Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Representative Chellie Pingree (D-ME); Interview with Protect Democracy Free Expression Special Counsel Rachel Goodman; Interview with Pew Research Center Director of Research Jocelyn Kiley. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired July 14, 2026 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don't know what he did, but he didn't deserve to be executed in the street.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Donald Trump's immigration crackdown claims another life, as ICE fatally shoot a 26-year-old father in Maine, despite his reportedly
having legal rights to work in the U.S. Maine congresswoman, Chellie Pingree, joins me.
Then, a look at Trump's latest attempt to control America's elections. I asked Rachel Goodman, special counsel at Protect Democracy about the
president's renewed targeting of election officials ahead of the midterms.
Plus, a surge of antisemitic attacks in the U.K. is spreading fear through Britain's Jewish community. A report on how London's police are tackling
the violence.
Also, ahead --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOCELYN KILEY, DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH, PEW RESEARCH CENTER: We talk a lot about Republicans and Democrats, but as you say, within those coalitions,
there's a lot of diversity and nuance.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- is America as divided as we think? Jocelyn Kiley from the Pew Research Center talks to Hari Sreenivasan about the complex center
ground in the U.S. and why binary categories like Republican and Democrat can often be misleading.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
We begin with a 26-year-old husband and father reportedly possessing a social security number and the legal right to work in the United States,
killed by ICE. Joan Sebastian Guerrero was fatally shot by federal immigration agents on the streets in Maine on Monday. Witnesses say his
three-year-old daughter was there at the scene as well.
It's understood that Guerrero was not even the target of the immigration raid. The Department for Homeland Security says an ICE officer opened fire
fearing for public safety after approaching Guerrero's car. They haven't provided details of the supposed threat.
Guerrero is the fourth person to have been fatally shot by ICE agents this year alone, including a Mexican man killed during a traffic stop just last
week in Texas. Seven other people have also been shot, though not fatally, as the Trump administration presses ahead with its immigration crackdown.
The surge in violence is again igniting anger, the Trump administration's aggressive immigration agenda and the apparent lack of accountability for
ICE agents.
I want to bring in Maine Congresswoman Chellie Pingree with more on this. Congresswoman, welcome to the program. I do want to note that The New York
Times is reporting that the White House is ordering ICE to cease most vehicle stops after this latest killing. So, your reaction to that news? I
would imagine that it is welcome news.
REP. CHELLIE PINGREE (D-ME): Absolutely, as well they should. They should stop their activities. People are so angry that we have a significant ICE
presence in our state. We have had it for months. And this very idea that an individual could leave his home at 7:00 to go to work and not very far
away from his house, he's shot. He'll never see his three-year-old daughter again.
GOLODRYGA: So, let's just talk about what happened over the last 24 hours, a little more than 24 hours, Monday morning. Mr. Guerrero was on his way to
work, as we had noted in the introduction there. He was shot at by ICE agents and apparently with his three-year-old daughter still wearing her
pajamas and his partner who had witnessed the shooting.
Were they in the car with him or were they outside? Because I understand that he was very near their home.
PINGREE: Yes. As I understand, he had just pulled out of the driveway. I don't think that they were in the car. I think he was going to work. And I
think shortly after the shooting, they came out. His wife was clearly there, three-year-old daughter in the bluey pajamas with her pink backpack,
witnessed the whole thing, as did many of the neighbors, others who saw exactly what happened.
We've gotten so little information from ICE, even though everyone in the state and congressional delegation has been requesting us. And as you
mentioned earlier, they've given very little argument for exactly what they did. He was driving away, by their account. And they said they did this for
public safety reasons. But as we know, there are a lot of constraints on normal law enforcement about shooting someone in the car. These four shots
were fired through the windshield. And clearly, this person died very quickly.
[13:05:00]
GOLODRYGA: And that's been confirmed that the shots were fired, I would imagine, head on through the windshield?
PINGREE: You can see it in the pictures. And I visited the crime scene myself.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. So, I want to play sound from another witness. He said there were numerous witnesses there at the time. And this is what he says
he saw at that moment.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DANIEL BOUCHER, WITNESS: An ICE agent got out, tried to open the door, and had a difficult time, but eventually opened it and pulled the guy out. His
face was bloody, his head was bloody. And I clearly heard the victim say, I tried to stop. Clearly heard him say that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: So, you have a witness saying that he heard Mr. Guerrero say that he tried to stop. There are reports, as you noted, you saw firsthand
four bullet shots through the windshield of that car. We know that most police departments train their officers not to do exactly that. Many
departments outright prohibit it as well.
Is there any version here of what transpired from DHS's comments and statements that you think would allow for that type of response?
PINGREE: Absolutely not. And I think that's why ICE has been so unforthcoming. It took him 12 hours to release the statement that you've
seen. We've gotten very little further information today. And we have asked to make sure that our state, attorney general, and all local law
enforcement are included in the evidence, the witness statements, and everything else, because we want to make sure this is a thorough
investigation.
