Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Czech President Petr Pavel; Interview with State Representative Justin J. Pearson (D-TN); Interview with University of Notre Dame Professor of Law Derek Muller. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired September 02, 2026 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
EMMANUEL MACRON, FRENCH PRESIDENT (through translator): This constitutes yet another instance of interference. This hybrid war that Russia is
effectively waging against us.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Russia ramping up a hybrid war on Europe, after Germany accuses Moscow of a drone attack on its airport. How should NATO respond? I asked
Petr Pavel, president of the Czech Republic and former senior NATO official.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: If I was a governor in this state, I would want to have the data centers.
REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D-NY), MINORITY LEADER: Everyday Americans are concerned about being overrun by data centers.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: The battle over data centers. Pushback from people and legislators across both parties. I'll speak to Tennessee's Justin Pearson.
Plus --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DEREK MULLER, PROFESSOR OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME: I think there's a lot of chaos coming for election administrators trying to figure out how
to get these absentee ballots out in time.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- Trump's proposed mail-in ballot rules raise serious voting rights questions. How we got here and what it all means just months before
the midterms.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London.
Arson attacks, airspace violations and assassination squads. Russia's escalating hybrid war against European NATO states. That was the warning
from Poland's foreign minister, Radek Sikorski, at a meeting of E.U. foreign ministers in Ireland today. And it comes just after Germany
announced that it was in fact Moscow behind last month's attack at Leipzig Airport where an explosive drone was found near two Ukrainian cargo planes.
Meanwhile, Poland is investigating a fire at a factory that makes drone components. Romania had to shoot down a naval drone near a Black Sea gas
platform. And U.S. intelligence discovered a Russian plot to assassinate the CEO of a German arms manufacturer that produces artillery for Ukraine.
CIA Director John Ratcliffe went to Moscow last week to issue a warning, do not escalate against NATO, he apparently told Russia. But will they listen?
Our first guest tonight said on this program back in April that Putin would likely attempt increasingly bold campaigns against NATO. Is this what's
happening now? The president of the Czech Republic, Petr Pavel, joins me from Prague.
Mr. President, welcome back to our program. And as I mentioned, you warned on this program a few months ago that this is precisely what Putin would
do. Is this kind of the I told you so moment?
PETR PAVEL, CZECH PRESIDENT: I believe that this is exactly the pattern of Russian behavior in the last couple of months. Russia aware that they
cannot launch an open military action against NATO, is using all the arsenal of indirect actions from subversion through incursions into
sovereign airspace, provocation at the maritime space, but also information campaigns against different countries, all motivated by the old rule,
divide and rule.
AMANPOUR: Mr. President, do you think this is because apparently American intelligence has told Russia that they are not winning, that the economic
and military situation for Russia is very, very dire? Do you think this is a desperate sort of Hail Mary pass by Putin, or is he always going to do
this?
PAVEL: Well, President Putin always seeks for an external enemy. There is no intention whatsoever from European countries to innovate Russia. No one
is so crazy. But Russia always insists to their own population that they are under threat from the West. And that's why when they do not succeed in
aggression against Ukraine, they are looking for external enemies. And the first place, European countries supporting Ukraine are now their direct
focus.
[13:05:00]
That's why they launch a number of indirect attacks against European countries to disunite European Union, NATO, to discourage these countries
from support Ukraine and to create a perception that Russia can act wherever they choose.
AMANPOUR: Mr. President, this week, in -- you know, response to all of this, the NATO secretary general, Mark Rutte basically said publicly that
NATO is united. We understand that John Ratcliffe, the CIA director, went to Moscow to tell them that NATO is united, not to attack either indirectly
or directly any NATO country, and that President Trump would not stand for it.
Do you believe that NATO is united? In the past, you've said NATO has to show its teeth in response to Russia's repeated attacks and provocations.
PAVEL: If President Putin wanted to disunite NATO and the E.U. by launching an aggression against Ukraine, he achieved just the opposite.
NATO countries are more united. They are more determined to defend their territory. They are more determined to spend more on their own defense and
to deter Russia from any open military action.
And as I mentioned, as Russia is aware that launching a direct aggression would not meet their objectives, they are now focusing on actions that are
below the threshold of military aggression. And they have the whole arsenal of these events which they are now using, making attribution to Russia more
complicated, if not impossible, and they are trying to create atmosphere of distrust to institutions to sow divisions among nations, but also to
discourage them from supporting Ukraine and from hostile opinions against Russia.
AMANPOUR: Well, let me ask you that because this is the crux of the matter, isn't it? I don't know whether they are successful in discouraging
your countries from supporting Ukraine, but your countries are having a really hard time right now supporting Ukraine. The amount of, you know,
specific weapons that are needed, interceptors, missile defense, et cetera, are being expended in the U.S. war of choice on Iran, and we all know that
there is not enough in Ukraine.
They haven't been able to use any interceptors recently, as Russia has pounded Ukraine day and night with volleys and volleys of drones and
missiles. How do you, particularly as a former military officer, view the state of battle right now?
