Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Former U.S. Ambassador to E.U. Gordon Sondland; Interview with Former U.K. Ambassador to U.S. Peter Westmacott; Interview with Inventor of the World Wide Web Tim Berners-Lee. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired September 17, 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.
Reporting from Windsor, a royal welcome for President Trump on this historic second state visit. I speak to Trump supporter Gordon Sondland,
who served as the U.S. ambassador to the E.U. under Trump 1.0, and Britain's former ambassador to the U.S., Sir Peter Westmacott.
Plus, as the U.S. and U.K. agree on a tech pact, the inventor of the World Wide Web, Tim Berners-Lee, tells Walter Isaacson why he's optimistic about
A.I.
Welcome to the program everyone, I'm Christiane Amanpour in Windsor, inside the Castle Grounds, where Britain is throwing all the royal pageantry that
it can muster at President Trump, for the U.S. leader's unprecedented second state visit here.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
AMANPOUR: With national anthems, military parades, aerial flypast, and a state banquet to be hosted here at Windsor Castle, which is decked out in
stars and stripes. The president and the first lady were greeted earlier by the King and queen, the Prince and Princess of Wales were there as well.
Then, a procession of carriages made its way through the Windsor estate. The president and the king riding in the first, the queen and first lady
riding in the second. One thing the U.S. president won't see much of though, the British people. For the public here, Trump is unpopular,
according to most polls. But over in London, protesters did make their voices heard.
Royal Correspondent Max Foster is here with me, and we're just going to discuss this first day of this incredible state visit. So, nobody can be,
you know, sort of, unimpressed by what -- or jaded by what this event actually is. It's so unbelievable, the way the British do it. But what is
the underlying hope for them -- for Trump?
MAX FOSTER, CNN ROYAL CORRESPONDENT: That he had a good time. Literally, that's how the palace described it. That's their job today, to show him a
good time, and frankly to ingratiate him, and to show him that he is the most special visitor that there's ever been to this castle.
I mean, literally, in terms of numbers, we've never seen military, you know, pomp and pageantry on this level, in terms of how many people were on
the escort, but also in the welcome, and in the bands, and so much of America was integrated into it all as well.
This was an interesting moment looking at the Royal Collection, because normally you would see, actually, the king showing all the positive parts
of the British-American relationship, but they went right back to early colonialism, the earliest records of that, and then moving into how they
lost the fight for independence, of course. So, saying it's a complicated past, but you can't actually beat the bond that we've got right now.
AMANPOUR: And as we look at these pictures, this is earlier in the day, when, as I said, the carriages took the president, first lady, the king,
and the queen through these incredible grounds. They didn't meet with -- or interface at all with the British public. There were protests in London,
they were expected.
But here's the thing, apart from the pomp and the pageantry, apart from making sure he had a good time, and he did say to the traveling press with
him, just enjoy yourself, OK. this is going to be great, you know, he really likes the Britain, the British royal family, the pomp and the
pageantry, but it's also about deals, it's also about the economy, it's about investment into this country.
What do you think, when they really talk business tomorrow, between Trump and Keir Starmer, the prime minister?
FOSTER: Well, I think the main issue has obviously been the trade deal, that's what Keir Starmer has been desperate to bring in. He's very weak, as
you know, politically. So, to bring something in would be great. The outline deal's there, but they wanted to flesh out the details, and Downing
Street are very much playing that down now, so that's not really going to happen, we don't think.
The tech deals that you talked about are interesting, then possibly something on Ukraine, you know, or even a commitment to NATO, just
something, that's what Keir Starmer needs as a win, and this is part -- it is part of the warm-up, I mean, they are a tool, really, the monarchy for
the foreign office, right?
[13:05:00]
AMANPOUR: Yes. But it's been written, you know, it's so interesting. Tina Brown, who's a longtime, you know, royal observer and writer, editor of the
most storied magazines in the United States, she wrote in the New York Times today that, you know, in our world of total chaos and shambles and
unbelievably poisonous political divisions from the United States all the way across the world, the king, King Charles, really stands out as a force
for stability, a force for history, a force, you know, for really experience in the world.
You know, he's -- what is he, over 70, he's been king-in-waiting for so many years, and he comes to it really seasoned, having seen the whole world
and met with so many different kinds of political leaders, including many U.S. presidents, and he has his own views, doesn't he, on the environment,
on supporting Zelenskyy --
FOSTER: On Ukraine.
AMANPOUR: -- and Ukraine, exactly.
FOSTER: Yes.
AMANPOUR: And this is the warrior nation, Churchill's warrior nation.
FOSTER: Yes, and there's this deference you see in our White House team, we've been talking about this, that with Trump, with British royals,
there's a particular deference. And in all of the moments, if you show any of them, he's allowing Charles to take the lead all the time, and he never
does that with any other leader in the world. So, I think that's really interesting.
