Return to Transcripts main page

Amanpour

Interview with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte; Interview with German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul; Interview with Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez; Interview with Former Federal Prosecutor Brendan Ballou. Aired 1-2p ET

Aired September 25, 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.

War and suffering. Ukraine and Gaza take center stage at the U.N. Trump finally backs Ukraine and calls Russia a paper tiger. But amid repeated

incursions into NATO airspace, how should they respond? I asked NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte and Germany's foreign minister.

Then, Palestine's plea to the U.N. The Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez tells me why allies must take action to end Israel's war on Gaza.

Plus, weaponizing the DOJ as Trump goes after his political opponents. What this means for the rule of law and democracy in America.

Welcome to the program everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in New York.

As world leaders meet at the United Nations this week, the people of Ukraine are terrorized, many of them now living under constant Russian

bombardment. Meanwhile, Putin continues to provoke NATO allies with repeated incursions by drones and jets into NATO airspace. Two of Denmark's

airports were forced to close this week because of suspected Russian drones. It is an increasingly serious situation and so a significant change

in tone by President Trump may have been welcome. He now says Ukraine can win the war with European and NATO help. While he's also taking a harder

line with Russia.

But nothing seems to bring Putin to the negotiating table yet. So, what can NATO do? I asked Secretary General Mark Rutte when he joined me just

outside U.N. headquarters a little earlier.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: Secretary General, welcome back to the program.

MARK RUTTE, NATO SECRETARY GENERAL: Thank you all for having me.

AMANPOUR: So, it's been quite a NATO-focused General Assembly with all sorts of speeches and commentaries around the edges about directly. So,

President Zelenskyy of Ukraine said the following. No -- not international law, not cooperation, but weapons decide who to survive. And he said that

even being part of the long-standing military alliance doesn't automatically mean U.S. aid. So, is that a direct shot across NATO's bow?

RUTTE: No, I don't think so. And of course, he's right on the weapons because he needs the weapons. The good news is the U.S. since mid-July is

supplying the weapons again, paid for by allies. The president decided to open the floodgates again, both lethal and non-lethal weapons into Ukraine,

which is extremely important for the Ukrainians and it helps them to stay strong in the fight. And they are exceptionally successful.

AMANPOUR: And this business about you all have to paying for American weapons which used to go from their budget, how stressful is that for

NATO's budget and various governments' budgets?

RUTTE: Well, of course they have to make sure that the money is there. But I think it is logical. Europe is stepping up. Europe was stepping up at the

NATO Summit with the 5 percent spending commitment. Now, Europe is stepping up saying, hey, listen, it's only logical that we pay for these weapons.

But it is important that the U.S. is supplying them because otherwise Ukraine could not survive. These are crucial deliveries.

AMANPOUR: In your conversations about a potential, you know, day after, are there any developments in terms of security guarantees for Ukraine,

including from the United States?

RUTTE: Well, let's first of all pray and hope that the day after is there as soon as possible. I know that President Trump is working day and night

to achieve that moment and to get there. The Europeans, under the leadership of the French and the British, came together organizing these

security guarantees. The U.S. has now said, we want to get involved. So, that debate is now taking place. But, of course, all of this can only be

implemented post a long-term ceasefire or a full peace deal.

AMANPOUR: So, you say the president is working day and night on it. Even at the podium he admitted that he thought that it would be one of the more

easy conflicts to solve because of his relationship with Vladimir Putin. And he's basically announced to the world and to Putin that it's definitely

not going as he wished and that Putin is, well, stringing him along essentially. What is the hope, do you think, for Putin to understand that

it's time to agree to a ceasefire, to negotiate an end?

RUTTE: Well, I think President Trump hit it exactly as he should have by mentioning the paper tiger. And then the Russians coming back yesterday,

the whole day, saying, no, we're not a paper tiger, we are a bear. Hey, when you see a bear, you know you see a bear.

AMANPOUR: Right, but that's an offensive posture.

[13:05:00]

RUTTE: You all know this well. Yes, but it means that Russia is insecure and that President Trump was able to hit a nerve probably at the highest

echelons of the Kremlin.

AMANPOUR: OK.

RUTTE: And why is this? Because if I was a student of history, as I am, and Putin is also a student of history, and he loves his country and is

proud of that history, I would not be in a good place. He has lost 1 million people now, or seriously wounded, in this war. He is now losing in

one month what the Soviets lost in 10 years in Afghanistan only in one month. So, this is what's happening at the moment.

And he is not making the progress he wants. He has these long lines waiting for the gasoline stations to fill up the cars with gasoline because the

Ukrainians are successful in hitting the oil refineries in Russia. So, he is not in a good place. And I think President Trump feels that, and he is

putting pressure on Putin. Come to the table.

AMANPOUR: Just a quick thing, because he's not in a good place, but you remember in the Oval Office Trump had told Ukraine that you're not in a

good place, you have no cards. Now, he's saying that actually I think with NATO help that you can win back all your territory. How did you analyze

what that meant? Is the aim now to help Zelenskyy in Ukraine enough to win back things even like Crimea, the Donbas?

