Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Representative Elissa Slotkin (D-MI); Interview with "We the People" Author and Harvard University American History Professor Jill Lepore; Interview with The New York Times Freelance Reporter and "Code Over Country" Author Matthew Cole. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired September 10, 2025 - 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)
DONALD TUSK, POLISH PRIME MINISTER (through translator): We are most likely dealing with a large-scale provocation.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): This message says that there is a rogue player in this region.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Two wars, two crises. NATO member Poland shoots down Russian drones inside its airspace. Also, how should America respond to Israel's
shock attacks on Qatar and the negotiating process? I ask Senator Elissa Slotkin.
Then, "We the People." Historian and journalist Jill Lepore warns the elites have now taken over the U.S. Constitution.
Plus --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MATTHEW COLE, FREELANCE REPORTER, THE NEW YORK TIMES AUTHOR AND "CODE OVER COUNTRY": AUTHOR AND "CODE OVER COUNTRY": These are essentially the
hardest missions that the government has or asks its soldiers to do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- the secret American mission in North Korea that went badly wrong. Investigative journalist Matthew Cole tells Hari Sreenivasan about
his quest to uncover the truth.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London.
Two major conflicts now at risk of spinning out of control. The Polish prime minister says his country is the closest it's ever been to open
conflict since World War II, after NATO fighter jets were forced to take out Russian drones, which were fired into its airspace. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TUSK, POLISH PRIME MINISTER (through translator): We are most likely dealing with a large-scale provocation. At the same time, we're in
consultation with our allies. I am in constant contact with the NATO secretary general. This is so that we can respond to this type of threat as
effectively as we did tonight.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: And his foreign minister, Radoslaw Sikorski, said Poland has no doubt that drones flying into its territory were not an accident. Russia
denies that. And after another massive aerial bombardment of Ukraine, Ukraine's foreign minister warns Putin's sense of impunity keeps growing.
Meanwhile, Israel's unprecedented attack on Doha, targeting Hamas negotiators, is being questioned at home and condemned abroad. Here's
President Trump.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: I'm not thrilled about the whole situation. It's not a good situation. But I will say this, we want the hostages back.
But we are not thrilled about the way that went down today.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Qatar's government might have hoped for a stronger condemnation from the U.S. They call it a flagrant violation of international law. And
in a moment, we will dig into all of this with Senator Elissa Slotkin. But first, let us turn to Poland and Nick Payton Walsh, who's following the
story and filed this report.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NICK PAYTON WALSH, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Behind me here is a meeting of what's called the E5 top European defense
officials. The Polish defense minister, meant to be, had to rush back to deal with the crisis in his own country. The French defense minister,
actually now the prime minister, but still a message here of unity. They're trying to give out the U.K. defense secretary, John Healey, calling this a
new level of hostility from Russian President Vladimir Putin and saying that the actions taken by NATO jets, Dutch aircraft scrambled to intercept
these drones, marks the first defensive action of its kind since Russia invaded Ukraine.
What we know is that during the night, 19 intrusions were recorded by Poland into their airspace. That may not mean 19 separate drones, but
certainly, four of them shot down, according to some initial Polish official reports.
And indeed, damage done to civilian infrastructure from that debris falling. Extraordinary to see some of the video, the noises we've become
accustomed to hearing over Ukraine now, now over NATO territory. Russia's Ministry of Defense, referred to for answer on this by the Kremlin, have
said they did not intend to target Polish sites. That's not the same as saying they didn't intend to send drones into Polish airspace, but they're
also saying they're open to dialogue with Poland on this matter.
Polish airspace closed during the bid to counter these drones. Extraordinary to even imagine, frankly, this moment of NATO's eastern flank
security being in doubt this far into Russia's invasion of Poland. A significant escalation by Moscow, whether they try to suggest this was
potentially a navigational error or the result of GPS jamming or something, as they may do in the days ahead. Clearly a designed move here to test
NATO's response.
[13:05:00]
So, far, when I stepped out of here, we have not heard of concrete measures, potentially, from NATO to respond to this, or the U.K. defense
minister did say they would be constructing U.K. forces to look at ways of bolstering Poland's air defenses. But a real moment of test here, certainly
for the White House as well.
I should remind everybody that on Sunday, when asked after her pretty horrific record assault against Kyiv, President Trump was asked if he was
ready for the next wave of sanctions against Russia. He said he was. He said he'll talk to Vladimir Putin very soon. He said, indeed, that European
leaders will be going to D.C. to talk with him about that. None of that has happened now on Wednesday. And he said those visits would occur by Tuesday.
So, a lot of questions now is to Trump's response, whether there will be a unified NATO response, including the U.S., to this extraordinary,
unprecedented violation of Poland's airspace. I should point out there are many concerned that this may just be the beginning, that Russia may be
trying to test and see what pushback it gets from NATO, from trying something like this, and then may, again, try to violate Poland or other
eastern NATO members' airspace.
