Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Yedioth Ahronoth Newspaper Columnist Nahum Barnea; Interview with Moroccan Interior Ministry Spokesperson Rachid El Khalfi; Interview with The New Yorker Staff Writer Susan Glasser; Interview with The Atlantic Staff Writer Adam Serwer. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired October 06, 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]
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to Amanpour. Here's what's coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: We're pretty close, but I don't want to talk about it until it's done.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Israel and Hamas meet in Egypt to discuss Trump's proposed ceasefire plan. Is peace finally on the horizon? I ask renowned Israeli
journalist Nahum Barnea about where things stand.
And outrage over health care, unemployment, and corruption. A week of Gen Z-led protests sweep across Morocco. I speak to Moroccan government
official Rachid El Khalfi.
Also, ahead --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): They're not serious. This is not a serious negotiation.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- the U.S. government shutdown continues as Trump pushes the boundaries of his executive power. Veteran Washington reporter Susan
Glasser weighs in.
Plus --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ADAM SERWER, STAFF WRITER, THE ATLANTIC: These are people who could have fought the Trump administration and did not.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Are businesses surrendering to Trump? Atlantic staff writer Adam Serwer tells Michel Martin why he believes their cowardice is eroding
democracy.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
We begin in the Middle East where a push towards peace is underway in Egypt as key negotiators from Israel, Hamas, and the United States are looking to
find common ground and reach agreement on President Trump's 20-point plan to end the war. Hamas and Israel have both voiced support. Here's Israeli
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER (through translator): We are on the verge of a very big achievement. It's not final yet, but I hope that in
the coming days, during the Sukkot holiday, I will be able to announce to you the return of all the hostages in one phase while the IDF remains deep
inside the strip and the territories that control it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Trump says they are, quote, "very close" to reaching a deal. But while optimism grows, huge obstacles remain. The demands for Hamas to
disarm and fully cede power in Gaza remain huge issues, whether the militant group will accept those conditions of the proposal is uncertain.
Meantime, the devastation in Gaza goes on after nearly two years of war, more than 66,000 people have been killed there. That's according to the
United Nations. Families torn apart, living in rubble and ruin, many succumbing to malnutrition as food and resources remain scarce. And with 48
remaining hostages still held captive, 20 of whom are believed to be alive, for so many, peace cannot come soon enough.
To discuss the efforts to bring a lasting ceasefire to the region and the growing international pressure on Prime Minister Netanyahu, I'm joined now
by Israeli journalist Nahum Barnea. Nahum, welcome to the program. It's good to see you.
In an interview over the weekend, you're quoted as saying, "Trump doesn't threaten Netanyahu, he orders him." What does this tell us about the
balance of power right now and how unprecedented it is to see a U.S. president so publicly really direct the direction of a war in Israel?
NAHUM BARNEA, COLUMNIST, YEDIOTH AHRONOTH NEWSPAPER: Yes, Bianna, it's quite unprecedented. Not in the fact that American presidents are involved
in Israeli decision-making process, we had it in the past in many ways.
But now, you have an American president who is probably more popular in Israel than the prime minister of Israel, and he doesn't persuade the
parties. He dictates his plan, his vision, and Netanyahu has no alternative but to accept it. So, it's quite unique or quite rare in our history.
GOLODRYGA: And Prime Minister Netanyahu is no political novice either, and he's now presenting his plan at home as part of his own diplomatic
achievement. From your perspective, is he genuinely convinced of that narrative or is he now already thinking about the day after and potentially
even elections in the coming months ahead?
[13:05:00]
BARNEA: Elections should take place next year. Usually in Israel, the parties don't wait for the fixed date for elections. It's not like in the
United States. And probably March or April will have elections in Israel. So, we are quite close to this date. But it's not only the political aspect
of it.
For two years, the war was and still is the center of the Israeli agenda. It's the longest war we ever had. And believe me, we had many wars. And
it's against our smallest rival, our smallest enemy. So, a lot of people are marching in the streets against the government. A lot of people support
the government. The country is torn, is divided. But at the same time, the army, the military which conduct the war is not divided.
And there is another very important thing. The Israelis are not divided about Trump, because they see that he is the only one who can somehow get
us out of this problem. The center left in Israel believes that he will bring back the hostages and end the war. And the right in Israel believes
that he is the great savior of Israel and the first president who actively ordered American planes to bomb Iran when we had a very short 12 days
operation against Iran.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And he was also the same president to say on live television to Prime Minister Netanyahu when he thought that the war in Iran
had gone far enough to turn the effing, and you know what I mean, planes back around. And he did. So, when it comes to placating the far-right in --
not only Israel, but specifically in Prime Minister Netanyahu's coalition, there are some points in this 20-point plan that they have vehemently
opposed.
