Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with The Budget Lab at Yale President and Former. U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy Natasha Sarin; Interview with U.S. National Security Council Former Director for Iran Nate Swanson; Interview with Former U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues Stephen Rapp; Interview with Politico Politics Bureau Chief Jonathan Martin. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired July 27, 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.
Trump's trade war is back. The president slapping tariffs on America's allies, despite repeated core challenges. The head of the budget lab at
Yale joins me to explain why ordinary U.S. consumers could foot the bill.
Then, can diplomacy yield results? As Washington pauses strikes on Iran, a former U.S. National Security Council official weighs in on what's next.
Also. ahead --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PAIVI KAUKORANTA, ASP PRESIDENT: The assembly has decided by a majority of 82 state parties that the elected official prosecutor, Karim Khan,
committed serious misconduct.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court is dismissed after facing sexual misconduct allegations, which he denies.
Where does this leave the ICC? I asked former U.S. ambassador at large for war crimes, Stephen Rapp.
Plus --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JONATHAN MARTIN, POLITICS BUREAU CHIEF, POLITICO: They need Trump for the primary, but he's a burden on them in the general.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- the countdown to the November midterms is ticking. How the president could hurt the Republican Party's chances. Politico's politics
bureau chief joins Walter Isaacson.
Welcome to the program, everyone.
I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
Rising inflation, historically high mortgage rates and expensive gas. Americans have been grappling with an ongoing affordability crisis made
even worse by the war with Iran. And President Trump's latest action on tariffs won't do anything to ease the financial pain.
As of midnight on Friday, the Trump administration imposed fresh tariffs on imports from over 80 trade partners. The White House says the move is a
response to dozens of countries failing to enforce bans on goods produced by forced labor. It is the latest push by Trump to use trade to obtain
concessions from allies and comes after the lapse of a 10 percent blanket tariff he imposed on imports back in February, following the U.S. Supreme
Court ruling deeming his tariffs illegal.
Financial analysts are warning the move risks higher inflation and more volatility for the global economy, which for U.S. consumers means higher
costs. According to the Yale Budget Lab, the revived tariffs would cost American households about $1,100 annually. The Yale Budget Lab president,
Natasha Sarin, joins me now for more on this.
Natasha, welcome to the program. So, just for viewers, once again, to understand where things stand, the Supreme Court struck down the
president's original tariffs. His replacement tariffs then expired on Friday. So, the administration needed a new reason, a new legal reason to
tax imports. And it found one via forced labor. Just explain what that entails.
NATASHA SARIN, PRESIDENT, THE BUDGET LAB AT YALE AND FORMER. U.S. DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC POLICY: Yes. Essentially, the situation
that we're in is that a very significant portion of the Trump administration's trade agenda was initially effectuated through a law known
as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, that it actually never in its 50-year history been used for broad based tariffs or tariffs of any
kind. And so, the Supreme Court said that doesn't actually work.
And indeed, it acknowledged that the president has other trade authorities that it could try to levy in order to effectuate tariffs. But those have
limits on them. And we hit up on one of the limits on Friday with respect to the idea that the tariffs that the administration put in place
immediately after the Supreme Court decision were only for 150 days unless Congress then authorized those new trade policies.
Congress didn't authorize those new trade policies. So, we were left looking for yet another way to try to effectuate tariffs. And now, we've
landed on a series of what are called Section 301 investigations into countries, allies and adversaries alike, where we're claiming that what
we're doing is actually tariffing them because they are not taking enough actions with respect to ending the use of forced labor in global supply
chains.
[13:05:00]
But it's like kind of hard to make the argument that these new tariffs are anything but a pretext for the old tariffs, which were levied with
different types of explanations.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And just for our viewers to understand, the government then subsequently investigated 59 countries plus the E.U. and found real
abuses in a few of those, cotton from China, rice from Myanmar, and used that then to tariff all of them as a justification. As you've just said,
this is likely a pretext and is similar to the tariffs that were imposed that were ultimately struck down by the Supreme Court. So, do you think
that this will also fail in the court?
SARIN: Yes. It's so interesting because I feel like the argument for this is a pretext has like two very clear points. One is that we're basically
where we were with respect to the effective tariff rate that existed in the post Supreme Court world. Our effective tariff rate is now about 13
percent. That's basically close to where we were before the Supreme Court struck down the original tariffs, which have a very similar composition.
It's about a 10 percent across the board rate on a wide range of trading partners. And that's exactly what's been replicated here with some slight
adjustments.
The other reason that we should sort of be alert to the idea that these tariffs might not actually be about forced labor, despite that being the
argument for them, is that we're effectuating tariffs on countries like Norway, where Norway's response to this investigation was to point out
rightfully that it's actually been a pioneer with respect to implementing its own laws meant to prevent forced labor in global supply chains. And so,
it's hard to make the argument that they deserve a tariff as a result of this type of approach.
GOLODRYGA: And that's exactly what they got. And yet China, the country with the most documented forced labor concerns, comes out of this at about
12 and a half percent tariff rate, which is where approximately where it was before. And that came out of a handshake truce between President Trump
and President Xi.