And, indeed, I should also point out to everybody that this was part, it seems, these drones launched as part of another substantial attack against
Ukraine. 400 drones launched that same night. The fact that some of them strayed into NATO airspace, a remarkable sense that the Kremlin feels
buoyed, feels potentially after the summit in Tianjin that it had in the beginning of this month, that it has increased support from China and
possibly India, and certainly, that we've seen over the past 48 hours with 24 pensioners killed in a single strike in Donetsk by a Russian aerial
bomb, Moscow upping its aggression rather than the opposite.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, Nick Paton Walsh laying all that out for us. And how will NATO respond to this major escalation by Russia? And will the U.S. start
using its unique leverage with Israel? Our next guest is calling for just that. Even before the latest attack in Qatar, Michigan Democratic Senator
Elissa Slotkin said, it appears that the Netanyahu government thinks that there are no limits to what they can do while still receiving U.S. support.
So, I do believe a message has to be sent. And as a member of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, she's well placed to answer how NATO should
respond to Russia's escalation as well. Senator Slotkin joins me now from Washington. Welcome to the program, Senator.
REP. ELISSA SLOTKIN (D-MI): Thanks for having me.
AMANPOUR: So, I want to ask you as an American rather than a Democrat or Republican, you are a Democratic senator. But this surely is a moment of
truth for America and its alliances. And I want you to pick which issue to take first. I can't tell which is more important or more dangerous,
Israel's, you know, unprovoked, unprecedented attack on negotiators in U.S. ally Qatar without even telling the U.S. or Russia's major escalation into
NATO airspace?
SLOTKIN: Yes. Well, I certainly think the Russian escalation is the newest item. But it is kind of interesting and ironic that all of this is
happening at the same time. I think with Russia, I mean, if you just review the data points, you know, from Trump rolling out the red carpet for Putin,
you know, we know he wants to win the Nobel Prize for his work on bringing an end to a war there and in the Middle East, he rolls out the red carpet,
he cozies up to him. And the data points since then are basically like a thumb in the eye to Trump, right?
He -- Putin goes and does this big event with the Chinese leadership. He launches the largest assault on Kyiv since the beginning of the war and now
is testing, like a toddler, the sort of NATO limits by sending drones over. And I'm glad that the polls have called for consultations. I'm glad that
we're having this conversation. I personally think we have to send a strong message back to Putin because he is clearly walking all over President
Trump.
And, you know, I don't think a Nobel Prize is in his future for the president. So, it is an interesting development that we need to respond to.
AMANPOUR: So, calling for consultations is officially known as Article 4. That would potentially lead to Article 5, which, Senator, you remember at
the time President Biden and all the NATO leaders in the early years of this war kept saying not one inch. If Russia strayed one inch inside NATO
territory, whether by air, land, or sea, then it would trigger a full NATO response.
I mean, look, it's damned if you do and damned if you don't. I know nobody wants to go to direct war with Russia. But on the other hand, what is the
signal then that you say needs to be sent now?
[13:10:00]
SLOTKIN: Yes. Well, certainly, I think the president has been dragging his feet on a bipartisan proposal on another round of sanctions. The bill is
ready to go. It's co-led by both a Democrat and a Republican. We could do that tomorrow. And the president has been reluctant to do that, thinking he
can be the one who kind of convinces Putin to think -- to listen to his better angels.
I think the other thing that's extremely important is that we have to have, you know, all of our NATO allies right there on the eastern flank with a
much stronger military posture. And, you know, the Poles did a decent job of trying to react when these drones came from two different directions
into their territory. They need to be on higher alert and just start shooting anything down that comes over their airspace. I mean, as long as
it can be safely done.
And so, a more aggressive defense posture at a minimum. But sanctions for me are this is the moment in my mind that we actually do what we've been
proposing for the last eight months and do another round of sanctions on the Russians.
AMANPOUR: And actually, President Trump put out on Truth Social, I think, you know, his condemnation of Russian invading Poland's NATO airspace
there. So, it will be interesting to see if he finally stops giving extended deadlines to Putin and actually does something to stop it.
You know, obviously, it's all about Poland is the transit place for NATO weaponry and equipment into Ukraine. Ukraine has suffered incredible, as
you say, uptick in targeting, including of a lot of government targets, U.S. targets inside Ukraine, European targets inside Ukraine, civilian
targets. So, do you think apart from sanctions, it's also calling out for massive infusion of air defense systems again?
SLOTKIN: Well, certainly, I think that, you know, the -- if you're the Ukrainians, if you're many NATO members, many people here in the United
States, we think we have a responsibility to help a democracy defend against the invasion by an autocracy. So, I think that there's a strong
support for that, certainly in a place like Michigan, with as many Ukrainian Michiganders as we have.
You know, I think the last administration struggled with this because America is not looking to get into a hot war with Russia. But there's
certainly more we can do to help the Ukrainians defend themselves. And by the way, they've been absolutely impressive in how that they've gotten
creative, how they've adapted commercial technology, how they've taken risks and gone bold inside of Russia. I mean, you have to give them credit.
And I think a lot of militaries are learning from what they've been doing. But I think there's more the United States and NATO can do.