But, you know, the queen, when we talk about the Royal Collection, she wouldn't really gone over -- she wouldn't have gone right back to the
negative part, she'd just celebrate the positive parts. Charles does step a bit into this political territory, and I wonder, in his role as head of the
church of England, he might speak like the pope to Trump, about peace in the world, and talking about that, perhaps intimating, as you were talking
about earlier, the Middle East possibly even speaking to that, stuff that, you know, won't really resonate coming from Starmer, but will be
interesting hearing that.
We will get some speeches coming up. We've got the state banquet about to start.
AMANPOUR: Yes, indeed.
FOSTER: But I think, again, that's going to be about the long-term relationship between these two big nations, away from all the politics, and
frankly, a bit of frocks and rocks.
AMANPOUR: Indeed, which everybody loves. It just has to be also said, that this isn't, again, just a sort of a kumbaya, and President Trump is a very
controversial and divisive figure, inside and outside the United States. He comes at a time when things are so difficult in the U.S., highlighted by
the assassination of a close ally, the youth conservative leader Charlie Kirk, in the United States, before that, the murders of Democratic
politicians back in June in Minnesota, it's a terrible, you know, moment.
The mayor of London wrote also an op-ed today, in which he said, and he, Sadiq Khan, is well known to President Trump, and a real bete noire, they
have, there's no love lost between them, that Trump is a figure who's been fanning the flames of, you know, political divisiveness, and -- you know,
and hatred, and I wonder how that will go down, because I think a lot of people hope, and expect, the president, particularly out of this moment in
the U.S., to pour that sort of balm of unity, not just national unity, but global unity, and I think people do hope that that will happen.
FOSTER: I think there's people on Nigel Farage's side, that are hoping he will speak to freedom of speech, which is a sensitive issue, and quite a
confusing one, I mean, it's a different view, don't you think, in America to here?
AMANPOUR: Well, I just think that freedom of speech, as it's used by politicians today, is very much, you know, it's my freedom of speech versus
yours, in other words, what I think, and if you criticize me, that's -- et cetera.
FOSTER: Yes. But I don't see Donald Trump being held up as a pin-up for the far-right in the U.K., for example, the same way as he might be in
parts of Europe, and I think that he, it's really about Elon Musk, and how he's fanned the flames of all of that here. I think he -- they -- you know,
there's a deep love for America in this country, and I think the public separate Trump from that.
So, I think the palace has been allowed to do this, but if you look at the streets of London, there's a real frustration that they're not getting to
be seen by him as well. So, what sort of state visit has this been, when it's in such a private setting, when, really, it's meant to be shared by
the whole of the United Kingdom? I think that's one of the debates that will come out of this, but the politics will be tomorrow, and I think it'll
be tough for Starmer.
AMANPOUR: Exactly. Well, we will see, we'll keep watching this, and obviously tomorrow, and the days after, because again, there's one most
powerful person in the world, and that is the president of the United States, and all of these issues we've been talking about, you know, really
depend on his engagement, and him using his unique leverage of the world's only superpower.
Now, as we said, tomorrow the real business begins when President Trump will meet Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Our next guest, he knows personally
what it's like to deal with President Trump, he's Gordon Sondland. He served as Trump's ambassador to the E.U. during his first term, that was
before he was fired in the wake of testifying in Trump's first impeachment trial. And Gordon Sondland joins me now from New York.
[13:10:00]
So, welcome to the program. With all that build-up, and I guess you've been watching the incredible -- really the hosting that Trump has received here
from the King of England. What do you think Britain can expect out of all of this, having, you know, gone the extra many, many miles?
GORDON SONDLAND, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO E.U.: Good afternoon, Christiane. I think what Britain can expect is the warmest of relationships
with the United States. Remember, it was President Trump that really supported Nigel Farage and the entire Brexit movement. He was behind that
all the way. He has his own issues with the E.U., writ large, and I think he feels a special affection and kinship, not just for the U.K., but for
the British people, and particularly for the monarchy.
And one of the reasons you mentioned that he allows the king to sort of take the lead, where he wouldn't do that in any other country, even in the
face of that particular country's leader, where you would think he would do that, but he wouldn't, in the case of King Charles, he views the king and
his late mother, queen Elizabeth, as the real deal.
He doesn't view all leaders and all monarchs as the real deal, but when it comes to the U.K. monarchy, to President Trump, they are the real deal.
They've been around forever, they'll be around forever, and he has a special reverence for that institution.
AMANPOUR: Gordon Sondland, you mentioned Brexit as if it was something that the current government here, or even the royal family, as far as we
know, liked. They didn't. Certainly, the government of Keir Starmer and most of the, you know, Labour politicians didn't like it and didn't want
it, and the polls here have changed. So -- but having said that, there is a very significant likelihood that Trump politics, i.e., MAGA-style politics,
could find their way into leadership here in the U.K.
Right now, Nigel Farage's party, it's called Reform, is ahead in the polls. Obviously, it's a long way from any election, but it's ahead in the polls.
What do you make, then, of that, of the sort of transportation of American policies over here in terms of populism and nationalism, frankly?