PAVEL: It's more or less a stalemate. Russia is not succeeding, even though Russian propaganda insists that the war is going well. For every
square kilometer that Russia achieves from Ukraine, they lose more than 1,000 people. The rate of casualties is higher than the rate of
recruitment.
And over the last year, they acquired less than 0.4 percent of Ukrainian territory. That cannot be translated as a success. And that's why they are
trying to do anything possible to demonstrate that they have the power to win the conflict. That's why they are focusing on soft targets, creating
terror, creating fear, and creating beliefs that Russia cannot be defeated.
AMANPOUR: And what do you think? Can Ukraine hold out without the necessary defensive weapons?
PAVEL: Well, I believe that Ukraine has demonstrated tremendous determination and courage. They are very innovative in coming up with new
tactics, with new equipment. And with our support, they are holding Russian aggression back.
I believe that they will be able to come up with new ways of, let's say, indirect activities, deep strikes into Russian territory, targeting what
the Russian population now feels as the lack of gas, the lack of goods from different shops and e-shops. And that all creates a perception that Ukraine
wants to achieve that the war has moved from Ukrainian territory into Russia and are insisting on Russian population to create pressure on their
leadership.
[13:10:00]
AMANPOUR: And do you see that working? We read anecdotally that some in the Russian elite are somehow making it known that this war needs to stop,
whether it's in the economic sector, some diplomatic sector. We're reading evidence that at least some people are starting to say things out loud and
it's not appreciated by the Kremlin.
What do you know? What does your intelligence tell you about what's being said now?
PAVEL: I believe that the Russian population is generally tired by the war as Ukrainian population. They don't want it in general. But at the same
time, they are being convinced by their leadership that Russia cannot lose this conflict, that they eventually will prevail. And in a Russian spirit,
losing means almost disaster. That's why they need at least perception of a victory.
I believe that we all have to insist that ending the war is actually the victory for everyone, including Russian population, which will again get
access to oil and gas, to all the goods they are used to, because continuation of that conflict is not in their interest as it is not in our
interest.
AMANPOUR: Yes. We understand that the CIA director also told his intelligence counterparts there in Moscow that they needed to figure out
how to bring an end to this war. But Putin shows no signs of it. And the main advisor to President Putin, the spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, has said no
peace talks are on the horizon.
And especially they've doubled down on this because President Zelensky of Ukraine has said that Russian airspace will be effectively closing as his
country escalates on its drone thing. Putin called that state terrorism. Take a listen to what Putin said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VLADIMIR PUTIN, RUSSIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): Listen, I haven't heard these statements, but if it was said out loud, it borders state
terrorism. Also, I draw your attention to the fact that they ask us to resume talks with them, to meet them in person, while there can be no talks
with terrorists.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: What do you make of that, President Pavel?
PAVEL: It's strange to hear talks about state terrorism from a man who directly orders to commit state terrorism on other countries, including my
own. I believe that we should now focus more on ending the war in Ukraine as a precondition of opening negotiations about European security. I
believe that such a wider scope could allow broader debates on how to arrange European security from the Northern Sea to the Black Sea, where
peace in Ukraine will be a necessary precondition, but in general a part of that arrangement.
AMANPOUR: When we spoke in Prague a few months ago, one of the things you said to me regarding Putin's actions is that, yes, Putin would be crazy to
try to attack full frontal any European or NATO country, but would try to humiliate NATO by maybe limited actions, perhaps in the Baltics, to -- as
you said that, to clearly demonstrate that NATO is actually useless because it doesn't act. In other words, he would be testing NATO and prodding it
and daring NATO to respond.
Do you still stand by that and do you feel NATO is showing that it is willing to defend, as it always says, you know, not one inch of territory
to Russia?
PAVEL: I believe that this is a feature of Russian attitude towards the West, showing where they can go and testing. But at the same time, they are
well aware where is the border, where is the threshold up to which they can go. And that's why I am really glad that there is growing understanding
within NATO, being at the military or political part of NATO, that we have to be determined to not only deter, but also to act if necessary, when our
airspace or territory is violated. Because this is the only way that can stop Russia in testing our resilience.
[13:15:00]
AMANPOUR: So, in that case, how important do you think it was? Because President Trump has said many things that cast doubt on America's support
for NATO. How important was the visit of the CIA chief? And again, you know, he hasn't said what he was there for. The administration hasn't, but
Wall Street Journal and others have said that he basically told them, do not, you know, think that the president is not behind NATO. Is that a
relief to you? Do you think it's enough?
PAVEL: Well, NATO is built on unity. And of course, the United States is the most important member of NATO. But at the same time, with time going
towards more responsibility of European countries for their conventional defense, I believe that we should come up to a position that any country
that would be attacked by Russia would fiercely defend itself and all other members of NATO will come to assist such a country.
Because it is the only way how we can protect our sovereignty, our freedom in the future. Because Russia is and will remain our primary military
threat.