RUTTE: Well, I think what we have here is a president really trying to get Putin to the table. And so far, Putin has not played ball. And he wants him

to play ball and come there and make compromises and end this terrible war. And there will also be discussions on very sensitive issues, including

territory. And both President Trump, myself, we all agree it's up to President Zelenskyy to discuss territory and make the necessary deals when

that moment comes.

But at the moment, of course, the problem is that Putin is not there. And therefore, the 5 percent spending commitment, this weapons delivery from

the U.S. into Ukraine paid for by allies, but also, the discussion now between the E.U. and the U.S. on more sanctions on Russia is extremely

helpful to put that pressure on Putin and get him there.

AMANPOUR: Do you think that'll happen? Because President Trump has said that that's available, but he keeps having these rolling deadlines. Do you

think finally he will put those sanctions on?

RUTTE: He already did. We have seen what he did.

AMANPOUR: Well, no, not the big ones.

RUTTE: Oh, the secondary sanctions. The big one on India?

AMANPOUR: Yes.

RUTTE: Secondary sanctions.

AMANPOUR: But I'm talking about on Russia.

RUTTE: Yes, but this immediately impacts Russia because that means that Delhi is now on the phone with Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin in Moscow. And

Narendra Modi asking, hey, I support you, but again, could you explain to me the strategy? Because I have now been hit by these 50 percent tariffs by

the United States. So, President Trump is implementing what he says. But, of course, we are not happy that, so far, we have not been able

collectively to end the war. And he is working on it.

AMANPOUR: And what do you make? Because he talked about NATO nations, I think. He said, I'll put those on, but you also have to stop buying Russian

energy. So, there's Turkey, Hungary, Slovakia. What are you telling those nations?

RUTTE: Well, there are two issues. One is that a couple of these nations still buy Russian oil. And I agree with President Trump, this should stop.

And I know that the European Commission president is working on this. And I know that President Trump personally is working on this, including directly

with Viktor Orban, the prime minister of Hungary.

Then the second issue is that Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, is very proactively engaging with Scott Bessent with

the White House on seeing what can we do, for example, with China to make sure that we put more pressure on China. Also, through sanctions, whatever

we can do collectively. Not easy, but we can get there.

AMANPOUR: Can you tell me, you mentioned president -- Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. Yesterday here on this space she told me that

shooting down Russian jets that come into NATO airspace and don't heed warnings to leave is now on the table. President Trump in public said that

he would agree with NATO shooting down Russian jets and flying objects that enter NATO space. That matches NATO's original mantra, which was not one

inch. We will defend every inch and every centimeter of our territory and our airspace. Where do you stand on that?

RUTTE: Well, this is what we are doing over 50 years now.

AMANPOUR: No, but now. It hasn't happened yet.

RUTTE: Yes. But now, is not different from 50 years ago. So, when the Soviet Union was there and with the Russians, if there are airspace

incursions, ultimately you can take the toughest decision if necessary if your people are threatened. If not, you will escort these planes out of

your --

AMANPOUR: Yes. And if they don't, because they haven't heeded warnings.

RUTTE: Then there is -- our --

AMANPOUR: And you heard the polls.

RUTTE: Yes, but this is not new. Our military, our military commanders, our fighter jets pilots, they can do what is necessary to keep our people

safe. If there is no direct threat, they will escort these planes out of allied airspace. If there is a direct threat, they might ultimately do the

ultimate thing.

AMANPOUR: Which is shoot them down?

RUTTE: Yes, if necessary. But --

AMANPOUR: You remember Turkey did that. You may have been prime minister 10 years ago. Turkey did that when a Soviet bomber came into its airspace

only for 17 seconds, but hadn't responded to the warnings not to enter. And they shot it down and World War III didn't happen. Do you think that Putin

needs one of these lessons?

[13:10:00]

RUTTE: What Putin needs is a calm and collected reaction by NATO. It's exactly what we do. We have the best military in the world. We are the

strongest military alliance in world history. And what happened with the drone incursions, the Dutch F-35s taking them down, with the incursion in

Estonia last Friday, the --

AMANPOUR: 12 minutes.

RUTTE: 12 minutes. The Swedish, the Finnish and the Italian allies escorting these planes out of Estonian airspace. This is exactly what we

need to do. And then they assess. And if in that assessment they would come to the conclusion that these planes are a direct threat, they can move up

in the escalation ladder. But this is not new.

And my advice here is let's leave this with the military. They are trained and prepared for this. Our Supreme Allied Command in Europe has all the --

AMANPOUR: Yes, except we're hearing from the leaders of these countries, like the Polish prime minister, the Polish foreign minister. But here's the

thing --

RUTTE: Yes, what they are saying is right. That if necessary, of course, our military people can do what is necessary.

AMANPOUR: So, how do you assess then, especially after Trump's statement on this, the top U.S. general, the SACEUR --

RUTTE: Yes. Alexus Grynkewich.

AMANPOUR: Exactly.

RUTTE: The Supreme Allied Command in Europe.

