Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Former U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry; Interview with "Users" Author and British House of Lords Member Beeban Kidron; Interview with The Atlantic Staff Writer Michael Scherer. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired June 25, 2026 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): This scene was like a horror movie. We had to climb over the rubble and everything.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Devastation in Venezuela as rescuers scramble to save victims of the nation's most powerful earthquake in over a century.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: Iran is being very nice. They're agreeing to everything that I want, and they have to. Otherwise, we just go back and do
what we have to do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- Washington and Tehran struggle to shape the narrative around peace talks. Will they be able to reach a deal on time? I ask a key
negotiator of the last agreement, former U.S. secretary of state, John Kerry.
Also, ahead --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KEIR STARMER, OUTGOING BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: Government is always about choices. And it's clear to me that a full ban is the right choice.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- with just weeks left in office, could Prime Minister Starmer's social media lore become his defining legacy? I speak to
children's rights campaigner Baroness Beeban Kidron about her new book and the fight to protect children online.
Plus, inside America's ugly birthday battle, how the nation's 250th anniversary is deepening division. The Atlantic's Michael Scherer joins
Michel Martin.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London.
And it is a race against time right now for Venezuela where rescue teams are frantically searching for survivors after two back-to-back earthquakes,
some of the worst and strongest ever recorded in the country. At least 164 people have been killed, according to acting President Delcy Rodriguez, but
that number is surely expected to rise as crews reach hard-hit areas and the full-scale of the devastation becomes clear.
Social media videos like this one show the terrifying scenes as people rushed into the streets to escape falling buildings after the quake struck
around 6:00 p.m. local time. The heaviest damage appears to be centered in and around the capital, Caracas, where people have been heard calling for
help beneath the rubble. As reporter Mary Triny Mena has found.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MARY TRINY MENA, JOURNALIST: I'm at Playa Grande. This is one of the areas most devastated by the two earthquakes that took place Wednesday in
Venezuela.
Here there's an active survivor rescue, and there are neighbors and rescue teams trying to locate the people that are still inside of these buildings,
like this man, Carlos Baez (ph). Carlos is a neighbor, and he's trying to get in touch with a lady that is in that building. He is waving at us.
Every time Carlos talks to her, she's trying to wave their hand with the red cloth that is -- So, many people that are trapped from yesterday are
trying to get the sense of the time that they are being stuck there and trying to make the efforts to bring more rescue teams, more people to this
area that is still with many people alive, and they want, of course, that they are out of this situation as soon as possible.
La Guaira, as I said, is one of the areas most devastated in Venezuela, especially the international airport of Caracas that is located here. As
you can see, there's a lot of rubble and debris in these buildings that I'm in right now. An entire complex of buildings are devastated.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Mary Triny Mena reporting. Now, the U.S. has offered to send help to Venezuela along with humanitarian organizations and several other
countries, including China, Argentina and Brazil.
Next, the clock is ticking on negotiations between the U.S. and Iran. And if there weren't already major sticking points, now the two sides can't
seem to agree on what they've agreed to, with the Trump administration describing preferred outcomes as concrete deals and Tehran promptly
disputing those claims.
[13:05:00]
So, let's ask former Secretary of State John Kerry about this dynamic. He was a key negotiator of the Obama administration's JCPOA nuclear deal and
later as President Biden's climate envoy. He's joining me now from London, where he's attending Climate Action Week. So, welcome back to the program,
Secretary Kerry.
JOHN KERRY, FORMER U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: Thanks for having me. Glad to be with you.
AMANPOUR: Can I just first ask you, you know, your -- well, the successor Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said that help is on the way from the
United States. Given, though, that Venezuela is practically to all intents and purposes a U.S. protectorate after the snatching of Maduro, what should
the United States do? What is it capable of doing in this case?
KERRY: Well, we can do an enormous amount and we really have a moral obligation to do so. The president said that we're going to run it, meaning
the administration. And this is a dire situation. So, the United States traditionally has really stepped up to help nations when they're under
duress. And obviously, Venezuela is.
AMANPOUR: Do you think -- I mean, let's say it comes to this, that there are so many homeless people, they're going to maybe be refugees. Should the
U.S. let them in?
KERRY: Well, we have a regular process. We have a regular program for people immigrating to the United States. And under emergency situations, we
very often take people. And when we dealt with Afghanistan or Iraq and we were leaving, we obviously tried to bring people for safety here.
I don't think that's the situation in Venezuela right now. You have a fundamentally humanitarian crisis based on a natural disaster. And I would
hope that nations all around the world would will assist.
And one of the things the administration should do, actually, is be coordinating that. I mean, you know, you shouldn't sit there and watch it.
You need to help pull other nations to the table to help, particularly in the American sphere.
