Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Former Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba; Interview with Anti-Death Penalty Campaigner Sister Helen Prejean; Interview with The Atlantic Staff Writer Caitlin Dickerson. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired October 12, 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.
After deadly strikes on Saudi's Riyadh airport, are the Houthis tightening their grip? Correspondent Nic Robertson has the details.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT: We support the idea of an energy ceasefire, and now Russia must also show that it agrees.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- Trump claims Ukraine and Russia agreed to an energy ceasefire, but did Putin get the memo? As Moscow continues its attacks on
Kyiv, I ask Ukraine's former foreign minister, Dmytro Kuleba, about the state of this prolonged war.
Plus --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETE HEGSETH, U.S. DEFENSE SECRETARY: We'll make sure that people are able to watch it, that it's public because people need to understand that this
is -- there's serious consequences for these types of things.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- shock and scrutiny over potential plans to live stream a firing squad. And following the botched execution of death row inmate,
Christa Pike, debates around capital punishment reignite. I speak to anti- death penalty campaigner, Sister Helen Prejean.
Also, ahead --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CAITLIN DICKERSON, STAFF WRITER, THE ATLANTIC: He just turned two years old, and he's coming up on a full year of not having seen his mother.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- the babies left behind in America. How Trump's aggressive ICE crackdown has torn thousands of kids away from their parents.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
Escalating tensions as the Houthis ramp up their attacks on Saudi Arabia. The group struck Saudi's Riyadh airport on Saturday, which killed at least
13 and injured 300 people, making it the country's deadliest attack in a decade. It was hit again the following day as another key airport was also
targeted. Riyadh's international airport remains shut, and Saudi Arabia's energy minister has vowed a, quote, "serious response to these recent
attacks."
The Houthis insist the strikes were in retaliation to Saudi's intense air campaign against their militia in Yemen, with children and women among the
casualties. Saudi Arabia has long backed the Yemeni government forces in their fight against the Houthis, but this is the first time the country has
found itself so vulnerable. As the U.S. deliberates whether it should step in, are we looking at further escalation?
Let's bring in Nic Robertson for more on this. So, Nic, this comes now with reports of Iran potentially offering to be a mediator here between these
two sides, and as MBS is weighing a response here, I would imagine some sort of response would be needed from not only his perspective as some sort
of deterrence and future deterrence, but also questioning whether that includes ground forces. So, which direction are you hearing he may be
inclined to go?
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: I think in the very short and immediate term, he seems to want to build more sort of diplomatic
support, whether taking it to the U.N. Security Council to build broader international support. The images from the attack at King Khalid
International Airport in Riyadh were pretty devastating, particularly when you see a lot of pilgrims on their way to Mecca being caught up in one of
those blasts. That's is powerful imagery, and it's a big statement about what the Houthis would consider potential targets, a civilian airport. They
hit it as well in deadly strikes on Wednesday, killing one person, on Thursday, killing three people, as well as over the weekend.
But the way Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is going to want to position himself out of this is to project stability because he needs that to bring
in the international investment that he wants to bring in. He's got a big investment for- forum coming up later this month, the Davos in the Desert
and is going to want to project strength. He sees him as the sort of regional strongman, particularly, you know, when measured against the UAE,
the Emirates.
So, he cannot simply go for a diplomatic off-ramp entirely here. But if he can build a coalition of support and an international backing for further
strikes against the Houthis and take territory there, then that's potentially one way out of it for him, and then go for some kind of a, a
diplomatic agreement.
[13:05:00]
But it's very, very difficult to see at the moment. As far as ground forces go, he needs a strong partner inside of Yemen, the Yemen internationally
recognized government, he supports them. Saudi airstrikes are taking out Houthi positions, some over 1,800 strikes, we're told many Houthis have
been killed. But that doesn't put the ground inside Yemen in a safe enough place, let's say, for Saudi ground troops to roll in across the border,
he's building an international coalition of support for that type of maneuver, but it hasn't been delivered yet. And that's because, you know,
the ground, if you will, inside of Yemen, and the support he can get from the Yemeni government forces doesn't appear to be conducive for it.
GOLODRYGA: And it comes just weeks after he signed a defense treaty with Pakistan and Turkey. And as you said, we don't seem to see Pakistani forces
or Turkish forces anywhere near entering this fray. It is a war that has been ongoing for over a decade now between these two parties at a very
costly, both in the human toll and financial toll expense, somewhat of a ceasefire until now.
And so, then the question turns to who else could come to support the Saudis and MBS. And President Trump has said over the weekend that perhaps,
perhaps the United States would look at intervening as well. How are they expecting or how are the Saudis hoping the United States may intervene?