AMANPOUR: Exactly. He said, fine, hitting a drone, getting it out, fine. But a manned aircraft could trigger, quote, "a higher risk of escalation if

someone gets killed on either side." So, again, you know, Turkey did it. There was no higher escalation. World War III didn't break out. With this

kind of open division between NATO --

RUTTE: There is no open division. I saw this at CNN yesterday. But I disagree with the CNN analysis yesterday. There is no open division.

Because in NATO we all agree that it's our military doing this. They are the best we have. What they did in Estonia is exactly what they trained and

prepared to do, which is to engage these aircraft, make contact, and if necessary, they can move up and do the ultimate thing. But it is not that

when an aircraft enters your airspace, you immediately always take the ultimate decision, because you will always assess the threat at that

moment.

And this is exactly what happened in Estonia. It has happened so many times before. Under the Soviet days it happened. And the Americans, the

Canadians, the European allies, we all have trained and prepared for this. So, there is no division on this.

AMANPOUR: OK.

RUTTE: So, I agree with what Tusk has been saying, what the president said, what the Polish foreign minister said. Ultimately, yes, of course.

Our military has the authority to do what is necessary.

AMANPOUR: What is your assessment of what happened in incursion into Danish airspace? We're still waiting for an answer.

RUTTE: Yes.

AMANPOUR: What is it?

RUTTE: Well, it looks very serious. I was on the phone this morning with the Danish prime minister, NATO and the Danish military are also now in

close contact. She is also reaching out to individual allies. But still, it is unclear at this moment what is behind this, who is behind it, what is

behind it, what was the intention, still not known. So, we are all assessing that.

AMANPOUR: Does that worry you?

RUTTE: Of course, I'm worried. On the other hand, I know that we have the best people in place. So, my worries are always very short-lived.

AMANPOUR: Thank you, Secretary General.

RUTTE: Thank you so much.

AMANPOUR: Thanks.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: And up next, Germany's foreign minister reacts to Trump's constantly shifting positions on Ukraine. And the Spanish prime minister

tells me why his country led the way on recognizing Palestinian statehood.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

AMANPOUR: Not at war, but no longer at complete peace. Those are the words of Germany's defense minister. He also said NATO countries are under hybrid

attack by Russia in disinformation campaigns and now also by drones.

[13:15:00]

So, let's speak to his colleague, the country's foreign minister, Johann Wadephul. He is at the United Nations and welcome to our program. So, could

I just first ask you, what is your reaction and Germany's reaction to what appears to be -- well, what is a shift in President Trump's view of the

balance between the Russian and Ukraine positions? He's now saying Ukraine could win back its territory with the right support. What did you think of

that?

JOHANN WADEPHUL, GERMAN FOREIGN MINISTER: Good afternoon. Thank you for having me. We very much value the new position of the American president

staying alongside with Ukraine and us, the European partners of Ukraine in opposing clearly the Russian position. President Trump has invested a lot

of time and efforts to bring Putin to the negotiation table, but Putin refuses to attend there.

So, I think we are in a stage where President Trump is losing his patience and that should make Putin clear that he has to change his mind and to be

ready for negotiations. So, there's a clear position. Ukraine together with the European partners and the United States are backing Ukraine, are

fighting for freedom and are opposing Russia, which is violating international law and that is a good precondition to end this war.

AMANPOUR: And what do you think or how do you assess Europe and NATO's capabilities now, with the United States not directly sending weapons, but

sending them to you to buy to then pass on to Ukraine? What does that mean for the amount you're able to afford and the speed with which you're able

to get them to Ukraine?

WADEPHUL: Let me firstly underline the alliance. NATO is closer together than ever before. The Hague summit showed that we together stick to the

commitment of Article 5. We are bigger than before. Finland and Sweden joined us. So, that is absolutely clear that we will really stand together

and that we have, of course, the financial, the economic and the military power to support Ukraine in a way so that they can survive and that they

really can encounter the Russian aggression.

Of course, we would like that the United States would deliver weapons without purchasing, but on the other hand, the economic power of the

European Union is big enough that we were able to finance what Ukraine really needs.

So, it is absolutely clear, we will be with Ukraine as long as necessary and we will deliver to them what is necessary so that they are militarily

able to defend them and their territory and perhaps also to reconquer some of this territory, as the president has said.

AMANPOUR: Talking about trying to ramp up pressure on Putin to do what you want, and that's bring him to a negotiating table, there's been lots of,

you know, issues about whether there will be U.S. sanctions. There have been secondary sanctions. There's also a bit of a difference between

various big European powers, such as yourself and France, over the hundreds of billions of euro that are -- you know, of Russians that are frozen and

that some are saying these should go immediately to Ukraine for its defense and its rebuilding.

So, you basically propose a legally sound plan to tap into that money to support Ukraine, while the president of France says any such scheme is a

non-starter because seizing Russian's central bank assets would violate international law. Can you help us through whether this is ever going to

happen? And do you -- well, what do you think of France's objections?