AMANPOUR: Let me just move now to what's also in your wheelhouse, of course, and that is the whole situation in the Persian Gulf. Secretary
Rubio is in the Gulf, has been in the GCC states, and is trying to reassure or convince regional allies that whatever has been agreed to between
President Trump and the Iranian leadership will not be at their expense.
From what you know about this and what you know about having to keep allies on side, how do you think that's going and what are the key sticking
points?
KERRY: Well, the sticking points are the entire agreement right now, because there are many countries in the region that wanted the president
to, quote, finish the job. That requires some difficult definition, but they're very worried that they're going to be left with something or Iran
has freedom to do things that they haven't before. And that's clearly why Secretary Rubio is there, to try to assure them that's not going to happen.
But we all know that Secretary Rubio thought that the foundation of this war initially, he really didn't believe in it, and those are the reports at
least that came out of the White House with good reporting.
So, I think that right now the administration is in a very tough place. It's not a peace agreement. It's a ceasefire and try to find an agreement
on the potential of the production of nuclear weapons, whether they can find other ingredients for peace with the missile issues, the Houthi
issues, Hezbollah issues. It's very tough.
President Obama made the fundamental decision that the urgency of dealing with a nuclear weapon at the time that we faced this challenge was that
there was about a two-week plus few days, maybe breakout time to have a nuclear weapon. And if we spent all our time trying to do with Hezbollah or
missiles, we would have left them free to continue to do what they had been doing. And we didn't want that to happen.
So, we focused on the real biggest danger first, and that was the potential of them becoming nuclear. And we put together the most intrusive,
comprehensive arms control agreement in history, where we were very precise about the ways in which we could enforce it. We had the right for the IAEA,
the International Atomic Energy Agency, to be able to go in and inspect on demand. We had the ability to be able to spring back all the sanctions.
[13:10:00]
We had a very elaborate scheme created which destroyed thousands of their centrifuges, destroyed their plutonium reactor, put 130 additional
inspectors on the ground and around. They're gone now.
So, you know, the point to make here is that it took time, us approximately two years of open negotiations and some period of time where we were
feeling it out and trying to figure out whether there was something real here that could be done.
AMANPOUR: You know, obviously, the negotiation that you talk about and the JCPOA deal has been front and center as people compare what Trump has done
and what your administration did. So, let me just play to you what President Trump has said about just the idea of going to war against Iran.
Here's what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Look, for 47 years, no president was willing to do what I'm doing, and they should have done it a long time ago. It would have been a lot
easier. There's no president that wanted to do it, and yet every president knew. I've spoken to a certain president, who I like, actually, a past
president, former president. He said, I wish I did it. I wish I did. But they didn't do it. I'm doing it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, just to be clear, apparently spokespeople for all the former presidents have denied recently speaking to President Trump. That was in
March when he said that. I guess what I want to ask you is, did you get tempted? Were -- was your administration anywhere close to going to war to
actually degrade Iran's military abilities? And that's the first question. Then I want to ask you about war gaming.
KERRY: Well, President Obama was absolutely prepared to do whatever was necessary to protect the interests of the United States as well as to
protect our ally Israel. And at that point in time, there were real dangers, but they weren't ready to explode. And I think the president
wisely made the choice not to agree to Prime Minister Netanyahu's request to be able to go in and bomb and to even join in the bombing. President
Obama said, no, we're going to try diplomacy. That's the way you have to do these things, you build support.
And indeed, that diplomacy brought China, Russia, France, Germany, U.K., the E.U., all came to the table and they were all part of the development
of this process. And in the end, when President Trump decided, oh, I'm going to pull out of this agreement, I'm going to tear it up, worst
agreement ever saw, it allows them to go get a nuclear weapon.
No, Mr. President, it did not allow them to go get a nuclear weapon. What it allowed them to do is get themselves in trouble if they wanted to, and
we would, with a year of available time, because that's the breakout time, we moved it from two weeks to a year, we had the ability to be able to do
whatever was necessary to protect the interests of the United States.
But we thought it was better, President Obama thought it was better to negotiate based on the premise that you have to exhaust the possibilities
of peace before you decide to go to war. That did not happen here. That distinctly did not happen, even though there were offerings and discussions
taking place. On a Saturday morning, kaboom, the president went to war, and didn't even consult with our own allies. We had none of those countries
with us in this initiative the way they had been previously.
AMANPOUR: And then let me ask you about when you go to war. I mean, surely the intelligence community, the military community, the national security
community will explain to you what are the potential pitfalls to which the Strait of Hormuz and Iran's obvious potential strong chokehold over it.