Again, the president of the United States runs our foreign policy. He has to make that decision, that turn. You know, he told his base that he was
going to get out of the war, that he was done with Ukraine, that he was going to quickly bring it to an end. Putin is literally dangling in front
of his face this challenge. And the question is, what is he going to do about it?
And, you know, obviously, I hope he has a change of heart and he helps the Ukrainians in a very serious way. But to me, this is a very open question.
Putting out a tweet is one thing. Actually, changing your posture towards Putin would be something very different.
AMANPOUR: And now, what about the other escalation where the U.S. has direct leverage, doesn't need to get into a war to do this, but it has
direct leverage with Israel, which is it's -- you know, because it's its major financial and military backup. And apparently, and Trump alluded to
being very upset about this, set off its attack on a residential building in Doha where negotiators were studying apparently the latest peace or
whatever ceasefire proposal. The U.S. didn't know. They were informed, apparently, as this thing was underway. What should the U.S. posture be
now?
SLOTKIN: Well, certainly, I think we should recognize that this is also a change. I mean, to review the bidding, the United States asked the Qataris
years ago to set up an office so that they could engage with Hamas, right? Years and years ago, Israelis and others needed a place where they could
negotiate. We needed a place where we can have these conversations. And we asked the Qataris to set up a location in their own country.
The place of the attack today was in a well-heeled neighborhood, an apartment -- or attack yesterday, excuse me, a well-heeled neighborhood, 18
miles from Al Udeid Air Force Base, where we have 10,000 Americans, where the Qataris just helped defend against Iranian ballistic missiles just a
couple of months ago. So, this is a partner in Qatar that we work with quite a bit and depend on for the safety of our American soldiers there.
So, it is definitely a big moment. We haven't had Israel take military action, overt military action against a Gulf state, to my knowledge, ever.
And certainly, using fixed-wing aircraft is a it's a major decision.
[13:15:00]
You heard a pretty strongly worded statement from the president today about, you know, not approving the strike, not knowing, and this not moving
us anywhere positive towards peace. It took out, I think, from what I understand, some low-level members, but not leadership.
And so -- but the idea that we're going to have a negotiated end to this war now seems further off than certainly it was. And the United States is -
- again, has some decisions to make. I can only imagine what the conversations have been between the White House and Bibi Netanyahu since
this puts President Trump again a really tough spot.
He said he was going to solve this crisis like in day one. Again, he wants the Nobel Peace Prize to solve this longstanding problem. And we seem much
further from that today than we did two days ago.
AMANPOUR: So, let me ask you, though, I mean, presumably -- well, I'm going to ask you, do you condemn this fixed wing, unprecedented Israeli
strike on some --
SLOTKIN: Yes.
AMANPOUR: Say that again?
SLOTKIN: Yes.
AMANPOUR: OK.
SLOTKIN: Yes. I mean, it just -- it does nothing positive. It opens up sort of a new chapter in the militarization and conflict in that region in
general. And it's with an American partner that we have real equities with. So, I think that it is a bare minimum, just not supportive of the goals
that certainly the United States has. And I hope that would hope that Israel would have. And I think it's right that the president has been
pretty vocal today publicly with the Israeli leadership.
AMANPOUR: Also adding that, of course, the hostages have to come back. And of course, everybody believes that that should happen. And that's what was
under negotiation. One mother, one Israeli mother, said of this attack on Qatar, Netanyahu has executed my son. Now, that is, you know, the anguish
of a mother who's very afraid of what might be the fallout from this attack on Hamas.
So, again, the U.S. has leverage. You believe it should put sanctions on Russia for what Putin's doing. Should it, as you said you would have voted
to do in July, suspend offensive weapons to Israel? What should it do? Because President Trump, while wanting to end the war and wanting, as you
said, the Nobel Peace Prize, he's also allowed Netanyahu his -- you know, he's given him the reins. He's given him the space to essentially do what
he wants.
SLOTKIN: Well, look, Israel and the United States are long-term allies, and we typically have tough conversations in private. Today, you saw those
tough conversations happen in public. And I hope that that is an important moment for this president, President Trump, to start using some of that
leverage in private conversations.
To be honest, you know, voting on it in the Senate, it's something that we can do. But the president of the United States directs foreign policy in
the United States of America, and we have tremendous leverage to have really tough conversations with both allies and adversaries. And I think,
to me, the president should be using some of that leverage. Everyone wants a final hostage deal to bring people home, all the hostages, all at once.
And Hamas could end this war tomorrow if they just gave up, did the right thing as leaders and said, we're not going to continue the suffering of
Palestinians by, you know, dragging this out again for a further -- you know, we're two years into this right now. They could end this immediately.
But I also think that going after and taking military action in a partner nation that's trying to host these negotiations, it just takes us further
away from peace.
AMANPOUR: So, you voted to -- you would have voted to suspend offensive weapons. You said because of the humanitarian crisis, even before this
current crisis, the starvation, et cetera, in Gaza. Do you think the U.S. should do that now? The Senate should vote. The president should do that.