So, doesn't that make their argument that they're doing this to eliminate forced labor even more of an uphill battle if it lands in courts?
SARIN: I think it ultimately does. But the challenge that we're seeing and why I think this is such an important sort of moment for us to reflect on,
who can push back on these broad executive actions, is that the courts inherently are taking time for these types of legal questions to really
rise and be settled. The administration's 150-day tariffs, the Section 122 tariffs that actually expired Friday, were in the midst of a legal
challenge with one court, the Court of International Trade, actually saying you can't do these.
And so, I speculate what's going to happen here as well is you're going to see questions raised in the courts about the legality of these new trade
approaches. But ultimately, it's going to take time for those to play out. And in the meantime, you have the administration essentially outrunning the
judiciary, which is meant to constrain it.
And what I think that means is I think it really is Congress's role. Congress has the taxing power. It's very clearly delegated in the
Constitution to actually say that, like the power to decide what the appropriate tax rate is on imports is ours and not the executives.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And so, that begs the question, where is Congress in all of this? In your piece for The New York Times, you write that the whole
game of tariff whack-a-mole has the flavor of my regular negotiations with my toddlers. When I tell one he can't hit his brother with a shovel, he
produces a stick instead. And I think many households can relate to that analogy.
But you mentioned that just time is on the president's side here, not the courts, because it does take a while. Congress has been inactive here. So,
what does that mean to some of our longstanding trading partners, the confusion that it brings upon it, and even existing trade deals and
agreements like the USMCA are now at risk?
SARIN: Yes. And actually, that's such a good example, Bianna, because if you look at these new tariffs that were announced last week against
Canadian imports, about 5 percent of them, but effectuated at a very high rate, at a 50 percent rate, with the announced implementation date of mid-
August, if you're trying to think about under what trading environment, you're a business here in the United States, under what trading environment
are you going to be importing things like alcohol or hockey sticks from Canada in the middle of August? You actually don't know the answer to that
question, because you could very well see the trading environment change very dramatically between now and then with respect to these particular
agreements.
[13:10:00]
And so, I think the -- I've been saying that the tariff rates at this level, when the Trump administration came in for its second term, effective
tariff rates were around 2.5 percent. Now, they're around 13 percent. That's a big shift. But almost more troubling than the rate is the
volatility. The fact that we're in a situation where we've seen effective tariff rates change on average once every 12 days over the course of the
last year and a half.
And so, I think it makes it really hard from the perspective of businesses looking to try to think about how to optimize their imports. But it also
makes it, frankly, really hard from the perspective of the American consumer, who is facing price increases essentially across the board as a
result of these policies.
GOLODRYGA: And it also makes it hard for the Federal Reserve and Kevin Warsh, right, who's been tight lipped about where he ultimately will land.
The Fed will be meeting this week. But given all of this back and forth and instability from the president's own policies, I can't imagine that that's
helping the Fed in when it comes to their own their own target rates here.
Let me end by asking you for a bigger picture assessment of the state of the U.S. economy right now. How much of it in respect to inflation and the
affordability problem in crisis is something that President Trump inherited? And how much is it something whether we're talking now about
mortgage rates back at near 6.6 percent? We're talking about higher gasoline prices at the pump, largely because of the war in Iran. How much
of the current economic environment is because of the president's own policies?
SARIN: Yes. You know, what's so interesting is there are a lot of like really positive signals in the American economy. Look at what's happening
to the stock market. You look at the fact that we are the global center of the artificial intelligence revolution, which is very likely to bring
massive productivity gains over the course of the next many months and years.
But the thing that is sort of gives us some pause with respect to declaring success from an economic perspective is that if you ask people how they're
feeling about the economy, they're reflecting exactly the concerns that you're describing. They're reflecting concerns about cost-of-living issues,
concerns about the price of gas, concerns about the price of housing. And this administration is one that knows that they sort of won their second
term, making the argument that they were going to work to lower prices on day one.
I think what's hard is that the policies that they've effectuated since coming into office, which aren't just the trade war, they're also with
respect to immigration policies. They're also with respect to the conflict in Iran. They're all moving in the exactly opposite direction for those
cost-of-living issues.
And so, something that I think the administration is going to have to grapple with in the months leading up to November's midterm elections and
even beyond is actually whether it is possible and in fact desirable to undo a lot of those policy missteps in the name of making our economy
stronger, not weaker.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. It was the same argument that the Biden administration was trying to push out. They ultimately failed on with regards to the economy.
And you don't hear many Americans saying, yes, the A.I. boom is great and unemployment still low. So, things are great. No, they're talking about gas
prices. They're talking about confusion with these tariffs. So, a lot of issues that are facing American households today and many of them stemming
from the president's own policies. Natasha Sarin, thank you so much.
SARIN: Thank you so much.
GOLODRYGA: Well, now, a U.S. source says that American military operations against Iran are on hold for the moment. The U.S. says it's to give space
for talks with Tehran, but it also comes as the U.S. death toll has now reached 18. And officials are acknowledging that after five months of war,
a lot of U.S. stockpiles are depleted. Iran, meantime, is calling the pause its own victory, accusing the U.S. of strategic fatigue and claiming total
control of the Strait of Hormuz.
