Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Haaretz Jerusalem Correspondent Nir Hasson; Interview with Venezuelan Opposition Leader David Smolansky; Interview with Former NSC Senior Director for the Western Hemisphere Juan Sebastian Gonzalez; Interview with Business Insider Investigative Journalist Hannah Beckler. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired October 08, 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. As Gaza ceasefire talks continue in Egypt, prominent Israeli journalist, Nir Hasson, looks back at what he calls the
Israeli campaign of atrocities.
Then, with the White House ramping up military pressure on Venezuela, is the U.S. attempting regime change against President Nicolas Maduro? I speak
with opposition politician, David Smolansky, and former Biden official, Juan Sebastian Gonzalez.
And --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HANNAH BECKLER, INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST, BUSINESS INSIDER: Maybe this is the cost of doing business if we want this future built on A.I., but is
that cost too high?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- the dark side of America's A.I. explosion. Hari Sreenivasan does a deep dive with investigative reporter, Hannah Beckler.
Welcome to the program, everyone.
I'm Christiane Amanpour in London. The talks continue in Egypt to end the war in Gaza between Trump's key envoys, Steve Witkoff, and son-in-law,
Jared Kushner, along with Israel's chief negotiator, Ron Dermer. They join top officials from Egypt, Qatar, and Turkey. But now, more than two years
after the horrendous Hamas attacks of October 7th and Israel's brutal military response, if a ceasefire is reached, what will life be for
Israelis and for Palestinians after the bombs stop falling?
In his latest column for Haaretz, the Israeli journalist, Nir Hasson, writes about what he calls the October 8th surprise, Israel's response to
the October 7th massacre, which has left tens of thousands of Palestinians dead, Gaza, in rubble, and he writes, destroyed the foundations on which
the State of Israel was built.
So, Nir Hasson, welcome to the program. I need you to explain that for our audience because destroying the foundations on which Israel was built is,
you know, an important statement to make, and I want to know, on what do you premise that?
NIR HASSON, JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT, HAARETZ: Well, I wrote in my article that I think my government is responsible of two disasters. The first
disaster is October 7th, of course, but the second disaster, which I think will affect our life for years and decades to come, is the response, the
brutal response of Israel to the October 7th attack.
And this response included, I think, countless numbers of war crimes and crimes against humanity, and it destroyed the name of Israel. It started a
wave of sanctions and boycotts against the culture, the sports, the economy in Israel, and much more.
But all of those -- they are only the -- it's only the small parts of the disasters. The disaster itself is the tangible death of tens of thousands
of Gazans, of the destruction that we made in Gaza, the erase of wall cities. And I think it's going to destroy the legitimacy -- the
international legitimacy of Israel around the world. I think it's going to destroy the inner unity inside the Israeli society, because many Israelis
will try to destroy Israel to get themselves as far as they can from what seems to be war crimes and crimes against humanity. And I'm really afraid
for the future of this state after what I called the October 8th disaster.
[13:05:00]
AMANPOUR: So, Nir, let me ask you. There was -- I don't know how you reported and how you were thinking immediately after October 7th, but we
know that it completely plunged Israelis and Jews around the world into a terrible trauma, which continues to this day. And I'm wondering how you
remember back two years now of what the reaction was then from inside Israel and what it toOK. and how long did it take you to then shift your
view of the situation and shift your lens a bit to, as you call it, the revenge and what's happening in Gaza?
HASSON: Of course, October 7th, it's a trauma. I think the Israeli society is inside the trauma. We are not in the post-trauma. We are still in the
trauma. For the Israelis, and even for me, I can say, the sun of October 7th didn't set yet. This is still continuing. As long as we have hostages
in Gaza, it feel that this day didn't end.
However, I think as soon as October 8th, as soon as the IDF start -- is attacked on Gaza, the connection between the real goal of this war of
defense the borders, saving the hostages and defeating Hamas, there is a very -- it doesn't feel that the act of the IDF, even from the first day,
from the second day of the war, have any connection to these goals. It's really, really quick became a war of revenge and destruction, and it feel
like the Israeli leadership trying to erase the failure of October 7th by the blood of the Palestinians in Gaza.