WADEPHUL: The point is that, of course, Russia has to pay for that aggression. They started this war. They destroyed a lot of territory of

Ukraine. And we have, of course, to make the -- to take Russia accountable for what they did. The way we are coming to that is not clear for now. We

are discussing it. We are looking for new options to use the Russian assets.

[13:20:00]

It's not about seizing them, but it's about using them. This is what we are already doing per now, in using the windfall profits. And perhaps we should

start a new thinking, because in the end of the day, there will of course be negotiations between the two countries. But it has to be clear, Russia

has to pay reparations for what they did in Ukraine. They damaged a lot in that very country, and it's not about us or Ukraine to pay for that.

AMANPOUR: OK. Can I move on to the issue of Palestine statehood at the U.N. this week. That is what was also very dominant. Many of the

traditional Israeli allies, G7 nations, did recognize Palestine as a state at the U.N., and they say that it's to help push the diplomatic forward in

order to try to really pursue a diplomatic two-state solution and an end to this historic conflict.

But Germany did not join its European allies or its other allies. Why not? What would it take for Germany to recognize Palestinian statehood?

WADEPHUL: Germany is absolutely committed to the two-state solution, as we always have been. We are also committed to the Oslo process, and that

requires negotiations between Israel and Palestine to come to a two-state solution. This is the only solution for the both of the nations and the

countries to live peacefully and in security and in dignity together. So, that is absolutely clear.

For us, this is not the day or the phase to recognize the state, but to get the negotiations started. This is a position not only of Germany, but also

of Italy, of Japan, of a lot of other countries in the world. But of course, it is very timely that these negotiations should begin. This is

what we are pledging for in our talks with Israel, but also with the Palestinian side.

And of course, the PA, the Palestinian Authority, has to be reformed. We need a democratic process in that. So, there is a lot of work to do, and we

are all united in the goal to have, in the end of the day, two states, a Palestinian one and, of course, the Israeli one, for which Germany, of

course, is in a special way responsible.

AMANPOUR: Let me ask you a final question to react to President Trump saying that you're all going to hell if there is continued, untrammeled

immigration. And clearly, immigration is a major hot-button issue for many of the far-right groups, including in your own country, the AfD.

Now, I think, where was it, last week, the members -- or earlier this month, White House welcomed two AfD leaders for a series of meetings. What

do you say to your American counterparts for welcoming these people who, as you just mentioned, your history, you know, have very polarizing and

controversial views?

WADEPHUL: Yes, I try to make them aware who the AfD in reality is. They do -- some of them do really deny what the 12 years of Nazi regime really

meant for Germany. And for us, I'm a Christian Democrat, and for, I would say, most of the other parties in the German parliament, it is absolutely

impossible to be in a coalition with this party. We are doing everything to prevent them from becoming a governing party in Germany, in the federal

states, as well as on the federal level.

So, I can only ask everybody to look clearly into this party, what they are promising, what they are referring to, and this is not the common ground we

have between our countries. These are not the values Americans and Europeans and Germans really share.

AMANPOUR: Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul, thank you for joining me.

Our wounds are deep and our calamity is great, that was from the Palestinian president as he addressed the U.N. General Assembly today,

despite being denied a visa to the U.S. by the Trump administration. It's a stark contrast to the flurry of nations that now recognize Palestinian

statehood, as we were just discussing, along with Ireland, Norway, Spain was ahead of the curve, recognizing Palestine as a state last year, as

Israel still lacks a political plan to end the war in Gaza.

[13:25:00]

Spain's prime minister, Pedro Sanchez, joined me with a perspective on several hot-button issues, including Israel's role in the Gaza Strip, as

well as Israel's role in the that are not often heard, especially in America.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: Prime Minister Sanchez, welcome to the program. Let me ask you, you were one of the early recognizers of the Palestinians as a state,

Palestinian statehood. How has it been going? You know, there's been a lot of backlash from the United States, from Israel.

PEDRO SANCHEZ, SPANISH PRIME MINISTER: Well, but there's a large majority of countries within the General Assembly of the U.N. supporting two-state

solution. At the end of the day, I think that not only there is a must to stop this war, there's a must for the access of humanitarian aid into Gaza,

but there's also a must from politicians to give a political horizon to this crisis. And that means, in my view, that we need to recognize

internationally the State of Palestine.

AMANPOUR: Can I just ask you, in terms of pragmatic steps, as a world leader, how do you see this going? President Macron said it's part of a

phased, hopefully, you know, path to a two-state solution. What are the first steps?

SANCHEZ: So, the first step, in my view, should be to have a peace international conference, where we settle the conditions for this

Palestinian statehood. Also, the recognition by some Arab countries of the State of Israel, and see whether we can find a way for a co-existence, a

peaceful and security co-existence between Palestine and Israel, and of course, the Middle East.

You know, in my view, the biggest mistake that the Israeli government is committing is how to fight against terrorism. Of course, there's a security

dimension of fighting against terrorism, but there are the two. First one, when you fight against terrorism, you have to do it within the legal

framework. And this is not happening when it comes to Israel and what we are witnessing in Gaza and also in the West Bank.