Prime Minister Netanyahu is up against their opposition as well as President Trump. I would imagine he's not going to say no to President
Trump. So, what is going to be done about some of those within his own coalition who are against certain elements of this plan?
BARNEA: Look, right now Netanyahu has no option, has no opening to confront President Trump. This is the difference between his relations with
Joe Biden and his relationship with President Trump. He cannot oppose any idea that Trump believes should be implemented.
With the radical ministers in his government, he can maneuver. He can maneuver because they have a lot to gain by staying in the government, and
also he has automatic support from the opposition if he follows Trump's plan. So, for him, his political problems are minor in comparison with his
relations with President Trump.
GOLODRYGA: Right. And if he does seek elections once again, let's say, as you noted, sometime in the spring of 2026, he will still have President
Trump here in the United States and he will still desperately need his support in those elections.
BARNEA: Right.
GOLODRYGA: But looking over the course of the next few days as these fragile negotiations get underway, I'm curious if you can give us a sense
of how Israelis are feeling about this. I mean, I know how hostage families are feeling about this. I've grown quite close with several of them over
these last two years. It's hard to believe it's been two years to the day tomorrow.
And I was texting with one of them and asked about how they are feeling and holding up, and they said this time it looks like it will happen. Is that
the feeling you're getting from Israelis there right now? We've come close before. Is this really it in their view?
BARNEA: It's a mixture of joy, hope, and frustration and agony. I'll tell you why. Israel is a small country, and you talk about the hostage family.
Hundreds of thousands of Israelis, maybe more, have some kind of relation with the hostages there because it's family, it's people who were friends
in the military service or because they were exposed to the beautiful, the great relatives of these hostages who appeared daily on Israeli television
during these two years. So, the feeling is universal.
[13:10:00]
It's -- I believe that the -- you know, there was a big demonstration in Tel Aviv on Saturday night. It was massive. People came and people know,
come and they don't know should they celebrate the new event or should they fear what will be the consequences. So, they demonstrate. And I believe
that here it goes beyond the internal Israeli debate over the war and over other issues.
People want these hostages back, not only the -- hopefully, the 20 who are alive, but also, the people who perished, who died or murdered because the
families will have a chance to have a closure.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, I've been at Hostage Square there the numerous times that I visited Israel and it is remarkable to see the turnout, the defiance, the
emotion, the anger, the love, all of the emotions really just encompassed there amongst those that come out almost every single week. And what was
notable was this time, this weekend, President Trump posted one of those photos of those thousands that came out to Hostage Square on his own Truth
Social platform as well. So, he has been paying attention to this in particular.
Again, nothing has been finalized yet and we know that these talks in Egypt, they hinge on details, and these are very thorny details. Withdrawal
lines, prisoner lists, even in, you know, security.
BARNEA: And details don't -- yes, I'm sorry. What I wanted to say is that Trump is not interested in details. This is the transfer from a great
vision, 20 points plan to negotiations about Middle Eastern negotiations, about details, is a very dramatic transfer.
So, we look at what happens now in Egypt, in negotiations, in a kind of worry because we don't know how Hamas and even how the Israeli government
will play this game. Because the game of details can be a kind of invitation to a crisis.
GOLODRYGA: Right, and as we know, President Trump, out of these 20 points, is probably most interested in numbers one, two, or three, max, and then
loses interest quickly as that list goes on. Quickly, in the final seconds with you, what are you most concerned about that could possibly derail
these talks over the next 48 hours or so?
BARNEA: Look, the government of Israel has demands which are partially mentioned in the 20 points. Hamas are against some of them very, very -- in
a very blunt way. I'm talking about the demand of Hamas, so that Israel will withdraw from all of the Gaza Strip right now, parallel to the release
of the hostages, and also the question of the status of Hamas afterwards.
They -- should they give away their guns and their military position or not? All these questions are not resolved yet. But what we see is a
movement. One of the reasons is Hamas is now very weak militarily. But we see a movement toward a much more willing of Hamas to compromise, I hope,
that the Israeli government will show the same willing and will finally have a way to end this war and, first and foremost, to see our hostages
back at home.
GOLODRYGA: Well, God willing, all of that does happen finally after two years of just heartbreak and devastation. Nahum Barnea, thank you so much
for your time. Really good to have you on.