So, are we at an inflection point and what cards does the U.S. have left to play? Nate Swanson served as the director for Iran at the National Security
Council under President Biden before serving on President Trump's negotiating team. He joins me now live from Washington. Nate, welcome to
the program.
From where you sit, is this pause now an off ramp or is this the president concerned perhaps after being advised by his top officials that there is a
stockpile issue? And if this tit for tat continues for weeks on end, this could be a bigger problem for the United States.
NATE SWANSON, FORMER DIRECTOR FOR IRAN, U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL: Thanks for having me. I think it's a partial off ramp. It's a recognition
that time is not really on the U.S. side, you know, so he doesn't have clarity on how to end the war. But I think he's learned again that more
pressure isn't the answer here. And in many ways, the longer the war goes on, the weaker the U.S. negotiating hand is.
[13:15:00]
So, I think it's a recognition of diminishing returns and hopefully a turn towards a more productive path.
GOLODRYGA: What was notable to me was then in a number of these reports, one from Axios, is CENTCOM Commander Bradley Cooper, reportedly told the
president that after 13 days of strikes, continued strikes against targets around the Strait of Hormuz, that they've sort of lost their effectiveness
at this point.
What other options would the United States have as the president, even just moments ago, says that he is still weighing them and that kinetic action
and strikes could very well continue in the hours or days ahead?
SWANSON: Yes. I think militarily he has maybe three options, right? The one is to just try this same type of thing again and hope that, you know,
in combination with the blockade that eventually Iran's calculation changes. And I think it's unlikely to succeed. And it's something he's
tried on and off again for the last few months.
The other one is to really ramp up militarily and try to seize territory potentially and maybe take, you know, Iranian oil terminal on Kharg Island.
And, you know, that'd be a pretty significant repercussions that would come from that. And I think, you know, probably wouldn't change Iran's decision
making.
But the last one and really the only one that's really going to change Iran's decision-making is, you know, massive U.S. troops on the ground in
Iran. And I don't see any appetite for that and I don't think we're going to do it. And thus far, Iran's been able to call our bluff.
GOLODRYGA: So, why do you think the president continues to dangle that option? Besides the obvious, he doesn't want to tell the Iranians that
we're definitely not going to send in ground troops. But at some point, time and time again, threatening to do just that without delivering and
then hearing and reading reports just like the Iranians, I'm sure, have read in The New York Times and concerns about stockpiles. What leverage at
all does that give the president to continue to give reporters this particular information and optionality?
SWANSON: Sure. Yes. I mean, to be fair, I mean, a protracted, extended war is not really in Iran's favor either. You know, I think that they have more
political will than us in the short-term. But this was a country on, you know, the precipice of a real economic crisis before the war began. And
they've been able to hide behind, you know, being the victims of American and Israeli aggression. But at some point, you know, they're going to have
to actually, you know, turn towards governing their country. And that means, you know, ending the war and trying to rebuild.
So, at some point, you know, this does become untenable for Iran. The problem is, it's just not on the timeline the president wants. And so, I
think, you know, there's really is a reflection of he doesn't have great options. You know, I think he expected, you know, surrender or capitulation
early on in the war. And when that didn't happen, he's kind of been using the same playbook over and over and again.
And, you know, I just don't see that really changing Iranian calculus for a long time. You know, maybe, you know, five, six, seven months from now,
like the blockade makes it unsustainable for Iran. But that's a long way off. And, you know, there's a lot of pain for the global economy if that
was to happen. I think Iran sees that and is, you know, using that to their advantage.
GOLODRYGA: Right. And we know that in this sort of quiet times, downtimes during the ceasefire, though there have been days of continued strikes,
Iran has been using this as an opportunity to rebuild and resupply. I want to get you to weigh into continued reports. The Wall Street Journal just
the latest over the weekend that Gulf countries have been secretly striking within Iranian territory for weeks now. The UAE was the first to, I think,
have that reported. Now, Bahrain and Kuwait also with intelligence and air cover from the Emiratis. The Saudi has just intercepted Houthi ballistic
missiles. And it seems like that that tension is only escalating between those two entities.
Do you see an Arab coalition willing to take on a more aggressive approach now, even perhaps kinetically against Iran? And is that something the
United States should support?
SWANSON: I think it's very understandable that the Gulf is looking at kinetic options. I think they're frustrated with the situation, especially
being the victims for no real reason of Iranian aggression. So, I think it's understandable and natural that, you know, they're lashing back out at
Iran. That's very fair.
But at the same time, you know, they're also quietly pursuing support for talks and support for financial incentives and the war. So, I think they're
really just preparing for both possibilities. Whether the U.S. should support this or not, I mean, we absolutely should be supporting our Gulf
allies. You know, they are the unfortunate victims of something that was not their fault. And so, we should be doing everything we can to support
them politically, economically, you know, defense, et cetera.