I'm sure some of the reasons behind this and this botched shooting are exactly why they've decided to no longer allow for traffic stops. You know,
it's hard for them to break into homes because they have to have a warrant. This was something they were able to do without a warrant. But they should
not be allowed to do this in this case where it's very likely the wrong person. And there's no justification for this for a man losing his life.
GOLODRYGA: Well, DHS secretary, Markwayne Mullin, told Senator King that initially Mr. Guerrero was the target of the warrant, then called him back
hours later and said he was not the person that they were looking for. So, now, you have a 26-year-old father who was on his way to work, killed,
eyewitnessed by his three-year-old daughter and his partner. What would you like to see happen now?
PINGREE: Well, some of the things that we've been calling for, there's absolutely too much funding for ICE. We've tried to put more constraints on
them. Even though Congress required body cameras, these officers were not wearing body cameras, so we don't necessarily have firsthand footage of it.
We also have been talking about more strict procedures there.
The other big question for us is, why are you in our state? We're one of the lowest crime rates states in the nation. There is not a lot of criminal
activity in the small community of Biddeford, Maine. There's a long tradition of immigrants there.
So many people come through my office all the time. I represent the city of Portland. We have a lot of people who work on immigration. They are fearful
to go out of their homes, to go to work because of the targeting by ICE officers. Some of them are actively searching for their own family members
who have been detained, taken to places all over this country. I myself was just down in Dilley a couple of months ago to retrieve a 19-year-old girl
who had been detained down there. It's a completely out-of-control agency.
We also understand that they operate under some kind of quota, and that's why they're constantly pushing on these, you know, detentions and pickups
with very little information behind it.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And just to pick up on that, Biddeford is a city of 22,000, one of the lowest crime states in the country, we should note. And
your constituents have reported seeing ICE agents daily, weekly, going back to January. And this was an operation at the time that took a lot of heat
for the name that it carried, and it was Operation Catch of the Day.
Have you ever been able to receive a concrete answer as to why there was such a significant and regular ICE presence in your state -- in your city?
PINGREE: Absolutely not. I mean, we believe that when they were doing, as you said, the despicably named Operation Catch of the Day, that they were
trying to retaliate against Maine, which President Trump often does. He picks a state, he doesn't like their politics, he sends in, you know, ICE
officers or something else.
They left our state after about a week, but the fact was, even though many people thought we could take a deep breath, we have seen consistent
presence of ICE. We have seen people picked up with very flimsy excuses, the kinds of things that would normally allow you to stay in the United
States. For instance, people were overstaying a visa, but they're actually waiting for their asylum claim to be decided.
[13:10:00]
So, legitimate reasons to stay in our state, they're almost all returned as soon as we can find out where they are. But we are just one of the many
targeted states. I think this ICE activity is going on everywhere. People just don't always know how to deal with it or where it's happening.
GOLODRYGA: DHS said at the time that Mr. Guerrero, who was driving the car, attempted to flee the scene, and that an officer, fearing for public
safety, then discharged his weapon. Public safety, not his own safety. What do you make of that language, especially coming after a very similar
incident, as you know, occurred just last week in Houston, Texas?
PINGREE: Yes, absolutely. I mean, there's no justification for that. And in any other law enforcement, officers are trained. If they're fearing for
their own safety, it's one thing. But to just go after and shoot somebody because of an amorphous claim of public safety, there's no justification
for this. There's no confirmation that the individual had a weapon in the car or was about to brandish a gun. So, there's no excuse for this.
And we believe that this is what they do all the time, is kind of make up these excuses that many of the ICE officers don't receive the same level of
training that our local police or state police do. And they're operating under quotas, so they're rushing to find more people.
GOLODRYGA: Well, we know they're well-funded. You've already said that there has been a lot of frustration with the fact that there are no body
cameras, though ICE and DHS did say that they would, in fact, follow up on providing these agents with body cameras. That was not the case here. It's
not a funding issue.
Do you think it's a training issue? It's a policy issue? Is this something that Congress can address?
PINGREE: Well, I mean, it's a little bit out there, but I'm one of those people who think we should abolish ICE. You know, we created this agency
after 9/11, put together a lot of other agencies. They seem to be poorly run. They have excessive amounts of funds. The president promised us that
he was only going to look for people who were murderers and rapists, but they've spent so much time in our state and in so many other states around
the country shooting American citizens, shooting people who are legally here, detaining people, running private prisons, often poorly run.
I don't see the purpose of having them there, and I don't understand why taxpayer dollars are being spent in this way.
GOLODRYGA: Yesterday, DHS's Office of Secretary Markwayne Mullin put out a press statement headlined "Worst of the Worst: ICE Arrests, Murders,
Pedophiles, Violent Assailants and Drug Traffickers." How do you square that now with your stance that ICE should be abolished? How do your
constituents, how do they navigate that headline from your position?