ROBERTSON: Yes. The U.S. and the Saudis partnered against the Houthis, you know, five or six or seven years ago. And that resulted ultimately in the
U.S. sort of backing away from it and providing just intelligence and air refueling. And that's sort of the position the U.S. is in now of 100
intelligence officials on the ground in Saudi providing satellite intelligence data.
And most importantly for the Saudis, they want more data. They want to know where the Houthi rocket launchers are, where the ammunition stores are,
their ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, drones. And as we saw when the U.S. was in that war with Iran earlier in the year, with Israel as well,
supporting the U.S. both together, that was very, very difficult to take out all the missiles.
So, even with additional U.S. intelligence, additional potential U.S. air assets refueling, it still doesn't win the war. As we've seen, you don't
win it by air campaigns. But it would seem to be absolutely extraordinary in almost fantasy land to think that the United States would be in a
position to offer ground troops. But the Saudis could certainly use a stronger, coherent message of support, consistent message of support from
President Trump.
And probably the Saudis behind the scenes will be sort of arguing in favor of trying to bring that regional stability, but at the same time twinning
President Trump's Iran problem with their own Houthi problem, because the Iranians and the Houthis are aligned. But it seems at the moment that the
Houthis, as you say, do to a degree have the upper hand. But the Saudis, it's a very big country with very deep pockets, and it could be a long,
drawn-out, expensive war. But it's not one that they can back away from, because it's on their doorstep and it threatens their economy. And it's
something that has to be dealt with, with or without the U.S. support. Saudis clearly would prefer to have that.
GOLODRYGA: And coming at a really important time economically, as you noted, for the Saudis, with these multiple investment forums and
conferences just scheduled for weeks from now. Nic Robertson in London for us. Thank you.
We turn next to the war in Ukraine, where Ukrainian officials say Russian strikes targeted a densely populated area and a power plant in Kharkiv,
violating the surprise energy ceasefire that U.S. President Trump claims both Ukraine and Russia had agreed to. It was first announced by President
Trump in a Truth Social post on Sunday, writing the agreement was, quote, "effective immediately."
Ukrainian leader Zelenskyy says that he had no prior knowledge, but was open to it if President Putin also agreed. This comes as the U.S. is coming
under fire for signing a deal to buy Russian diesel, while threatening to halt weapons purchases if Ukraine doesn't stop striking Moscow's energy
facilities. To make sense of all of this, I'm joined by former Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba, joining us from Kyiv. Dmitry, welcome to
the program.
[13:10:00]
So, just if you can set the current understanding for us right now from your contacts in Kyiv, is there an actual agreement or announcement that
Ukraine is being under pressured now to follow through on?
DMITRY KULEBA, FORMER UKRAINIAN FOREIGN MINISTER: Well, there seem to be three different readings of the situation. Washington seems to believe that
it made a deal. Kyiv says it's ready to be part of the deal if Russia honors its part of the agreement, and Russia doesn't seem to honor it at
all.
There are rumors and reports that the Trump administration is putting pressure on European and Ukrainian officials, but the price for Ukraine is
too high under these circumstances, and Kyiv decided to keep a cool head, put emotions aside, and act without compromising its own interests in this
case.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. It does seem as if at this point the vacillating sort of hot and cold lines from President Trump, demands from President Trump, his
mood towards the country seems to not be as surprising as it once was even earlier this year to Ukrainian officials. The president now telling
Ukrainians to get a new president while Putin continues to bomb their country.
President Zelenskyy over the weekend reiterated that under their law that they cannot and under the constitution, since the country is under martial
law, they cannot hold elections, but he offered a 60-day ceasefire for which if Russia stops its attacks, they would gladly hold a democratic
election. You've dealt with Washington from for many, many years.
How do you navigate that very tight line and tight rope of maintaining relations while still holding firm for your domestic audience and
Ukrainians back home?
KULEBA: Well, you're right. One needs a lot of character and stamina to actually deal with Washington these days. Predictability is not the
particularly strong feature of President Trump's administration. So, Ukrainians follow the Darwin rule, which is, it is not the strongest that
survives, but the one who adapts better.
So, we kind of moved ourselves into the adaptation mode, not only vis-a-vis President Putin as he continues to escalate his war, but also towards
President Trump as he continues to kind of present Ukraine with surprises.
GOLODRYGA: The Financial Times first reported CNN is confirming much of this reporting that Washington is now threatening to cut intelligence
sharing and block American weapons sales to Europe that they would then provide to Ukraine if Ukraine did not follow through on the U.S.'s demands
to stop targeting specifically energy facilities.