[13:20:00]
But look, I mean, even if there was a massive air campaign coalition, it doesn't really change what we talked about at the beginning, right? This
isn't going to change Iran's decision-making structure. And so, really, unfortunately, you know, you have to go back to the negotiating table to
finish this. And whether that's us on our own or that's us with the Gulf, you know, it doesn't really change that fact.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, the MOU's deadline, for what it's worth, is August 16th, just three weeks away. Secretary Rubio says Iran isn't serious about talks
right now. I do want to ask you about Iran perhaps overplaying their hand. That has always been a factor here. They had one shot, the Strait of
Hormuz, and that's about all they have, in addition to them thinking that time is on their side.
And so, over the weekend, now you have Iran threatening Ukraine after Kyiv intercepted an Iranian ship. In the Caspian Sea that was bound for Russia,
the irony isn't lost here that Iran all of the sudden is crying foul over Ukraine attacking its fleet when we have seen for years the Iranian supply
Shahed drones now for Russia and its illegal war in Ukraine.
Does Iran actually have the capacity to open another front? Are they a threat to Ukraine at all, or is this perhaps the bark being louder than the
bite?
SWANSON: I think it's absolutely the bark being louder than the bite. I mean, Iran has, you know, really played a really negative role in Ukraine
over the last couple of years, since 2022, by supplying Russia with drones. And so, you know, in some ways, this has been a long time coming for
Ukraine targeting Iran.
But, you know, having an expanded war with Ukraine probably isn't really in anyone's interest. And I think it should be just seen as being rhetorical
threats. And that doesn't mean they won't shoot stuff at Ukraine, but, you know, to no real end at the end.
So, look, to your bigger point, though, I do think Iran is on the verge of overplaying their hand. They've been at maximum leverage for a while now.
And to some extent, the Strait of Hormuz is a diminishing asset over time. You know, it's going to take, you know, several years to build up these
alternate routes. But it really should be in Iran's interest to end this now diplomatically. And the longer this goes on, they lower the cost of
future war with them.
And so, you know, I do think it would be in their best interest to end this war sooner or later. And that's really the hope for everyone, is that
everyone realizes that more war is bad for everyone, and that they should really hammer out a detail now on the Strait.
GOLODRYGA: We'll be following it all. Nate Swanson, thank you, as always. Appreciate it.
SWANSON: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: And do stay with CNN. We'll be right back after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: In an unprecedented move, member states of the International Criminal Court voted on Friday to remove its chief prosecutor, Karim Khan,
after a staff member made allegations of sexual misconduct, which he denies. Khan is expected to challenge the lawfulness of the decision after
his lawyers criticized the investigation's ad hoc nature and claimed a lack of due process. His dismissal is adding fuel to a fire of criticism over
the ICC's credibility.
The Trump administration has vowed to dismantle the court, quote, "brick by brick," sanctioning several judges and prosecutors for what it claims is
the unjust targeting of Israel. Israeli officials are also arguing that following Khan's removal, the arrest warrants that he applied for against
Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant should now be withdrawn.
[13:25:00]
Those were issued in 2024 over war crimes and crimes against humanity allegedly committed during the war in Gaza following the Hamas October 7th
attacks. The ICC also issued arrest warrants for Hamas leaders.
To discuss where this leaves the fate of the court, I'm joined now by former U.S. ambassador at large for war crimes issues, Stephen Rapp.
Ambassador, welcome to the program.
STEPHEN RAPP, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR-AT-LARGE FOR WAR CRIMES ISSUES: Good to be with you.
GOLODRYGA: So, let's just talk about what happened on Friday. 82 of 125 member states voted to remove Karim Khan, yet the reviewing judges
unanimously found that the evidence didn't meet the criminal standard. So, was this process fair, in your opinion or -- yes?
RAPP: Yes, I think it was fair. I think the evidence was abundant, more than sufficient. The judges didn't have an opportunity to weigh the
credibility of that evidence. They looked at it as a he said, she said situation.
And of course, on your program, we recently saw the survivor of the sexual violence and inappropriate relationship that was the reason for this
dismissal. And she was very brave and frankly, very credible. And I think it's appropriate that the state parties move forward.
I don't think Karim Khan has any remedy. He was elected by 70 or so members of the Assembly of States parties. He's been removed by 80 or so. This is
this is not reviewable, just like the impeachment and removal of the president. So, the court needs to move onward.
GOLODRYGA: So, we will play sound from that interview that that led to ultimately Khan's removal with the survivor, Sarah and Christiane Amanpour
in just a moment. But I just want to follow up. So, when Karim Khan says that that he will challenge the, quote, "lawfulness and fairness" of this
decision through all available legal mechanisms, does he have any legal mechanisms to challenge them through?
RAPP: There are none in the Rome statute. There's no court that exists where he could possibly take a claim. His opportunity was to respond to
these allegations. And before the Assembly of States parties, which was done, you know, through his attorneys and that's frankly, the end of it.