What were you all told about, you know, the perils or the opportunities of war? What should have been told to President Trump about this? Because
almost immediately the Strait of Hormuz came up and bit everybody in the you-know-what.
KERRY: Yes. Well, Christiane, I don't know precisely what was told to him. I've read some excerpts from various news sources about the conversations
that took place in the situation room.
But let me just say this. We were prepared to do whatever was necessary to protect the United States and our allies, but not to rush to war, not to do
it as a first choice, not to put it as an early option. We always had the choice of being able to enforce using force, but President Obama, I think
completely properly, stayed away from that because it just wasn't right. It wasn't the moment to do that.
Now, this administration never considered the issue of ripeness. They took Prime Minister Netanyahu at his word, or at least the president did, that
the people were going to rise up and take back their country. And in the first days of this war, the rationale for going to war was, well, we want
the people to be able to take over, we have to help them.
[13:15:00]
Then there was a rationale that because there was a rationale that the ability to be able to stop them might be changed because Israel had decided
it was going to go by itself, so the president decided he had to go. That initially came from Secretary Rubio.
And then, finally, of course, you had the president revert to the notion that the reason they had to bomb was because they had to prevent them from
having a nuclear weapon. This despite the fact that only months before they had, quote, obliterated the nuclear program.
Now, they have to go back and obliterate it again when it wasn't the kind of threat that required that. They did not have the ability on the day that
he bombed to actually come up with a bomb in the near-term. And it seems to me that the president rushed to pass diplomacy, rushed to pass what common
sense dictated would bring our fellow -- you know, our colleague nations, our allies from across Europe to the table to support us.
And indeed, with respect to the Straits of Hormuz that you asked, you know, what did they say about that? We knew that the Straits of Hormuz would be
weaponized if indeed you got into a conflict. President Trump at least said something to the effect that we didn't know that they were going to do that
or they would do that.
I remember warning before this war took place in an event that I was at in Florida that the Iranians know how to do asymmetric warfare as well as or
better than most people on the planet. And that's exactly what they've done at great cost to the world in terms of prices up, inflation up, disruption,
people, you know, again, moving, refugees and so forth.
I think it was completely unnecessary. The president should not have torn up this document which Russia, China, even the Israeli intelligence, Europe
all said it's working. Leave it the way it is and if you have changes you want, present them to Iran. Tell them, hey, I don't like what the -- what
President Obama did. Here's what I'm going to demand. And then they could negotiate about that. But they completely bypassed that kind of legitimate,
exhaustive, transparent diplomacy that would make the world a much better place if we hadn't had to go to war the way we did.
AMANPOUR: So, now let me ask you then to sort of pivot to the energy crisis and the climate crisis and you're in the U.K. where there's been a
really unprecedented heat wave and one of the events at the British, I think it's called London Climate Week, was cancelled because of the
climate. You know, you've spent so many years being the climate czar for President Biden and really taking this issue on. Where are we right now?
KERRY: Well, right now as I sit here, parts of the earth are sort of blowing up and burning up at the same time. And it appears as if the
administration is willing to ignore science, ignore facts, the facts on the ground for the way people are being impacted all around the world.
I mean, after 40 years we've been hearing that the first decade of those 40 was the hottest ever and then the next decade and then the next and now the
one we're in, the hottest ever. And each day, yesterday was hottest day in June in London, today just as hot.
So, this is going to get worse, folks, before it gets better because it is mathematics and science and physics that is defining what is happening on
our planet. And when you burn fossil fuels without capturing the emissions, you warm the planet. And that warming is coming home to roost in countless
different ways that are extremely costly.
We're spending trillions of dollars in order to clean up after storms that are more intensive because there's greater humidity in the air and the heat
and it makes a greater and more intense storm than you would have had otherwise. You can run a long list. We have insurance companies in the
south, in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, in Texas, in California. Insurance companies are pulling out of insuring.
I mean, first of all, what kind of good business plan is that? But secondly, you're seeing people all around the world that are being
impacted, and they're not even able now in some places to buy the insurance to protect their home.
So, you know, at some point, we really need to deal with the facts here. And I think more and more people -- I would say yesterday here in London, I
was with a Rockefeller Foundation briefing that showed that people are not retreating from concern on climate change.
[13:20:00]
They're just numbed by the kind of language that is sometimes used. But if you talk about what is happening to people in their homes, what's happening
to their food and food prices, what is happening to their communities as a result of floods or other disasters, you know, when you look at those
things happening, people are much clearer about what they think we should do that would make a difference.
And I'm seeing that play out in the marketplace. The marketplace is now turning towards renewable energy that is independent. They don't have to
rely on the Straits of Hormuz being open. There are countless countries that have taken the warning from what has happened in this war. And the
great movements with respect to climate have come historically, like 1973, after the oil crisis, 1979, when China decided, oh, we better -- you know,
it's not a question of whether we should do it for the climate reasons, we need to do it for security, to have a guarantee about our fuel, because
they don't have gas and they don't have the ability to be independent in the same way.