PINGREE: Look, we have a lot of other agencies that could be tasked with doing this, or we could dramatically shrink this agency if that's actually
what they were doing. But we've seen very little of their presence in Maine devoted to actions like that. Mostly we see people who are legally in our
state, who are our co-workers, our friends and our neighbors, who are being detained often for months at a time, sometimes not returned at all to our
state. Families are broken up, communities are devastated over this, and our citizens are really, really angry.
GOLODRYGA: Let's talk about what happens next, accountability, the investigation. The FBI and DHS's own inspector general will now control
this investigation, not Maine authorities. This is despite the fact that the state AG, the governor, have opened their own inquiries. Republican
Senator Collins is calling for a full and impartial investigation. So, as we should note, is the Colombian embassy as well, because this man was a
Colombian national, I believe.
But we saw the turmoil in Minneapolis when local officials said that information was withheld from them at the time. Can you trust DHS to
conduct a fulsome and fully transparent investigation now?
PINGREE: I absolutely do not, and I've heard Senator King say similar things. I know that in my state, given what's happened to us, given what we
saw in Minnesota, some of that evidence was just recently released to law enforcement in Minnesota. We don't want to have to wait that long. Our
attorney general has already said he wants to do a full investigation. There is absolutely no reason why they can't cooperate fully with our state
and local authorities and do a joint investigation.
What we saw in Minnesota was cover-ups. We saw them eliminate evidence and withhold information, witness statements, body cam information or other
video information. We should have evidence of all of that. We should have access to all of that, and we should do parallel investigations. There's no
justification for not doing that.
GOLODRYGA: Congresswoman, Maine has spent the last two weeks in the headlines nationally for all the wrong reasons, the collapse, the
implosion, the scandal of Graham Platner's Senate campaign, now a fatal ICE shooting in your own city. Your constituents are having to reel with this.
Many of them witnessed it themselves.
[13:15:00]
What is this moment doing right now to Mainers in their trust with their elected officials, with federal law enforcement?
PINGREE: Oh, they are extremely angry. We're having a record heat wave day to day, and I know people are out in the streets, and they're very angry.
And as you said, we're just in the throes of conducting another mini-Senate primary, and we'll find a new candidate for the ballot.
And I know this will be a very high-level issue for all of those candidates. People will want to know what will you do differently, what's
the importance of having a Democratic majority, so that we can push back on the Republicans who allowed for this level of funding, who confirmed the
current Homeland Security secretary, and are going along with so many of these things. So, this will be a very hot topic in this election cycle.
GOLODRYGA: Well, I know that you had called for Graham Platner to step down prior to when he finally did. You are running for re-election. You're
unlikely to stand to replace Platner. As a Senate nominee, that was your position earlier. Does what's transpired over the last 24 hours change any
of that for you?
PINGREE: We have a good field of candidates in that race, and I have an important position to keep filling in the House. So, I'm running for re-
election in my House position. I serve on the Appropriations Committee, and one of the biggest fights we need to have with this president is to take
back and move around the funds that he has misappropriated, the excessive amount of money that they've given to Homeland Security, and so many other
agencies that they've underfunded.
We have our work to do. We will get a good candidate for the Senate, and Maine will lead the field in making sure Democrats get elected.
GOLODRYGA: Congresswoman Chellie Pingree, thank you so much for the time. We appreciate it.
PINGREE: Thanks for having me.
GOLODRYGA: And later in the program, from the cost of President Trump's immigration agenda to his efforts to bend American democracy to his will. A
look at Trump's renewed targeting of election officials ahead of the November midterms. That's after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: Well, now we turn to the latest attempt by President Trump to tighten his grip on U.S. elections. In a move critics are calling a power
grab, President Trump has fired the last remaining members of the Election Assistance Commission, a bipartisan federal agency that helps state and
local officials run elections and certify voting equipment. It's part of a much broader campaign by the Trump administration that includes attempts to
restrict voter registration and limit mail-in ballots.
All happening just months before the November midterm elections. But President Trump is seemingly still focused on 2020, the election he
baselessly claims that he won.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: I've been right about everything, and I have been for a long time. That's how I got to be president three times. That's
how I won three elections. I did very well in the second one, won it. It was a rigged election, but I've been right.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: That was the president at last week's NATO summit in Ankara, Turkey. Well, for more now, I want to bring in Rachel Goodman, special
counsel and program lead at Project -- Protect Democracy, a nonpartisan nonprofit group dedicated to defeating the authoritarian threat. Rachel,
welcome to the program.
So, there we heard the president once again reiterate those baseless claims that he won the 2020 election. Now we learn that he's going to be
addressing the nation Thursday night.
[13:20:00]
The White House says the president will present newly declassified intelligence about the 2020 election and voting machine vulnerabilities.
This comes after his own attorney general at the time, his own FBI director, obviously many courts and audits found no such fraud. What do you
expect to hear from the president Thursday?