And last but not least, a political solution, politics, diplomacy. And that is why I think it's so important what happened last Monday, when a large

majority of countries and also two member -- permanent members of the Security Council, France and the U.K., recognized --

AMANPOUR: Added. Because now it's four members of -- four permanent members.

SANCHEZ: Yes.

AMANPOUR: Only the U.S. doesn't. You talked about terrorism, so I assume you've seen an op-ed and a column in the New York Times by Benny Gantz,

former top politician in Israel. He said he spoke to you early in the war, and he said you downplayed the danger Israel faced, saying Spain also faced

terrorism. He says there's no symmetry between the threats both of your countries face. I covered the 2004 terrorist attack on Spain and others in

Europe. So, I want to know what your view on that criticism is.

SANCHEZ: Well, not only the jihadist terrorism, we suffered the Basque terrorism ETA in Spain for 40 years. So, we know quite well what does it

mean to fight against terrorism. I think the big mistake is to call it war against terrorism, because it's more complex than a war. Of course, as I

said before, there's a security dimension of fighting against terrorism, but there's the political one.

The thing here is how do we marginalize Hamas' support within the Palestine society? And this is not happening today, because there's only bombing from

the Israeli government and without any kind of political dialogue with the moderates within the Palestine society, which by the way exists.

And they -- you know, just remember what President Abbas said before the General Assembly. He was directly speaking to the Israeli people, saying we

want peace, we want a peaceful coexistence, and we will guarantee also the security of Israel.

AMANPOUR: And just last question on this. What do you make of the criticism that this could be a reward for Hamas, that they could see that -

-

SANCHEZ: Not at all.

AMANPOUR: No.

SANCHEZ: I don't see it. I mean, who says that -- who say that is people that they don't know what -- the implication is that you are recognizing

the leverage to Hamas, but it is not the case. So, here what we are doing is strengthening also the moderates within Palestine society that are

willing to open the doors for politics, diplomacy, and to find a solution.

[13:30:00]

The point here is that -- I mean, let me say it in this way. Is Israel today more secure than before the terrorist attacks? Is Israel more

isolated than before the terrorist attacks? I think it does. It is more isolated, it is more insecure, and perhaps this is the plan for Prime

Minister Netanyahu, to create an insecurity threat within the Israeli society that could explain what he's doing regarding not only Gaza, but

also the occupation of the West Bank. And this is something that we cannot accept at international level.

And as, you know, a European leader, a European prime minister, I can tell you I'm quite concerned about the implication when it comes to the Global

South, because there are more and more countries saying, look Europeans, you ask us, and we agree upon for support in Ukraine, but you're committing

a double standard when it comes to what is happening in the Middle East and Palestine.

AMANPOUR: Let me move on to your reaction. You were in the chamber when President Trump spoke on day one of this leaders' summit. He essentially

took on immigration and climate change, and he called -- he said, your nations are going to hell, those who bring in immigrants.

SANCHEZ: This is not the case of Spain. It's the contrary.

AMANPOUR: OK. So, tell us.

SANCHEZ: So, well, I mean, I think it's well known that we have different views when it comes to climate change and migration. First of all, on

migration, we are definitely -- make no mistake with that, you know, we are definitely against smugglers, and we're combating and fighting against

irregular migration. But during the last seven years in Spain, we received 2 million migrants, and at the same time, we have reduced the unemployment

rate by 40 percent.

And we are now, you know, growing, last year 3.5 percent, this year 2.7 percent, so we are representing more or less 30 percent of the total

economic growth of the European Union. And this is also thank you of, you know, this contribution of regular migration to the economic situation of

Spain. And when it comes to the ecological transition, the green transition, the Spanish experience shows that when you have more renewable

sources in your energy mix, you are capable to drop the electricity prices. In the case of Spain, since 2017, we have dropped the electricity prices by

50 percent.

AMANPOUR: Wow.

SANCHEZ: 50 percent, 5-0.

AMANPOUR: So, when you say these results --

SANCHEZ: So, these are facts.

AMANPOUR: Right. So, not many governments or not many people accept these facts, particularly on migration. You know it's become a hot-button

political issue. It's powering the far-right, and there's lots of threats to your government, by Vox, to the French government, by the Front National

--

SANCHEZ: Le Pen.

AMANPOUR: -- or et cetera, Le Pen. How should governments like yours, who do have success stories, actually tell the people about them? And -- yes.

SANCHEZ: So, first of all, you know, showing that we are committed in the fight against irregular migration. And we have been able to drop by 30

percent compared to last year irregular migration flows to Spain. But second, I think that we also need to show our citizens that we -- in the

Western societies, we are facing a demographic winter, which means that we are getting more and more old. Older societies.

And if we need to keep the economic momentum, we need to do two things. First of all, we need to implement family policies in order to increase the

natality rate --

AMANPOUR: Birth rate, yes.

SANCHEZ: Birth rates in our countries. And second, how do we incorporate migrants in order to have the labor force capable to keep the economic

growth and therefore the welfare state, which is one of, you know, the treasures that we have in Spain and across Europe.