So, now, China is the largest manufacturer and deployer of renewables in the world, having done more deployment and more manufacturing than all of
the rest of the world put together. And they own the market, 90 percent of the solar panel market and a huge proportion of the wind power market. And
they also make a really good cars, to be honest with you, but can't sell it in our country, but people are buying it in other parts of the world.
Electric vehicle sales now are going way back up because of gas prices.
So, there's a natural order to things that I think is unfolding in the marketplace. CEOs of companies are not going to buy things that are going
to hurt them or hurt communities or find their energy from things that are destructive. They're going to make decisions that improve their products,
improve their ability to sell their products, and improve their ability to avoid disastrous consequences for contributing to the bad things that
happen when you're not being particularly honest about what's going on.
AMANPOUR: Well, former Secretary of State John Kerry, thank you very much indeed for being with us.
And stay with CNN, because we'll be back after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
AMANPOUR: Now, it'll be one of his final major policies and perhaps the one that could define his legacy. That would be the outgoing British Prime
Minister Keir Starmer. His ban on children accessing social media. But is that the best solution? A similar ban in Australia is proving to have
little effect with research showing over 80 percent of children have actually found ways around the restrictions.
Now, experts say the real focus should be holding tech giants to account, like Baroness Beeban Kidron. She made her name as a filmmaker before
turning her attention to a different calling, children's rights online. It's a journey she's chronicled in her new book, "Users." And she's joining
me now from London. Beeban Kidron, welcome back to our program.
BEEBAN KIDRON, AUTHOR, "USERS" AND MEMBER, BRITISH HOUSE OF LORDS: Lovely to be with you.
[13:25:00]
AMANPOUR: So, look, let's just start with "Users." And it's a gripping tale. Tell me about the name. Who is it aimed at, that name?
KIDRON: So, the "Users" in the book are really the story of how the tech companies sort of hijacked society, how they took over our personal lives,
our children, business, and so on. And it's that story about how we were all internet-ed and what the costs of that are. And it really offers a
framework for fighting back, I suppose. So, the users are them, not us.
AMANPOUR: Yes, them. Exactly. Not the addicts.
KIDRON: Exactly.
AMANPOUR: Look, we said it could be Prime Minister Keir Starmer's lasting legacy. But, and there's a big but, his Australian counterpart who did this
in their country, they have found, according to research, that the current generation of 16 and unders are finding workarounds. A lot of them. Like 80
percent of them. What does that say to you?
KIDRON: Well, I think there's a number of lessons in it. I think the first thing to say is that Albanese, the prime minister of Australia, did the
world a huge favor. He just went, not on my watch, no toxic products in the hands of children. I will take responsibility for doing something.
Now, a lot of us didn't think he came at it exactly the right way, that he has put this issue right at the center of politics. And I think that what
you're going to see is from the Australian, you know, kind of, from that first ban, parents across the world are saying, hey, we want a bit of this,
we want a bit of this. And, policy makers are now looking at it and saying, what works, what doesn't work, what do we need to do differently to get
what he was trying to do, rather than doing it exactly the way he suggested.
AMANPOUR: So, some are suggesting that maybe this generation would do exactly what they've done, and that's found workarounds. But the bans will
really be, you know, different, perhaps, for kids who grow up under a ban, rather than it being imposed on them when they're older teenagers. I don't
know whether you agree with that.
But I just want to ask you, you know, some of the -- kind of, horror stories that you outline are in your book about children. So, strangers can
access young people's location and photos. Algorithms, of course, erode their self-esteem. Children are exposed to damaging contact and
interactions. And, of course, they're not isolated. They're just wholesale, as you say, robbery of childhood. Expand on that a little bit.
KIDRON: Yes. So, I think the first thing, before we get into ban, not ban, is, how have we got here? How have we got, in plain sight of parents and
politicians and the media, to a situation where half the kids in the U.K. have seen a beheading? That girls feel anxious and upset about their
bodies? That, actually, I have to work with police, specialist police force to try and work a way around the A.I. child sexual abuse that is being
created at scale.
So, the first question we have to ask is, what do we want for our kids? Is this right? And, one of the things, if you look at it, you go, hang on a
minute, this is a product. Someone here is running a company, making money, and they're making money on the back of this experience of our kids.
So, I think, to your first question, what do we need to do? We do need to look at the tech companies. We can't do this by saying, oh, parents, police
your kids, kids don't do any transgressive things. We know what kids are like. We know that they'll try. We know that, actually, this lot, who are
quite addicted on these products, will try and get back to them.