How exposed would Ukraine be if the United States followed through on these demands? And we should note there were similar threats made and issued by
this administration as recently as last year.
KULEBA: Exactly. This is not the first time we're hearing these threats. And I mean, we can call them by the name. It's a blackmail. And Kyiv
understands one very simple rule. If you bow once, then basically you will be dismantled over time. And therefore, President Zelenskyy will not be in
a position to concede the security of the country to America's demands, because we will have to adapt to whatever decision comes from Washington.
If the intelligence sharing is suspended, we will rely on whatever our European friends can share with us. If the Pearl program, which is the
program to buy American weapons for Ukraine through NATO, is suspended, we will have to learn how to live without these weapons. It will be
devastating. It will be bad for the country. It will be very good for Russia. And more civilians are going to die because of these decisions of
the administration. But we are not going to give in. We will continue to adapt to deteriorating circumstances.
GOLODRYGA: As for the intelligence sharing, how much of that, specifically as it relates to targeting of energy facilities in Russia, how much of that
actually came from U.S. intelligence?
[13:15:00]
KULEBA: Well, to be honest, I think many people view the intelligence sharing as a way to help Ukraine attack targets in Russia. But living in
Kyiv, I can tell you that for me, this intel sharing matters more when it helps to identify threats coming from Russia to Ukraine. For example, every
time somewhere deep in Russia, a bomber, a strategic bomber carrying missiles takes off to hit Kyiv, it is our partners who inform us about the
takeoff. Every time there is a massive, there is a barrage of missiles and drones on Kyiv that Russia is preparing to send, we learn from our partners
that preparations are underway.
So, when we speak about intel sharing, it is about protecting civilians in Ukraine. And once it is removed, more civilians are going to die due to the
suspension of this program.
GOLODRYGA: What is the current state on the battlefield right now?
KULEBA: It's stable, and I would not expect any breaking news from there in either direction. Since this summer, the war moved strategically to the
air. And with all due regard, respectfully, to our heroic army, our infantry, and other ground forces, it is developments in the air that
define the development of this conflict. And unfortunately, as you know, we don't have ballistic interceptors.
We suffer enormously from jet-powered drones. This is where Ukraine is not winning and has to develop its own capabilities because it doesn't seem we
can get them from anywhere else to deter Russia in the air.
GOLODRYGA: We hear now more and more concern and concern from European officials, especially those on the eastern flank, eastern countries that
border or are closer to Russia, that they should be thoroughly prepared for not only hybrid attacks or electronic cyber-attacks, but actual kinetic
strikes from Russia, if not imminently, then in the months and years to come.
What is the calculation that you think Putin has made about why, without having conquered Ukraine, he would then set his sights for NATO countries
and European countries?
KULEBA: There is a saying that generals always prepare for the war of the past, and nothing could be more true when people think of how Putin might
attack a NATO country while still being tied in Ukraine. It's very simple because he's fighting the war of the future. He will not attack a NATO
country in Europe the way he attacked Ukraine. He will not send thousands of tanks, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of troops. He will send
five drones.
All he needs is five drones to hit targets in a NATO country in Europe. And then to win, he needs 24 hours of hesitation at NATO headquarters in
Brussels and the E.U., European Union headquarters also in Brussels, because his goal is not to conquer Europe. His goal is to break Europe into
pieces to expose that the promise of collective security is a lie. Everyone stands for himself.
And once it happens, he will start pressing nations into concessions one by one. This is his strategy. And this is why the war against a NATO country
in Europe will look, at least in the beginning, differently from the way it looked in Ukraine.
GOLODRYGA: Well, many, including some members of the president's own party, believe that some of the president's most recent policies and
announcements would only embolden Putin to do just that? One example is the president bypassing law, federal law here, passed in 2022, which would bar
the sale of diesel to the United States after Russia's larger-scale invasion of Ukraine.
Now, President Trump says that buying Russian diesel will actually help American farmers and truckers who are facing higher prices. Many economists
say that the help would be, if anything, marginal at that. But the president came out then just today and defended this announcement by saying
Europe has paid Russia some $250 billion for energy since the invasion. And that is a figure supported by independent analysis. So, what do you make of
that argument?
[13:20:00]
And how much -- even if Europe is trying to wean itself off of Russian energy, how much of that is being a hindrance to Ukraine trying to isolate
the Kremlin right now and draw down its coffers?