RACHEL GOODMAN, FREE EXPRESSION SPECIAL COUNSEL, PROTECT DEMOCRACY: I think we can expect the president to repeat the lie that the 2020 election
was stolen from him and marred by fraud of various kinds. Of course, we know that's a lie because years of audits and re-audits and more than 60
lawsuits have been fully litigated and demonstrated it to be baseless.
National security officials and election officials at the time uniformly said it was the most secure election ever, but the president's attempt to
interfere in the 2026 election and to bend it to his will depends on his ability to deceive Americans about the integrity of American elections and
that's why we continue to see him repeating these lies about 2020.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. I was going to ask you what do you think the purpose is of re-litigating 2020 just four months before the midterm elections because if
he sees evidence of fraud today, why not just make a case for that now? Why re-litigate something that as we noted so many members of his own cabinet,
of his own administration, judges across the board all said that there was no evidence of.
GOODMAN: The federal government led by the White House has a strategy in 2026 of seeking to use all the tools in its toolkit to interfere with the
election. So, it is first attempting to lay the groundwork for that interference by deceiving the American people about the integrity of their
elections which of course are safe and secure and trustworthy.
After that deceit it attempts to -- it will attempt to disrupt the elections by interfering in the mechanics of election processes and then it
will attempt to deny the results of those elections in as much as its preferred candidates are not the winners. And this is really the only
strategy available to an autocrat in a system that still has elections. He needs to undermine the trust and confidence of the American people in their
election system in order to seek to consolidate and retain power. He's wildly unpopular of course right now and that's why this is the only
strategy available.
GOLODRYGA: So, you describe him as an autocrat or potentially wanting to act like an autocrat. The response to that is that and specifically as it
relates to the firing of those three members of the Election Assistance Commission, two of them we should note were fired by email. They're
Democrats, one Republican was asked to resign.
The White House argues that this was the president just exercising removal power that the Supreme Court, a check on the president, allowed him to do.
So, how are they wrong even if you are suspicious by the move?
GOODMAN: I think the first thing it's important to highlight here is that the president has no authority over the conduct of American elections. That
is a state and local responsibility. The Election Assistance Commission supports state and local officials with grants, with guidance, it supports
voters, but the firing of these officials does not give the president any authority over the elections at all.
And I think the main significance is to sort of continue the lies that the federal government will interfere and that state and local officials should
be, you know, in fear of federal interference, that voters should be in fear, but the fact remains that American elections are safe and secured and
are administered at the state and local level by neighbors who Americans trust, right?
You sit next to folks at church, you stand behind them in line at the grocery store and those are the people who you see when you get to that gym
to check in to vote. Those are the people who tally the votes. This is not happening in D.C. under the under the watchful eye of the White House. And
it's a state and local function and that is the reason that Americans remain with a high degree of trust and should in our elections.
GOLODRYGA: And this may be the first time that many Americans, many of our viewers, viewers around the world have even heard of the Election
Assistance Commission. Just talk about the role they play, the significance of ensuring fair and honest elections here in the United States and you
know why this is a big deal. It's not as if the president is saying, hey, I'm going to go out and try to fire the Supreme Court members who I don't
agree with. Why is this something that they should worry about?
GOODMAN: Yes. I mean, again, I think of all the actions the president has taken right now it may not be the thing they should worry about the most,
because, again, the function of the Election Assistance Commission is fairly narrow and tailored under federal law.
[13:25:00]
It does things like certify election machines, produce the uniform voting form under the National Voter Registration Act. Very discreet functions
like that. The firing of these election officials is not going to give the Commission any additional power.
That said the president did it to continue to demonstrate this intention to use all the tools in the toolkit to interfere with the election and ensure
that the administration's preferred candidates are seated regardless of the will of the American voter. That's the strategy, right, to deceive
Americans about the integrity of the election, to disrupt election processes whenever possible and then to deny the results, if necessary.
GOLODRYGA: Well, what the president is saying that he is most focused on and he says all Americans should be most focused on is getting the SAVE Act
passed. We know that it has stalled in the Senate. There's a lot of frustration now directed specifically at Senate Majority Leader John Thune
who has told President Trump time and time again that he does not have the votes to get this passed.
The president says he only wants to make sure that it is just U.S. citizens that are voting but that that is already the law. And we should note that
Utah just reviewed over 2 million registrations and found one confirmed non-citizen registration and zero, zero non-citizen votes. That's just one
state.
So, what is the problem that this bill that the president says is the most important perhaps that he's trying this piece of legislation he's trying to
get through. What does it solve?
GOODMAN: There is no real problem that it solves. It merely helps the administration promote the lie that non-citizens vote in large numbers or
that mail ballot fraud exists. That's the purpose to continue to sort of elevate the threat of fraud and to plant the seed in Americans minds that
there is something to be concerned about that might lead to an election override by the White House later on.