SONDLAND: Well, a couple of things to unpack there. While I understand that the current government does not like Brexit, because it was
successfully executed, I think that Trump feels sort of a special -- I don't want to use the word responsibility because that's probably too
strong of a word, but I think he feels that it's now -- he had now has a role to play in making sure that the U.K. is successful independently and
also that the U.K.-U.S. relationship is successful.
Because, you know, it's sort of the old story, well, you encouraged us to leave, we left, now you need to make sure that this works out for everyone.
And I think that that's always on President Trump's mind. I'm sorry, I don't recall your second question.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, that's an -- no, don't worry, I'll continue. That's an interesting way of putting it, because I think I may be wrong, and I'll go
back and look, but I think Trump actually said that it hasn't been very well implemented. And certainly, in terms of the economy, Britain is
suffering for many aspects of what Brexit brought in.
But what I want to ask you is, we've seen the -- many of the major tech firms, the A.I. and, you know, chip firms and this and that, saying that
they will put tens of billions of dollars of investments into this country and make sort of like a joint sort of A.I. hub or platform between the U.S.
and the U.K. That is happening, but on the same stage, we have not got the trade deal.
It's said by the government here that they hope to have, you know, the steel tariffs and things sorted out before this visit, but it didn't work.
The U.S. didn't bend on these huge tariffs they've put on U.K. steel. So, again, where do you think Prime Minister Starmer can try to, again, soften
the edges, try to use this trip as one to say, hey, you know, we want to have a good relationship with you, but we also don't want to crash our
economy for you?
SONDLAND: Well, I think the trade deal is absolutely on track. We've, all of a sudden, changed our perception of how quickly these things move. If
you remember TTIP from way back, that just collapsed of its own weight. It took forever and it got nowhere.
President Trump has only been in office for, what, nine months, barely nine months, and the amount of progress that's been made in terms of fleshing
out some of the details has been extraordinary. These things normally take years. So, I think you have to allow the momentum to slow down, speed up,
just let the thing happen.
[13:15:00]
And I think that Keir Starmer does not need to take any edges off. I don't think there are any edges. I think this second visit that was proposed by
King Charles -- or I should say proposed by the government and agreed to by King Charles, I think is extraordinary. And yes, it is a suck-up to
President Trump, but it's also a suck-up to America, and I say that in the best possible way. We should suck up to one another. We are the closest of
allies and always will be so, no matter what happens and how many barbs we exchange in the course of a business negotiation. That doesn't change the
special relationship. So, I think what's happening and what's unfolding, Christiane, is superb.
AMANPOUR: Look, again, I take your point, maybe Britain doesn't need to rub any edges off or soften any edges, but they do have differences. They
want to make sure that President Trump is 100 percent rock-solid for their major existential security issue, and that is Russia's unprovoked
aggression against Ukraine.
And up to this point, President Trump has tried to use his personal diplomacy with Putin, but the view is that he is constantly being
essentially dragged along by Putin, strung along, as he once said and as others have said, and he's still not implemented and imposed the strong
punishments that he said are already lined up against Putin.
Let's just take sanctions, for instance. A whole raft of them with bipartisan approval in the U.S. Congress could be leveled, but haven't
been. So, why do you think that's not happening?
SONDLAND: Well, let's look at it from the United States' perspective for a moment. The United States previously has always been asked to shoulder both
the financial and the military liability on any skirmish happening in Europe. And what President Trump is doing is working on two fronts. First
of all, he's trying to free up military resources to deal with the China problem, which is a problem for both U.S. and Europe, and it's not a
problem that Europe can handle, it's only a problem that the U.S. can handle as the tip of the spear.
What he's trying to do is transition the role of tip of the spear to Europe and let Europe take the lead. He has been ping-ponging with Putin back and
forth for the last, say, six months, trying to give Putin enough quarter to see if Putin is actually willing not just to make a deal in Ukraine, but
actually to come westward and deal with the United States as a partner against China. That appears not to be happening because Putin wakes up
every morning trying to figure out how to take more of Ukraine.
And I think Trump has finally had his fill of that and is now going to push Europe to do as much as it possibly can with the United States backing in
both intelligence, potentially air support, and logistics, and let Europe be the boots on the ground in Ukraine. And I do believe it's going to be
vital to have European boots on the ground in Ukraine.
AMANPOUR: Which Putin has said is a non-starter. But look, President Trump --
SONDLAND: Yes, but who cares.
AMANPOUR: -- according to the White House readout, didn't get much from Putin when he gave him all the honors in Alaska. And then, of course,
Putin, and Xi, and Pezeshkian of Iran, and Kim Jong Un of North Korea did that thing in Beijing where they really challenged the world's superpower,
basically saying, hey, you know, we want -- why should we listen to your rules of the road? We want our own rules of the road. It's time.
So, there's that part of it. But then there's also, again, about Ukraine. And you know a lot about Ukraine, that even before this trip, I think
President Trump said, you know, it takes two to tango. Every time he's asked about the Putin, Zelenskyy, Russia, Ukraine, you know, debacle here,
the terrible war, he tends to equate responsibility for it and for ending it.