AMANPOUR: As you know, there are some that have criticized this decision, including Josep Borell, who is the former vice president of the European
Commission and a friend of the court. And he wrote last week that the Khan case was, quote, "sabotage dressed up in the language of good faith inquiry
and accountability." And he argued that the Trump administration and Prime Minister Netanyahu share the same goal, ensuring no international court can
touch their soldiers or allies.
But to go back to what the survivor, Sarah, told Christiane on this program, she said many parties conflated her complaint with those Israel
warrants for their own personal agendas. Here's what she said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SARAH, ACCUSES KARIM KHAN OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT, WHICH HE DENIES: I can't speak to any specific state or individual, but I think many parties have
for their own agenda conflated the two things. There can be many reasons for it because it serves certain interests. What I do know is that my
complaint was because of what happened to me, not for any other reason.
And second, that conflation has only helped to distract and deflect from the validity of that complaint. The two things need to be separated.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: And to that point, the U.N. report found no evidence that Sarah acted for any state. So, does the sabotage narrative and argument do
exactly the damage that she just described there with Christiane?
RAPP: Well, it could have, but I think the court has gone beyond that. I don't think this has anything to do with the Palestine or Gaza case or with
any other case. And those cases were brought by persons in the office. People like my friend, Brenda Hollis, an American former Air Force JAG,
developed the Palestine investigation and the judges have approved it.
I don't expect that warrant to be withdrawn unless, of course, there were a change of government in Israel and they were to begin actually a genuine
investigation, in which case the ICC has no jurisdiction. But I expect the court to go forward. I think the challenge now is from the United States
that's trying in totally inappropriate and in my view, frankly, illegal way to influence a court when one of our essential principles on which we
evaluate countries and the rule of law is the independence of judges.
In fact, it's criminal in our system to attempt to influence a judge, to attempt to bend a judge based upon their decisions through political
pressure, through economic pressure.
[13:30:00]
Even our American Service Members Protection Act, in which we give ourselves a lot of powers to deal with the ICC, says you can't try to
affect a judge economically, and that's what we've done to these judges.
Three of them have now filed a lawsuit in New York in federal district court for Judge Furman. I've joined three of my colleagues in an amicus
brief in which we essentially argue that it's inconsistent with U.S. values but also law. This is -- the sanctions are based upon that economic
emergency act which the Supreme Court found was inappropriate to use to implement sanctions and illegal -- excuse me, tariffs, and in this case, I
think it's similar to that.
GOLODRYGA: So, with joining this amicus brief, what point exactly are you hoping to express to the court that you didn't just lay out to our
audience?
RAPP: Well, I mean, fundamentally, I mean, I was ambassador at large for six years, others in my office which served under presidents of both
administrations engaged over time with the ICC. We engaged as our law permits on a case-by-case basis. We were able to present to the ICC if they
raised issues about us as they did in Afghanistan, evidence that we were doing accountability in our own system and in the end that case was
deprioritized and won't be prosecuted. Israel could -- was doing the same thing, frankly, back in 2014, 2015 when the ICC gained jurisdiction over
the situation.
So, there are ways to deal with this thing, to deal with it and ensure that the court is pursuing the most serious cases in the world. But you don't do
that by threatening the judges, by attacking a court that's been in which almost all of our allies, every country in the European Union, every
country in South America has ratified the statute. And we don't do it that way. We do it by engagement diplomatically and we do it through the law.
And the ICC is not the threat that that Secretary Rubio thinks it is. It has very limited jurisdiction. As I said, if there is an issue in regard to
the United States, we show them that we're taking action to comply with the laws of war. And if they're justified -- if there are allegations, we
investigate them genuinely.
GOLODRYGA: You mentioned Secretary Rubio and what he said last week in the Philippines about dismantling the ICC brick by brick. I want to play sound
more -- sound from what he said in justifying that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARCO RUBIO, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: We have lunatics and crazies involved in the ICC that are talking about charging members of the U.S.
military, maybe even the president or a future president, with crimes. And it's not going to happen. It's just not going to happen. We are not members
of that court. We never signed on to that treaty. They need to understand that.
If people want to sign and be a part of that stupid organization, they can. But we're not going to be a part of it and they're not going to apply their
jurisdiction to Americans. That's just not going to happen. We're not going to tolerate it now or in the future. And we've warned them about it
repeatedly. And now, they're going to see the consequences of ignoring this.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: So, on the one hand, one should note that this administration and many prior to it have not signed out to the Rome statute, have long
said that when it comes to decisions and rulings that they like, that they support, let's say against Vladimir Putin, they will hail that. At the same
time, you once explained that Washington never ratified the Rome statute for fear of an unaccountable prosecutor pursuing political cases.
So, now we have a prosecutor who has been removed for misconduct after issuing warrants that two American presidents, both President Trump and
President Biden, called outrageous and illegitimate. So, does this episode vindicate what we heard from Secretary Rubio or does the fact that Khan has
been fired essentially from his job support the case for the ICC?
RAPP: Well, first of all, Khan hasn't been fired for beginning cases in Ukraine or in Philippines or in Afghanistan against the mullahs there or
proceeding against the military dictators who committed genocide in Myanmar. It's not for his conduct in office. And of course, there are
hundreds of people that work in his office or more than a thousand people that work in the court. They are not lunatics. They are not crazies.