AMANPOUR: You gave an interview to a British newspaper a couple of months ago. You said that there was essentially a two-month window, that's what
you said back then, to push Russia towards talks because there's going to be an election and that might, you said, close off room for negotiations.
And that's in September -- you know, later this month, September the 20th. And you said maybe the Kremlin might decide on serious escalation or a
massive, well, which would also require a massive mobilization. Can you explain and sort of expand on that?
PAVEL: Well, up to now, President Putin didn't come to calling for mobilization because he understands that it's highly unpopular among
Russian male population. When they declared mobilization last time, there were about 1.5 million young Russians fleeing the country to neighboring
countries and to Europe.
I think they are very aware that the war is highly unpopular and young people, young men are not willing to go to die. Because as the CIA director
pointed when visiting Russia, life expectancy of young recruits who come to battlefield is between 20 and 30 minutes. And, of course, there is no
family that would be happy sending their sons into something such a fierce that is now stationary war in Ukraine.
So, President Putin will be more willing to call for mobilization after the elections because then he can afford to ignore public perceptions and
opinion.
AMANPOUR: Yes. I mean, it's a very terrifying thought. And that stat that you just said is just extraordinary. And that life expectancy on the front
line of 20 to 30 minutes is just absolutely extraordinary.
So, now, finally, I just want to ask you then, is it better to try to engage the Russians or to keep trying to isolate them? For instance, as you
well know, at the G20, the United States administration invited the Russian finance minister to North Carolina. E.U. countries were furious, allies
were furious and refused to take part in a photo op. What was your view of that?
PAVEL: Frankly, I don't consider such a move a right one because it sounds like an effort to normalize relationship with Russia. We shouldn't isolate
completely Russia. We should be very firm in our position that we are open to negotiation without preconditions and after they stop fighting at the
line of contact as it is now. That's the foundational condition for any negotiation.
I believe that Russia is not in a position to negotiate from the position of power. And we also don't want to negotiate from the position of power.
We simply want to come to a fair arrangement that will follow international norms and international law. That's the only thing that we should come up
with.
And if Russia is willing to start negotiation, then after some results we can negotiate also releasing the pressure of sanctions and potentially even
normalizing our relations.
[13:20:00]
But without stopping the war, without coming to an arrangement that will be consistent in international norms, I think we cannot normalize because any
such a move would only encourage Russia that things are coming to normal, even with continuation of war in Ukraine.
AMANPOUR: Yes, that's really an interesting observation. And we appreciate you being with us tonight. President of the Czech Republic Petr Pavel,
thanks for joining us.
And we will be right back after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
AMANPOUR: Let data reign, declares President Trump as he rejects a growing people movement against data centers. They are needed to power artificial
intelligence, they require an enormous amount of energy and water, and they're popping up all over America. The president is adamant, though, that
they're important for jobs and growth. But the pushback is surprisingly bipartisan.
Tennessee State Representative Justin Pearson joins me now from Memphis. Welcome to the program, Representative Pearson. And it has to be said,
you're also really in the midst of this fight. You're an activist also for your people and for your district against these data centers. You're
calling it the fight of our lives. Tell me why.
STATE REP. JUSTIN J. PEARSON (D-TN): Absolutely. What these fights are showing all across our country in Republican-led areas and Democratic-led
areas is that the billionaire class is willing to sacrifice our air, sacrifice our water, destroy our communities for their profits.
I have a data center three miles away from my house built by Elon Musk. He operated 35 illegal gas turbines for over a year and now has 59 illegal
turbines in North Mississippi. These companies do not care about our lives. And it's the responsibility of people who are in elected office to fight
for us. And that's what I'm seeking to do in the Statehouse and in this run for Congress.
AMANPOUR: Yes. You are running for Congress. And of course, this is all part of it. Let me just ask you, because I've seen a lot of writing about
the pushback. Some people thought that the American people would just sort of, you know, get down with all of this and sort of shrug and say, well,
it's the way of the future. But it is really a popular movement against these data centers.
Does that surprise you? And also, the bipartisan nature of it when it comes to politics?
PEARSON: Yes. It really doesn't surprise me that we're starting to see Republicans, Independents and Democrats organizing together around an issue
that affects our air, our water. And honestly, it's affecting people's ability to have jobs well into the future. As we know, 15 to 30 percent of
the workforce is going to be taken away by artificial intelligence, robotics and automation.
I've been doing environmental justice organizing for six years, and we've always been able to build these coalitions of black folks, white folks,
Latino folks, Native Americans, Asian folks, richer folks and poorer folks when it comes to issues that impact us.
And I think what we have in this moment in time is one of those political issues that people are willing to cross political boundaries for because
the consequences are so severe. We're having our aquifers depleted, people's land and farm landings being depleted. Sixty seven percent of data
centers are being planned in rural America, where overwhelmingly you have more conservative folks and people who vote Republican.