SONDLAND: Well, I think he's trying to give Putin every possible off-ramp to make a deal with Zelenskyy by not appearing to be 100 percent in
Zelenskyy's pocket. Look, Trump knows exactly who invaded whom. There's no question about that. What he's trying to do is deal with a pure nuclear
power and not drag the United States into what quickly could go from a conventional kinetic war into some kind of a nuclear conflagration, even if
it just involves tactical nuclear weapons.
So, now he's been in a situation where the North Koreans, the Chinese, the Russians have had their party in Beijing. You noticed he snarkily tweeted,
I'm glad you're all there conspiring against us. He knows exactly what's going on.
[13:20:00]
And I think what you're going to see now is if the Europeans step up, both with arms, with boots on the ground, I think the United States will be
right behind them in terms of providing money, weapons, air support, intelligence and other help without putting American soldiers on the
ground. We need to save those for the Taiwan problem.
AMANPOUR: You know, the Europeans have said they will do that. But I just want to move on to one other thing, which is kind of critical, because this
visit is happening in the wake of that terrible assassination in the United States of a key ally and friend of President Trump and the Trump
administration. We've heard many of them, J.D. Vance and many, many of them saying that had it not been for Charlie Kirk, maybe the president wouldn't
have got all -- well, he wouldn't have got the youth vote that he did get. Some of them say that they owe their jobs to Charlie Kirk, et cetera.
So -- and this is, you know, again, flaming a lot of division in the U.S. and there's a fear in the U.S. that this could be used to really crack down
on Trump or, you know, the administration's opposition. But so, I want to read you something that the current mayor of London wrote. Of course, he's
no friend of Donald Trump's.
The Labour mayor said he can't -- who even from the first administration, was calling out Trump for various policies. He's just written, President
Donald Trump has perhaps done the most to fan the flames of divisive far- right politics around the world in recent years, scapegoating minorities, illegally deporting U.S. citizens, deploying the military to the streets of
diverse cities. These actions are straight out of the autocrat's playbook.
And of course, we know the White House recently welcomed Nigel Farage, you know, who's supported by, you know, many of the far-right and two senior
leaders of Germany's far-right AfD. What do you make of this warning by the London mayor?
SONDLAND: Well, first of all, I'm a center right and I support Nigel Farage. I like Nigel Farage very much. Do I agree with 100 percent of what
he says? Absolutely not. As far as Sadiq Khan is concerned, he's emblematic of the problem that we have in a lot of U.S. cities that are run by far-
left mayors. The cities just don't do well in the long-term. Their people don't do well. The economy doesn't do well. And it's not a good look for
most of our cities that are run by people who have the same political views as Sadiq Khan. I don't think that President Trump gives a rip about what
Sadiq Khan thinks.
AMANPOUR: Do you think the president cares about his allies? Because I happen to be one of those who believes that when the U.S., you know,
leverages its unique leverage and when it uses it for -- you know, to resolve global issues, to help bring world peace, it can actually make a
huge difference. So, some have said, many analysts have said, including, you know, people who've written in The New York Times, that he seems to be
-- let me just get this straight so I can write it -- so I can read it properly. When allies and adversaries alike appear to be ignoring him, he
adopts a what can you do shrug as if he's an observer with minor stakes in the outcome.
And they -- you know, they refer to Putin, they refer to Netanyahu, essentially appearing to get his way all the time, even when Trump says,
I'm not happy about certain things that he does. What more do you think the president needs to do?
SONDLAND: It's a brilliant strategy. It's a brilliant strategy, because at the end of the day, you've seen a binary response from the U.S. under
previous presidents. You've either seen one extreme, which is they have to own every world problem, whether it's our problem or not, or they're
completely uninvolved in the world problem at hand. They have nothing to do with it. They don't want to talk about it. And we're not involved. Those
are the two binary extremes.
What President Trump does is he continuously toggles between, yes, we have an interest in this problem, but we're not the only ones that have an
interest in this problem. And there are some problems like the Ukraine problem, where, frankly, if you want to grade interest on a scale of one to
10, Europe is at a 10 and we're maybe at a six or a seven. So, Europe needs to take the lead. And that's why he toggles between, you know, there's
nothing more I can do. This is really their problem. I've tried to, all of a sudden, intervening when he sees an opportunity to, you know, fix the
train car that's gotten off the rails and put it back on the rails and see if it can, you know, proceed down its journey.
[13:25:00]
But this is a very, very wise way of negotiating when you own part of a problem, but not the entire problem, and the United States has rarely done
that.
AMANPOUR: Gordon Sondland, Trump's former E.U. ambassador, thanks for joining U.S. And we'll have more on the U.K. state visit here in Windsor
after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
AMANPOUR: Now, as the grand banquet gets underway in the castle, it's not all pomp and ceremony on this visit. Among many urgent issues are Israel's
war in Gaza, Russia's war in Ukraine, as we've been discussing.
So, what can this visit achieve on those fronts and more generally in U.S.- U.K. relations with such a transactional president? Well, Sir Peter Westmacott served as U.K. ambassador to the U.S. and also once worked as
private deputy secretary to then Prince Charles. And he's joining us right now from London. Welcome to the program.