BARNEA: Thank you. Thank you very much.
[13:15:00]
GOLODRYGA: And later in the program, Gen-Z Moroccans are taking to the streets demanding reform. We get the government response from Spokesperson
Rachid EL KHALFI. That's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: Turning now to Morocco, where protests are sweeping the country after the deaths of multiple women at a maternity ward in Agadir last
month. People are taking to the streets in anger, not just about the state of public health care, but also education, housing, and unemployment.
Led by a group called Gen-Z 212, it's part of a wider trend of Gen-Z protests, which began in Nepal and are spreading around the world. And it
comes as Morocco makes preparations to co-host the 2030 Football World Cup, with young demonstrators chanting, we want hospitals, not football
stadiums. And things have turned violent, with three people killed and hundreds injured, according to authorities. Amnesty International says
security forces are using excessive force, reportedly driving vehicles into protesters and violently arresting others.
To answer how the government is responding to all of this, I spoke to the spokesperson for Morocco's Ministry of Interior, Rachid El Khalfi, and his
and the government's first interview to the international media since the protests began.
Mr. El Khalfi, thank you so much for taking the time and speaking with us today. These protests that we're seeing on the streets of Morocco are
largely led by Gen-Z protesters, and we know that more than half of Morocco's population is under 35 years of age, or youth unemployment is
around 36 percent. Are these protests a sign that your government, which we should note is led by a billionaire prime minister, has failed young
Moroccans?
RACHID EL KHALFI, SPOKESPERSON, MOROCCAN INTERIOR MINISTRY (through translator): In the beginning, I would like to thank your respectable
channel for specifying this space for the interior ministry so that there would be communication with the International Community.
With regards to the protests in the kingdom, it has moved long steps to express their freedom of expression, including the peaceful demonstration.
The numbers that are available, it witnesses that there are 600 demonstrations per month. This means that the culture of protesting, which
can be considered it is acceptable by the general authority, it has no problem at all.
Youths taking to the streets, we consider it to be very healthy, it shows that there is some dynamism of society. And of course, this -- the role of
the state is to listen and to correct the -- remove any misunderstanding with regards to the legal demands. The protests of these youths has no
problem whatsoever regardless of the political context. On the contrary, it opens a window to that the state would respond to, and the government will
be responding to.
[13:20:00]
GOLODRYGA: But they aren't protesting from a happy or satisfied current status. They are protesting what they deem to be a very unhealthy economic
situation and picture for them in particular. They have been chanting, I'll quote from them, "Stadiums are here, but where are the hospitals." And this
is coming as Morocco says that it will be spending more than $5 billion on World Cup 2030 projects in stadiums. We should note the monthly minimum
wage is about $300. Will any of that money now be redirected to health care and education and trying to provide jobs for these protesters.
EL KHALFI (through translator): Let me tell you that the nature of the question is not put that are within the interest of the -- or the authority
of the Interior Ministry. I'm talking about the security forces and how it's dealing with these protests.
GOLODRYGA: So, let's talk about how these protests have been dealt with at least three people have been killed, more than 400 arrested. Can you update
us on the latest numbers right now? And is an independent investigation going to begin in determining why these three Moroccans were killed?
EL KHALFI (through translator): First of all, it is the shooting which has killed three people. It was within the framework of the self-defense of the
police, which has been exposed to dangers and you have noticed and we all noticed that the video clips that actually document some of the instigators
to burn the headquarters with the where the police have been. So, we consider this matter goes under the self-defense.
And I would like to tell you that the public prosecution has started an investigation through the attorney general through an announcement that
this event has been recorded and there are some investigations whoever has been involved. And it's too early to have reached any conclusion on this
matter.
GOLODRYGA: How do you respond then to accusations of excessive force used by police there and authorities and allegations of a car ramming into some
of these protesters? Do you believe that given that is an investigation going to begin and is this excessive force used by the police there?
EL KHALFI (through translator): The situation -- or the case that you've mentioned -- that you have mentioned, which is the Wajda city, we emphasize
that the video that you talk about which has been cut out of context at the time. And we did not know what happened before recording the video. Whether
there be any stone throwing or hurling, there are no data with regards to that. And there is an investigation going on -- ongoing. And in particular,
that the state is very keen to have the proportionate reaction.
May I clarify a very important point here, that in all cases that has been broadcasted whether it's in Wajda or somewhere else, it has been dealt with
seriously by opening investigations. This is the -- that there is a necessity and keenness to apply strictly the law, whoever has been involved
in such of these acts which are violating the law whether it's from the police or the protesters.