[13:25:00]
And I think we have a real particular moment in time here where this movement is really building and gaining power because we're realizing
political device isn't changing the fact that the billionaire class is the one who's profiting from these projects while the rest of us are paying the
bill for it.
AMANPOUR: Of course, as you know better than I do, that A.I. and everything around it is powering the American economy right now. And
President Trump and many, many others say that just the building of these data centers, the amount of, you know, the thousands of them, the amount of
job capacity that they will entail for the future, the idea of being competitive America while you have this, you know, onslaught of competition
coming from China. All of these are massively important and will do good for the people in general in terms of jobs and the economy.
PEARSON: I mean, that's what they say, but it has not been proven true. People like Elon Musk have become near trillionaires and making hundreds of
billions of dollars. But we haven't felt those benefits in our economy. In fact, the most significant use case for a lot of these companies has been
taking away people's jobs.
The effect of more A.I. data centers and these hyper-scale data centers in particular haven't been more innovation that has somehow benefited the
global economy or benefited us all across this country, particularly working-class people. And so, I think, again -- he's a billionaire. The
president of the United States is a billionaire. He is only trying to do things that are going to benefit people who are in his social class. But
for other hard-working-class blue-collar folks, white-collar folks, this is going to have a detrimental impact on our reality.
And then when it comes to literally the siting of these facilities, they're always in the same places. They're never at Mar-a-Lago, which is where I
want to see one built. They're never in the CEOs' neighborhoods. They're always in working-class black communities, working-class white communities,
where people think we don't have political power to fight back and to resist. And what we are seeing across this country is that the people that
live in these neighborhoods are going to fight back for themselves because people like Donald Trump don't care about us.
AMANPOUR: Just, you know, to put a point on that, the Gallup poll most recently in May says that 70 percent of all Americans oppose the local
construction of these centers. Only 27 favor it. Just give us an idea. Again, you spoke briefly about it at the beginning. How is it affecting in
terms of health and pollution and the others? What are the results that you see in your own district, in your own neighborhood where you live?
PEARSON: Yes. So, again, I live three miles away from where Elon Musk built the first hyperscale data center in our community. He's now built
four and had 35 gas turbines. And very sadly, we've seen an increase in the number of children going to the emergency room for respiratory illnesses.
We know that some folks have died prematurely because of the increases in thousands of tons of nitrogen oxides and tons of formaldehyde that's in our
communities.
We also know that because of the increase in gas turbines that they're using illegally in violation of the Clean Air Act and research from Harvard
professors has shown us that we are likely to see dozens of people prematurely die from the exposure and the pollution that's being pumped
into our air. So, the consequences are real.
In addition to the millions of gallons of fresh drinking water that's being used to cool these plants and the workforce implications of people,
hundreds of thousands of people already having lost their jobs and millions likely to lose their jobs over the next five to seven years. We need to
stop this. We need a national moratorium. I'm fighting for one right here in Memphis and Shelby County because our people lives matter way more than
the profits of these billionaires.
AMANPOUR: Let me just read you some stats, which I find quite extraordinary and interesting. The research firm, Data Center Watch, said
in the first quarter of this year it produced the largest concentration of blocked and delayed data center projects ever. At least 75 projects
apparently worth approximately $130 billion were disrupted by local opposition, you know, such as yours. That's -- I mean, is that the sort of
momentum that you think you can carry forward?
PEARSON: Absolutely. I think we have so much momentum now, not just against data centers and hyperscale data centers, but against the reality
that billionaires are doing everything they can to build more of these data centers because they want more money and they want more political power to
continue the cycle over and over again. It really is the billionaires versus the rest of us.
And so, when you see 70 percent of Americans who are opposed to data centers, hundreds of billions of dollars being lost by these folks because
communities are rising up in opposition, it gives me hope and courage that in Republican areas, Democratic areas, people who are independents that we
are starting to find once again that we have way more in common than we do apart. And that is the type of momentum that's necessary really to break
the back of these corporations that are exploiting us and exploiting our communities. And they are picking on places that they think don't have a
lot of political power and places that they think are in desperate need of their tax revenue.
And so, because of that, we're just willing to accept these projects. But the money that these corporations bring, they are investing it in their
chips. They're investing it in their computers. They're not investing it in our communities.
[13:30:00]
And so, sometimes they'll say, well, we're bringing tens of billions of dollars into this neighborhood. No, you are not. I live in the neighborhood
where Anthropic spends $1.25 billion sharing the data center with Elon Musk. We are not seeing billions of dollars of investment in our community.
AMANPOUR: And as you mentioned, you know, the midterms are coming up. You're running, and many others are. And it's become a very potent issue,
especially with campaign ads and all the rest. I'm just going to play you some clips of how this is being reflected in the battle for the midterms.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He's been called the face of data centers in Ohio. Why? Because Jon Husted spent years aggressively recruiting data centers to the
state, cutting sweetheart tax deals and fast-tracking approvals, while ordinary residents watch their electricity bills explode.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Josh Shapiro's data center scandal keeps growing. First, Shapiro handed Amazon a fortune in tax credits to build a data
center here without any community input. Then Shapiro fast-tracked building permits, also without community input. And Shapiro said he's putting even
more data centers in our backyards.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, obviously, the interesting part, and you'll know this, is that they are a Democrat and a Republican both, you know, targeting their
opponents for being pro data centers. Is this, do you think, a new American political coalition that's growing, or do you think that after the
midterms, people might just go back to -- because they know it's unpopular, they might go back to supporting them?