They're great judges and individuals who I'm proud to know and serve with. And that kind of insult to our allies and to distinguished jurists is the
worst possible kind of rhetoric.
And frankly, nobody there is talking about charging the president of the United States. I don't see a case now. Iran is not a state party to the
ICC. The operation in Venezuela itself is very limited one. I don't see any justification for a case against the United States or against American
service members based on the conduct during this administration, to be frank.
[13:35:00]
And that's a case we frankly make on the law. And to the extent people violate the law, we pursue them ourselves. So, that's the solution that we
have here.
In terms of the ICC jurisdiction, they have territorial jurisdiction, just as what happened in Ukraine. Ukraine's accept the jurisdiction of the ICC.
If you commit a war crime on its territory, it has jurisdiction. It can prosecute you in Kyiv. It can send you to the ICC if they get ahold of you.
Same way, if you commit a crime in Canada, it's up to Canada to decide.
Clearly, the ICC has jurisdiction in these and we have to deal with it, whether a state party or not, if we're going to act within countries that
are state parties. And we do that by, frankly, making sure that we comply with the law. And if we do that, we're safe and we need not violate our
principles.
Go back on a project in which we frankly initiated at Nuremberg 80 years ago this fall, we'll have the anniversary of the great judgment against the
Nazi war criminals. We started that project. We supported it in Yugoslavia and Rwanda and Sierra Leone and elsewhere.
We need to stay on the side of the law and on the side of the victims and the survivors of these horrible acts of genocide, war crimes, crimes
against humanity.
GOLODRYGA: Well, let's end right there when we're talking about in the last few seconds that we have the future of the organization obviously
beginning in a very just cause, doing very important work and its credibility being on the line.
Now, the court prosecutes sexual violence as a war crime. I don't have to tell you that. However, its investigation of its own prosecutor took some
20 months and began only after press leaks and then ended only after this brave survivor went public. So, what does that say to victims in Sudan and
Ukraine and all over the world?
RAPP: Well, that eventually you're heard and the cases come forward. I've been a critic of the ICC in the past in terms of its speed and
effectiveness. It's convicted maybe a dozen people in 24 years. I was involved in courts that convicted, you know, more than 100 between
Yugoslavia and Rwanda and Sierra Leone. And so, I think the court needs to be more effective. There's a lot of ways that that can be done.
And of course, now it needs to elect a prosecutor, whether for a three-year interim term for the period of Karim Khan's term or for a longer-term that
is a person of international stature and experience and who is absolutely in terms of their personal character and conduct beyond question. And
that'll be essential to the court moving on and getting the support that it needs to the rest, the many people like the mullahs in Afghanistan and the
dictators in Myanmar and bring those people to justice where they will face their victims and a just process.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And as we know, and as you just laid out, time isn't always on the victim's side here. Khan's election took 18 months. The new
ICC prosecutor is not expected to be voted in before next year. Stephen Rapp, really appreciate your analysis, your expertise and the time. Thank
you.
RAPP: Good to be with you, Bianna.
GOLODRYGA: We'll be right back after this short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: Now, the United States is less than 100 days away from the midterm elections. And so, far, the primaries have laid bare the deep fault
lines running through American politics. Jonathan Martin is politics bureau chief at Politico, and he joins Walter Isaacson from Washington to share
his analysis of the upcoming vote and the issues on the ballot.
[13:40:00]
WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Thank you, Bianna. And, John Martin, welcome back to the show.
JONATHAN MARTIN, POLITICS BUREAU CHIEF, POLITICO: Thanks, Walter.
ISAACSON: Hey, so far this season, this electoral season, Donald Trump has been very effective in Republican primaries it seems. Will that carry
through or will he be an albatross when it comes to the general election for congressional candidates?
MARTIN: Well, it's two Americas. He controls his party's primary, does so with an iron fist, consolidates power within his coalition, but that does
not translate into being able to win general elections, especially in blue or purple America, Walter.
So, it's the duality of this era for Republicans. They need Trump for the primary, but he's a burden on them in the general in a good chunk of the
country. So, you know, the old saying is y- you win the primary to lose the general, and that's part of their challenge with Trump, is they so
desperately crave his laying of hands in the primary to win, but then it can become a burden in the fall.
ISAACSON: Going to the Democratic side, the big issue, it seems to me, is the rise of Democratic Socialist candidates, not only in New York, but in
Colorado and some other places. And then the mainstream party or the centrist part of the party trying to pull back. Tell me how that's playing
out.
MARTIN: Well, it's a replay of 2018, and for good reason. 2018, very similar to this year, took place immediately after Donald Trump won the
presidency, which horrified Democrats and especially Democratic activists, who were furious at their own party for not stopping Trump, and blamed the
old guard of their party. And once again, Trump wins and Democrats are ticked at their own party for not stopping him, and that creates this
internal insurgency.