GOLODRYGA: Would stone throwing then call for or allow or justify, in your view, the ramming of a police vehicle into protesters?
EL KHALFI (through translator): No, we didn't say that -- this, madam. We are talking about an ongoing investigation. It's -- we still have more data
to get and what are the justifications or the motives that has happened, which has recorded of what you're talking about, madam.
[13:25:00]
GOLODRYGA: The prime minister says that he is open to dialogue and discussion. Protesters are demanding his resignation. I get a sense that
that you do not want to talk about the political undertones here that have led to these protests, but obviously, it is a very important aspect. What
is the government planning to do now in response to these protests, what I would imagine they are only going to continue to grow if there isn't a
response from this government? Does that include potentially the prime minister or someone else resigning?
EL KHALFI (through translator): I believe that your question as I've -- you have confirmed that you don't -- do not want to talk to the political
context of the protests, and our rule is also is to -- we would not like to talk about the political aspect of it and we keep to the -- what is at the
heart of our tasks, which is the security forces, which has related to the protests and not the other contexts that you have to ask in your question,
madam.
GOLODRYGA: Why not?
EL KHALFI (through translator): I am speaker -- spokesman of the interior ministry here, is because to explain the -- all the -- what's happening
with regards to what's happened, to clarify what's happened in the field.
GOLODRYGA: Are you concerned though by not addressing -- and listen, I appreciate you talking with us, but there has been criticism that you faced
from Moroccan journalists about avoiding questions during this crisis as well, avoiding questions won't solve this crisis that is only escalating
and growing in your country. Don't you think that the people of Morocco, first and foremost, deserve some answers?
EL KHALFI (through translator): I would clarify, it's likely that from the beginning of my question, there is no escalation of violence. We have to
register this point. And we're talking about violence at the time, at a specific moment and it's done, finished. We are in front of peaceful
protests and it's been dealt with logistically and reasonably. And so, that I clarify this -- note that the General Authority has dealt with it.
At the beginning, there was a prevention of these protests or demonstrations because they are unknown. They don't know who's calling for
this kind of demonstrations and some people were -- went to the street. We move to the scene and some of the youths are coming to the scene or to the
streets, the General Authority at has changed its way with some flexibility with these protests so long as there is -- there are some youths who are
putting them within the frame that -- and they are responsible about organizing it.
GOLODRYGA: So, let me finally ask you how can you be so confident that these protests are contained? Because we've seen similar movements in other
countries ranging from Nepal to Madagascar where Gen-Z protesters have actually toppled their governments.
EL KHALFI (through translator): May I, madam, that I would like to confirm that the National Moroccan context is different from the others. And here,
we are not moving from vacuum. The Moroccan government is 12. There are big projects -- or programs. There are some lack, in some cases, but we are
starting from the -- what's been achieved. We have good outcomes that are respectable.
And we are very clear with ourselves. We are aware there are some shortages and there are some pitfalls here in some places and some fields and it's
well-known and it's not that we would like to be covering these and we can provide what we can so that we can guarantee the dignity of human dignity
and the justice of the citizens of Morocco in general.
GOLODRYGA: Understood. Mr. El Khalfi, thank you so much for your time. Really appreciate it.
EL KHALFI (through translator): Thank you very much for this space -- media space for me and thank you very much indeed.
[13:30:00]
GOLODRYGA: Well, we turn now to the U.S. where the government is still shut down. The standoff between Democrats and Republicans dragging on for
nearly a week with the White House threatening mass layoffs of federal employees.
Meanwhile, Illinois and Chicago are both suing the Trump administration over deployment of the National Guard. And a federal judge has blocked
Donald Trump from sending troops to Oregon twice in two days. So, as the stalemate in Washington continues, let's bring in Susan Glasser staff
writer at the New Yorker to discuss what's at stake.
Susan, it's good to see you. So, let's start with the news late last night where Judge Karin Immergut, who is a Trump appointee, temporarily blocked
the president from deploying National Guard troops to Oregon calling the administration's actions an attempt to, quote, "circumvent" an earlier
order.
You've chronicled Trump's boundary pushing, for lack of a better phrase, for years now. Is this more of the same or does this feel a little
different for you?