PEARSON: No. I think this is going to be an issue that is building a new coalition in the fight for the future, and a future that prioritizes
people, that prioritizes the environment, prioritizes our health against those who are supporting these hyperscale data centers in these
corporations.
And honestly, it's been people in the Democratic establishment, and it has been people in the Republican establishment who've been supporting these
projects. And now, all of a sudden, they're trying to flip temporarily so that they can get re-elected. But I think the mass movement and
mobilization that we're seeing of everyday ordinary people is what's going to hold them accountable well into the future. But this is not going away,
and I think it's the responsibility and incumbent upon people who are in elected office to listen to their communities, listen to the people who say
they do not want these data centers.
And again, if they were so good and so necessary, the CEOs of these companies would be happy to have them built right next to their homes, but
they're not doing that.
AMANPOUR: Yes, it's the classic NIMBY, isn't it? Let me, though, ask you this, because clearly, as I said, and it's all over the place, but most
especially in America, it is the future, it is the economic thing that everybody's sort of rallying around. Do you have an alternative? Are you
basically saying that A.I. shouldn't be something that the U.S. pursues, or do you have some kind of mitigating way to continue A.I. if it's considered
such a good thing for the future? Obviously, many people disagree, but just not in this extractive way?
PEARSON: I think if A.I. is going to be here, we need to ensure that it is not extractive and exploitative of the most vulnerable people and
communities in our country. I've done work with a few organizations, including the NAACP, Memphis Community Against Pollution, Young, Gifted,
and Green, to come up with a framework for communities that are going to face data centers.
And the corporations could read that framework as public information about how to engage deliberately in community with community benefits agreements,
build renewable energy, and make sure we are included in the process so that our utility rates aren't skyrocketing, so that our communities aren't
being illegally polluted in violation of the Clean Air Act, and so that people who oftentimes are not ever included when decisions like this are
being made are actually brought to the table and brought into the conversation.
There's always a way to do things better. There's a way to do things well. We just have not seen that thus far.
AMANPOUR: And let me just end by asking you about your race and your district. You're running for Congress in the ninth congressional district
in Tennessee, which is a traditionally black majority district. It's been split in three by the Republican legislator with all this gerrymandering.
Your new district is 58 percent white, 32 percent black, the inverse of what it was. Does this raise any issues for you? How will you corral the
entire vote as you seek to run for that district for Congress?
PEARSON: Absolutely. We're having an amazing time running for Congress. I was blessed and fortunate to run when it was the original District 9. And
since it has been changed, we haven't missed a beat. We've been traveling all 15 counties. I'm losing my voice right now because we had 15 events in
the last three days.
[13:35:00]
And one event, I'll just tell you, it was in a majority white community and a lady put it together. We had over 100 people show up, and there were only
five black folks, 95 white folks. I was in Giles County where the Ku Klux Klan was founded, and we had 150 people showing up at our rally and
community center town hall.
I think there is a thirst for something different in our country, and Republicans in the State of Tennessee are also looking for a voice that is
going to stand up for the people, respect the rule of law, ensure that more voices are brought to the conversation, and that we are not being taken
advantage of and exploited by the establishment and these career corrupt politicians like the guy who's running on the other side of this thing.
We have a particular moment we are in to make sure that every voice in our community is actually being heard and bring that to Washington, D.C. And
that's what I'm hoping to do. And I got to be honest, the fight against data centers is something we've been doing for several years. People know
us for that work.
And at Lawrenceburg and in other parts of our state, we're hearing Republicans who are joining our campaign because they know I'm going to
stand up for them. I'm going to stand up for our communities and stand up against the status quo and the billionaires who are exploiting us.
AMANPOUR: And lastly, if you win and if the Democrats take back the House, what will be the priority in terms of, you know, seeking to put a
Democratic stamp on the nation, seeking accountability, as you've all been talking about, you know, saying that President Trump has been getting away
with not respecting Congress, et cetera What will you all do?
PEARSON: I think there's just four big things we've got to do. We've got to increase the minimum wage, make sure we tax billionaires because we've
got to build an economy that works for everybody, not just those at the top. We need to pass Medicare for all and we need to fight with all we've
got to make sure everyone gets access to health care. We also need to make sure we have a moratorium that stops these toxic data centers, protects our
people's lives, protects our jobs and workforce in the future. And the check on Donald Trump and this administration is real.
We've got to take big money out of politics. We can't let the president make billions of dollars from a public position. And every Congress member
and senator should not be allowed to trade stocks and bonds while they are in office. We have to bring some integrity back to the office and the
service that people are supposed to do.