KULEBA: Well, Europe is clearly not a saint, but using the argument of Europe's sins to excuse your own sins is kind of counterproductive if I'm
to speak in diplomatic terms. Listen, it's not just about supporting Ukraine anymore. Putin does not respect President Trump as much as the
president wants to be respected by him. He is using him to set the stage for all kinds of attacks that may take place against Europe. Putin is the
closest ally of China, and we know what China is to the United States.
And as you rightly said, this diesel deal announced by President Trump, it does not have real economic meaning. It's political because President Trump
kind of decided to play into the hands of President Putin under these specific circumstances. But Putin is not a friend, and everything he does,
it's against the strategic interests of America. And so, when you kind of empower him by giving him more room politically and economically, you
actually make your adversary stronger.
GOLODRYGA: I want to play sound for you from President Zelenskyy when he was asked over the weekend why he thinks President Trump always blames him
for prolonging this war instead of President Putin. Here's what President Zelenskyy said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT: These people can't find a key how to stop Putin, because it's more difficult to stop Putin than to
pressure others. Because it's more simple to speak about the prices and connect it with Ukraine. When everybody in the world understands because of
the war in Middle East, the prices are rising.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: I'm wondering, as we continue to see shifting tactics by Ukraine that are being condemned by President Trump, but have literally put
a cost on President Putin and the Russian economy, not to mention the millions of soldiers that have been wounded or killed, the war still
continues. He's not giving up. First, it was taking the war to Russian cities, to Moscow, to St. Petersburg. That wasn't enough to get Vladimir
Putin to stop. It was then going after its energy infrastructure. That hasn't been enough to get Putin to stop. It was a (INAUDIBLE), now it's a
(INAUDIBLE), a war, and Putin still won't stop.
So, where does that lead you to believe this war will actually come to an end? Does that happen while Putin is still in power?
KULEBA: Well, the good news is that all wars eventually come to an end. This is what human history teaches us. People fight all the time, but
fights come to an end. This is the good news. The bad news is that I believe President Putin as President is a guarantee of war. Anyone who
comes after him will be a chance for peace. And this is why three months ago, the question, what should we do to change Putin's calculus was still
relevant.
But today, I think the question -- the right question to ask sounds different. How or what should we do to outlive Putin? Putin restructured
his country for the war. The war became the soul of the Russian nation, of the Russian state machinery. Look at the outcomes of elections to the State
Duma, the Parliament of Russia. Look at the budget with increasing expenditures. Look at the education of children when kids are taught to
assemble drones at schools. Look at the propaganda. Look at the number of so-called hybrid attacks on Europe.
[13:25:00]
I mean, what are you doing it for? To make peace? Clearly not. And this is why we should really put, we should really put aside the idea that it's
going to end in three months, in six months, or in a year, and send a clear message to him, we are in this against you as long as you are in this
against us. And we will be stronger than you.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. I mean, there seem to be no signs of Putin preparing, perhaps for a post-war Russia any time soon. This war itself has proven to
be existential for him. We'll have to leave it there. Really appreciate the time. Former Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba, thank you.
And do stay with CNN. We'll be right back after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: Now, two headlines bringing renewed focus to America's use of the death penalty, sparking fierce debate in many quarters, with U.S.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announcing the Pentagon will live stream the execution of Nidal Hasan, who killed 13 people at the Fort Hood military
base in 2009.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETE HEGSETH, U.S. DEFENSE SECRETARY: Well, he's going to get a firing squad of soldiers, as it should be, and we'll make sure that people are
able to watch it, that it's public, because people need to understand that there's serious consequences for these types of things.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Hasan's would be the first public execution in America in nearly 100 years, and many have reacted with shock and horror. Meanwhile,
12 days after a botched execution in Tennessee left inmate Christa Pike hospitalized, she is back in prison. Pike was convicted, along with her
boyfriend, of torturing and killing her classmate, Colleen Slimmer, in 1995. She was set to be the first woman to be executed in Tennessee in more
than 200 years, and has spent three decades in prison.
Sister Helen Prejean has devoted much of her life campaigning against the death penalty, and she joins me now. Sister Helen, thank you so much for
taking the time. It's good to have you back on the program.
SISTER HELEN PREJEAN, ANTI-DEATH PENALTY CAMPAIGNER: Glad to be here.
GOLODRYGA: What was your reaction when you heard Defense Secretary Hegseth announce that Nidal Hasan's execution would be livestreamed?
PREJEAN: I mean, this glorifying and trying to make violence redemptive that is just rampant in the leadership of our country now. We kill people.
We call for their executions. The violent language is in the rhetoric, demeaning people, calling them names. You know, that's all very present.
It's the dominant part of the leadership under the Trump administration. And then also with the death penalty in the States, you kill people.