But I think we have to do two things. One is we have to keep the tech companies accountable for their products, because if this was an air fryer,
I tell you, we would have recalled it by now. Yes. I think the second thing that we have to do is take the age thing off the parents and say, actually,
companies, you know, if we find 16-year-olds on your site, it's you who's going to be in trouble, not the kid.
And so, when I think about the ban, I think about it as, how do we ban tech companies from putting toxic products in the hands of our children?
AMANPOUR: You know, in the book, you describe some of these encounters with these tech titans around, you know, boardroom tables when you're
trying to hold them accountable. I was actually -- I couldn't believe it when I read about the one that involved Prince William.
[13:00:00]
You know, I think he was at this meeting and you had an American tech, you know, honcho yelling. What happened?
KIDRON: So, it was -- you know, I have to say that the royal family were very, very quick to this issue. They really understood. And so, it was back
in 2017 that he set up a royal task force to look at the time at the issue of bullying. And at the time, I think everyone thought, oh, we don't know
about this. So, we'll bring everyone around the table and it'll be all fine because as soon as we explain how toxic it is, the tech companies will do
the right thing.
And we met for 18 months again and again and again and we met in palaces and headquarters and so on. And at every point, the tech companies involved
just sort of blocked all the things that we wanted to do to make it better for kids.
And eventually, because I am a politician and I sit in parliament, I put down a regulatory response. And the tech executive just took me apart in
public and he just said, we will not be regulated from a small town in England. And the sort of the sense of entitlement and the sense that they
were beyond our control, our touch, was palpable in the room.
And I think what was very funny was it got a lot of sympathy in the room from broadcasters who were there, other NGOs, civil society, and even some
of the other tech companies. And in fact, I did get the regulation passed.
So, you know, we did regulate them from a small town in England and people must be really, you know, the tech companies really have to be regulated by
our democratically elected governments. Because what they call no regulation is not no regulation, Christiane, it's regulation by their terms
of service across the world.
AMANPOUR: Yes. And this tech executive you're talking about is from Facebook. And I say that because there was an accountability hearing in
court. You know, you remember, of course, the California court recently issued that landmark ruling against Meta and the risks that products pose,
you know, basically saying that they were addictive.
You say that all of this sort of momentum could be a tobacco moment, i.e., when the tobacco companies were discovered to have lied about the addictive
nature of their product, they were outed in a big, big way, and things have completely changed in that domain. Do you think that we're there yet, that
the fight back, as you suggest, is reaching that critical juncture?
KIDRON: I think it is. And I think there's a couple of reasons. First of all, the court cases in the U.S. are really central to what's going on,
because it stopped being about freedom of speech, just like in the tobacco, as you say, it stopped being about personal responsibility. It was about
how do you design your product, what did you know about it, when did you know it, and why are you hurting people? And I think that that is a very
clear differentiation, and the U.S. courts appear now to be willing to look at the design of the product. That is huge.
I think there's something else, because the book starts with children, but what happens to children online does not stay online, and what happens to
children eventually happens to the rest of us. And it goes into the questions of, you know, information security, job displacement, and so on.
And as you build up and you think, hang on a minute, this is costing me my job, this is costing my child their childhood, this is costing me any
semblance of shared truth in the world and all the problems that we see out of that, people are beginning to go, I'm not sure that free was such a
fabulous deal.
AMANPOUR: You know, just about that sort of, you know, exponential growth of all this horrible material, some stats have it that, you know, the A.I.-
generated porn images of children have just risen crazily. In 2025, over 3,000 A.I.-generated sexual abuse videos were recorded, an increase of over
26,000 percent compared with the previous year alone. You know, this is according to the Internet Watch Foundation. How convinced are you that
actually A.I. can be, you know, prevented from accelerating this harm?
KIDRON: Listen, it absolutely can. And I was talking to one of the godfathers of A.I. last week, and we were talking about this, and one of
the things he said, which really just caught my imagination, he said, you know what, Beeban, he said, to get rid of 95 percent is, you know,
virtually marginal. You know, it would be so easy. The last 5 percent would be difficult, but worth doing.
[13:35:00]
And I think that, that 95 percent, why aren't we already at the 95 percent? Why are we rolling out products without checking or insisting that they
test for the creation of A.I. child sexual abuse? Why is it that we're actually putting products on the market, not just for children, but for all
of us that can create these things, and not actually going, hang on a minute, is this the world we want to live?
Because, Christiane, I have to tell you, last week, I got a letter from a parent whose child, her image was scraped, and it was sent to a misogynist
group who used it for collective masturbation. It cannot be that we live in a world where children cannot actually have their image posted in public,
because, first of all, you lose the children. Then the same things happen to women. You take the women out of the public square. In the end, it's not
a public square if we can't be there.