AMANPOUR: Representative Pearson, thank you so much for joining me from Memphis tonight.
PEARSON: Thank you.
AMANPOUR: And we will be right back after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
AMANPOUR: One of the issues threatening to shake up the U.S. midterms, the future of mail-in ballots. A third of Americans' votes may be at risk. As a
whistleblower claims, the United States Postal Service is rushing to launch a faulty new digital system, in line with President Trump's order for more
federal control over mail-in voting ahead of November.
Now, according to this unnamed disclosure, this whistleblower, a single scanning error among tens of thousands of ballots could mean none would
reach any voters. This comes as the Supreme Court has lifted one of two injunctions blocking the president's executive order. So, what happens now?
Derek Muller is a professor of law at the University of Notre Dame, and he's joining Hari Sreenivasan to discuss the potential impact of the
Supreme Court ruling.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HARI SREENIVASAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Christiane, thanks. Derek Muller, thanks so much for joining us. We have now experienced over
the past several months a conversation about mail-in voting that most people thought was settled.
[13:40:00]
The president, for his part, has called it lots of things, and we'll go into that, but he signed an executive order, and in there it says, this is
the federal government's role is an unavoidable duty under Article II of the Constitution of the United States to enforce federal law, which
includes preventing violations of federal criminal law and maintaining public confidence in election outcomes. Public confidence in election
outcomes.
What are the main things that this order directs states to do?
DEREK MULLER, PROFESSOR OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME: Right. So, the order really has two components here. One part of the order directs the
Department of Homeland Security to gather information about citizens who would be potentially eligible voters and to transmit those lists of
citizens to the various states, and that part of the order doesn't really tell the states to do anything, although I think there's an implication
that when they get that list, they're supposed to act, and if they fail to act, there might be some investigations behind it.
The other part of the order, which has gotten a lot more of the attention in recent weeks, has been some directives to the Postal Service to
standardize the absentee ballot envelope form, to require barcodes on all absentee ballot envelopes. Some states already require this, but not all of
them. And then, perhaps most controversially, that before any state can mail out its absentee ballots, it needs to send a list of all those
individuals who it intends to mail the ballot to, their name, their address, and the barcode, and only then will the Postal Service mail those
ballots out once it has that list. So, those are sort of the major components of what has come out of this rule.
SREENIVASAN: So, most people would think the executive order is trying to tell the states to do something, but technically, the president doesn't run
elections. States run their elections, right? But the president and the executive branch is in charge of DHS and the Postal Service, so it seems
like, strategically, this is a different way to try to accomplish the same result, which is to try to get the states to do what you want to do.
MULLER: Yes, that's right. The Constitution says for federal elections, it's really left to the state legislatures to come up with those rules.
Congress can come in and provide rules, and there have been a range of ways over the years, whether it's the Voting Rights Act, or the Civil Rights
Act, or the Help America Vote Act, or these other things, where Congress does empower a lot of federal agencies to engage in some involvement in how
states run elections, but it still is principally left to the states.
The president formally has no role in that process, can direct the agencies to do things, and I think this is where you're seeing that tension, that
the president is directing the Postal Service, directing the Department of Homeland Security to engage in acts that can affect the elections, even if
he has no direct authority over them.
And so, we're seeing now this sort of tension playing out about how much the executive can do without that explicit congressional guidance, but some
implicit guidance given to the general authority of the Postal Service, the general authority of the Department of Homeland Security, and how much
those agencies can sort of put pressure on the states to investigate things, to double-check things, to change their behavior, modify their
behavior, given this executive oversight.
SREENIVASAN: Let's talk a little bit about the problem that they're trying to solve. I mean, the president has gone out of his way to say, mail-in
voting. It means mail-in cheating. I call it mail-in cheating, and we got to do something about it all. That was his quote from March of 2026, and
just for our audience's reference point, the president himself has used mail-in ballots to vote, right? So, what's the problem he's trying to
solve?
MULLER: Right. So, millions of Americans use absentee ballots, especially our military and overseas personnel, especially elderly and senior
citizens. There's been a pretty significant expansion since COVID for a range of reasons relating to absentee ballots.
Really, the concern that he has is the suggestion that when ballots go out, there's a loss of control from the state, and they are then sent out to
individuals who could fill them out on behalf of somebody else or who could pressure people at home to submit them.
Ballot fraud is rare. Absentee ballot fraud happens. It's been known to happen. There was a congressional election in North Carolina in 2018 that
was thrown out because a couple of hundred ballots were found to have been cast under fraudulent circumstances. But again, these things are very rare.
And so, the question is what kinds of additional oversight are necessary and appropriate, given the low risk that we have for them?
So, this is the constant back and forth for the president. The risk is extraordinarily high. Probably not true. The question is how much that
remedy sort of fits the problem that we're looking at here.