I mean, violence is the way things work in the United States until we wake up enough of our citizens to bring it to a halt.
GOLODRYGA: Can I ask you, what is the distinction you draw between witnessing an execution and broadcasting one?
[13:30:00]
PREJEAN: Big difference, of course. Witnessing, I am there primarily for the human being who's being killed, for him to be able to look at my face.
I'm also there as a witness for my society because it's a secret ritual. Executions are. There are only a few chosen witnesses. And they even close
the curtain while they're trying to insert needles, these technicians in prisons that are not health care people who don't know how to do it, which
was the problem with Christa. They couldn't find a vein. They're not skilled.
And the deep problem there is masking death to try to look like it's humane. Witnessing is done for my society because and I realized this when
I witnessed the first execution of Patrick Sonnier in the electric chair and came out in the middle of the night and threw up, having witnessed it,
that because I'm a witness and I've been close to it, my mandate and my mission is to bring it close to the people. And that is what I did. I write
books, I give talks, travel the country to bring people close to the reality of what it means to have the government kill people.
GOLODRYGA: Why is it that you want these people before they are executed? One of the last faces to see is yours.
PREJEAN: It's about human dignity. There's no way that you'd take conscious, imaginative human beings and put them in small cages for 15, 20,
30 years and take them out and kill them that you're not torturing them. It's demeaning. It's against human dignity to render human beings perfectly
defenseless and then kill them, which is the essence when the Catholic Church evolved and changed and developed its teaching on the death penalty.
That was the heart of it. It's against human dignity to render people defenseless and kill them. We have a way to protect society.
I mean, when you think of it, the death penalty is the only time in criminal justice where you imitate the crime to punish the criminal. And
you got to expose that to people. And my hope, Bianna, is that I've been talking to the American people. And when you do bring them close, when
people read the book, "Death Man Walking," when they see the movie "Death Man Walking," and they get close to what it really means for the state to
kill, they get it.
And we can see 30 states now, either in law or practice, don't have the death penalty. We're left with a pocket of ex-slave states that are doing
all the killing because the Supreme Court, in the Gregg decision of 76, which reinstituted the death penalty, gave huge discretionary power to
governors and to prosecutors to apply the death penalty. It's up to these individual politicians, like we see DeSantis doing in Florida right now.
GOLODRYGA: Well, a number of politicians, including Republicans, have spoken out against this idea of live streaming, Nidal Hasan's execution.
We've even heard from the speaker himself, Mike Johnson, saying that he is against it. He thinks that it could be used as a recruitment video or
propaganda for more terrorism in the future. Other Republicans have spoken out. I'd like to play sound from senator who is retiring, Thom Tillis,
about how he described the idea.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. THOM TILLIS (R-NC): The Fort Hood shooter should be put to death. But there is a way to deal with this that's proper and there's a way to deal
with this that's more improper than I have ever observed in my life. This is not who we are. And it's another example of what Pete Hegseth and all of
his bravado needs to get the hell out of the Department of Defense because he is a failed leader and we need strong leadership supporting President
Trump right now.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: Let me also play sound while we have it from the vice president, who we should note himself is a Catholic.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JD VANCE, U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: So, whatever the controversy is about the method of the execution, I hope that people don't forget that this is a guy
who brutally murdered a lot of innocent people. Now, that said, I mean, look, if it's all through live stream, I'm not going to be watching it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Do you find yourself seeing an opening with conservatives on this issue or maybe not? Because their objections seem to relate solely to
the live streaming of the execution, not the act itself.
PREJEAN: Yes. Well, no, we have seen movement in conservatives around the death penalty. I mean, when you look at the conservative movement,
government intrusion in lives, there couldn't be more of an intrusion. Fiscal responsibility, it costs millions and millions to kill one person
over again using taxpayers' dollars and resources for the needs of society.
[13:35:00]
But let me just say about the live streaming. I'll just put this out on our social media, sisterhelen.org. We know from some of the mass killers like
the one who did the in the Buffalo supermarket that he watched over and over the live streaming from Christchurch in New Zealand. He watched it
over and over. And if it's live streamed, when people have radical tendencies or they're angry and they can get a gun and you watch the
government doing this, shooting the person and it's live streamed. So, you tape it, you video it and you look at it over and over again. It feeds that
anger and that violence in people. And I believe people are going to act out on it.
GOLODRYGA: Can I ask you about Christa Pike's case here? Because in Tennessee, she is back in prison after it's still hard to fathom how she
survived, was able to talk to her attorneys after, make a recovery and now back in prison after that botched lethal injection. Her attorneys are
asking the governor to commute her sentence.