SUSAN GLASSER, STAFF WRITER, THE NEW YORKER: Oh, no. We are in a very escalatory period right now, Bianna. And I think that the judge, by the
way, a Trump appointed judge whom he is now disavowing, but Judge Immergut, a conservative by any standards, a member of Ken Starr's legal team that
went after Bill Clinton two decades ago -- more than two decades ago, she is pointed out. She has openly raised the specter of martial law as a goal
in effect of what Trump is trying to do in Portland, Oregon.
She's also pointed out that this is a moment where even the invented pretext bears no resemblance to the truth of the matter of the facts on the
ground. This is a peaceful moment in America that Donald Trump is misconstruing as some sort of hellscape of internal war and conflict as if
he wants to almost create a self-fulfilling prophecy. And I've been struck by the fact that multiple federal judges have pushed back against this not
only in Oregon, but elsewhere around the country.
You know, what we're waiting for is the Supreme Court or frankly any institution our society to be able to definitively close off this Avenue
for Donald Trump, because in the meantime, he's now promoting this as almost a new model for the United States that he should take America's
military troops and turn them against America's own citizens.
GOLODRYGA: Well, he's depicting cities like Chicago, which we should note have had a history of crime, violent crime. Those statistics show that
violent crime in general in the United States over the last few years has gone down. Nonetheless perception is really key here and that is something
President Trump has picked up on.
And he depicts many of these large cities, most of them Democrat run as war zones. And I'd like to play a highly edited video from Kristi Noem
basically suggesting that Chicagoans and more of the country welcome these types of actions. Let's watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Get out of the way for (INAUDIBLE). Clear the way for (INAUDIBLE).
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: OK. So, let's counter that with how Governor Pritzker is responding to these actions.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. J.B. PRITZKER (D-IL): They are the ones that are making it a war zone. They need to get out of Chicago. If they're not going to focus on the
worst of the worst, which is what the president said they were going to do, they need to get the heck out.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Who has the stronger narrative here in your view at this point, Susan?
GLASSER: Well, it's not about narratives, honestly. I mean, I think that's a lot of the crisis in the United States right now. It's not about
narratives. There is no war in the United States of America today. OK? Let's be clear on that, first of all.
Second of all, we have civilian police forces in this country to the extent you believe that there's an enormous crime problem in America's cities. If
you look per capita, by the way, some of the biggest crime ridden parts of America are red southern states that support Donald Trump. But put that
aside, we don't have a U.S. military to fight crime in this country. The U.S. military, as you know, is meant to secure the national security of the
United States. Crime fighting is not in its writ. And even if there were any truth to Donald Trump's narrative, that's not how it works.
But I just think that's a lot of the problem is that you have politicians like Trump and Democrats as well constantly now only playing to their own
supporters, their own pre-existing political supporters and it's all about a narrative rather than the idea. It's like we've given up on the idea of
underlying facts. And I just -- I think that's where some of these federal judges have come in and they've said, hey, wait a minute, you know, I'm not
on team blue or team red. I'm a non-person judge, in fact, appointed by Donald Trump, and I'm telling you this is a false pretext and it's not
true.
[13:35:00]
GOLODRYGA: Right. Facts matter and the law matters is what these judges are saying, but essentially, you've got President Trump who is National
Guard shopping at this point reports are that he's trying to get Texas now to deploy National Guard troops out of state.
This judge, as we noted, is not a liberal judge and it says how far we've gone in this country where we continue to have to describe judges by who
appointed them that wasn't always the norm. Nonetheless, she was appointed by President Trump. Does that suggest to you that the Institutional Guard
rails are still holding or is the only thing that matters here what the Supreme Court ultimately decides and they have yet to weigh in on this?
GLASSER: Yes, thank you for bringing that up. You know, I think that we're talking on a day that is the opening of this new Supreme Court term that
really in many ways is going to be one of the most significant Supreme Court terms I believe, you know, in our adult lifetime. And this is the
moment when the sort of later, later, later strategy of the first year so far of Trump's return to office is going to come due for the Supreme Court
and they're going to have to make some not just kind of temporary rulings but rulings on the underlying constitutionality of some of Donald Trump's
most controversial moves that includes imposing, quote/unquote, retaliatory tariffs on many of our biggest trading partners, it might include him
unilaterally deciding to get rid of the Constitution's birthright citizenship guarantee, some of these issues related to the National Guard
and the militarization -- sorry, the utilization of America's military inside the country that they could also end up at the Supreme Court in this
term.