On the one hand, they have enormous energy, which powers fundraising activism and turnout, and they're winning special elections and they're
poised to have a good fall. But, Walter, as you know, that kind of internal energy also can create churn within the party and generational and
ideological conflicts between factions. We saw it in 2018 with the rise of AOC and the Squad, who defeated a handful of incumbent House Democrats, and
we're seeing it now.
There's one other similarity. It's largely taking place in big city, highly gentrified precincts. That was the case in '18, it's the case now. And the
big question going to '28 is can the left replicate their success outside of the kind of barista class, if you will, in the gentrified precincts of
America's big cities, in suburbs, small towns and medium-sized cities? We haven't seen evidence yet that they can.
ISAACSON: Well, if they're going to do it in suburbs or small towns, can they do it with a Democratic Socialist type of approach?
MARTIN: Well, that's the question. Is there any appeal for that kind of a candidate, that kind of a philosophy in those districts? And so, far we
haven't seen evidence. I'll give you an example. In Phoenix, Greg Stanton, who's a House member, former mayor of Phoenix, easily fended off a
challenger who was a DSA-aligned candidate last week. Why? Well, because Phoenix is not Queens, right? It just doesn't have the kind of critical
mass of post-graduate, you know, intensely leftist type voters there to support that kind of a candidacy.
So, look, there's no question that there is a real insurgency taking place in the Democratic Party, but so far, their success has been confined.
ISAACSON: Let's talk about that insurgency. What's driving it? There are many factors. One is affordability. Another is Israel and the Palestinian
issue. Some is just sort of a resentment of an establishment. That's a populism we see both in the Republican Party and the Democratic Party.
MARTIN: I think it's all three of those things, Walter. And together they form what I would call a kind of political mood music in which a lot of
voters are just furious that their leaders have not addressed the challenge of our times, which is, you know, being able to afford life.
And there's this sense that the two major parties, in the case of Democrats, their leaders were not aggressive enough in trying to take steps
to, A, stop Trump, but more broadly to improve the quality of life for them. And I think that's -- you know, that's what's really driving this is
people who cannot get ahead, who are struggling economically want b- you know, more radical solutions, Walter. The Overton window is broadening
because of the nature of the times, because the inequality of our times.
[13:45:00]
ISAACSON: That seems to be a very understandable resentment, which is indeed, things, affordability has become a crisis, the disparities of great
wealth, all of these things. What is that -- how is that playing out on the Republican side, if at all?
MARTIN: Well, it has somewhat been tamed by the dent of Trump's personality. Trump's -- Trump and Trumpism is so driven by whatever Trump
wants on a given day or a given hour. But I think that you have previewed just now the coming debate in the post-Trump Republican Party. Because I
think 2028 will play out with people who will try to claim Trump's legacy because he is still popular with the sort of hardcore primary voters. But
there will be a debate as to what our party should be.
And, Walter, I think that reckoning is coming, whether it's '28 or '32 on the Republican side, which is are we still a Reaganite Bush party in our
DNA, free people, free trade, free markets, to borrow the Wall Street Journal phraseology, or no, the times demand something else and more
radical?
We are a looking inward party, restrictionist, even blood and soil type European party that's more nationalist on immigration, on trade and
identity. I think that debate's coming on their side. And I really think that the biggest challenge, certainly in '28, maybe beyond, whether it's
Vance or Rubio, is going to be somebody on the far-right, a kind of modern- day Pat Buchanan.
ISAACSON: Getting back to affordability, one thing that could affect it is random tariffs. I mean, and now I'm not talking about let's have a 5 or 10
percent thumb on the scale. But suddenly deciding you're going to hit Canada again with 50 percent.
MARTIN: Yes.
ISAACSON: How is that -- especially among the Republican, you know, establishment base, how are these random tariffs playing, and how are they
going to affect the affordability question?
MARTIN: Of all of the impulsive things Trump does nothing drives the traditional Republicans, especially in the Senate, crazier than tariffs.
It's antithetical to their philosophy. It's bad for their politics. They don't like what it does economically. And he won't get on -- I mean, the
Supreme Court obviously ruled on this. It's -- he's not going to stop trying to do it.
So, if you're a Republican this summer, you're looking at rising gas prices again because the Iran conflict has restarted. You're looking at a
president who is intent on a tariff regime that is often willy-nilly in nature. And, Walter, the biggest accomplishment legislatively of the year
that you sent to President Trump's desk, a housing bill, passed without his -- or became law without his signature because he is so ticked at Congress
for not passing this voter ID bill.
So, you don't have a lot to go home with, I guess is what I'm saying this fall, if you're a Republican on the ballot. You can talk about the tax cut
bill from last year, and of course they'll talk about Democrats and their drift left. But there's just not a lot of agenda items they can point to
because President Trump isn't giving them a whole lot to point to.
And more pertinently, he's not giving them much to look forward to. If you were to go ask 10 Republicans on Capitol Hill right now, what is your
agenda for the next Congress, for President Trump's final two years? You'd get 10 different answers because there is no obvious agenda, there is no
plan, because it's what Trump wants on a given day.
And so, that's the world they're in, that's the bed they've made for themselves and it's going to be tough sledding because of it.