So, I think the truth is we have to make some decisions now and say, these guys are making a lot of money out of the dark side of their business.
They're making a lot of money out of untruth, out of child sexual abuse, out of actually getting rid of our jobs, our future.
And I talk to a lot of children, and they say -- you know, out of the words of the young come wisdom, because they say, I don't understand what is so
efficient of putting us out of work, of taking our future away, of taking all the truth and the commonality of life, yes, and then putting all the
money into Silicon Valley. That doesn't seem like an efficiency.
AMANPOUR: Yes. I mean, it is an extraordinary tale. And are you optimistic in a word?
KIDRON: Do you know what I am? And I really try and show that in the book. You know, there's some pretty hard stories there. But the last chapter is
really about what we have to insist. We do live in democracies, a lot of us.
And, you know, I've been doing this thing recently. I've spoken to a lot of people. I've asked, did they vote on tech policy last time? No one,
Christiane, no one has actually put their hand up. So, we have to make this a public issue. And we have to remember that in an attention economy, our
attention is the fuel.
AMANPOUR: Well, you've had a very good last word there. Beeban Kidron, thank you so much.
And we'll be right back after this short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
AMANPOUR: Now, to the feuding over how to best mark America's birthday. This Fourth of July will mark a huge milestone 250 years since its
founding. But what you might not know is that the two organizations tasked with planning the celebrations are locked in a tense dispute with the
president at the center.
[13:40:00]
The Atlantic journalist Michael Scherer has been closely monitoring how it's unfolded and what he calls America's ugly birthday battle, as he tells
Michel Martin now.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, Christiane. Michael Scherer, thanks so much for talking with us.
MICHAEL SCHERER, STAFF WRITER, THE ATLANTIC: Yes, thanks for having me.
MARTIN: So, you've been covering this whole issue around the festivities, how we're going to acknowledge, celebrate America's 250th. You've been
covering this for more than a year. But before we get into the conflicts around it, tell us the original idea. It's my understanding that Congress
created the America 250 Commission a decade ago.
SCHERER: Some of your viewers might remember the Bicentennial in 1976, President Ford coming out of Watergate, tried to make it a very unifying
event. And there were nationwide celebrations that were remembered for years afterwards.
In 2016, Congress saw the 250th coming up, a quarter millennia for the country and decided it would fund a similar celebration. And the idea was
to come up with events, come up with branding, get the American people involved, have contests, all kinds of things like that. And that planning
proceeded for about eight years until President Trump was re-elected.
And when he was re-elected, he was reelected on a platform that included his own ideas for what the country should be doing for America's 250th
celebrations. And that's sort of where the current story begins.
MARTIN: So, Freedom 250, that's President Trump's idea. What was his vision? What is his vision?
SCHERER: Yes. Well, so initially, President Trump's team wanted to work with the congressionally authorized group. So, Freedom 250 only comes into
existence late last year. Trump's vision was a bunch of other events. He was very interested in big, spectacular events. He had talked during the
campaign about having a great American State Fair. And his initial planning would be in Iowa, and it would last a year, and it would involve 50 states
participating.
He's talked about a Patriot Games, which is a high school athletic competition. He's talking about a Garden of American Heroes, a statue
garden that he actually talked about during his first term. And obviously, he wants a big party in Washington for the Fourth of July.
Over the course of the first year of his presidency, those plans started to shift. The Iowa State Fair idea just wasn't practical. So, he basically
took over a celebration on the National Mall that was being planned by the Smithsonian Institution and rebranded it the Great American State Fair.
And then he added a bunch of other branded events. You know, we had the UFC fight on his birthday a couple weeks ago. We have an IndyCar race. A number
of his cabinet agencies are doing what are now branded as Freedom 250 events. Embassies around the world have been doing that. You know, banners
with Trump's face on it have been unfurled outside buildings across D.C. You know, National Park employees are being told to wear Freedom 250 pins.
And so, as we've gotten closer to the actual 250th, the plans have really started to expand, and the president is increasingly sort of putting his
mark on them.
MARTIN: Well, so, what happened to America 250? I mean, this was a bipartisan effort, right? I mean, this wasn't something like the Democrats
dreamed up or something that the Republicans dreamed up. It's my understanding that the America 250 committee, all of it has always been
bipartisan.
SCHERER: That's right.
MARTIN: So, what happened? Was there like beef from the beginning?