SLOTKIN: Again, the president of the United States could solve this problem by having firm conversations with Bibi Netanyahu tomorrow. The
votes come up here because that's our only hook into foreign policy to this issue whatsoever. But the tools are at the Pentagon, at the CIA, and at the
White House in terms of the things that we share. Those conversations can be happening tomorrow if the president is actually going to follow up his
words from today with Bibi.
AMANPOUR: So, let me ask you, because you have written a major new paper about your vision, and let's not forget, you were a Pentagon analyst, a CIA
analyst, you've been in the field, you understand these things, and you're on that Senate Armed Services Committee. A new sort of idea for a new
foreign policy, three big things. Just let me know, let us know, what your vision is.
SLOTKIN: Yes. Well, look, we've been talking about military activity for the first couple of minutes here. But I think when I took a breath and
said, you know, look, there's a lot of fighting in Washington. We're not dealing with the strategic issues we should be. If I'm queen for the day,
what would be the foreign policy and the national security approach that I would do, and how would it be different? I really went back to basics.
[13:20:00]
And the military stuff that we're all talking about is part of the issue. But national security has changed because the world has changed. We now
have economic security, for me, is the number one issue in the United States. The shrinking middle class is the reason we're having this
fractious authoritarian moment in our history right now in America. And if we do not strengthen and grow that middle class, we're in trouble as a
diverse nation.
Number two, we got to have -- we have to understand that we are in a tech arms race already. The technology, particularly A.I., are going to
completely change what we mean by warfare, cyber-attacks, which are already affecting everyone that I know, but attacks on our infrastructure. The
change is in our world from cryptocurrency. It's already happening. And A.I. is going to be a bigger change to our economy than the internet.
So, we need to get a handle on that and understand we're in this race. And to me, things like setting up a Manhattan Project for A.I. are something
that I'm proposing. Get the greatest scientists in the world, just like we did in the Manhattan Project back, you know, 80 years ago. A lot of
immigrant scientists, foreign scientists who helped us win that race. We need the same thing on A.I. And then we need to set up something like the
Atomic Energy Commission to go through the rules of the road of how we deal with this very brand-new technology.
And then because warfare is changing, because it's economic and based on tech, it means the victims, the people on the battlefield are different.
It's not soldiers very far away, right? It's our own citizens who are being -- who are the victims of these cyber-attacks, who are at risk if our
infrastructure goes down. We need to rethink how we define homeland security and rearrange our government to protect people here, not just the
way we did 80 years ago, that's a Cold War model, but something new.
So, I've called for a rewriting of the 1947 National Security Act. Everything you know about the U.S. government and how we do security is
based on something that's 80 years old. It needs to be rewritten. And those were some of the some of the ideas in the speech.
AMANPOUR: And yet, there are a couple of challenges there because you've talked about foreign, you know, engineers and people like that. Well,
instead of that, there's deporting, there's denying visas. There's -- you know, and there's rounding up, you know, the workforce of an allied nation,
South Korea, from a country who wanted to invest in the United States. So, there's that. And then there's deploying the U.S. military and National
Guard as domestic, you know, law enforcement in various cities.
SLOTKIN: Yes.
AMANPOUR: It looks like Chicago may have escaped that threat, according to the White House. But another, you know, another city might not. So, who do
you think you could convince? Because there'll be a lot of shapeshifting from the current policy to do what you suggest.
SLOTKIN: Yes. Well, first of all, you have to be able to manage daily crises, the 10 things that the Trump administration is announcing every
single day, but also give the future a seat at the table and think outward. And that's what Washington isn't doing right now.
Trump is flooding the zone, giving us 10 things to think about and talk about and tweet about all day long. So, we're not thinking five years out,
10 years out, 15 years out. And I think the job of leaders is to not just deal with the daily grind, but actually think around corners. So, that's
what I was trying to do.
In the meantime, the president is doing things that I think contradict the values of our democracy, right? Putting uniformed military in our streets
is about as contrary to our personal history, right? With no offense to the Brits who are watching, our entire identity was shaped around a foreign
military occupying our territory and treating and abusing -- treating badly and abusing our citizens.
So, to have the risk of our national guardsmen, our uniformed military in our cities is to me a very, very dangerous strategic problem for our
country. So, we can't stop working on that. We have to react to that. We have to push back on that. But we can't just ignore the future threats
because they're here. They're upon us now.
AMANPOUR: Senator Elissa Slotkin, thank you so much for joining us. And stay with us because we'll be back after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:25:00]
AMANPOUR: From masked ICE agents grabbing people off the streets to deploying the National Guard in Democrat-run cities, many of Trump's moves
raise serious questions about constitutional rights and limits. The U.S. Constitution is among the oldest in the world, and my next guest has been
exploring its history and its place in these troubling times. In "We the People," historian Jill Lepore makes the case for constitutional
amendments, and she's joining me now from Cambridge, Massachusetts. Welcome to the program.
JILL LEPORE, AUTHOR, "WE THE PEOPLE" AND AMERICAN HISTORY PROFESSOR, HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Thank you.
