thanks so much for joining us. You know, each World Cup we have a
conversation somewhat similar to this. We talked before the last World Cup in Qatar about the challenges, about labor violations, what Qatar had to do
to get that World Cup on. Before that, it was Vladimir Putin. And, you know, what does it mean to have this on Russian soil, so to speak?
And I wonder now, in this context, you write that the 2026 World Cup is not only the most politically combustible tournament in modern history, also on
track to be the most polluting. Let's talk about the political combustion right now. What makes you say that?
JULES BOYKOFF, AUTHOR, "RED CARD": Well, I would say the through line between those three tournaments that you just mentioned, Russia World Cup
in 2018, Qatar in 2022, and the United States, Canada, and Mexico in 2026, is the idea of sports washing. When political leaders use sports to their
political advantage in order to make themselves look important or legitimate on the world stage while deflecting attention from chronic
social problems at home and setting up opportunities for political and economic and diplomatic advancement.
And that term was used a lot, sports washing, when people were talking about Russia and Qatar. And for good reasons, they were trying to use that
event to deflect attention and make political and economic gain. But that's definitely what's happening in the United States as well.
I mean, President Trump has made it clear, he said it many times in public, that the World Cup and the 2028 Olympics in Los Angeles are crucial to his
legacy. And so, I think when you have someone like that, who is set on using sport to his political advantage in charge, and I think it must be
said, I mean, he's a highly erratic individual, he can be impulsive at times, and he loves attention. That really sets up a recipe that could
create problems, you know, for this event.
Normally, people turn their attention to the sport at hand once the event finally starts, and we put those problems behind us. I'm not so sure that's
going to happen this time around.
SREENIVASAN: So, right now, one of the big conversations is about how safe the United States might be for fans from other countries, right? Because we
still have a kind of a very differing immigration policy, visa policy, depending on where you're from, what country you're from.
Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons told the House panel in February, ICE, specifically Homeland Security Investigations, is a key part of the overall
security apparatus for the World Cup. We're dedicated to securing that operation and to ensuring the safety of all participants and visitors. What
does that mean in practice for someone who is coming from overseas?
BOYKOFF: Really important question. I mean, I think this points to the wider paradox around this event. On one hand, it's the biggest World Cup
ever, 48 teams, all these people coming from around the world. In some ways, in that sense, it's the most inclusive.
On the other hand, we've got a very difficult situation in regards to immigration in the United States, where the Trump administration is making
it clear that some nations are simply not welcome. Then if you do get here, you have Immigration and Customs Enforcement that, let's be honest, has
been marauding through neighborhood after neighborhood in the United States.
Masked up, they've actually killed people who are U.S. citizens. They've detained, for long periods of time, Native Americans. I mean, the level of
irony there is off the charts. And so, there's serious concern that tourists coming to the United States might experience hassle from
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, especially because, as you rightly point out, people at ICE have said they will be carrying out their duties
at this tournament.
Another thing I think is worth considering is that while all the global media are focused in these host cities on what's happening there, you'll
have pockets of people that live in this country who are wanting to support the countries where they came from, Haiti, Iraq, you name it, in places far
away from where the global media are. In the small corners of Wisconsin, I'm very concerned that that will essentially be a magnet for ICE, where
they might engage in raiding there, where you have people just having fun and enjoying the tournament.
SREENIVASAN: A DHS spokesperson told The Gothamist, international visitors who come to the United States legally should have no concerns but warn that
those who enter the country illegally may become targets for immigration enforcement. The spokesperson would not say whether ICE would conduct
immigration arrests at the World Cup.
One of your concerns has also been about the carbon footprint of these games versus previous ones. FIFA, they say they want to be net zero by
2040, but researchers are saying that this particular tournament is going to generate more than 9 million tons of CO2, nearly double what recent
World Cups have.
[13:45:00]
Just kind of put that in perspective for us. I mean, I know that we've got games now that are in Canada and Mexico and the United States, and there's
people flying from all over to these different countries and flying back and forth in between the games.