And while it is not a real problem the passage of the SAVE Act of course would create mass disenfranchisement for Americans. There are something
like 20 million Americans who have neither a birth certificate nor a passport which would be required to vote. It's really a burdensome
regulation that would make it harder for Americans to vote. I think it's 69 million American women who don't have a birth certificate that matches
their current legal name so they would not be able to register to vote under a SAVE Act regime. It's not a serious attempt at governance. It's an
attempt to elevate lies about American elections.
GOLODRYGA: Let's talk about Bill Pulte. His name hasn't come up yet in conversation. He is now the acting director of National Intelligence. He
was a housing regulator with no intelligence background at all. And the president says that he's just in an acting capacity right now because what
he wants is for Pulte to declassify this is going back to 2020, 2020 election material.
And in response to this Senator Mark Warren who is the Intel Commission co- chair in the Senate, he's warning that he could use fabricated intelligence around the midterms to again perhaps put out misinformation,
disinformation. Is that a realistic scenario from Senator Warren or do you think, Warner, or do you think that perhaps it is just a hypothetical that
likely won't happen?
GOODMAN: I certainly think Bill Pulte was put in this role to help elevate administration propaganda around elections. He's proven himself willing to
be the administration's attack dog in the FHFA role. And I think that is what made him a prime candidate here.
I don't know, of course, what kind of selective declassification he may engage in. But if he does, it will be part of this propaganda strategy by
the White House, an attempt to sow the seeds of doubt so that they can deceive Americans about the trustworthiness of their elections.
And Pulte -- you know, Jay Clayton I know has a confirmation hearing scheduled this week. He may not be in the role very long, but I do believe
that the attempt to deceive Americans about the election is the reason he is in that role right now.
GOLODRYGA: So, do you pay attention though when you hear a warning like that from Mark Warner, the Senate Intel Committee co-chair?
GOODMAN: I absolutely pay attention. And I think Senator Warner is exactly right that this is all part of the election interference strategy that has
really been ramping up this summer.
[13:30:00]
You mentioned a number of these incidents, and I think we're seeing it across the board that the administration is looking to capture the media
cycle with news that causes Americans to doubt those election results, which again, you know, those elections are administered by their friends
and neighbors and are trustworthy.
I think that we should, you know, keep in mind what we can control, which is that Americans can question the sources of information when they see
information. Unfortunately, the federal government is no longer one of those trustworthy sources, which makes supporting independent media that
much more important and just really engaging in the democratic work of considering competing ideas and coming to a conclusion rather than
accepting the White House narrative.
GOLODRYGA: There was a notable and memorable moment and exchange recently a few weeks ago with comedian, Bill Maher, on his HBO show when he was
interviewing Vice President J.D. Vance, and he specifically asked him on election integrity, on why this is something and why the president
specifically keeps wanting to relitigate 2020. Here's what he said, and here was the vice president's response.
BILL MAHER, HOST, "REAL TIME WITH BILL MAHER": Here's my deal-breaker for your side, OK? Under Trump, you guys have two outcomes than an election can
be. Either we win or they cheated. That has to stop, and that means the person who has to stop it would be you or Marco. Can you tell me you will
do that? Will you bring us back to the middle, at least on that, where we concede elections?
J.D. VANCE, U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: I don't think that we should not concede elections, but I don't think that's what's going on. The biggest criticism
I had of the 2020 election is that you had technology companies that were quite literally censoring negative information about the left and promoting
negative information about the right.
The sense in which I think the election in 2020 was rigged, I'm sorry, is that you had technology companies that were putting their thumb on the
scale in a way that completely obliterated the real open exchange of ideas.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: OK. So, there you heard the vice president say that candidates should concede, but then he called the 2020 election rigged in a
fundamental sense. I'm not sure what that means, but this idea has already been planted in the minds of millions of Americans. Republicans, maybe some
independents, maybe even some Democrats. Who knows that after years of hearing President Trump and those of his supporters question the 2020
election and the validity of it.
At this point, and I'm just giving you the Republican argument, why not just double down and perhaps even have more verification options to re-
instill confidence for those who have lost it?
GOODMAN: There's simply nothing left to do. There have been, you know, six years of tallying and retallying and I think there is no valid stone here
that has been left unturned. Of course, the reason we're hearing about it now is about the 2026 election, not the 2020 election and any additional
airtime given to relitigating those arguments, which again, 60 lawsuits, in addition to the rounds of certification and tallying and verifying that are
built into the processes in all 50 states, didn't uncover anything. There's simply nothing left to uncover.
And with respect to -- I'm a free expression lawyer, I can't not pick up on that piece that the vice president mentioned, with respect to the question
of whether there was censorship by the platforms in 2020, you know, I think that the degree that private companies opted to take information about
falsehoods off their platforms is -- you know, is something people can have different views on. It's simply not the same kind of problem for governance
as when, as now.
You have the mechanics of the federal government brought to bear on suppressing information through the FCC, through all the Pentagon and White
House tactics that we're all well aware of in the media suppression right now.