AMANPOUR: Very quickly, you have also stood up against President Trump's demands for 5 percent of GDP for NATO. Why?

SANCHEZ: Because when we speak about alliance, it is important, first of all, to define what are the common threats that we face within NATO. And

clearly, we have one, which is Russia, is neo-imperialism, let's say, a policy for Putin. And second, tell the alliance what are the capabilities

that you need to put in place in order to face those, you know, common challenges. So, this is not a question of figures. It is a question of

capabilities.

And by the way, my government, because I've been in office since 2018, we have increased dramatically the defense expenditure in Spain. We received

in the previous administration was 3.9 percent of our GDP when it comes to defense expenditure. And nowadays, it's 2 percent.

[13:35:00]

AMANPOUR: I want to go back to your position on Israel and Gaza and how -- what the solution is. Israeli media is reporting that on Prime Minister

Netanyahu's journey here to New York today, his flight has avoided European airspace, including Spain's. Did you know this? What's your reaction?

SANCHEZ: I didn't know that. But I mean, let's say, because I met Prime Minister Netanyahu two months after -- two months later of this horrible

and terrible terrorist attacks perpetrated by Hamas. I visited some kibbutz. I was with the people. And I can tell you, you know, the Spanish

society, the Spanish government, and of course myself, we are committed with Israel. We want the best future for Israel. But what Prime Minister

Netanyahu is doing is the opposite. It's creating more unstable Middle East political situation.

It is creating, you know, the seeds for potential terrorism in the future, in the Middle East and also in that part of the Middle East. And this is

something that is not acceptable for the region, for his society, and also for us. You know, we belong to a Mediterranean country, Spain, with many

others. And the situation that we're facing for the next decades is a Middle East more unstable. And this is something that, of course,

geopolitically affects Spain and the southern flank of Europe.

So, that is why I'm asking, you know, Europeans to be more engaged and committed with the situation, as well as we do when it comes to Ukraine.

AMANPOUR: There's a difficult situation building on -- with the flotilla that's coming towards Gaza. They're trying with humanitarian supplies. Your

country, and I believe Italy, is sending military assets to try to protect it against any attack from Israel.

SANCHEZ: And let's hope not, also to rescue them, just in case the Israeli forces attack the flotilla, which, by the way, you know, there are

representatives of 45 countries, not only people, members of NGOs, but also politicians, MPs of different national parliaments. So, let's hope that

they can provide this humanitarian aid. And, of course, something -- I mean, let's hope that doesn't happen anything to these people. And, of

course, we will provide that safeguarding just in case they suffered any attack.

AMANPOUR: I mean, could it become a confrontation --

SANCHEZ: No, no, no. Not at all.

AMANPOUR: -- between you and Israeli forces?

SANCHEZ: No, no, no. What we will do is just to rescue our -- you know, the members of the flotilla, just to provide that safety.

AMANPOUR: Prime Minister Sanchez, thank you so much for joining us.

SANCHEZ: It's always a pleasure.

AMANPOUR: Thank you.

SANCHEZ: Thank you very much.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: And we'll be right back after this short break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

AMANPOUR: And now, the matter of weaponizing the American justice system. President Trump is escalating his pressure on the Justice Department to go

after his political opponents. And inside the DOJ, career prosecutors are reeling from ousters, resignations and relentless interference, they say,

from the White House. Michel Martin spoke with former federal prosecutor Brendan Ballou to discuss how far this this campaign could go. And a note,

their conversation took place just before reports that prosecutors in Virginia are moving to indict the former FBI Director James Comey, who

Trump considers his enemy.

[13:40:00]

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, Christiane. Brendan Ballou, thanks so much for joining us once again.

BRENDAN BALLOU, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Thank you.

MARTIN: Just to remind, you are a former federal prosecutor. You actually prosecuted cases from the January 6th attack. It's one of the reasons you

left government, because of the way that things have transpired since.

A number of people, analysts, people like yourself, people who understand how the Department of Justice has worked, is supposed to work, are calling

this an extraordinary moment. Why are they saying that?

BALLOU: Well, we're watching the increasingly political nature of the Department of Justice and the credibility of the Department of Justice. You

know, the DOJ is unlike other agencies. It's not like NASA that has spaceships or the Department of Defense that has, you know, tanks. The only

thing the Justice Department has is its credibility. And to see so many attacks on that credibility so quickly, it's extraordinary. And I worry

that the Justice Department that I knew may no longer exist or won't exist very soon.

MARTIN: Did you think it would be different? I mean, people might remember that the president initially -- President Trump initially nominated a

congressman, Matt Gaetz, to be the head of the Justice Department. It became clear that that was -- he could not win confirmation. The current

attorney general, Pam Bondi, is a prosecutor of experience. Did you think it would be different?

BALLOU: Maybe I was being overly optimistic or naive, but I thought that there would be at least two limits on this president's intervention in the

Justice Department. The first related to January 6th, which is, you know, as soon as Donald Trump got reelected as president, you know, I assumed

that some portion of the rioters would get pardoned.