And so, I think it's really an incomplete right now, Bianna. We don't know the extent to which the Supreme Court will ultimately enable Donald Trump's
executive power grabs, which is, broadly speaking, what unites many of these very disparate actions. But so far, the indications are that this 6-3
conservative majority on the court has given a pretty extraordinary amount of leeway to Donald Trump.
GOLODRYGA: And minor detail to end this interview on we are on day six of a government shutdown with no deal in sight right now. CBS polling, excuse
me, shows Americans blaming both sides essentially, the president as well, but they see Democrats as weak, Republicans as extreme. How does Trump's
push to deploy troops into major U.S. cities rather than just tackle and focus on this government shutdown issue? How is this factoring in to your
perception of his ultimate goal here? I mean, don't forget we've already missed a jobs report on Friday with this with this government shutdown as
well.
GLASSER: Yes, thank you for bringing that up. I think that that's -- just to underscore your point, you know, there's a real world here, right? And
you know, it seems that Trump and Republicans and Democrats as well are much more focused on the narrative again and the blame game, in the case of
the shutdown, than they are on actually doing anything to resolve it.
The speaker of the house, Republican Mike Johnson, actually isn't even convening House Republicans this week, which is pretty remarkable sign that
they're not viewing this as a crisis. At least in the past, when we have these governments shutdown there -- you know, manifestation right of our
gridlock and of our dysfunction as a country that we can't even fund our government. Right now, they're not even having talks in order to resolve
it. And I think, to me, that suggests the level of dysfunction has just reached a whole new, I'm going to say low rather than high in this case.
GOLODRYGA: And a complete disservice once again to the American public. Susan Glasser, thank you as always. Too bad we can't end on a more
optimistic note. But this is the world we live in right now in our reality. Appreciate you breaking it down for us. And we'll be right back after this
short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:40:00]
GOLODRYGA: Up next, $24.5 million, that's the settlement YouTube has agreed to pay to President Trump. It's just one in a long line of lawsuits
filed against major U.S. companies. While the agreement marks an end to this case, The Atlantic's Adam Serwer asks what the true cost of these
payoffs might be for democracy, as he explains to Michel Martin.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, Bianna. Adam Serwer, thank you so much for talking with us.
ADAM SERWER, STAFF WRITER, THE ATLANTIC: Thank you so much for having me.
MARTIN: I want to talk about your recent piece in The Atlantic. It's titled, "Lower Than Cowards," which says a lot. It doesn't say at all, but
"Lower Than Cowards." And it describes what you consider the response of American elites to what you call Trump's authoritarian bullying.
You are arguing in this piece that private companies and other elites, unlike the military, do have the freedom to resist, yet many have chosen
not to. You write, quote, "Cascading acts of cowardice from the people best positioned to resist Trump's authoritarian power grabs have made Trump seem
exponentially more powerful than he actually is," unquote. Can you just unpack that a little bit? Give an example of people who you think could
resist his bullying, but don't.
SERWER: Well, you know, all these large private corporations that have, you know, huge -- you know, huge budgets and a tremendous amount of
influence, and that includes media companies, you know, universities like Harvard, some of them are actually fighting back, but universities,
prominent universities could say no right now. The Trump administration is trying to coerce these universities into teaching only regime-approved
curriculum.
And the issue is that when people -- when so many people fold -- and I think, you know, it's important to say that, you know, a lot of these
institutions are optimized for people who want to compromise. They're optimized for, you know, a civil society in which there is not an
authoritarian leader who's trying to bully people into submission. And so, they're not -- you know, the qualities that led them to that position are
not the kind of qualities that you would want in a leader in terms of being brave enough to stand up to a bully.
MARTIN: Can you say more about that? Explain that.
SERWER: Well, I think that's just, you know --
MARTIN: Like the law firms, for example, who have paid --
SERWER: Well, right. I mean, you know, you have these law firms that have made agreements with the Trump administration. These are people who, if
anyone is equipped to, you know, fight the Trump administration to a standstill, it's prominent white shoe law firms. And yet, so many of them
have agreed, you know, to what is a frankly unconstitutional agreements defining what kind of cases they can take, obligating them to, you know,
help the Trump administration in some of its legal goals. These are people who could have fought the Trump administration and did not.
And the reputations have suffered as a result. In some cases, they've lost clients because, you know, if you're looking for an attorney, if you're
looking for zealous representation, you know, you're not going to -- you really don't want to hire an attorney that has dual loyalties in terms of,
you know, their interest in appeasing the government. It really undermines the legal system tremendously. And that's precisely why it's so shocking
that so many of them have capitulated.
MARTIN: But why do you think they have?