PETER WESTMACOTT, FORMER U.K. AMBASSADOR TO U.S.: Thank you, Christiane.
AMANPOUR: I wonder what you must be thinking already of this state visit. What is going through your mind as you've obviously been watching all the
pageantry, knowing that there's going to be, you know, real political meetings tomorrow? What should Britain expect?
WESTMACOTT: Well, the first thing is it's too bad that the sun isn't shining and the sky isn't blue. But leaving that to one side, what strikes
me is that this is a pretty special bit of pageantry that has been put on for the president of the United States. It's a shorter state visit than we
sometimes get. But there are elements there, as you know and you've been commenting on, which we don't do for other people. And I think this is
partly because we know that for President Trump, this is special.
He regards his relationship with the royal family as something unique. And so, we are putting on a show for him, which makes him feel very positive
about the United Kingdom, very positive about the royal family, and I would hope positive about the United Kingdom more generally, and his talks
tomorrow with the prime minister.
So, I think so far, it's exactly the kind of, you know, pageantry and protocol and special treatment which the president, I hope would have
wished. On the substance, Christiane, I mean, there is a great deal there, but I suppose just picking out a couple of the most important points. One,
of course, is trade.
Now, the U.K. is fairly pleased that it's got a better deal on tariffs after Keir Starmer's successful -- at the Oval Office back in February than
a lot of America's other trading partners, but it's still a good deal worse in terms of trade than what we had beforehand. It's better on aerospace,
it's better on automotive, but there's plenty more to be done. So, I think on trade policy, partly in exchange perhaps for tech cooperation and
stronger investment coming into the U.K. economy from U.S. firms, I think they will be hoping that there is progress there.
On the foreign policy side, I mean, there's lots to talk about. You touched on it just then. I would have thought the area where the U.K. will most
want to make progress is on Donald Trump's approach to Ukraine. From the Western point of view, European point of view, it looks as though every
time there's been an opportunity or a deadline which Trump has set for Putin to behave better, it passes and there is no sanction and nothing
happens and he gets more red carpet in Alaska or wherever it happens to be.
And I think the message that the U.K. will be wanting to try to get across is not that this is just Europe's security problem, this really matters for
the United States as well. And I'm not sure we've done a good enough job about convincing the president that that is the case.
[13:30:00]
AMANPOUR: OK. Sir Peter, that's interesting. So, you know King Charles, you knew him as Prince of Wales, you worked for him, as I said. And I just
wonder, do you think that even though it's not his role to have political discussions with the president, that he might be able to do what you just
said, make it much clearer why, for Britain and for Europe, the issue of Ukraine and making sure that Ukraine does not get swallowed up by Russia is
so vitally important for both the U.S. and us?
WESTMACOTT: I mean, it's partly about Ukraine not getting swallowed up by Russia, which would only encourage Putin to go still further into the
territories which were once, sadly for them, part of the Warsaw Pact. But it is also reminding him that the United Kingdom, in particular of its
European partners, does a great deal for America's global security interests.
American bases on British territories around the world are enormously important, and American military bases and intelligence cooperation with
the U.K. are very important too. They're important for America's security, not just for ours and for Europe's. And we've got to get that point, I
think, across, which is hugely important.
Is this the job of the king or the prime minister? Well, you know, the king is somebody who has his own very well-informed views on a lot of issues.
You would have seen that without saying anything, he showed what he thought of Trump's attempt to say Canada is for the United States by making quite a
public fuss of Mark Carney in Canada. And you've seen also that he made a point of seeing President Zelenskyy not very long after he was treated not
very kindly, shall we say, in the Oval Office.
So, I think there may well be ways in which he can, if you like, nudge the president in a different direction and perhaps help him to see some of
these really important international security issues in a slightly different light.
Will the king want to do that as well as the prime minister? You know, I can't predict, but I do know that he is not a shrinking violet.
AMANPOUR: And do you think the king will speak to President Trump about his love of the environment, his, you know, lifelong attempt to, you know,
rectify the terrible pollution and environmental degradation of climate change? As we know, President Trump has pulled the U.S. again out of the
Paris Climate Accord and actually not only rolled back protections in the U.S., but also basically calling on the rest of his allies and around the
world to roll back their green agendas as well.
WESTMACOTT: I mean, he could. And we all know that there are a number of major multinational companies which are paying less attention to ESG and
the green agenda, partly because that's what their investors want, partly because the desire for economic growth and prosperity at the moment, in the
short-term, is overtaking companies' desire to do the right thing.
All that said, and we know what the king's views are on this subject, and they are deeply felt, and they were -- he was way ahead of the curve 40
years ago on a number of these issues. But I would say that he's also conscious that, as monarch, there are a limited number of issues where he
should get into governmental business rather than just express a personal view.
So, it wouldn't be surprising if he touched on it. But my guess is that he will probably prefer to focus on issues where there's a chance of moving
Donald Trump in a different direction rather than one where he would just be speaking for the record, but, you know, no effect.