ISAACSON: One of the issues in this anti-establishment surge is age and the Democrats seem to have a particular problem, and they're running 80-
year-olds, you know, for the Senate or something. Is that a problem and is that going to be -- you know, we're going to be surprised that some of
these older people get knocked out?
MARTIN: Well, it's already happening. You've seen that happening already in a handful of House primaries. And I think this is the hangover from Joe
Biden's presidency. It's the long shadow of the Biden presidency. The fact that he refused to withdraw. He would -- he insisted on running for re-
election, had a disastrous debate, as we all know, and then got forced out effectively by his own party. It was a palace coup. And that has, I think,
shaped the '26 race because Democrats are furious at Biden for doing that. They blame him for Trump.
The Democrats across the spectrum want younger blood, want a newer generation, and I think you're going to see that continue to play out this
primary season.
ISAACSON: One of the persistent issues on the Republican side has been the Epstein files.
MARTIN: Yes.
ISAACSON: That sort of has pushed pretty hard, and it's really, in some ways, I think, divided his coalition. How does that play out?
MARTIN: Well, there's -- I think the twin scourges of the modern era are, A, the question of affordability and equality that we talked about earlier.
[13:50:00]
But the second one is a lack of faith in institutions and this sort of great cynicism about every institution in American life outside the
military. And, Walter, I think that's why the Epstein case is so fertile and why it doesn't go away. It plays into a deeper sense of conspiracy
mongering that somehow there are larger forces that are controlling the system and hurting the little guy. And it's a vivid illustration of that
perspective. I think that's why it doesn't go away.
On the Republican side, it underscores the drift of the Republican Party from a kind of country club, business-friendly party to one that is more
shaped by working-class voters, voters who are more conspiracy-minded, who are more passionate about, you know, these large forces controlling society
that actually try to give tax breaks to the large forces controlling society.
And I think that's why it is so hot. And that's why Vance himself is so sensitive on this issue, Walter, because nobody is more online than Vance.
Nobody is more constantly conscious of what the kind of far-right internet fringe at his party is concerned about. And whether it's Israel or whether
it's Epstein or anything else, he's constantly mindful of that crowd because he views that crowd as the deciding factor in his party now.
ISAACSON: Immigration was a huge headwind against the Democrats over the past eight, 10 years, which I don't think that the Democratic Party quite
realized the strength of it, the issue about immigration. Now, you're seeing on the other side a backlash, a revulsion against some of what ICE
is doing and the enforcement efforts.
What is going to be stronger in these races, the controversy over ICE or the controversy over having too many immigrants?
MARTIN: It's a great question. It was the best issue that Trump had in 2024, best issue he had, I think, last year as well. He lost his advantage
and his party lost their advantage on the issue because of the excesses of ICE beginning in January in Minneapolis, but obviously now with more recent
incidents in Maine and Texas. This has been a blow for Republicans because they've really dined out on portraying Democrats as too weak on
immigration. But the polling now shows the Democrats have basically broken even or even have a slight advantage on the issue because of how ICE has
acted.
A Fox News poll came out last week showing just that fact. Democrats are now more trusted, barely, on immigration than Republicans. So, it's a huge
turnaround from 24. And it just shows, Walter, Americans have a split mind on this issue. They want strong borders. They hate images of chaos at the
border, but they also recognize we're a nation of immigrants and they cannot stand the excesses of ICE in the streets of America.
ISAACSON: Let me read you a quote that was in one of your recent columns, especially it was leading up to the 250th anniversary. You called upon the
American people to, quote, "Shoulder the burden for improving the quality of American democracy so it can prosper for another 250 years." What would
you like to see?
MARTIN: Americans should demand better from their politicians. We can't be a country that has the best technology, innovation, science, medicine,
military, you name it. We lead the world nearly every facet, maybe not soccer, Spain, congratulations, but we lead the world in every facet. But
yet our politics does not reflect the greatness, the dominance of every other element of American society. That contradiction cannot last forever.
At some point, Americans wouldn't tolerate an airline pilot or a heart surgeon that was a buffoon, and they're going to demand better from their
elected officials. And they need to. They should. And I think part of that's on us. We got to demand better from our politicians. But we also
need to make the system work so that good people, Walter, want to get in politics and then stay in politics. We have to change the incentive
structure to get people.
It's great to work for McKinsey or JPMorgan or whoever you want to work for. Make some money. But we also need people who want to serve. And we
have to make it easier for them to get in, and we have to make the culture more enticing. So, I think it's a mixture of Americans doing our part.
You know, the late Senator John Warner from Virginia said democracy is not a spectator sport. So, people have to shoulder the burden themselves. You
want better, demand better. You're in charge. Politicians respond to the marketplace. You, the voter, are the marketplace.
[13:55:00]
But we also have to make it easier. And we got to get better folks involved by making it more attractive.
ISAACSON: John Martin, as always, thank you for joining us.
MARTIN: Thanks, Walter.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: So, many issues discussed there, from the economy, from war, immigration, less than 100 days until Americans turn up to vote for the
crucial midterm elections.
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. 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