AMANPOUR: Jill Lepore, you know, from the beginning of this administration, everybody in the sort of legal field and those who are
experts were asking what would create a constitutional crisis in the United States, based on things that President Trump had said before he even took
office for the second time.
So, what do you think will cause a constitutional crisis? What element right now do you think could, would, or not?
LEPORE: You know, I think a lot of scholars are quite cautious about the language of constitutional crisis with regard to this administration in
particular, because the language of crisis and emergency has been so galvanizing for the administration. It is the assertion of -- the
proclamation of emergency declarations and the use of those to take on emergency powers that has lain behind so many of the actions the
administration has taken that the courts are finding and likely to continue to find to be in violation of the Constitution.
So, I think in that -- I think that accounts for some of the reticence to use the language in some way, in some sense that it participates in the
emergency politics that we are in. And I share some of that hesitation. You know, I'm, as a scholar, someone who takes a longer view and I think we are
in a kind of rolling constitutional crisis in the sense that there have been concerns raised about the legitimacy of a constitution that lies
beyond the power of the people to amend it, which is a foundational idea of American constitutionalism, that commitment to the people's power to amend
the Constitution.
AMANPOUR: I'm going to get to that in more detail, but because, you know, some of the justices have been speaking, you know, quite unusually, there's
a recent interview with conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett. She's got a book out. And she was asked, what would constitute a constitutional crisis?
Here's what she said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AMY CONEY BARRETT, U.S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE: I don't know that I could give a definition of constitutional crisis because I don't know that we
have really faced one in this country. We've faced a lot of tumult in the country, but we have always survived and America's coming up on its 250th
anniversary and I think we could be proud of the way that the Constitution has held.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: And your response to that, it has held.
LEPORE: It has held and I think, you know, we rightly celebrate the 250th anniversary, not just of the Declaration of Independence next year, but of
American constitutionalism. The first state constitutions were passed in 1776. But we certainly have had constitutional crises.
I mean, you know, as people said about the Civil War, the Constitution doesn't come in 500 miles of addressing the question of slavery. Like we --
the loss of 750,000 American lives in a four-year war over the battle to end slavery and settle the question of the right of states to secede from
the union, just as a matter of historical record, it's a constitutional crisis.
I think there's a kind of strict definition that involves the gears of the mechanism that is the Constitution becoming locked, right? It's designed in
the age of enlightenment as a machine that is supposed to work as perfectly as possible. It's like a clockworks with weights and balances. And, you
know, so much of the genius of the Constitution is the precision of the separation of those powers.
We are now witnessing a kind of constitutional change that really is not seen across American history, which is a role played by the executive
simply declaring a new constitutional interpretation.
[13:30:00]
So, this White House appears to believe that if the president believes it's constitutional, it is constitutional, that the ultimate arbiter of the
meaning of the Constitution is the executive branch, not the judicial branch, and certainly not Congress or the people. And there's no provision
for that whatsoever in the Constitution. Nothing is further from the balancing of forces that the Constitution was designed to set in motion.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, in your book, "We the People," you discuss obviously in depth what you're talking about now, some dysfunctional in this
constitutional system and how to amend it. And you argue that the Constitution was designed to change and grow and regularly and continuously
amended, but it's not how that's working. So, why not? And what's the cost of that?
LEPORE: The U.S. has one of the most difficult constitutions to amend in the world. It's also the most influential constitution in the world. It's
of great significance, but other constitutions, including the state constitutions in the United States, are very regularly amended. American
states have held, you know, hundreds of constitutional conventions, in many cases, just simply replace their constitutions. It's very common around the
world.
So, it is a distinctive feature of the American Constitution that we have never had another convention and that the Constitution, only 27 amendments
have been ratified. It's a very low rate compared to, you know, thousands across the states where the amendment rate is something like 75 percent.
So, it's distinctive.
And there are many people who would say, that is because the Constitution is so great, right? It hasn't been changed very often because it was so
well-designed and perfect from -- nearly perfect from the beginning. And, you know, that's a good faith argument. I see more that the amendment --
many of the amendments have been crucially necessary.
Certainly, the Civil War amendments and the Progressive Era amendments were absolutely essential. And many of the failed amendments have had dire
consequences. I think the failure of the Child Labor Amendment, which was passed by Congress in 1924 and sent to the states and was never amended was
a problem in the '20s and '30s. It remains actually a problem today.
Congress passed the Equal Rights Amendment in 1972. It has not been ratified. I we can -- I think most Americans would agree there's something
kind of political settlement that's never really quite been made that we see with us in many ways.
So, what has happened in place of constitutional amendment, which was the design, it's written into the Constitution that you can amend the
Constitution by way of popular ratification, is that the Supreme Court enacts constitutional change by interpreting the Constitution differently.
That's a power that the Court has largely assumed. It's not essentially written into the Constitution. And I think it's a practice that is well-
established and respected.
But it has -- it really has replaced in the long periods, decades of American history where there've been no amendments efforts is because the
court has been particularly active.