BOYKOFF: The reason why you're seeing scientists jumping up and down about those jaw-dropping emissions numbers that you mentioned is because fans
need to travel over vast geographical expanse to attend matches in Mexico, Canada, and the United States. Also, the United States just simply doesn't
have a strong train system, and so people are going to be flying from match to match, thereby jacking up the emissions.
But in the bigger picture, FIFA has a real problem with greenwashing, which is to say talking a big green sustainability game but not actually
following through on the ground. We saw this in Qatar where they said they were going to be the sustainable game, carbon neutral game. That definitely
didn't happen.
What you can say about Qatar is that once you got there, you could go around to the different matches on the metro and by car and have your
emissions be relatively low. That's not the case here. So, while we have stadiums that were built, thereby keeping the carbon emissions low,
people's travel budgets are going to be really high.
So, I think this is another example, though, of FIFA saying one thing and doing another, and I think people in the United States, Canada, Mexico have
seen numerous examples of this in the lead-in to the tournament.
SREENIVASAN: The head of FIFA, the President Gianni Infantino, said about this, whether we speak about climate, human rights, diseases, or
disabilities, we are committed, FIFA, to play our part in respect of the fact that FIFA has 211 member associations representing the entire world.
For people who don't follow FIFA and World Cup soccer very much, tell us a little bit more about Gianni Infantino.
BOYKOFF: Gianni Infantino became the president in FIFA after the huge corruption scandal that hit the world's governing body for soccer in 2015
and 2016. He promised that he would clean up the game and make it more equitable. Unfortunately, he's essentially cranked up the FIFA green
machine in a lot of ways. He is on track to make more than $11 billion from this tournament alone, making it the most revenue of any sporting event in
sporting history.
Now, Mr. Infantino, if you asked him about it, he would say that we'll redistribute that money around the world, and there is some truth to that.
He does send the money around to different football associations, or FAs, around the world in all the 211 member states. But the other truth is that
Mr. Infantino makes pretty good money himself. He just gave himself a raise. He makes $6 million a year if you're on the powerful FIFA council
that was supposed to be this big reform mechanism.
You can make between $250,000 and $300,000 a year for simply attending two to four meetings. Pretty sweet work if you can get it. But the function of
that is that you have a huge portion of FIFA membership that has very little interest in raising uncomfortable questions about greenwashing or
sports washing, and instead they have an incentive to kind of go along with what Mr. Infantino wants. And what Mr. Infantino wants right now is to be
as cozy as he can with U.S. President Donald Trump, handing him a peace prize and doing a whole lot more.
SREENIVASAN: You know, there were headlines here about not just the money that FIFA might hand to host cities or host countries, but the actual
costs. Like, I'm having this conversation from New York, and we're hosting the absolute finals, right? And the costs of all the police overtime and
the transport infrastructure is being borne by the cities and states where these things are happening. So, where's the money going to FIFA, and why
are citizens here paying to host this?
BOYKOFF: FIFA's core business model involves socializing the costs of the World Cup and privatizing the benefits of the World Cup. And by socializing
the costs, I mean taxpayers in New Jersey and New York, they'll pay for security, they'll pay for the medical teams. Hey, I live in Oregon, and as
a taxpayer, I help fund security for this event.
The local bodies in all these host cities are also responsible for these fan fests that are supposed to be inclusive. And these are very difficult
things to monetize. Whereas FIFA, the way they draw up their contracts, they take in all the money from the broadcasters, they take in all the
money from the corporate sponsors. They actually take in money from concessions on site at these World Cup venues. They take in the money from
the parking.
[13:50:00]
And so, you can see that the way the contracts were drawn up this time around, were very in favor of FIFA and very different from 1994, the last
time the United States hosted the World Cup, where they got a bigger slice of the money pie.
SREENIVASAN: One of the things that really, I think a lot of people are noticing, not just in the United States, but around the world, is you take
a game that is arguably the most accessible game on the planet. You've got barefoot kids that can kick anything spherical on whatever surface they're
playing on, right? And you now have ticket prices for the finals that are soaring on the secondary market that are just tens and tens of thousands of
dollars, not to mention getting here and so forth.
I mean, what is it about this game that has made it, at the same time, the most accessible thing and the most inaccessible thing?