GOLODRYGA: Well, just a reminder that Chris Krebs, the top elections official in 2020, he's Republican, he called that election the most secure
in American history. Shortly thereafter, he was fired. So, that is another point to make here as we continue to relitigate this. Rachel Goodman, thank
you so much for your expertise. Really appreciate the time.
GOODMAN: Great to be here. Thank you so much.
GOLODRYGA: And we turn now to the U.K., where a recent string of attacks targeting the Jewish community has left many fearing for their safety. The
British government has just announced additional police protection, including extra patrols in predominantly Jewish neighborhoods.
[13:35:00]
Jomana Karadsheh spent the day with a specialized unit in London's Met Police to learn about the strategy for tackling antisemitism. And a
warning, viewers may find some of the footage in her report disturbing.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JOMANA KARADSHEH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: They're responding to a call about a male with a knife outside a school. We were really close by.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. Where's the guy with a knife?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They were down the road. All I know is there was one with a knife and one of them was indecent.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And how long ago did they go?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Less than a minute.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. Cool.
KARADSHEH (voice-over): This isn't an ordinary police patrol. We're out with the Met Police's proactive patrols, additional forces dedicated to
securing these predominantly Jewish areas of London. They spot men matching the description.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Final and no shot. That'll do.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Whoa, what did I do?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You got any idea why they'd give a description that matches you, mate?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No idea.
KARADSHEH (voice-over): After a quick stop and search, they find no knife, so they let them go.
KARADSHEH: So, what we just saw now, that was an incident that wasn't -- it didn't seem to be targeting the Jewish community, but you responded.
SIMON VANDEPEER, METROPOLITAN POLICE SERGEANT: Our overriding aim as a police service is to protect life. So, when a call comes out where a knife
is present and that could be a direct threat to someone's life, no matter who it is, then it's our job to respond to that.
KARADSHEH (voice-over): Following a string of attacks earlier this year, mostly targeting the Jewish community, the terrorism threat level in the
U.K. was raised to severe. And the Met Police is on high alert, especially in this part of North London.
TOM FURLONG, METROPOLITAN POLLCE OFFICER: The demand has been astronomical. It's definitely the highest demand I've ever seen. I think
it's because of the incidents that have happened in the area, and quite naturally the communities that live within this area of London feeling
unsafe.
VANDEPEER: We've also seen sort of physical assaults. We had one not that long ago where someone was making Nazi salutes and sort of shouting Heil
Hitler and baby killers and people like that, and then walked into a cafe and punched a random member of the public in the face, simply because they
were visibly Jewish.
KARADSHEH (voice-over): These officers have also had to deal with what they say has been a steep increase in all kinds of antisemitic abuse.
Incidents like this one. Authorities say two young men travelled to a Jewish area to film themselves for social media, going quote, "fishing for
Jews," with a banknote on the end of a fishing rod. They both pleaded guilty and were convicted of religiously aggravated harassment. For many in
this community, the visible police presence is welcome.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There's been a lot of patrol cars driving up and down.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, but I feel it's needed.
KARADSHEH (voice-over): Since the October 7th attacks and the war in Gaza, antisemitic offenses in London have hit record levels, according to
official figures, and have spiked again since the U.S. and Israel's conflict in Iran.
The Met works closely with local Jewish security groups. 24-year-old Nathaniel Fahidi says the police presence helps, but he still feels nervous
about revealing his faith in public.
KARADSHEH: If you were to explain what it's like being Jewish in the U.K. right now to people outside the country, what would you say?
NATHANIEL FAHIDI, JEWISH LONDON RESIDENT: Worrying. I mean, I'm not particularly religious, but I now refrain from being openly Jewish, and I
know lots of other families who are in my community who have now decided to move to different countries because being here just doesn't go safe
anymore.
KARADSHEH (voice-over): With British Jews feeling the repercussions of what's happening thousands of miles away and antisemitic hate on the rise,
what started as temporary patrols is now here to stay.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: Our thanks to Jomana Karadsheh reporting from London. And we'll be right back after this short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:40:00]
GOLODRYGA: As we discussed earlier, the crucial U.S. midterm elections are coming up. At a time when the partisan divide feels more stark than ever,
Americans will likely face one of two choices, Democrats or Republicans. But do most voters feel their political and cultural identities align them
with either major party? A new Pew Research Center report says no.
Jocelyn Kiley is the director of the research at the organization, and she tells Hari Sreenivasan about how the picture of American politics is far
more nuanced.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HARI SREENIVASAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Bianna, thanks. Jocelyn Kiley, thanks so much for joining us.
We keep hearing this idea that people in the United States are divided, and most often we think of red or blue, Republican or Democrat. And what you've
created is this typology in a new report called Beyond Red vs. Blue, where you write that many Americans hold a complex mix of values and beliefs that
don't always fit neatly into either major party. The result is a picture of American politics with far more than two colors in it. What did you find?