But, you know, Donald Trump campaigned on a pro-cop agenda. And I assumed that that agenda would limit his decision to pardon, for instance, rioters

that attack police officers. So, I thought that that would be one way that Trump would be insulated or be contained.

The other way is purely out of self-interest, which is the Department of Justice only works if it's able to convince judges and juries to agree with

it. And when DOJ becomes increasingly political or appears to become increasingly political, it loses that ability to persuade. And so, at some

level, I thought that the White House would want to keep some distance from DOJ solely that it's so that it could be more effective. But obviously,

that's not the case.

MARTIN: What are the sort of the data points that lead you to that conclusion?

BALLOU: Well, you know, you look at the appointment of obviously unqualified U.S. attorneys to various positions in the Eastern District of

Virginia, in New Jersey. These people have literally no prosecutorial experience, but because of their personal connections to the president,

they're getting these incredibly important jobs.

You see it in the fact that certain kinds of crimes simply aren't being pursued anymore. You know, when you're talking about foreign bribery, when

we're talking about acting as an agent of a foreign power, when you're talking about being a Russian kleptocrat, you know, these were things that

the Department of Justice used to prosecute no longer. And I think you see it in the fact that the president is explicitly calling out that he plans

to or wants to prosecute his political enemies.

MARTIN: So, there are two things that have been in the news. The first was, and you alluded to this, U.S. Attorney Erik Siebert in Virginia

refused to bring charges against Letitia James, she's the attorney general of New York State, and James Comey, the former FBI director. Siebert

resigned. He was clearly pressured to resign because he couldn't find a reason to bring charges against Letitia James.

And so, then this weekend, President Trump posted on his social media platform, directly addressing the attorney general, Pam Bondi, saying,

quote, "Nothing is being done. What about Comey, Adam Shifty Schiff -- " he's the current senator from California -- "Letitia? They're all guilty as

hell, but nothing is going to be done. No, I fired him and there's a great case. And we can't delay any longer. Justice must be served now," in all

caps, with multiple sort of exclamation marks.

So, gosh, how unusual is it for a president to be talking about demanding prosecutions of specific individuals?

[13:45:00]

BALLOU: It seems entirely unprecedented. I've certainly never heard of it. I've never heard of anybody that's heard of it. At one level, it's

incredibly heartbreaking to see a post like that, to see the president explicitly try to use the Justice Department as a weapon against his

political foes.

A little bit more tactically, I think if you are the defense attorney for Tish James or Adam Schiff or James Comey, a post like that is incredibly

helpful to your future defense. You know, one thing that defendants will often try to bring is a claim of what's called selective prosecution. This

idea that the government is prosecuting you unfairly for an impermissible purpose.

Now, the challenge with those sorts of claims, typically, is it's very hard to show the government's intent. Well, here the president just revealed the

government's intent. So, if the president's goal is to successfully prosecute his political enemies, I think he made that project harder for

himself.

MARTIN: Well, the other thing is, you mentioned defendants. He says that they're all guilty as hell, but he doesn't say of what.

BALLOU: Exactly. I mean, it's a defendant in search of a crime. You know, it seems clear that he wants the Department of Justice to be an arm of a

larger project of retribution. You know, I think the one good sign here is you look at how grand juries are responding to these sorts of threats. You

know, there's the old saw about that a prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich. Well, at the District of Columbia, the U.S. attorney is really

struggling to indict ham sandwiches. And, you know, a perhaps unprecedented set of cases has failed to secure indictments repeatedly.

And so, I think that these sorts of posts are both going to help defense attorneys, but they're also going to make grand juries more skeptical and

make it harder for this administration to secure indictments in the first place.

MARTIN: You made the point about people taking positions in the Justice Department for which they are not qualified, but it is also the case -- or

at least don't have any prior experience, but it's also the case that there are lawyers leaving who have specific credentials. And to that end, I mean,

the public integrity section, which was tasked with prosecuting corruption, has been reportedly reduced from more than 30 attorneys to just two. And I

wonder what that says to you about the kinds of crimes that will be prosecuted or even investigated.

BALLOU: I think the news that the public integrity section of the Justice Department is down to just two attorneys shows that certain kinds of crimes

and certain kinds of criminals are beyond the reach of the law in this administration.

I will add that, you know, when you're talking about an exodus of experience from the Department of Justice, one of the questions that I

think every attorney in government needs to ask themselves right now, every employee in government needs to ask themselves right now, is whether they

can be more effective by staying or by leaving.

You know, I think that there's always an argument that by staying in the Department of Justice or staying in government, you can stop the worst

impulses of some of these political actors. But in a world where this administration is simply going to fire those who disagree with them,

arguably by staying in government, you're simply adding your own credibility inadvertently to these highly political actions.

And so, it's a very tough decision. But I think everybody in government needs to be asking themselves, how can they be most effective in

maintaining the work, the dignity and the reputation of the government they work for?

MARTIN: You've said that this is, quote, "a great time to be a rich criminal." What did you mean by that?