SCHERER: Not from the very beginning. So, in the very beginning, they're actually getting along the first few months of 2025. The president tells
America 250 that he wants to have a number of events in the spring of last year to set off a year of celebrations. And these include a visit to Fort
Bragg to celebrate the Army's 250th birthday. Army starts before the country. And he wants a parade on his birthday in Washington, D.C. to
celebrate the Army's 250th. He wanted celebrations for the Navy and the Marines. There were some other speaking events.
And initially, America 250, this bipartisan group, says, sure, we'll work with you. They allowed President Trump to raise money from private donors
through the America 250 apparatus. So, companies like Coinbase or Palantir or Lockheed Martin who paid for the parade were giving money actually to
America 250. And they worked together to get $150 million in appropriations as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that would go to the 250th
celebrations.
Then in July of last year, the president goes to Iowa to kick off this year-long celebration of the 250th birthday. And at that speech, he says,
speaking of congressional Democrats, I hate them.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: But all of the things that we've given, and they wouldn't vote, only because they hate Trump. But I hate them, too. You know that? So, it's
sort of the -- I'd hate -- I really do. I hate them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[13:45:00]
SCHERER: And he was particularly upset at that point at, you know, obstruction on his legislative agenda. But that was rather alarming for the
America 250 supporters. You know, people were waving America 250 signs in the audience when that happened. And that was an event that was technically
paid for by America 250.
And so, it began the process of this divorce, where America 250 organizers said, we're not comfortable with this becoming too political. Why don't we
make it so that you focus on certain events, and we'll focus on other events, and we just agree on how to divide up this money that Congress has
appropriated? And in the late summer of 2025, they actually came to an agreement, roughly, about what the programming would be, how the money
would be divided. And within months, that agreement had fallen apart.
MARTIN: Why did it fall apart? I mean, is it is it about the money? Is it -- or is it, just to be blunt about it, that President Trump just doesn't
play well with others?
SCHERER: Yes, I think money was a big part of it. I think as the president's plans for these celebrations expanded, it became clear that he
wasn't going to be able to raise all the money he might have wanted, or that was originally budgeted from private sources. And there was this $150
million pot.
So, initially, when that bill passes, the sort of working agreement is that about $100 million of it is going to go to America 250 projects, and $50
million of it will go to White House projects. By late last year, that had flipped. And America 250 is told, you're only getting $50 million. They
sign a memorandum of understanding with the Interior Department, who is distributing that money.
And under the agreement, Interior would transfer $50 million to America 250 for its programming. This is down from the initial hope of 100. And then
even that falls apart. $25 million is transferred in early January, but the other $25 million never comes.
And when I went to the Interior Department with this and the White House and said, why have you broken this agreement you made? They started
questioning, really without basis, the spending of America 250, the congressionally authorized group, and started attacking their integrity,
that this is wasteful, that consultants were taking the money, that they're not going to light money on fire.
Ironically, there are people who are supporters of America 250 who say Freedom 250 is doing exactly that, that, you know, it's Trump's consultants
and campaign vendors who are taking in all that money through the Freedom 250 planning efforts.
And so, now we have basically this war of words between two groups who both say they're focused on uniting the entire country over the coming weeks to
celebrate the nation's birthday.
MARTIN: So, let's go back to the fact that the original group, the America 250 group, is bipartisan, is set up to be bipartisan. There are Republican
members. What do they say about all this? Because presumably a lot of them are still involved. And in fact, some of them, as I understand it, I guess
they're called commissioners, were Trump supporters.
SCHERER: So, there's two tiers of those members on the commission. There are elected leaders who are commissioners, and then there's an executive
board who are made up of Republican and Democratic appointees of the Republican and Democratic leaders of the House and Senate. So, you know,
the speaker of the house gets a certain number of appointees. The minority leader in the house gets a certain number of appointees.
Republicans' members have expressed concern about this money never being delivered. Lisa Murkowski, who's been very involved in the commission, a
senator from Alaska, questioned Burgum in a recent hearing about why the other 25 million had not been delivered as agreed.
MARTIN: Burgum being the interior secretary.
SCHERER: That's right, the interior secretary. And Burgum basically said in that hearing, look, it's not up to me. The White House is handling this.
I'll talk to them and find out what's going on. This is really a White House matter, even though the money's coming from my agency.
So, there is definitely concern from elected Republicans. But then within the commission of the appointed members, there is significant frustration
about the attacks on their basic integrity, you know, on their ability to handle public money.
There's a lot of anger from both Republicans and Democrats inside America 250 at any suggestion that anything what they've been doing is divisive or
partisan or not looking out for the taxpayers whose money they're spending. But there's not much of that happening in public because we're really, you
know, a week away or so from the pinnacle of these celebrations.
And we're going to have America 250 events in New York and Philadelphia and Los Angeles, lots of smaller events around the country. We're going to have
lots of smaller Freedom 250 events. And then all the celebrations in the Washington area are being put on by Freedom 250.