AMANPOUR: OK. So -- and I sort of asked you, so what's the cost of that? I mean, you basically believe, I think, if I'm getting it straight, that the
Constitution is a living document that needs, as you've laid out, amendments by the mechanisms that it is provided. But you remember in 2013,
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia argued that it's not a living document. He said, quote, it's dead, dead, dead. You know, they believe
people like that are called originalists.
So, how do you get -- and you've said it's in the hands of the elites now to amend or not to amend. How do you jog and jiggle this? Yes.
LEPORE: So, constitutional change is -- and constitutional change is going to happen one way or the other. Originalists call their method of
constitutional change constitutional restoration. It is a method of constitutional change that just disguises itself as a method of
restoration, but it is a form of change. We've seen a lot of change in the Constitution under an originalist Supreme Court.
I think that the broader question is what it means to -- our understanding of -- and capacity for self-government that we don't exercise the power to
amend. It's less that I think, oh, there's a bunch of amendments I wish could be passed. Like I actually don't have such a wish list. It's that the
practice of convening in constitutional conventions, which used to happen in the States all the time, but hasn't happened in the United States since
1986 when Rhode Island held the last full dress constitutional convention, was a civic practice sort of like jury duty, right?
Like you may not think -- you may not love jury duty, you may love jury duty, but at some level, we believe that it is the right thing to do, that
ordinary people should gather, be presented with evidence and deliberate amongst themselves to decide what is true.
And if we were to say today, replace juries with A.I. and just say, you know what? We can feed all this testimony and all this evidence into an
A.I., we thought it would be a better decision. And people always saying, oh, you could that for therapy or doctors and you're going to get a better
decision. Even if we thought it would be a better decision, I don't think we would say we should get rid of juries, because we understand that is a
civic practice, that is where we glue ourselves together as a society, where we agree that we have the capacity to decide what's true together,
that we honor and trust our capacity as citizens in a democracy.
[13:35:00]
A convention is something like that. We're not ready to have a convention. Like, we don't -- we have -- it's as if we haven't had jury duty for 60
years and no one even -- if we had abolished jury duty in 1971, which is the last time the Constitution was meaningfully amended, it would be very
hard to bring it back. People would be like, I would not sit in -- I would not trust the determination of my guilt or innocence where I accused of a
crime of 12 random people. Like, I think we don't actually trust one another in that way because we have lost so many of the skills of
democratic deliberation.
So, I think that -- less than like, do we have the Constitution I want or you want, it's more that we don't have the capacity to think
constitutionally anymore.
AMANPOUR: Well, OK, so how do you see that being rekindled? Your book is called, "We the People," to -- for voters to, you know, take back control
of their rights. And you have a personal story. I understand that you as a family used to hold regular constitutional conventions around the -- I
think the dining table.
LEPORE: Yes. You know what, I honestly, maybe I'm just really kooky, but I think a lot of people do this, or you have to have family rules, right? You
have family meetings. You have family meetings. Like, yes, so -- well, if you believe in constitutionalism and you also teach it, like a way to do
that is to have an annual constitutional convention with your family.
We used to do it the day before school began, like right before Labor Day. And we'd bring out last year's constitution, which has things like who, you
know, chore schedules and who has to do the vacuuming versus who does the dishes, what bedtimes, screen time, allowances. And you know, it's a
different year. There's different reasons you want to be on a screen. Kids are a different age. There's -- you're going to update the rules, but you
sort of -- kids get a chance to petition and say, you know, I will agree to walk the dog if I can have an extra half hour before I have to go to bed.
Like, those are ways to teach civic skills, the way that they are taught in K to 12 classrooms all over the country, where we understand kids should
sit in a room together and kind of argue out stuff and disagree and come to a resolution. I think grownups don't have that as much anymore as a
consequence of our hyper-polarized part of politics.
AMANPOUR: Jill Lepore, thank you so much. Teacher of History and Constitutional Affairs at Harvard University. And we will be back after
this short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
AMANPOUR: Now, for a major new investigation into a secret mission gone wrong. A New York Times report reveals the details of a botched operation,
allegedly greenlit by President Trump in 2019, which led to U.S. Navy SEALs killing several North Korean civilians. All this while high stakes nuclear
negotiations were going on between the two leaders. Journalist Matthew Cole reported on this story, and he joins Hari Sreenivasan to discuss it.
[13:40:00]
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HARI SREENIVASAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Matthew Cole, thanks so much for joining us. You just recently published a piece in the New York
Times about a SEAL Team 6 mission that most Americans did not know about.
So, this is 2019. The administration is trying to figure out how to denuclearize or negotiate with North Korea, right? The administration, like
every party in any negotiation, wants as much of an advantage as possible to try to get an edge. Well, what are they thinking? What are they saying?
Let's tap the phones. But getting something into North Korea is not that easy. Why did they go with this particular route?
MATTHEW COLE, FREELANCE REPORTER, THE NEW YORK TIMES AUTHOR AND "CODE OVER COUNTRY": Well, let me just say that even in our reporting, and we're very
explicit in the story, that there were some details that we withheld because of the sensitivity and the nature of the, you know, listening
device or the capabilities that the U.S. government has that we wanted to err on the side of caution of.