SERWER: I think in some cases, you know, these are -- there are organizations that have leadership that are used to trying to figure out a
way to get along, rather -- they are averse to conflict. And I think in some places, they actually agree with the administration and they are happy
to be looking like they are forced to do things that they otherwise would want to do, but that might incur a backlash if they looked like they wanted
to do it instead of they were being forced to do it.
MARTIN: Like the tech companies, for example? I mean, the tech companies are an example. There are no more content moderation, you know, the
unfettered free speech, as it were. Things of that sort.
[13:45:00]
SERWER: Yes. I mean, I think it's very clear that by unfettered free speech, they mean privileging conservative speech. When they talk about
unfettered free speech, they don't really mean that. You know, they have internalized the definition of free speech that, you know, is prominent in
the Trump administration, which is free speech is when Republicans can say what they want and when everyone else can say what they want.
You know, but the issue with private firms in general is that, you know, if you are subject to regulation or tariffs on the basis of your relationship
with Trump, that's a system where corruption and rent-seeking thrives. That's not a system where, you know, you succeed on the quality of your
product or your service, that's a system where you succeed on the basis of your relationship to the White House.
And, you know, a lot of companies are acting in their short-term interest in, you know, incurring favor with Trump. But, you know, profit-seeking
institutions are often not very good at looking at the long term. That's why we have a state-regulated marketplace. That's why we have regulations
in the first place, because sometimes that short-term profit-seeking can be extremely destructive to the larger system.
And it is extremely destructive to the larger system, because the end product is a degraded marketplace where corruption eats up most of the
growth and profit, and the American people will be poorer as a result, even if, you know, a select set of oligarchs at the top of American society who
are aligned with Trump continue to see their bank accounts grow.
MARTIN: You know, you contrast --
SERWER: And that's a conservative point, by the way. I'm -- you know, I'm a liberal. I'm not a conservative. I'm not like a market fundamentalist.
But these are their insights. These are the things that they used to believe that they have jettisoned in the name of protecting, you know, this
administration, which has an ambition of becoming a fully consolidated authoritarian state.
MARTIN: Let's talk about the role of the military, because obviously, one of the more attention-getting episodes in the first Trump administration
was when he staged that kind of walk over to -- across Lafayette Park, which is in front of the White House, over to the church, St. John's, and
had it cleared out by the National Guard. The then-chair of the Joint Chiefs, General Milley, walked over there. He later apologized in an all-
call to the troops, saying he was wrong. He should not have participated in that.
So, this week, you know, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, you know, pulled in, you know, some like 800, you know, senior officers from all over the
world for this kind of -- I don't know what it was, like a group chat at Quantico, present -- at great expense and, you know, incredible security
risks having all of these senior leaders in one place. And he said that -- you know, he made his comments, we've promoted too many uniformed leaders
for the wrong reasons, based on their race, based on gender quotas, based on historic so-called firsts. And then the president came on and said, we
should use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military. And things went on. I was just curious how that whole scene
landed to you, and what did you draw from it?
SERWER: Well, one thing I would say is if you want to see someone unqualified who is elevated to a position that they didn't earn on the
basis of their race and gender, you could look at the current secretary of defense, who is all of those things, and whose main qualification is
largely that he is a Trump sycophant.
But when you talk about -- you know, I think the -- first of all, Trump has always talked about my generals. He's used that phrasing before, but
actually those aren't his generals. Again, the American government -- elections decide who administers the American government. It does not
decide ownership of the American government, because the ownership of the American government does not change. It is owned by the public. And the
same is true of the military.
Now, what happened is these people are in a chain of command, and they have to follow orders, legal orders, that is. Obviously, they're not obligated
to follow legal orders, but they have to follow legal orders. And so, they created this captive audience where, you know, the president and the
secretary of defense, you know, you just need to put two and two together.
Here you have Hegseth saying, you know, the military is for killing. We're not going to do rules of engagement anymore. It's for murdering people. And
I think, you know, it's bizarre to act like the laws of war or recent invention or something, you know, that we came up -- within 2020. They are
actually hundreds of years old and arguably older than that.
But when he -- when the secretary of defense says, the military is for killing people, and the president says, we're going to send the military
into American cities for practice, what that means is that the president is saying, I am declaring war on part -- on other Americans, and I expect you
to kill them.
[13:50:00]
Look, you know, they didn't intend that. They could have easily clarified it, but that's what those two things put together mean.