AMANPOUR: Yes. Now, look, you wrote recently, in anticipation of this visit, you've done, it's -- I think it's in today's newspapers, that
essentially Britain also needs to get more transactional. Trump is transactional. Britain needs to do the same thing. What do you mean by
that?
WESTMACOTT: Well, it's partly what I was just saying, Christiane, which is to remind the United States that Europeans are not all just a bunch of
freeloaders, least of all the United Kingdom. Now, actually, I happen to think that the president slightly excludes the U.K. from his more general
view, strictures on the European Union. But I think we need to make sure that he realizes, for example, that the British taxpayer is going to be
spending, you know, billions of pounds to ensure that American strategic bombers can continue to use Diego Garcia, a British overseas territory,
where Brits will be picking up the bill.
It's important to remember that there are very important American defense and intelligence facilities in places like the Falklands, like Cyprus,
certainly Diego Garcia, Ascension Island in the Atlantic, and, of course, in the United Kingdom as well. I'm not suggesting there are quid pro quos
that we need to be demanding in exchange for this, but I think it's important that we counter the idea that it's all take by the Europeans and
that the Americans are doing all the giving.
[13:35:00]
Trump likes to do deals. He likes to be transactional. I think we should not be shy in reminding him of the importance of the United Kingdom's
contribution not only to American prosperity, and we are, after all, the biggest foreign investor in the U.S. economy and vice versa, but also to
the security of the United States.
You know, there are nuclear bases in Scotland which are very, very important for American submarines. There are early warning systems on
British territory. There's a lot of stuff that matters. And I sometimes wonder whether President Trump is adequately informed about the real
contribution that we all do make.
AMANPOUR: I want to play this little bit of a sound that -- I mean, a soundbite from President Trump earlier when the -- a gang of European
leaders, a group of European leaders, went to the White House, and he was talking about how he was being called sort of king of Europe or president
of Europe. Here's what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: I think our nation now is the most respected nation anywhere in the world by far. You saw that with the European leaders
on Friday. You saw that with NATO where they agreed to go from 2 percent no pay to 5 percent fully paid up, trillions of dollars paid, where they
respect your president to a level that they jokingly call me the president of Europe. They call me the president of Europe, which is an honor. I like
Europe, and I like those people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: I'm going to ask you what you make of that, but also, in conjunction with the fact that President Trump has alienated a lot of
allies, not just adversaries, but allies as well. So, I'm trying to figure out when the president of the United States needs to get stuff done, let's
just say, you know, standing up to China. It will need its allies to do so, and yet in Japan and South Korea, not to mention in Europe, you know,
there's a lot of anxiety, let's say, and a feeling of being alienated by the United States.
WESTMACOTT: I think that's right, and the reason why so many of the European leaders rushed off to Washington after the Putin red carpet
treatment in Alaska was not just because they all regarded President Trump as the president of Europe, it was because they were worried that he may be
giving away the shop, if you like, in exchange for nothing to President Putin, who after all had made virtually no concessions or no reasonable
proposals about ending the invasion of Ukraine. So, I think it was as much concern as just respect.
Of course, we have to appreciate that, you know, Donald Trump is somebody who likes to -- he likes the attention and he likes the European leaders to
take him seriously, and one of the reasons why we are, I think, very well placed to have a good relationship is that he likes the idea that he's not
just the opposite number of an elected prime minister, he's also the opposite number of a king, a king who has been -- the monarchy has been
there for centuries, and he likes the relationship and he likes treatment and he likes that specialness. So, you know, that is all part and parcel of
dealing with this particular president.
But you are right, a number of the European governments, some of them more outspoken than others, have been concerned about the attacks on free trade,
about the undermining of international institutions, about what he's been doing to the rule of law, about the politicization of many of the
institutions in America, and indeed the checks and balances being rolled over with a compliant Supreme Court and a Congress which on many issues
isn't really doing what it's supposed to do in terms of standing up independently to what the executive is up to.
So, I think a lot of America's allies, while dying to see America exercise its rule as the leader of the free world effectively, are concerned by some
of the direction of travel, not least on these issues of free trade and prosperity and international security, which matter so much to all of us.
AMANPOUR: Yes. Sir Peter Westmacott, thank you so much, and we will be right back after a break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:40:00]
AMANPOUR: Just ahead of President Trump's unprecedented second state visit, the U.S. and the U.K. unveiled the Transit Atlantic Technology Pack.
With top tech companies, including Google, Microsoft, and others, pledging some $42 billion in investments, all to develop Britain's A.I.
infrastructure.
Meantime, in the age of social media, the online landscape is more challenging than ever for civil society, a far cry from what the inventor
of the World Wide Web, Tim Berners-Lee, intended to create. As he lays out now in his new memoir, "This is for Everyone." He joins Walter Isaacson to
explain why he's still optimistic about artificial intelligence.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Thank you, Christiane. And, Sir Tim Berners-Lee, welcome to the show.
TIM BERNERS-LEE, INVENTOR OF THE WORLD WIDE WEB: Thank you. It's good to be here.