In 2018, the U.S. government saw an opportunity to place a listening device in North Korea in the middle of a series of negotiations. Let's understand
and get an idea of what the negotiators on the North Korean side are saying to Kim Jong-un.
And secondly, there was a sort of longer-term -- a potential for a longer- term strategic advantage to get access to North Korean communications, period. And so, the question is, how do you get a device into North Korea?
And so, the planning and the rehearsing for this went on for months in late 2018. And meanwhile, the SEAL Team 6, the Navy Special Operations was
looking at the place that they were going in North Korea to see when an opening would be -- when they could get in, when was the best possible
time.
And so, there was an opening in early 2019 in the winter. The water was extremely cold and they just determined that that was when they were going
to do it. And it came days, weeks before the proposed summit in Hanoi. So, there was an enormous amount of tension around whether, you know, being
able to get in, get out undetected and whether doing so could derail the possible summit.
And so, the large submarine gets out into the Japanese Sea and eventually makes its way to North Korea. They get into North Korean waters. They
deploy these two SEAL delivery vehicles, each with roughly six SEALs in them and they motor their way underwater. They're considered wet subs,
which means everyone's in a suit with scuba gear and the water is so cold that they had to have neoprene suits that had heating elements to them to
keep them from freezing because it was a two-hour ride into their location where they were going.
The mini subs got about 150 -- between 100 and 200 yards -- or meters from their location at the shoreline and the SEALs get out and they make their
way.
SREENIVASAN: They have practiced this over and over again. What just seems like a physically grueling task and a lot of things have to go right. What
went wrong?
COLE: You're right. So, much has to go right. I mean, it has to be almost perfect. There were in the after action, several things that the SEALs
believe went wrong. We should say, first of all, there is a certain amount of ambiguity and lack of fidelity about what went wrong because the nature
of the operation started with the fact that, you know, SEALs and SEAL Team 6 and Special Operation Forces have been, since 9/11, fighting wars in
Afghanistan and Iraq and the Middle East.
And during all of those missions, what they had were live overhead cameras. They had video feeds, often in high definition. And so, you had the ability
to see what was going on above them and communicate with them. Well, there was none of that for this. This was old fashioned, behind enemy lines, no
communications. And so, they had to make decisions based on what they could see in front of them.
And so, there's a limitation in terms of understanding what may have gone wrong. What may have gone wrong though was one of the two mini subs missed
its landing mark. It released -- it turned itself around. It released the SEALs. The SEALs staying underwater made their way towards the shore. Both
the mini sub and the SEALs at that point missed the -- any indication that there was a fishing skiff, that there was a small boat on the water.
[13:45:00]
Meanwhile, it's middle of the night, the sea is calm, it's quiet. These fishermen are alone out there and the mini sub, having missed its mark,
turns itself around. And when it turns itself around, there was essentially a theory that in doing so, because the water was so -- it was in such
shallow water, that its engines made a wake essentially. So, that from above the water, you could hear or see movement in the water and caught the
attention.
So, as that may be happening, the SEALs have now made their way to shore. They're on the beach, they're at, you know, waist between knee and waist
high water. They're taking off their suits and their gear. And at that point, at least one of the SEALs sees the boat with three North Koreans on
it. And one of the three -- two or three North Koreans dives into the water.
Now, at that point, one of the SEALs on the mission has concluded that they have these North Koreans who they're not sure, are they fishermen? Are they
security? Are they armed? Do they have a radio to call back for help? That they have discovered the mini sub and that this one who dives into the
water is trying to look at the mini sub, right?
And so, as soon as that person pops back up, that SEAL decides to fire his weapon. And at that point, the SEALs had been under strict orders that had
they interacted with any humans, whether it was security or fishermen, that they had to abort the mission. They opened fire, the rest of the SEALs
opened fire on the people in the boat. They make their way back to the boat to see and inspect. They discover that there's no weapons. There's no
radio. It appears to be just North Korean civilians, fishermen. And they ditched the bodies in the water and they get back into the mini subs and
they call in with a distress signal to the nuclear submarine offshore.
And that nuclear submarine has to come in to shorten the distance for the route for the mini subs into the large sub and get them out. And they were
able to.
SREENIVASAN: You know, in your reporting, you talk a little bit about how this SEAL team was formed in 1980, how it's become kind of this almost
legendary unit in part because of Hollywood, part because of some of their successful missions, but you also go on to write, but among some in the
military who've worked with them, the SEALs have a reputation for devising overly bold and complex missions that go badly. Most of us never hear of
any of the risks that they take that did not work out. Give us some examples.
COLE: Sure. I mean, it's important to remember that the job that these men sign up for, trained for, and then go out and do is incredibly risky and
hard. And it is by no means -- you know, I don't want to leave the impression and I don't think we did in our article, that what they're doing
is a piece of cake. It's the opposite. These are essentially the hardest missions that the government has or asks its soldiers to do. They do them.