[13:50:00]
And so, everybody's sort of biting their tongue for the moment to see if we can get through this.
MARTIN: Are they, though? Because one of the things that I think has gotten a lot of people's attention who may not be following this
particularly closely was this concert that the president wanted to put on, Freedom 250, and that a number of entertainers -- well, actually, I don't
even think -- I think most of them withdrew.
SCHERER: Yes.
MARTIN: I mean, they withdrew within days, in some cases hours, of having been announced. Tell us what happened there, and why did it unfold that
way?
SCHERER: Well, that's part of this confusion. I mean, you know, one of the remarkable things about Freedom 250 is that they have done everything they
can to mimic America 250 in almost every way. You know, America 250 has a pretty extensive online store where you can buy America 250 merchandise.
Freedom 250 basically mirrors that store exactly. You know, almost every piece of merchandise you get with the America 250 logo, you get with the
Freedom 250 logo. Trump's campaign vendor is the one producing those items.
And so, I think there was a lot of confusion. This event on the National Mall was originally a Smithsonian event. It was going to be a government
event, you know. So, what happened was, you know, once the president realized he couldn't have his yearlong state fair in Iowa, he decided to
move it to the National Mall to make it just a few weeks. And he basically told the Smithsonian that, I'm going to use your permit, replacing what
would have been the Smithsonian Festival of Festivals.
And as part of it, just like at any other state fair that you go to, there were going to be musical acts. Now, the memo never got to the musical acts
that this was not the government putting it on anymore or a bipartisan commission putting it on. This was the president's team in this new
nonprofit called Freedom 250.
And so, once they realized that and they realized the political overtones, they started to back out. The president became very upset, canceled all the
musical acts, confirmed their worst fears and announced that he would hold a kickoff rally instead, that he would call the rally to end all rallies.
That would be basically a MAGA political Trump rally.
MARTIN: Political rally. A typical Trump rally.
SCHERER: Right.
MARTIN: So, the funding, that money was already appropriated. So, how is it possible that the president can just decide not to spend it?
SCHERER: Yes. There are two types of funding that America 250 got. It got annual appropriation. So, it was getting 10, $15 million a year starting in
2016 to begin this planning. But then last year, it sought a supplemental appropriation, a one-time payment to really pay for a lot of the events
this year. And that was added to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. That was a Republican-only bill that passed that was drafted by the White House with
Republicans in Congress.
And the way that law was written, it said $150 million will be spent on the semi-quincentennial celebrations. It did not name the organization that
would get the money. And so, that gave Interior and therefore the White House a lot of power over how it was actually spent in the end.
MARTIN: I want to go back to the Republicans though, because again, Republicans have been participants in this all along. Interestingly enough,
Kellyanne Conway, a very close Trump advisor in his first term, she is an America 250 commissioner. She told you that America's birthday party will
be epic, and she says she's witnessed more collaboration than confrontation. I mean, is that just spin, or how do you hear that?
SCHERER: Well, her role at America 250 is sort of the bridge builder right now, because she is close to the president. She does talk to the president.
And she's tried to lower these tensions. And she was definitely trying to do it when I spoke to her as well in trying to de-emphasize the divide that
has happened.
I mean, I think there's still a hope from some people in the America 250 commission that Trump attends some of their events as well over the coming
weeks. So, far, we haven't gotten any indication that that's going to happen. I doubt it will happen. But we don't know exactly how it will play
out.
We also really don't know how the president himself will behave over the next week and a half. He's got two big speaking events, one on the National
Mall this week, one on July 4th. He could make those unifying speeches about celebrating the whole country and bringing the country together in
the spirit of Gerald Ford in 1976, or he could repeat what he said in Iowa and say, I hate Democrats. And those would give a very different sheen on
the event. And there's really no way of predicting what he will decide to do.
MARTIN: Michael Scherer, thank you.
SCHERER: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And finally, meet Merlin the Duck, the viral sensation and unofficial mascot of Mexico's World Cup team.
[13:55:00]
This friendly feathered fiend has waddled into the hearts and minds of millions of adoring fans worldwide, but particularly in his home country,
sporting his patriotism loud and proud in his miniature football shirt and tiny top socks.
And now, his fame has reached new heights. Trading the colorful streets of Mexico City for the grand halls of the presidential palace after he and the
pet's owners were invited for a very special meeting with none other than President Claudia Sheinbaum herself. And today, Mexico celebrates a perfect
pass out of the group stages after three wins and no goals conceded.
No doubt Merlin would be a welcome cheerleader for their next game, if not for FIFA's churlish ban on ducks and other animals inside the stadium.
That's it for now. Thank you for watching, and goodbye from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