BOYKOFF: Well, there's no question that soccer is the people's game. It helps people get through difficult times. FIFA is taking advantage of that.
If you want to talk about ticket prices, they are making so much money off the backs of soccer lovers around the world, essentially turning the
people's game into a game for the rich, for plutocrats. So, they have their market where they are selling tickets for the final at around $11,000 a
pop.
In Qatar, just a few years ago, four years ago, the top ticket was going for $1,600. FIFA is using what they call dynamic pricing. Sounds kind of
nice, Hari. I like dynamic stuff. This is not nice if you're a ticket buyer. I mean, that just means that they're trying to squeeze the very
maximum that they can out of you, make you pay as much as you possibly can stand.
Then there's the secondary market. So, when people buy tickets and resell them, there is no cap on that in the United States. So, I saw a ticket
online going for like $11 million the other day. Now, I don't know if they're going to sell it for $11 million, but if they did, FIFA would get
more than $3 million for that because they take 15 percent from the buyer in the secondary market and 15 percent from the seller. So, they've
actually created an incentive to have ticket prices go through the roof.
SREENIVASAN: In response specifically to the high-ticket prices, the FIFA president said, we have to look at the market. We are in the market, which
entertainment is the most developed in the world. So, we have to apply market rates. FIFA said to the Wall Street Journal that they have worked
collaboratively with host cities to lower costs and provide flexibility, including waiving certain hosting obligations. Even with that, we're seeing
the prices where they are?
BOYKOFF: Yes. Try telling that to New Jersey Governor Mikie Sherrill, who I thought was very eloquent in explaining recently why she decided to
initially charge $150 for train ticket prices to get to the venue in New Jersey. Those prices did go down. But as she explained, FIFA gives her and
New Jersey taxpayers zero dollars. And so, that put her and other people that are providing transportation around the United States in a very
difficult position where they either put that on the back of the taxpaying public or they put that on the back of the people that are here to watch
the World Cup.
She went with the latter path and got a lot of flag for it, but I think she actually made the right move trying to explain to the public that FIFA has
set the situation up and that they're relying on the backs of people in these various host cities and not getting much in return except for the
beautiful game. But really, it's not FIFA that gives us that. It's these incredible football soccer players from around the world that do that.
SREENIVASAN: So, I mean, let's talk a little bit about what's happening right now in the world, especially let's talk specifically about Iran. I
mean, they had made it to the games. They're not that far below where the U.S. is ranked in the overall standings. And at the same time, we've got a
host nation that is actively bombing a participating country. I mean, I don't know if that's ever happened.
BOYKOFF: It absolutely has not happened before where one of the host countries for the World Cup was actively bombing and threatening war crimes
against one of the nations. And it's really put a pall over this World Cup. If President Trump and the White House were thinking strategically, they
would be welcoming the Iranian team with open arms.
Because if you look recently at what the Iranian men's and women's national soccer teams have done when they've gone abroad, they've used the
opportunity to raise questions and even critiques about the government back home in Iran.
So, rather than opening his arms, President Trump, to the Iranians and saying, you're welcome here and hoping maybe they'll provide him with some
propaganda, he's done almost the very opposite. He's hinted that they might not be able to be safe if they come here. He said negative things about
them in the press. This is very much against what the World Cup is supposed to be about.
I mean, Gianni Infantino talks a lot about how football unites the world. But when it comes to the way President Trump has dealt with Iran, it really
is more fracturing the world.
SREENIVASAN: Jules Boykoff, thanks so much for your time.
BOYKOFF: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
[13:55:00]
And finally, the astronaut wears Prada. The Italian luxury fashion house is taking its first steps on the celestial runway, creating outfits for NASA
astronauts. Prada revealed it will create an inner layer garment with ventilation tubes knitted in. It's part of a collaboration with the
International Space Agency. Prada says it will also create an inner layer with the space infrastructure developer, Axiom Space. How cool is that?
And equally opulent, the Aurora Australis or Southern Lights spotted from the SpaceX Dragon craft above Earth's southern hemisphere. Look how
beautiful that is. Surely the envy of any high fashion set dressing here on Earth. All right. We're going to leave you there.
That is 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 so much for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