But for me, as for, I think, all the Israeli society, we were in the pain, we were focusing on our pain after October 7th, and I was covering the
massacres, and the massacre, especially in Kibbutz Nir Oz and in other parts of the Negev, and it took me a few months to understand that what
happened in Gaza will affect my future and the future of my children here in Israel, not less than what happened in October 7th, that the way that my
government respond to this disaster, to this massacre and atrocities of Hamas will change the character of the State of Israel, not less than the
day -- the October 7th itself.
AMANPOUR: And, Nir, let me ask you, because these talks are going on, and we've heard nothing but pretty positive. The various spokespeople tell us
that, you know, they're continuing and important people are there, and, you know, the modalities of the hostage returns and the returns of Palestinian
prisoners and bodies, et cetera, and obviously, the modalities around the Israeli withdrawal and whether that will happen.
Once the bombs have stopped falling, and this horror of October 7th and the October 8th that you mentioned, once that seems to be this phase of it
over, do you think that -- how long do you think it will take your country and how do you envision the Palestinians ending up after all of this?
HASSON: I think my point in the article that you mentioned is these two disasters that I talked about, the October 7th and the October 8th, are
connected. And there will be no rehabilitation, there will be no healing of the Israeli society without some kind of rehabilitation and healing of the
Palestinian society in Gaza. It goes together.
And I think we are not even in the stage of knowing what's going on there. I mean, I'm covering Gaza daily for a year and a half now, and I still
don't feel that I know exactly the magnitude of the catastrophe that happened in Gaza.
So, first of all, we will have to figure out what's actually going on there. How many people really died? We know the numbers of the Ministry of
Health of -- from Gaza, which is almost 70,000 people. But most of the experts that I talked to saying that this is the minimum number and the end
will be much, the data in the end, the numbers, the death toll in the end will be much higher and it might reach 100,000 and even more if we included
excess mortality.
[13:10:00]
And just think about it. Think about the fact that Rafah is more destroyed than Hiroshima. Most of the cities in Gaza are more destroyed than
Nagasaki. How long it's going to even start to thinking about rebuilding and healing this land? But what I'm saying to the Israeli society is that
we must look straight at what happened in Gaza and must acknowledge it and thinking about the day after the war.
Because for now, most of the Israelis, it's not in their focus. They are not thinking about Gaza. And this is very bad for the future, I think.
AMANPOUR: So, I wanted to ask you that because I don't know what reaction a piece like this with a headline like the one we've discussed and what
you're writing, what is the reaction inside Israel to your reporting and your conclusions?
HASSON: Well, I got a lot of reactions. I will say like 50 percent of them, it's like cursing and death wishes and that kind of stuff. But about
the other 50 percent is as people telling me it's about time. It's about time talking about it. It's about time that we will deal with what happened
there. And we'll ask ourselves, was it necessary? Was it really necessary to kill so many people and to act in such a brutal way along this war? And
it gives me some hope. It gives me some hope that the Israelis stop denying what happened there and start the discourse around it.
AMANPOUR: I mean, you've quoted the historian, Adam Raz on the emergence of a community of crime at the beginning of this war, where there is sort
of a shared guilt that you say, and you admit starkly, I too am part of the Israeli community of crime. That's -- it's really difficult thing to say,
especially after what Israel, you know, had to deal with after October 7th.
HASSON: Of course, but still we have to ask ourselves how we got here. I mean, the name of Israel from now on will be connected to this term of
genocide. Now, I don't know if there was genocide in Gaza, there is genocide in Gaza, but it's almost doesn't matter. It even doesn't matter if
the ICJ will decided there is genocide in few years from now. The fact that the name of my country is now connected, is now -- people around the world,
this is what they think when they think about the name of Israel, it's horrible. I think -- I cannot think how bad -- I mean, it's really scary.
And I ask myself, how did we get here? And I think it's -- October 7th, the trauma of October 7th cannot explain it all. Of course, it's part of the
answer. But the other part of the answer is a long processes that going on in the Israeli society for many, many years with a corrupt and extreme
leadership, with a growing in militarism, extremism, shifting to the far- right wing of the -- in our political system. And I think all of it together got us to the point that we can commit such crimes in Gaza.
AMANPOUR: Nir, I want to ask you a question. You know that your prime minister essentially declares victory. I mean, he has been saying that
we're winning. We have decimated all our enemies around us from Iran to Lebanon, to Hamas, et cetera. They've -- you know, they've sent missiles to
Qatar, to Yemen, et cetera. And many say, well, actually, yes. I mean, there's a lot of tactical success. Do you think that is a price worth
paying or reason for a government to claim a victory?