That said, they're still human. And so -- and they make mistakes.
They've had a series of missions after 9/11 where, you know, part of it was it's less about misconduct and more about when they make mistakes and they
have a -- they've had a legacy of cover-ups, of lying about trying to avoid scrutiny or accountability for their errors. And so, we cited a few
operations. One was in Afghanistan, which was a hostage rescue in 2010 of a British citizen who was being held in Afghanistan and the SEALs
accidentally killed her. But the problem was, was that in the hostage rescue, after they killed her, they lied about how she died and the fact
that they knew that they had likely done it. And so, it led to a very embarrassing moment for President Obama at the time who had to report to
the British government that what they originally said had happened did not happen.
More recently under the first Trump administration, he green-lit a very risky mission into Yemen to go after Al-Qaeda in 2017. And it was -- it led
to 30 civilians being killed in a village, lost -- they lost a huge airplane and a member of SEAL Team 6 died. And the, you know, the point we
try to make in the story is that members of the special operations community and of the military, you know, one of the reasons why they were
speaking about this mission was, it was sort of twofold.
[13:50:00]
It was not just that the SEALs -- you know, this reminder that even among the elite mistakes are made, but also that these things carry incredibly
high risk and we as a, you know, civilian government is no different than the rest of the American public. If the vision and the view of SEAL Team 6
are only their great successes, the death of, you know, the killing of Osama Bin Laden or saving Captain Phillips in the Indian Ocean from Somali
pirates is that they are, you know, supermen that can do anything. And in fact, it's not like that at all. It's incredibly difficult.
And so, you know, there has to be more oversight and scrutiny and awareness about what the risks are when a president signs off on using these units on
these kinds of missions.
SREENIVASAN: So, getting back to this mission, I'm sure it spurred a lot of different internal reviews. What did they find? Was there some
accountability?
COLE: Well, not really. I mean, there were multiple investigations, first under the Trump administration and then when President Joe Biden came into
office and discovered that this operation had happened. And what they ultimately came down to was it was just a series of unfortunate occurrences
that, you know, at the end of the day, the SEALs that opened fire on the North Koreans were working with the assumption that they had been
compromised. And at that point, the most important thing to do was to protect their lives and get out safely and without being caught.
And so, the deaths were ruled legal. They had operated within the rules of engagement. There was no determination of any kind of misconduct. It was
just a -- you know, you picked every possible thing that could have gone wrong. It went wrong. I think there is -- what we understand is that
because there was essentially only the story of the six to eight SEALs who were on the mission, there was nothing else to go by.
And so, military investigators had the same issue, because what they didn't have was any kind of overhead video. They had no other ability to know what
was happening or what happened. And so, the circumstances were so unique, you know, they get -- the SEALs, I think, appropriately get an enormous
amount of leeway here. And what it was, was, you know, the military determined that it was just a series of unfortunate events and there was no
one really to blame.
SREENIVASAN: So, when did members of Congress know about this, hear about this? Because usually this kind of missions, there are select members of
Congress who had different committees who are in the loop.
COLE: Yes. Well, one of the most surprising things in the reporting on this story was that the president, during his first term, never informed
Congress at all about the mission before or afterwards. And so, the mission was first briefed to what they call the Gang of Eight by the Biden
administration. The Gang of Eight is the top four, it's the top Republican and Democrat in the House and the Senate, and then the two leaders of both
the Intelligence Committees. And so, that's -- it gets your eight. And so, they didn't learn about it until at least two years after the mission had
occurred. And that, we believe, may have violated law about notifying Congress when a president is required to notify Congress.
SREENIVASAN: Your story came out, the president was asked explicitly about this story. And he stated, quote, "I don't know anything about it. I'm
hearing it now for the first time." Yet in your reporting, you point out that this mission had explicit authorization from the president of the
United States when that nuclear submarine was close to North Korea. What do you make of his response?
COLE: Well, I'm not going to get into the head of the president of the United States, but I can tell you that our sources were -- we had plenty of
them, and it was very clear that President Trump had approved the mission all the way through, was very well versed with what happened. To the extent
that he paid attention, I can't -- I'm not going to speculate. I am comfortable with the report -- I'm very confident with our reporting, and
I'm sure my colleague, Dave Phillips, is as well. And I think the safest thing to say is that what the president said in the aftermath was not
accurate.
SREENIVASAN: Investigative reporter from The New York Times, Matthew Cole, thanks so much for joining us.
COLE: Thank you, Hari.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
[13:55:00]
AMANPOUR: And finally, tonight, soaring to victory. A Swiss team has won the world's oldest and most prestigious hot air balloon event. The duo
secured the annual Gordon Bennett Cup after landing in Romania on Monday. 24 teams set off from Metz, France last Friday, aiming to cover the
greatest possible distance from the launch site without any premature landings or intervals. After nearly 1,400 kilometers and over 67 hours,
this Swiss pair claimed their trophy in Gogosu, Romania.
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.
Thanks for watching, and goodbye from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