I'm wondering what your thoughts are on that, what you would say to the governor on this request, especially as we cannot forget the victims of
these horrendous crimes and their families and the justice that they, too, deserve so many years later.
PREJEAN: Yes, let's start with the victims. It's such a morally bankrupt thing to claim that you're killing a person for the victim's sake, that
they're going to, this is going to help heal them and give them closure. That is morally bankrupt. By victims' families sitting on the front row and
watching a person be killed by the state, watching that violence doesn't do anything to heal a person. It's the state's way of trying to justify what
they're doing.
The victim's family needs a lot of help. They need a lot of healing from community and support and prayer and concrete ways to help them heal. But
watching the state kill the one who killed their loved one. And by the way, the average waiting time for that so-called justice, average waiting time
is 17 years from a death sentence to execution.
Look at Christa's case, look how long it is. And to say that, you know, first of all -- and then Christa Pike, why did it fail? There have been 20
botched executions in the last five years in the United States. I mean, look at Oklahoma trying to use a sedative instead of an anesthetic. Part of
the problem here, Bianna, is that the Supreme Court of the United States has allowed there to be a lack of transparency on what states are doing to
kill people. And so, they're failing.
And first of all, trying to make a medical procedure when you don't have people trained and learning or how to find a vein was part of the problem.
They pumped all that pentobarbital into Christa's arm, which is why she's suffering. Yes, absolutely (INAUDIBLE) to commute sentence.
GOLODRYGA: It was shocking and unacceptable in that in that perspective that they were not even prepared to do their job correctly. Sister Helen
Prejean, thank you for taking the time. We'll continue to cover these stories. Unfortunately, we're out of time for now, but we hope to see you
back soon. Thank you.
PREJEAN: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: And do stay with CNN. We'll be right back after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:40:00]
GOLODRYGA: Now, an ICE shooting in New York brings fresh backlash and protests across the city. It comes as a man was shot by an ICE agent last
week as his five-year-old son watched in the car. The case puts a spotlight on how ICE arrests impact the children caught in the middle. Some 35,000
kids have had both parents detained or deported, according to the Brookings Institution. So, what happens next for these separated families? The
Atlantic's Caitlin Dickerson joins Hari Sreenivasan from New York to explain.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HARI SREENIVASAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Bianna, thanks. Caitlin Dickerson, welcome back to the program.
You have a recent piece in The Atlantic titled, "The Babies Left Behind in America." And it's part of a story that you've been covering now across two
Trump administrations. And since January 2025, the Brookings Institute is estimating that the number of affected children with at least one parental
detention is more than 200,000. And 71 percent of those, according to that estimate, are U.S. citizens.
So, who are these children that are being left behind now? What is the new family separation crisis in this Trump administration versus the one that
you might have covered and we are familiar with from the last one?
CAITLIN DICKERSON, STAFF WRITER, THE ATLANTIC: The children who are being left behind now because their parents have been detained or deported by ICE
are kids who your viewers know who go to American schools, who are embedded in communities, have church communities that they're a part of, extended
family networks. Because the biggest difference between the separations happening now and those of the first Trump administration is that they're
primarily impacting families who've been living in the United States for a long time.
We know a very significant proportion of children in the U.S. have at least one parent born outside of the United States and that this Trump
administration isn't just going after, in a really aggressive way, undocumented immigrants, fully undocumented immigrants, but also people who
entered the United States were in the process of working toward a permanent legal immigration status.
So, people who entered under parole programs or with a temporary status, for example, under the Biden administration, have spent years now trying to
gain permanent status. But during that time, developing these networks and relationships becoming embedded in American communities. And now, these
families are being ripped apart.
So, in 2017 and 2018, that first Trump administration separated between 5,000 and 6,000 children from their parents. We still don't have a precise
data point because the record keeping was so poor, as you'll recall. But now, as you pointed out, yes, researchers at the Brookings Institution have
estimated that more than 205,000 children have lost at least one parent to ICE detention or deportation. And that more than 35,000 children have lost
what they call all co-resident parents. So, that's kids with single parents who are detained or deported, as well as kids like Eber, the child in my
stories, two-year-old, both of his parents were deported by ICE. And so, he and some 35,000 others have been left with no guardian.
Lastly, I just want to point out that estimate ran up till April of this year. And so, we can assume the numbers are even higher now because ICE has
carried out record breaking numbers of arrests since then.
SREENIVASAN: So, tell me a little bit about Eber. I mean, his parents were deported back to Venezuela. What is the status? Where is he now?