[13:15:00]
HASSON: No, as I told you, I think this victory, as he claimed -- I don't think it's a victory. The price that Israel and the Israeli society will
pay for this war will be enormous. And it will go with us for years and decades to come. And it will change the foundations, the DNA of Israel. And
I don't think it's a price worth paying.
AMANPOUR: So, let me ask you this --
HASSON: Yes, I don't feel like we are in the victory side and on the side that won this game.
AMANPOUR: You know, you have spent a lot of time actually talking to Palestinians. You talk about, we don't know what's going on. Yes, we're all
banned. You're banned, we're banned. We can't go in independently to Gaza, which is truly a disgrace. And we petition every time we can to be allowed
in.
But you have made it your business to try to talk to as many Gazans as you possibly can by various methods. You wrote in your article that you
characterize right now Gaza as gray and red, the gray of the destruction and the dust that covers everything and everybody, and the red of the blood
after all these attacks and all these, you know, terrible, terrible things that happens.
But you also share stories of conversations with Gazans. Most notably, you co-authored a piece about the doctors -- with the doctors, and walking
through on a video way to the hospitals. What have you learned about the Palestinian people, the doctors, the people of Gaza throughout these last
two years of war there?
HASSON: Yes. As you say, it's not very good journalism to cover this war from far away.
AMANPOUR: No, it's the only way we can do it, Nir. It's the only way we can do it.
HASSON: Exactly, this is the only way we can do it. And when you try and - - to reach the people in Gaza, the Palestinians in Gaza, you found out that they're willing to talk to you. And they are telling their stories. And
it's sometimes very painful, but very humanic (ph).
The story -- they're telling the human side of this war. And yes, as you mentioned, we went to -- for virtual tour. OK. we asked ourselves, OK.
there was the debate in Israel, which -- around the question of starvation in Gaza. Where does -- a famine in Gaza or it's only a campaign of Hamas,
as Prime Minister Netanyahu said. So, we asked ourselves, OK. what can we do to solve this question?
And we reached out to as many doctors as we could in Gaza, and asked them to take us to a tour, a virtual tour, to open a Zoom, and to walk with us
from one bed to another in the hospital, and show us the children and people who suffered from malnutrition, and that we can speak with them, and
that we can see their conditions, and it was awful. It was --
AMANPOUR: Yes.
HASSON: I cannot -- there's no words to describe what we saw in these virtual tours. And I think if people would saw what I and my colleagues,
Yarden Michaeli, that work with me on these investigations, if people would saw what we saw, no one would argue about the question of starvation and
famine in Gaza.
AMANPOUR: Well, we've just been showing the images, some of the images that you were able to capture on this on -- by talking to the doctors, and
it's terribly painful. And it's pretty amazing that you're doing this kind of work, and it can't be easy. And I really appreciate you coming on and
talking to us. Nir Hasson from Haaretz, thank you very much. Thank you.
HASSON: Thank you very much.
AMANPOUR: And stay with CNN. We'll be right back after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:20:00]
AMANPOUR: Now, we turn to the Western Hemisphere, where tension is escalating between the Trump administration and Venezuela's Maduro regime.
The United States has deployed warships, fighter planes and an attack submarine to the region. The White House labels President Nicolas Maduro a
narco-terrorist, claiming he controls one of the nation's criminal organizations. The U.S. Intelligence Community, though, rejects that claim.
Now, if the White House is laying the groundwork for regime change in Venezuela, they might want to consider the history of American interference
in that hemisphere and in that continent, from the failed Bay of Pigs assault on Cuba in 1961, through an abortive coup against Maduro's
predecessor, Hugo Chavez, under George W. Bush.
American meddling tends to create long-term problems, and would Venezuela's political opposition even welcome American military intervention? David
Smolansky was deputy director of the opposition's presidential campaign last year, and he now lives in exile, and he joins us from Washington, D.C.
So, David Smolansky, I posed a lot of questions and, you know, reminded the audience that it's not always a successful or ever successful American
military intervention. But what do you think? I think you and your party are actually welcoming it.