ISAACSON: You know, I teach the history of the digital revolution here at Tulane University, and my students are always surprised that the web didn't
all just spring out of nothing, that a real person invented it. And that person is you. You did it 35 years ago. Tell me what it means to have
invented the web.
BERNERS-LEE: Yes, and they say they're amazed that I'm an inventor, and I'm actually alive as well. So, they can put me in their projects. So,
inventing the web, you have to remember that the Internet and the web are different. The internet is the underlying network, which was invented
around 1969, and then 20 years later, it was -- the network was all over America, connecting different universities.
But the programs that would use the web were pretty crummy, and you had to be an expert, really, to use the internet. So, there was no web. And so,
when I was working at CERN, inventing the web meant taking this idea of links and clicking on links and then combining it with the idea of the
internet so that you end up with a concept of a link that could go anywhere.
ISAACSON: You were talking about CERN, which is the particle accelerator in Geneva, where you worked. And you invented it because you had to
organize all the information there and make it collaborative. Tell me about how that environment led to the web.
BERNERS-LEE: CERN's a great place because people come from all over the world. They have this huge challenge. They have a huge particle
accelerator, which is 27 kilometers long in a tunnel under the local mountains. And so, it's a huge project. People are coming from all over the
place, and they bring all kinds of different cultures, all kinds of different computers, and so on.
So, when I tried to help them put the whole thing together, then I found that just the state of information was really -- was -- it was tricky. I
found that, in fact, even though they had some documentation systems, what was crucial was actually bringing people to coffee, they're inviting people
to coffee. There was a coffee place, a coffee area, which -- where if you stood there long enough, people would walk by. There was an intersection of
various corridors. And so, people would walk by, and then you could pluck them out of the dream and say, hey, you know, tell me about your stuff. How
does it work?
ISAACSON: So, you were born in 1955, same year as Steve Jobs, same year as Bill Gates. Both of -- all three of you invented something. You invented a
way to navigate the internet. Bill Gates invented the whole software industry, and Steve Jobs invents the notion of an easy plug-and-play
personal computer. They become billionaires. You don't. You put it all in the public domain. Was there something in the environment that you decided
not to commercialize it the way they did?
BERNERS-LEE: The point is the web is a protocol. The web is -- you know, it's a standard. It's not just a program. It's not a product. It's -- when
the web works, all of the computers have to speak the same language, and that's a big ask. You know, so, they all have to speak HTTP. They all have
to speak HTML and so on. And so, that is a huge ask.
[13:45:00]
You can't also ask to send the (INAUDIBLE). So, I wanted the web to take over the world, I wanted it to be used by everybody. If it's going to be
used by everybody, it had to be free, or it wouldn't have worked.
ISAACSON: We've seen some really results of this horrible, toxic environment you find online. Of course, we've gone through a really
horrible week, the past week. And you write in the book that the web sort of moved away from what you wanted, and it became a place for a culture of
grievance, of hostile activism. And you even say harassing people online and threatening or even committing violence is what's happened on the
social media part of the web. Explain how that happened.
BERNERS-LEE: Well, I think part of it is the way the social media system is defined. The way they write the code inside things like Facebook, and
they do it in such a way as to keep you on the platform. And that means they do it in such a way as to be -- that they make the systems addictive.
And so, I used to be on Instagram when it ran differently, when I could catch up with my friends and family on it. But now -- then they changed it.
Deliberately, the people who built Instagram make it so that you stay on the platform. And they do it like that by feeding you things which make you
feel emotional. And that emotion isn't always love, it's often hatred.
ISAACSON: Now, you're talking about the algorithms which amplify things, and you're saying that the companies amplify things that engage you, which
basically means what enrages you. Is there any way to do ethical algorithm design to make a social media that would more unite U.S. rather than divide
us?
BERNERS-LEE: Absolutely. Instead of optimizing for people being angry, you optimize for people being co-creative, constructive. In the book, there's a
two-page map of all the things on the internet, and most of them are good. Remember, there are things like Wikipedia which are wonderful. And so, the
problem is that people get stuck on the addictive things because they're addictive.
ISAACSON: Well, what if a company can make more money by doing these addictive things? As indeed is true, as you say, of Instagram or X or
Facebook and all of them. Should the government or somebody try to say, you should not do this type of algorithms?
BERNERS-LEE: Well, there are places that don't. Pinterest, for example. Pinterest is a social media place.
ISAACSON: Yes, but Pinterest has been left behind by all the ones that are more enraging and engaging.
BERNERS-LEE: Well, supposing the ones that are actually deliberately addictive, yes, you could legislate.
ISAACSON: But didn't the way you invent the web make it very hard for it to be controlled by governments and central authority?
BERNERS-LEE: Yes, but you can still make things illegal. There are lots of things which are illegal. I mean, fraud is illegal on the web. It was
illegal before the web, and it's illegal on the web. So, lots of things -- there are lots of things where we decided it's illegal.