DICKERSON: So, Eber lives with his mother's former co-worker. Her name is Estella in her house outside Mobile, Alabama. He landed in her home because
ICE first detained and deported his father last year. Then toward the end of the year in November, detained his mother as well. And so, his parents
had come to the United States under the Biden administration and they had friends. They had a community, but they didn't have a lot of options. They
didn't have extended relatives who could take the children in. And so, there was really this frantic scurry to figure out what to do with the kids
when Eber's mother and his final remaining caretaker was taken into custody.
Initially, a couple of friends of his mother's who were undocumented took Eber and then his elder brother, Isaac, who was seven years old, took them
in. But they were undocumented themselves and really not in a position to give the kids stability. For example, Eber, who has serious health issues,
was ill and the woman caring for him was undocumented herself and was scared to even take him to the hospital because she thought she could end
up being detained.
[13:45:00]
So, basically, there were a bunch of phone calls made to try to identify somebody who was more stable, who could take the children in. And
ultimately, that led to Estella, because she'd worked with Eber's mom and these other undocumented friends I've mentioned, and she was the only
United States citizen that they knew. So, Estella agreed to take initially both boys in. She got Eber's older brother, Isaac, back to Venezuela.
But Eber's situation is very complicated because he's a United States citizen, so he can't go back to Venezuela where his parents are without a
visa. He doesn't have a passport, and he also can't travel, as is the case with minor children, without a legal guardian. And because ICE didn't allow
for Eber's parents to make arrangements in advance of deporting them to either take the children with or to make these kinds of documents available
so that Eber could legally travel, he's now stuck in Estella's home and has been there for -- he's been there since January. He just turned two years
old, and he's coming up on a full year of not having seen his mother.
SREENIVASAN: So, what are the different types of costs that Estella is incurring? I mean, financial, emotional, psychological.
DICKERSON: So, from the very beginning, you know, when Eber and Isaac got to Estella's house, it was like Eber, he constantly wanted to be held. He
never wanted to be put down. And he's still that way. I saw it myself. He's very clingy. He can only sleep in the crook of Estella's arm. You know,
it's a child that just really needs to be embraced, because he's gone through so much tumult and so much separation from his primary attachments.
And then there's the financial costs. So, Estella has been paying for clothing, for food, for toys, for educational materials. And her husband,
who's a construction contractor, is not working as much as he normally does because of the ripple effects of these ICE arrests. There are lots of
construction workers in the area who are scared to leave home because they don't want to end up in the same situation. Estella can't work because she
has to care for Eber full time. And so, it's really put quite the financial strain on the family.
Of course, Eber's parents would really like to be able to help. But they're back in Venezuela, which has an economy that has been completely devastated
for years now, really struggling.
SREENIVASAN: You know, in your reporting, you pointed out that Eber's mom was abiding by the legal process, that she had gone to her ICE check-ins.
And I wonder if this is creating a disincentive to comply with the law and the legal processes, especially for asylum seekers.
DICKERSON: Absolutely. That was something that really stuck out to me in my reporting. And in fact, there's another family whose story I think
illustrates this very clearly. A father, I use pseudonyms to identify them because this family is facing active and very serious threats from MS-13.
So, I identify the father as Edwin and the mother as Sarah. They have two young children, a 12-year-old and a four-year-old.
And they have been on the run from MS-13 for years now. They first tried to hide within Honduras. And then when MS-13 ultimately killed a close member
of their family who we think they mistook for Sarah, the family came to the United States under the Biden administration, applied for asylum and have
spent years now meticulously following all of the government's requests so that they could gain this legal status. That really the system was sort of
set up to help people in situations like theirs. They're preparing for a final immigration hearing that was supposed to take place this June. And at
one of those ICE check-ins, the father, Edwin, was detained in January without any explanation, without any advance notice.
And so, I spent several months interviewing both him after I met him in Honduras when I was reporting there and then his wife, who was in the
suburbs of Dallas, now sole caregiver for her two children trying to figure out what to do. And she, like others I interviewed, ultimately decided she
wasn't going to attend her ICE check-ins anymore. She wasn't going to keep working toward legal asylum status. She felt that to go home to Honduras
and bring her children with her could be a death sentence for them.
And on the other hand, she thought continuing to attend her ICE check-ins when she felt that one of them, she would inevitably be detained and then
leave her children with no caregiver at all, those options just weren't feasible for her, weren't something that she could imagine doing. And so,
she chose this other option, which to her had previously been unthinkable, which was just to go underground and really become the kind of,
quote/unquote, "lawbreaker" who the Trump administration claims this campaign is intended to crack down on.