DAVID SMOLANSKY, VENEZUELAN OPPOSITION LEADER: Well, first of all, thank you so much for having me. I support the dismantle of a criminal
organization, actually a drug cartel that is running my country, for almost 27 years. Venezuelans have been victims of crimes against humanity. Almost
9 million Venezuelans have fled largest migration crisis in the world, even surpassing Ukraine and Syria. And Maduro is responsible to get to this
point, because we decided a regime change last year when we won the election, 17-30, and we proved that with the voting tallies. And the
reaction from the regime was using brutal force and disappearing thousands of Venezuelans and illegally detaining 2,300 innocent Venezuelans. So,
that's the situation that we're facing right now.
AMANPOUR: Yes. So, you're talking about the election, which we covered, Maria Corina Machado, the opposition leader, she's hiding in Venezuela. She
said about this Trump move, I totally support his strategy, I'm in favor of the U.S. dismantling this criminal structure. She said that to The Times.
But others, like Henrique Capriles, are against it.
Tell me about what it means to have a divided opposition, not just the -- you know, Maduro people, obviously, are against this, but even the
opposition. What does that mean for you all, as you try, I assume, to have some unity in the fight against your common enemy?
SMOLANSKY: Christiane, if I can assure something, and especially to your audience, is that the democratic movement is completely united. We have a
leader that was legitimized in a primary election a couple of years ago, Maria Corina Machado, which has become a symbol of resistance because she's
been in hiding for more than a year, because Maduro wants her to be imprisoned. And we have a president-elect, Edmundo Gonzalez Urrutia, that
every Venezuelan, and including different governments, strong institutions, and have a democracy again, like Venezuela had during the second half of
the 20th century.
[13:25:00]
AMANPOUR: I just want to play a little bit of an interview that I did with Ms. -- you know, Machado before the Trump administration came in. So, this
was in last summer. This is what she said about the Maduro regime and its loss of legitimacy.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARIA CORINA MACHADO, VENEZUELAN OPPOSITION LEADER: The regime is at its weakest position ever. They have lost total legitimacy, and what they have
done is unleash a campaign of terror, of persecution. So, we are certainly willing to move ahead into a negotiation process in which we are willing to
give Maduro and the regime the guarantees so that this could move smoothly, orderly, as fast as possible.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, let me ask you, what happened to this negotiating process? And I don't just mean between the internal actors, but also at the
beginning of the Trump administration, his emissary there was -- I mean, there was some negotiations, there was some movement towards trying to get,
you know, Maduro to accept these realities. What happened? How come it suddenly changed and now it's gone to full militarization?
SMOLANSKY: The reality is that Maduro and the different members of this drug cartel that is running Venezuela have never had an honest intention to
negotiate. They have used dialogues and negotiations to gain time, to demoralize people, to divide in the past the democratic movement and to
fracture the International Community.
Maduro had many options and many offers before the presidential elections last year, during the day of the presidential election, and after, to leave
power peacefully. And he decided to do what is known in Venezuela as a knock-knock operation. What is a knock-knock operation? If I may explain.
It's because they go to your house, they do knock-knock, and they kidnap innocent Venezuelans and disappear.
As we speak, Christiane, as we speak right now, according to United Nations' fact-finding mission report, which I have here, innocent women are
sexually abused by security guards of the regime. Teenagers are suffering from electric shocks. Dissidents are disappeared and killed in custody.
That's where Venezuelans are facing.
And I can understand sometimes by international audience that this is very difficult sometimes to learn or understand, but we've been dealing with
this for 26 years. How do you explain that more Venezuelans have fled my country, than Ukrainians that have been brutally invaded by Russia or
Syria?
And I have to say something. Maduro has been able to stay in power because of the support of external actors. Russia, the main arms provider, Iran,
the second arms provider, and Cuba, who has been in Venezuela since day one, infiltrating the inter-country intel agencies and the security forces,
and they are part of the torture and the repression as well.
AMANPOUR: So, clearly, a lot of horrendous stuff is happening in your country, and we've reported it as much as we can, and when we can get
journalists in there. But the question is, I suppose as well, you've seen the history of American intervention has not been positive for many, many
countries in the United States. Often -- sorry, in Latin America. But most notably, you know, Iraq. I mean, that was a question of regime change
there. Even Libya.