You know, some people have suggested that because just as you make certain drugs that are just too addictive to allow, so you make them illegal, you
could do the same thing with algorithms.
ISAACSON: Well, let me paraphrase what Cassius said to Brutus, which is maybe the fault's not in the algorithms, but it's in ourselves, that people
are, in this decentralized internet, posting what they want to say, looking at what they want to be enraged by, and this is just part of human nature
that's being amplified by the web.
BERNERS-LEE: And to a certain extent, that's true. But the -- but when you see something which makes you angry online, then maybe you could blame the
person who posted it. But also, if in fact that post was circulated in a million people's feeds, then you could blame the algorithm. So, there's
both sides.
ISAACSON: So, in other words, you try to restrict a company not from allowing posts, which it should do under free speech, but from amplifying
it through the algorithm?
BERNERS-LEE: Yes.
ISAACSON: You talk about the toxic environment of social media, all built on the web architecture that you invented. Do you think artificial
intelligence, the advent of A.I., gives U.S. a chance to hit a reset button on the toxic nature of what's online?
[13:50:00]
BERNERS-LEE: Yes, I do. Yes, because we're thinking -- we're rethinking everything. So, yes, A.I. gives us a chance, as you say, to hit a reset
button. So, when you figure out how A.I. works, then we can insist on, for example, an A.I. that works for me. I wrote about that a few years ago, and
now we've made one. If an A.I. works for you -- you know, Siri doesn't work for me. Siri works for Apple, and Alexa works for Amazon.
And so, when Alexa makes a choice, when I say I want to buy some running shoes, Alexa will go through the process of selling me running shoes, just
like Amazon does by operating a market, but where Amazon is the one that's going to gain the most from that transaction. So, I want an A.I. that works
not for Amazon or Apple, but I want one that works for me.
And I wrote that up, and we've actually -- my company, Inrupt, in the labs, we've actually demonstrated that you can do that. You can make an A.I.
which you trust, it works for you, and because you trust it, you give it all your access to all your personal data. And so, when you do that, then
it's very much more effective in answering questions that are working in your interest.
ISAACSON: When you invented that thing and you wrote about it, you wrote about it a few years ago, you called them agents, and that's what they're
being called now, which is an A.I. agent. That's going to be my agent that'll book my holiday or book my -- or buy my running shoes if indeed I
needed them. Why would that agent -- how would you make it different from the agents that we're getting now from our A.I. systems?
BERNERS-LEE: We make it different by -- when you set the app, you set it up and you train it to be helpful to the individual instead of, you know,
you don't -- particularly when you make a commercial decision, like what cars to buy or what holidays to go on, what vacation to go on, you make
sure that it is working as your agent.
So, with the way the agent works is that you have all your data in a solid data wallet. Solid is the protocol, which I also described in the book.
Solid is a way of allowing you to have data that you control. Then when you start an application, then it asks you where you want to store the data and
it gives you complete control over that data. So, it's a very different world from the current one.
ISAACSON: Well, the current world, instead of having this solid data wallet in which all my data is in my control, we now have a web that has
cookies where Amazon knows what I've done, what Apple knows what I've done, and they can use that information to market things to us. Isn't that a good
business model, though, to make the companies be able to thrive?
BERNERS-LEE: Yes, yes. And now, I approve targeted advertising is typically more efficient than other advertising. And so, the whole
advertising-based business model on the web, I think, is something. We -- there is a threat to it that people are not using search engines so much.
They're starting to use A.I. instead. So, that's a bit of a threat to the advertising-based model.
ISAACSON: You talk about taking the web back. What are you and your teams developing in terms of protocols or ideas that would make the web a little
bit less toxic and more useful to the ordinary people?
BERNERS-LEE: We're pushing digital sovereignty. So, digital sovereignty is, you know -- originally when the web was young, anybody could start
their own website. So, that power that people have, your sovereign -- individual sovereignty, digital sovereignty. So, we're pushing digital
sovereignty. We're building systems where it's like having your own website. We're building new systems where you have maybe a data wallet or
maybe a pod or a personal online data store. But it's something you completely control. We're building apps that work with that so that you can
build. We're building apps which are collaborative.
There's a center for collaborative communication, building things which give you back your sense of purpose and being a peer to other people on the
web and gives you back an ability to collaborate with them.
ISAACSON: Sir Tim Berners-Lee, thank you for joining us.
BERNERS-LEE: Thank you for having me.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And finally, wrestling with tradition. Young girls in Japan are entering the sumo wrestling ring for the first time, a sport that for
centuries had been exclusively men only.
[13:55:00]
Now, over 600 women compete on an amateur level, with many traveling from all corners of Japan to attend week-long training camps in West Tokyo at
the nation's largest girl's sumo club, getting stronger and kicking higher together, even bandaging each other's wounds as they build a real sumo
sisterhood. But women are still barred from the professional league. The 2023 female sumo world champion Eri Hisano hopes that too will change soon.
And that is it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. And remember, you can always
catch us online, on our website, and all-over social media. We'll continue covering President Trump's visit. Thank you for watching, and goodbye from
Windsor.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