MARTIN: I'm not asking you how you feel the military responded. I'm asking you --
SERWER: I mean, look, the military is obligated to be apolitical, and they understand that. That's why they are putting them in this uncomfortable
position where they're saying, well, if you don't want to kill Americans -- if you don't want to use American cities as a training ground, then you
should resign. And the reason why they're doing that is they want to purge the officer corps of people who might not obey an order to kill American
citizens.
Now, we could go back and talk about Milley, the problem that Republicans had with Milley essentially was that when -- in during the protests in
2020, Trump told him to go out there and shoot protesters, and he said, no, I'm not doing that. And then after January 6th, you know, he was saying, I
wanted to understand. You know, he was reading about -- you know, I think the phrase was called white rage.
And Republicans went crazy, because what they want is a military establishment who next time Trump attempts to steal an American election if
he loses and he is constitutionally barred from running again, but the Supreme Court doesn't really seem particularly interested at the moment
with what the Constitution says, what he wants -- what they want is a military that is going to be willing to be used as a political tool to keep
a president in office who does not belong in office.
MARTIN: What I saw in that room was a real uniformity of purpose and value because they -- to a person almost, kept silent. And it would have been
easy, I think, for some of them to have been sort of laughing or chortling or giving the president and the defense secretary the kind of response that
they so very much wanted, in fact, expected, and often get from their political audiences, from their rallies and so forth. And I do wonder
whether you think their discipline in that moment speaks to a value system that supersedes that of self-preservation in the way that you have lamented
with other institutions.
SERWER: Well, I think, you know, it's different because they are part of the government. But these are men and women who swear oaths to serve and
protect the Constitution of the United States. They do not serve oaths to serve and protect Pete Hegseth or Donald Trump.
MARTIN: Well, so did Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth, they both took the same oath. And you could clearly --
SERWER: They both took the same oath, but I think, you know, it's very clear that Donald Trump is not one for keeping to oaths. And I'm not -- I
don't know Pete Hegseth very well, but I suspect he isn't either. But, you know, I think you are making an important observation that their silence
was, in a way, their refusal to be used as a political prop. And many of them might actually agree with Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth politically.
But institutionally, the military, and in particular the officer corps, is encouraged to be as apolitical as possible. And I think that silence really
reflects their institutional training of serving the American people, the public, not, you know, a particular political party. And that's the exact
thing that Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth want to change. They want the American military to be a partisan militia, not an actual military that
serves the people of the United States.
MARTIN: So, before we let you go, one of the points that people make who have studied authoritarianism in other historical periods and in other
contexts, one of the points that they make is that authoritarianism often comes in through legal means.
SERWER: That's right.
MARTIN: People vote these people in and then they change the rules to make it impossible to vote them out or them to -- and --
SERWER: That's right.
MARTIN: So, then the question becomes, what happens next?
SERWER: I mean, I don't know. I mean, the burden is on the people to defend their democratic right to self-determination. You know, that's, you
know, politics, even in authoritarian regimes, politics does not cease. And, you know, to the extent that people do not like what is happening,
they have the ability to change it. And I would add peacefully. You know, nonviolent protests, nonviolent action has been very effective in
dislodging authoritarian regimes who have plenty of guns and plenty of men who are willing to use them.
But right now, you know, we have -- American -- you know, Americans have tolerated authoritarian regimes in parts of their country. You know, the --
you know, the antebellum south, the post reconstruction south, we -- you know, there are many millions of Americans who still have a living memory
of living under one party, authoritarian governments that were, you know, enforced at the point of a gun.
[13:55:00]
And those governments fell and they didn't fall because an army -- well, in the Civil War, they did. But the -- you know, the Jim Crow was not felled
by violent action. And I think that people need to understand that it is -- the public needs to understand, the American people need to understand that
it is within their power to preserve their democracy, but they have to make a concerted effort to do that.
MARTIN: Adam Serwer, thank you so much.
SERWER: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: And finally, how often is your city taken over by flying cows or aliens? Well, if you lived in Albuquerque, New Mexico, the answer would
be every October, because that is when the International Balloon Fiesta comes to town, painting the skies with weird and wacky and, I'd say,
beautiful designs. Sunday's event marked the 53rd year of the festival, which organizers say has become the largest balloon event in the world.
The morning launch, known as the Mass Ascension, saw hundreds of hot air balloons rise, transforming the blue sky into a rainbow of colors. Our
producers thought this could possibly be even A.I.-generated, but nope, it's real, folks. Take a look at that every October in Albuquerque.
Well, that is it for now. Thank you so much for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