JOCELYN KILEY, DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH, PEW RESEARCH CENTER: So, this is our Pew Research Center political typology. It's a project that's near and dear
to my heart that we've done for many years. Back, the first one was done in 1987. And the aim of it has always been to give Americans a sense of the
contours of the American political landscape and to look beyond red versus blue. We talk a lot about Republicans and Democrats, but as you say, within
those coalitions, there's a lot of diversity and nuance. And there are a lot of people who have overlapping views.
So, for instance, we find nine political groups in this year's political typology. I think you can fairly say that four of them, two on the left,
two on the right, are deeply partisan, deeply ideological, at least in broad strokes. But then we have five other groups. One is fairly
politically disengaged, a group we call the tuned-out middle. But then four other groups that are more mixed in their political values, even as they
generally align to one party or the other.
So, I'll give you one example. Actually, the biggest group in this year's political typology is a group we call the order and opportunity left. This
is a group that is more Democratic than Republican by actually a fairly wide margin, but still has about a quarter of people who identify as
Republicans and Republican leaners as a part of that group.
It's a group that's economically liberal, fairly financially stressed, racially and ethically diverse. But on some issues of social issues, issues
around immigration, I think you characterize their views as more moderate. And so, even though they're on balance more in the Democratic coalition
than the Republican coalition by a fairly wide margin, they have some values that pull them to the middle or even in some cases a little bit
towards the Republican Party.
SREENIVASAN: You asked, what, more than 10,000 adults these questions, 30 different questions. And you're not necessarily asking about, well, did you
vote Democrat all the time? You're asking really questions about values.
KILEY: That's right. So, the aim of this project is to, you know, show Americans how their values array. And so, you're absolutely right. We do,
on the survey, we ask questions about their partisanship and who they voted for. But in order to create these typology groups, instead, we ask
questions about their views on immigration, their views on race and ethnicity, their views on the role of government and the social safety net,
government regulation, any number of other issues that when we talk about our politics today. These are the issues underlying that -- those partisan
coalitions.
And so, then we use those -- the answers to those questions to find people -- to find groups in the public. And then we analyze those groups.
SREENIVASAN: OK. Let's go through this box a little by little here. So, on the extremes, tell me, what do these groups have in common? You call them,
you know, highly ideological, politically engaged, whether it's on the right or the left. What do they have in common? And then maybe what
actually breaks them apart into pulling them into these separate boxes?
[13:45:00]
KILEY: Yes. And they do have a lot in common. So, I'll start with the left. We have a group we call the leftward progressives. That's 7 percent
of the American public. We also have a group we call the loyal liberals. That's 11 percent of the American public. They are the groups on the
Democratic side who are most likely to vote. Their voices are fairly loud in our politics.
And they -- you know, in broad stroke, you can say that both of these groups are deeply liberal. It's absolutely the case. And yet, there are
important differences. And I think one of the most interesting things is that that the leftward progressives, even though they are progressive
across the board, they have really strong critiques of the American economic system. They also have some skepticism about the role America has
played in foreign policy.
And very interestingly, despite how left they are, they have some criticisms of the Democratic Party. They're -- you know, they still
overwhelmingly voted for Kamala Harris over Donald Trump. They have they are deeply critical of Donald Trump and the Republican Party. But that
doesn't necessarily mean that they're happy with the with the Democratic Party.
On the other hand, loyal liberals are also on many of these same issues in a similar place where they differ is that they are. First of all, they are
a little older and they are also more attached to the Democratic Party. They have a more positive view of America's role in the world. And they
think that America has an important role to play in the world. They're strong supporters, for instance, of NATO. That's not to say the leftward
progressives dislike NATO, but not to the degree that the loyal liberals do.
On the right, you know, they're kind of corollary groups are the group I call the No Apologies Right and the group we call the Faith First
Conservatives. No Apologies Right are about 9 percent of the public and Faith First Conservatives are about 12 percent of the public. Again, both
of these groups are deeply Republican. They strongly supported Donald Trump in 20 to 24 and largely continue to be strong supporters of Trump today.
No Apologies Right, perhaps the strongest supporters of Donald Trump. They are both conservative across the board for the most part. No Apologies
Right, part of why we call them that is they have, you know, a somewhat maximalist approach to politics. They're not looking for compromise with
the other side in our politics, and they're motivated as much by that as by some of their political opinions.
Faith First Conservatives, again, are strong supporters of the president. They're very likely to consider themselves supporters of the Make America
Great movement. So, I don't mean to separate them out by that. One of the interesting differences here is that Faith First Conservatives are
particularly motivated by issues around morality and religion.
And so, for instance, while both groups tend to say that abortion should be illegal in all normal circumstances, Faith First Conservatives are actually
the most likely group to say that. So, one way to think about it is these groups are sitting very comfortably in coalition with each other. But there
are just are some differences in what motivates them and why.
SREENIVASAN: When I hear you talk about the groups on the extremes and the issues that they care about, and also the numbers in America of how many
percentage of people kind of fit into these groups, you're talking about the two extremes on either side that comprise 20 percent on either side.