SREENIVASAN: Has there been a change in policy where we no longer care about whether or not somebody is in line for asylum?
DICKERSON: Yes. In fact, when I reached out to the Department of Homeland Security to ask them to comment on this story, they said that to me very
plainly, that having a pending application for legal status is not considered a shield from deportation, whereas previously it was.
[13:50:00]
And so, that's why you have so many people. There are more than a million people who've lost some form of status under this administration because of
its eliminations of temporary protected status and of parole programs, its challenges to asylum. So, that's lots of people who are now vulnerable to
arrest if they remain in the country.
SREENIVASAN: You also wrote about the story of Orlin Hernandez-Reyes. And tell us a little bit about what happened to him.
DICKERSON: So, Orlin Hernandez-Reyes, his mother was detained in the Louisiana detention facility, in fact, the same one where Eber's mother was
detained. And when she and her sister were taken into custody, they articulated that they didn't have anyone to take their children in who was
safe. Orlin ended up with his mother's sister's ex-boyfriend, a man who was known to be dangerous because he was simply the only adult who was around,
who could take the kids in.
And so, when his mom went into ICE custody, she articulated, she says to ICE officials repeatedly that there was that Orlin was not safe, that there
was no one else to take care of him. She begged to be reunited with him before being deported to her home country. And ICE denied that request. So,
this is important. She's just one of several parents in my story who agreed to be deported. They said, OK, I will leave, but please give me my child
back first. And ICE did not heed that request.
Later, what happened was that Orlin died. Orlin's body was found with signs of physical and sexual abuse, and the man who was caring for him has been
charged with murder. He is pled not guilty. But this is certainly something that his mother sees as entirely preventable and something that ICE could
have addressed by, again, either allowing her to continue her legal immigration process or by at least reuniting them before they deported her.
SREENIVASAN: You know, a week after Orlin's death, ICE director, Todd Lyons, said that his mother, quote, "chose to leave her son here with a
violent murderer who took his life. What did she say to that? I mean, did she document how she pleaded with them not to leave her son with this man?
DICKERSON: So, I believe in her case, there are records of the requests that she made to be reunited. And in my reporting with officials on
background within the government, what I learned to be the case is that sometimes when parents make these requests to be reunited, there are
records that can be found, specifically when parents use an internal tablet system that exists at lots of detention centers where they can contact a
deportation officer directly.
But what I also found is that in places where the tablets don't exist, where detainees don't have access to them and where there's just so much
pressure to carry out deportations as quickly as possible without the necessary record keeping and care for the well-being of children, is that
there were cases of parents who I've met in my reporting who were deported and who say they indicated that they were parents who requested to be
reunited.
But ICE had no record when I reached out showing that they were the parents of minor children, that these requests have been made.
SREENIVASAN: ICE issues this sort of statement that says ICE does not separate families. Parents are asked if they want to be removed with their
children or ICE will place the children with a safe person the parent designates. Is this true that parents are asked if they want to be deported
with their children? And then what are the hurdles if they say yes? And how are the stories that you're reporting happening if what ICE says is true
versus what the parents say is true?
DICKERSON: So, my reporting contradicts what ICE says it's doing to make sure that children have a safe place to go before parents are deported. I
have found that ICE statement to be true in some cases. I have met parents who've been deported who were asked in advance if they wanted to be
deported with their children or to designate a legal caregiver and they were allowed to do so. But I've also found many who were not given that
opportunity, including those who begged for it.
SREENIVASAN: So, walk us through what happens here. I mean, if a parent is detained, who decides what happens to the child?
DICKERSON: So, it's a difficult question to answer because there is no process. A lot of times I found that ICE would take a parent into custody.
A parent might say, hey, my kid is at home. They don't have anybody to take care of them. And the ICE official would essentially say to the parent that
that's not my problem.
[13:55:00]
So, there is no order of operations that immediately follows other than the directive that we talked about, which I sometimes follows and sometimes
doesn't. But even when an official does go and try to say, OK, I'm going to reunify, try to work toward reunifying this family in advance of
deportation or establish a confirmed caregiver, there is no manual for how to do it.
So, there's lots of inconsistency. And in terms of the child who's left behind, again, very haphazard. So, I have learned of children who are
staying with friends of their parents, with extended relatives of their parents. In some cases, local child welfare agencies are getting involved.
But a lot of times people who are involved in these situations are staying quiet about them.
SREENIVASAN: Caitlin Dickerson, thanks so much for your time and your reporting.
DICKERSON: Thank you for having me.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: All right. That is it for now. Thank you so much for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