SREENIVASAN: OK. So, the courts have gotten involved because states have immediately sort of challenged this idea, right? I mean, it's gone up to
the Supreme Court and then, you know, back down to some federal levels. So, where are we in that?
MULLER: I mean, it's extremely complicated, extremely fast-moving, and whatever I say right now might be mooted in the very near future, but I'll
give you the lay of the land.
[13:45:00]
That a federal court in Massachusetts in joint operation of the rule, the Supreme Court several days ago said, we are lifting that injunction because
it's too early. We don't know what the rule is actually going to be. It's just a directive as opposed to a rule from the Postal Service.
But now, the Postal Service has come out with a rule and a federal court has again enjoined it saying, look, you are ahead of your skis, if you
will. You are exercising too much authority that is not given to you under the statute, Postal Service. You can't point to something in the statute
that lets you do this.
But it's under a temporary restraining order because it's happening so quickly. Ballots go out in North Carolina this first week of September, and
we are in September right now, so this is happening on a very compressed timeline. The case is being appealed. I anticipate it will go to the
Supreme Court in the very near future. As of right now, it's on hold, but you never know with this sort of dynamic litigation what might happen next.
SREENIVASAN: So, the Supreme Court, the first time they looked at it, they didn't actually kind of look at the merits of whether or not these
executive orders are overstepping their bounds. They were just saying, well, this is theoretical. This isn't real yet, but now if it goes back to
the Supreme Court, the people are going to say, listen, here's the Postal Service. They put out their guidance.
MULLER: Yes. This is absolutely real, and the Court actually has a line in its opinion saying when the order is issued telling states how to behave
with respect to their voter lists, of course they have standing. Of course, they have the ability to challenge this rule. So, then a lot will focus on,
first, whether or not the Postal Service has the authority in the first place, finally getting back to that merits question, and then, second,
whether or not it's sort of too close in time to the election either for a court to issue an order or for the federal government to try to change the
rules of the election.
Again, tens of thousands of election officials throughout the United States are printing envelopes and processing absentee voter applications to change
how they're behaving right now at this late date would be extraordinarily disruptive.
SREENIVASAN: You know, Justice Jackson had said in her opinion, contributing to electoral confusion on the eve of voting. In the next eight
weeks, is there an opportunity here if some states choose to try to come up with new ballots, other places can't, and we have kind of this mishmash?
MULLER: Yes. So, I think you've identified an important point here, which is if we think about absentee ballot envelopes, maybe it makes sense to
have a standard design to have bar codes on them, as many states do. And maybe that could happen in 2028, but to think about making that happen for
2026 is fundamentally unrealistic for many jurisdictions. Their vendors require a lot more lead time, especially in rural and smaller
jurisdictions. It's an extraordinary cost, an extraordinary time crunch.
So, for some of those dissenting justices, they're worried about chaos. And I would only resist in the sense that I don't want to overstate the chaos
in the voter's perspective. I think there's a lot of chaos coming for election administrators trying to figure out how to get these absentee
ballots out in time. And ideally, if things work smoothly, voters won't notice much difference at all. Maybe their absentee ballots arrive a couple
of days later than they would otherwise prefer, but hopefully there wouldn't be much disruption.
The real problem is if these rules, the Postal Service itself can't administer, and there's been a lot of suggestion in recent days that the
Postal Service is not going to have the capacity to approve absentee ballot envelopes. It's not going to be able to clear lists of millions of absentee
voters across the 50 states and across tens of thousands of ZIP codes that are going to have to be approving it. It's going to be a significant
challenge to implement it. And if that does happen, then we might start to see the chaos hitting voters.
SREENIVASAN: When you talk about lists, it automatically sets off alarm bells for lots of people. How was the list generated in the first place?
How current is it? How reliable is it? What is the data sources going into it? Will everybody have access to the list at the same time? And then what
do they do with that list? And what do they cross check it against, et cetera, right?
So, for example, the list of citizens that the Department of Homeland Security by this executive order is supposed to hand out to states, what
are the challenges with implementing something like this?
MULLER: Yes. So, imagine if you are a jurisdiction looking at this and trying to act in good faith, you say this is one more piece of evidence
that we use with our list maintenance process in the state. Maybe we can use it in some of our downtime in early 2027 to say, let's take a look at
the list, and we find people who are listed as citizens. That's great.
But if you're not on the list, it shouldn't be presumed that you're not a citizen. Again, there are mismatches and inconsistencies. When you send it
to one state, it's probably out of date the day you send it because some people have died or some people have moved out of the jurisdiction or
whatever it might be. So, it's always a challenge.
But I think the real concern is that if you send jurisdictions an incomplete list, which this assuredly would be, is there an expectation
then that some people will think it's the complete list? If you are not on the list, you are not a citizen, that states need to take action as a
result of it. So, I think that's the greatest challenge.
It can be useful as a data point, a piece of information that supplements what you're doing in the state, but at its worst, it can spiral into more
conspiracies about how many non-citizens are on your voter rolls.