BALLOU: Well, it goes back to what this administration is choosing to prosecute and what this administration is choosing not to prosecute. It is

choosing not to prosecute people that may have committed crimes under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which prohibits foreign bribery, under the

Foreign Agents Registration Act, which prohibits acting as an unregistered agent of a foreign power. It's disbanded the KleptoCapture Task Force that

was meant to go after Russian oligarchs.

So, you know, in all these different ways, if you are a rich criminal in America, it is a fabulous time to be working right now.

MARTIN: Is it possible that a lot of people look at this and think, well, that's just the way it always worked? And it's just more obvious now that

rich people, well-connected people, there was one set of rules for them and that other people had different sets of rules. Is it possible that many

people think that's just the way it's always been and this is just more obvious now? I don't know.

BALLOU: I can't speak to, you know, public polling data on this and, you know, what people generally feel about the current way that the Justice

Department is being used to go after political enemies and shield political friends.

[13:50:00]

And I think that there's an argument to be made that, you know, corruption is a part -- is an unfortunate part of American history. So, I can't speak

to whether or not there's a change here or a feeling that things are truly different. But again, this is maybe an opportunity for hope, which is if

this is a continuation of past corruption, it's occurring on such a vastly larger scale that it's hard for people to ignore. And when it's hard for

people to ignore, maybe they're going to stand up and actually try to resist it. So, at some level, this might be an opportunity to make some big

structural changes.

MARTIN: Why should people care about this? I mean, a lot of people might think this isn't going to affect to me. So, what would you say to somebody

who felt that way?

BALLOU: A couple of things. So, one, even if you aren't particularly political, even if you aren't breaking the law, how the government treats

people, how it treats both political friends and enemies matters enormously, because due process and civil rights either apply to everyone

or they apply to no one. Because if certain people are accepted from due process, it means that the president is going to be the one who decides who

gets rights and who gets treated fairly. And we don't want that. So, that's the first thing.

The second thing is we are already starting to see this corruption infecting so many parts of every American's life. You know, you're watching

the Jimmy Kimmel drama unfold right now. A lot of people watch Jimmy Kimmel. You're watching this happen in certain favored industries get

protection when you have crypto scammers paying $5 million to get their investigations by the government dropped, when you're seeing banks pay a

million dollars to get their consent decrees lifted. You know, this kind of corruption affects every person and affects them every day.

MARTIN: How are you, I don't know, thinking about all this? I mean, you took an oath, right? You passed the bar. You took an oath to uphold the

standards of your profession. You went to the Justice Department. You took an oath to uphold the Constitution. And there are a lot of people like you

who thought they were doing justice. And I'm just wondering, how are you thinking about this? You've mentioned several times sort of a sense of

optimism. I'm just curious where that comes from.

BALLOU: Well, two things. One, you know, how am I feeling? How are my colleagues feeling? I can't speak for everybody, but it is obviously

incredibly disheartening to watch the Justice Department be abused in this way and used as a political tool.

You know, it's certainly the case that, you know, there are instances of corruption in the past, you know, from both parties, you know, from

Watergate to, you know, Lyndon Johnson and beyond. This is qualitatively different. You don't have a history of a president pardoning rioters who

attack police because they support him politically. You don't have instances of allegations of people accepting literal cash in paper bags and

then staying in office. You don't have examples of a president with business dealings where foreign governments work with them or give them

literally jets in order to get favored foreign policy. So, we're seeing things that are qualitatively different and on a massive scale.

In terms of my optimism, what I think is because this corruption is happening on such a massive scale, it is increasingly hard for anybody to

ignore. And in a world where the Department of Justice is not interested in prosecuting corruption and trying to build a fairer democracy, I think

other institutions are going to step up.

You know, if DOJ is not interested in prosecuting crypto scammers who pay to get their investigations dropped, well, competitors or consumers who are

harmed by that behavior can sue in state and federal court to try to get justice. And so, again, I have a sense of optimism here because I think

that people are increasingly engaged and I think that engaged people have a lot of tools to take action here.

MARTIN: Brendan Ballou, thank you so much for speaking with us.

BALLOU: Thank you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: And finally, tonight, on a week when President Trump blasts science and green energy, a science icon takes his place in the

constellation of Hollywood greats. Emmy-winning TV host and educator Bill Nye, known by many as The Science Guy, has been honored with a star on the

Walk of Fame, marking a lifetime of inspiring minds across the globe and teaching us all sorts of knowledge along the way, from understanding the

smallest molecules to tackling life's biggest questions.

Back in 2017, he told me his thoughts on the climate crisis and why coming together at a time of divide is crucial for seeing progress.

[13:55:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BILL NYE, SCIENCE EDUCATOR: The sooner we all start working together, the better. Instead of having conflict over this, let's get to work. There's

three things we want for everybody in the world. We want clean water, renewably produced and reliable electricity, and access to the Internet. If

we can provide that to everybody in the world, we will be addressing climate change and preserving the quality of life for everyone on Earth.

This is in everyone's best interest.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: Coming together, truer even today than it was then. That's it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly

after it airs on our podcast. And remember, you can always catch us online, on our website, and all-over social media. Thank you for watching, and

goodbye from New York.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:00:00]

END