But that seems to be all where the noise is coming from. They seem to have a disproportionate impact on the national conversation, the debate, even
policy.
KILEY: I think there are we see reasons for that in our data. This is not new to this political moment, but it's often been the case that groups,
people who are more ideologically consistent, more ideologically motivated, are participate at much higher levels in politics.
So, we see that in -- you know, in our data, we're able to look at who voted in 2024. So, we can see that those groups that I was just talking
about are the groups that are most likely to have turned out in the 2024 election. They're also more likely than other groups to say that what will
happen in this midterm really matters for them.
And we see it pop up in any other way that you can imagine measuring political engagement, how closely they follow news and information, whether
they go to rallies and whether they give money and so on and so forth. So, to some extent that explains a little bit that they have a larger voice in
our politics.
SREENIVASAN: Let's talk a little bit about the big giant hunk of the five groups that you have in the middle. You have one group that's, as you kind
of say, has checked out.
[13:50:00]
But what about those four that are, I guess, who everyone is competing for to try to get them to get out to the polls and obviously pull the lever in
the direction of the party?
KILEY: Yes. And even within there, there's some nuance. So, I'll start with, for instance, the group we call the Unconventional Right, which is an
overwhelmingly Republican oriented group. It's younger than some of the other groups on the right. They are conservative across many issues, but
not as deeply conservative as those groups I was mentioning before.
And on some issues, including some cultural issues, particularly things like abortion and guns, I would characterize their views as more moderate
than the positions that the No Apologies Right and Faith First Conservatives take. They're an interesting group because they turn out at
much lower rates.
If you think about competing for their votes, targeting that group, it's fairly unlikely, I would say, that this is a group that would be easily
swayed to come over to the Democratic side. But the question is a turnout question. Can the -- you know, can the Republic -- if you're a Republican
strategist, how do you get this group to turn out and not stay home?
And I think one of the interesting things about that group is, you know, as I say, they overwhelmingly voted for Donald Trump in 2024. But on the last
measure we have of his presidential approval among this group from a couple of months ago, that approval had fallen to just over 50 percent among this
group. So, there is step and that decline is larger than among any other group in our political typology.
And there's a corollary group on the left that we call the Left Out Left. They're economically liberal. When they vote, they vote overwhelmingly for
Democrats. They're fairly young. They're very disaffected with our politics today. And they're very economically stressed. And so, the challenge there
is for Democrats to get that group excited to turn out for them. Because like the Unconventional Right, it's fairly unlikely that Republicans are
going to be able to target people in that group.
And then one of the other groups that I haven't talked about yet is a group we call the polite and -- the Pragmatic and Polite Right. It's 11 percent
of the public. It's actually the oldest group in the typology. It is majority Republican, but not overwhelmingly. It's about 56 percent
Republican. On balance, it voted for Donald -- this group voted for Donald Trump over Harris in 2024. But this group has really soured on the
president over the course of the year, the last couple of years.
And some of that is this group, the Pragmatic and Polite Right, is a group that -- is in favor of small government, is generally economically
conservative. But their views on some other issues are quite moderate. They're not necessarily liberal, but they're moderate.
SREENIVASAN: Let's take an example to try to show where values might move you around in different spots, right. Immigration, hot button issue,
depending on your demographic, depending on which of these nine groups. I mean, I don't see it as an automatic that this is going to if it's
immigration, you're automatically here.
KINKADE: That's right. I think one of the things about immigration, for the most part, it does fall out on an ideological spectrum with the most
conservative groups, the most supportive of restrictive immigration policies and the most liberal groups, the least supportive of these. Well,
one of the interesting things is that it depends on which questions you ask about immigration.
So, for instance, we ask about whether -- you know, whether those in the country illegally should be deported or there should be a path to legal --
there should be a path to legal status. And on this question, we find the No Apologies Right and the Faith First Conservatives overwhelmingly in
support of large-scale deportation efforts. The Unconventional Right are somewhat split on this question. But most of the other groups, including
the Pragmatic and Polite Right are minorities of those groups say there should be a mass deportation effort.
On the other hand, if you ask people about the importance of border security, having strong borders and so forth, you find that that across
most groups, most people say this is an extremely important thing for the US. So, often we're -- and the groups that stand out as being less likely
to say this are the left or progressives in particular, and to a certain extent, the loyal liberals. But even there, the loyal liberals, you know, a
sizable share of that group says it's important to have -- you know, it's important to the country to have strong, secure borders.
SREENIVASAN: Yes.
[13:55:00]
KILEY: And what's interesting about that is that we often talk about immigration in terms of a debate between the sort of extreme restrictive
immigration policies and much less so. And in fact, most Americans and most of these groups are somewhere in the middle when it comes to immigration.
SREENIVASAN: Jocelyn Kiley, director of research at the Pew Research Center, thanks so much for your time.
KILEY: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: All right. 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