[13:50:00]
SREENIVASAN: You know, the order also tells the attorney general of the United States to prioritize investigating and prosecuting election
officials and others who violate federal election law. And again, I think everybody would agree that if there are violations of election law, that
people should be prosecuted.
But I wonder if there are civil servants, if there are nonpartisan folks who are volunteers who might -- that there might be a chilling effect from
this.
MULLER: Yes, I think people underestimate how much we rely on volunteer and low-paid volunteers, really, to work the polls on Election Day to
administer elections. They're human beings and they make mistakes, but they do the best they can. Many jurisdictions try to have bipartisan oversight
of what's happening deliberately for that reason.
I've worked polls in California and Iowa, and what happens, we try to have a Republican and a Democrat each sign off on the voting machines at the
beginning of the day and the end of the day and the Election Day tape to make sure that everything looks good. So, there's a lot of oversight.
But when you step in and you suggest that there's something maybe nefarious that election officials are doing, or you're saying that maybe they need to
be prosecuted, there is that risk that election officials say, listen, I could quit and find a better job elsewhere that has more stable hours than
trying to work around the clock for the next two months. It is a material risk.
I think there are many who hope it's just bluster from the administration. It's sending out letters. It's sending out things that are not going to
lead to any actual prosecutions. So, far in these two years of the Trump administration, there have been investigations and a lot of bluster without
that prosecution, without the actual carry-through. But I think the looming question is, would there be a carry-through one day?
SREENIVASAN: There's also speculation that this is targeting Democrats specifically because there have been these big shifts in who uses. I mean,
I remember covering some of my first elections and it was lopsidedly older voters for sure, but also Republican voters that used to use the mail.
And now, according to the 2024 MIT election data science lab, it says the partisan divide in mail-in continued with more Democrats and Republicans
utilizing this method with 37 percent of Democrats reported voting by mail compared to 24 percent of Republicans. That's a decrease from 60 percent
for Democrats and 32 percent for Republicans back in 2020. I mean, these shifts are significant and they're trending over time.
MULLER: Right. So, I think there's a couple of things to highlight with those aggregate statistics. One is many sort of Democratic heavy
jurisdictions like California and Washington have leaned very heavily into all-mail or all-absentee ballot administration of elections. So, in one
sense, that can skew the numbers a little bit in the aggregate to say that Democrats are using it at a higher rate.
But at the same time, I think you're right. After 2020 and COVID, the sort of decision, do I vote remotely or in person, became this kind of proxy
fight about, well, is it safe to go out or should I stay home and try to protect those who are immunocompromised and not try to spread the virus?
And unfortunately, since 2020, we've continued to have that unusual divide in how we approach elections and casting of ballots. And now, Republicans
are very skeptical of it.
As you pointed out, you're absolutely right. 25 years ago, you would have said the military and the elderly, the reliably Republican voters would
have heavily relied on absentee ballots. It sort of flipped overnight. So, I think the question going forward is, you know, how many of those ballots
are just a matter of convenience, and people can go to the polling place on Election Day if they're worried about it, versus how many translate into
ballots that are not received at the end of the day.
And again, hopefully, from an election administration standpoint, we don't see many hiccups at all, and the voters experience maybe a couple of delays
in the postal system will look the same on Election Day.
SREENIVASAN: What is the likelihood that the Supreme Court gets involved again, considering how urgent the matter is, how there are different
jurisdictions and kind of different states of play here, and we have an election just eight weeks less away?
MULLER: Yes. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court is going to have to wait, because what's going to happen is there's this intense litigation. It's on
appeal right now in front of the First Circuit. There's another case in the District of Columbia, and that might go up to the appellate court in D.C.
as well. And whichever party loses is guaranteed to go to the United States Supreme Court and ask them to intervene. And whatever the Supreme Court
does, whether it refuses to intervene or does intervene, involves the court. Even inaction is a form of action. Even silence is a form of getting
involved in this dispute.
So, again, it's an unfortunate position we find ourselves in on the eve of the election that this litigation, which has been pushed so late in the day
for a variety of reasons outside of the Supreme Court's control, will now be put on the Supreme Court's doorstep the eve of the election.
SREENIVASAN: Professor of Law at the University of Notre Dame, Derek Muller, thanks so much for joining us.
MULLER: Thanks for having me.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
[13:55:00]
AMANPOUR: So important to pay attention to the democratic process. And finally, as Russia continues to mercilessly strike Ukraine, it's not just
innocent people who are enduring sleepless nights. Domestic animals are also bearing the brunt of this war. These cows, chickens, cats and dogs all
live in the farm of Ukrainian Anatolii Zubko in Kharkiv. But alongside their owner, they've had to pack up all of their belongings as well as
Russian drones close in on their farm.
Now, volunteers of UAnimals, a Ukrainian animal rights organization, help prepare them for the long road ahead. Anatolii and his wife will be moving
to western Ukraine. Respite for them maybe, but surely some of their animals are destined for the family dining table anyway.
That's 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. Thank you for watching, and goodbye from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