Are you not afraid of that kind of unintended consequence, that kind of backlash? Even Maduro trying to unite people, talking about foreign
aggression.
SMOLANSKY: Totally not. First of all, the difference between Venezuela with Libya and Afghanistan, if we have a history of democracy, almost half
of a century we lived in democracy, and we have a legitimate leader, Maria Corina Machado and President-elect Mundo Gonzalez.
And regarding the history in Latin America, I think, with due respect, that's an old narrative. Actually, the last U.S. military intervention in
Latin America happened 36 years ago in Panama, which, by the way, was successful. And by the way, the guy who was running Panama in that moment
was a drug trafficker.
AMANPOUR: On that note, Mr. Smolansky, thank you very much indeed for joining us.
So, next, let's turn to Latin American expert Juan Sebastian Gonzalez, who served on President Biden's National Security Council. So, welcome to the
program. You heard what David Smolansky was saying, and he kind of was right about Panama. I remember it, 1989, George H.W. Bush just before the
Gulf War, and it was also based around the idea of narco-trafficking. Tell me, what's wrong with that picture?
JUAN SEBASTIAN GONZALEZ, FORMER NSC SENIOR DIRECTOR FOR THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE: Yes, well, first, thanks for having me. I think I agree with a
lot of what David said. I think the difference with Panama specifically is that the United States had a military base inside of Panama, and I think
between 20,000 and 30,000 Marines are already inside of the country. Not only that, the Panamanians did not have a military. They had more like a
National Guard. So, I think it's apples to oranges.
[13:00:00]
GONZALEZ: When you really survey the environment inside of Venezuela, maybe Caracas is stable, but you have another cartel, Tren de Oriente, in
the east of the country. You have illegal armed groups like the Colombian guerrilla group, the National Liberation Army in the west. And you have
pseudo-paramilitary groups that are sometimes and sometimes not loyal to the Venezuelan government. And I think any sort of U.S. intervention,
especially having boots on the ground, is something that would be a casaleb to every illegal armed group that has been, you know, fighting in Colombia
and other parts of the hemisphere for over half a century. So, it's easier said than done.
AMANPOUR: So, let me ask you specifically about the cartels, because I think this is fairly new, I think, this trying to use this specific
constitutional or legal provision by the Trump administration, calling them, I think, narco-terrorists. Can you tell me whether the U.S. has any
evidence of, you know, Venezuela, Maduro specifically, of running that kind of operation? And more to -- well, equally important, how much of the bad
drugs come from Venezuela into the United States?
GONZALEZ: Certainly. So, first, I would say the United States has amassed a powerful naval presence in the Caribbean, I think roughly, by some
accounts, roughly 10 percent of all naval assets. But the deployment is vastly disproportionate to any real counter-narcotics mission. So, this
really looks, walks, and talks like a regime-change preparation.
Now, the -- what the administration is doing is, you know, merging the war on terror with the war on drugs, and there are some legal questions around
that, especially around the unilateral use of force against alleged traffickers. But loOK. I served in the White House. This is a question that
we've asked in every single -- from every single angle, from the Intelligence Community, even from the opposition, there is drug trafficking
inside of Venezuela, but Venezuela is primarily a transshipment point.
If the United States was very serious about combating drug trafficking, for one, they would give all the money they're giving to -- spending on the
Navy to the Coast Guard, which has the legal authorities, the training, and the network of relationships in the Caribbean to not just interdict, but
seize cargo and actually gather intelligence that helps build the stronger cases. They would also be focused on the Pacific, where 75 percent of the
cocaine that enters the United States transits from, not the 5 percent that actually goes through Venezuela. So, this is not a counter-narcotics
operation.
Now, specifically with regard to Maduro, the Tren de Aragua designation as a foreign terrorist organization, with Nicolas Maduro as its head, loOK.
I'm not going to defend Nicolas Maduro, but what I will say is that there is no evidence that supports a kind of command-and-control structure that
is led by Maduro. These are usually officials in the military or other parts of the regime that are implicated in drug trafficking, yes, there is.
Yes, it's a transshipment country.
But the reason that drugs have never originated from Venezuela in the way that they originate from Colombia, over 95 percent of the cocaine that
comes to the United States comes from Colombia, is because Venezuela has one of the largest oil reserves in the world. They have the largest gold
reserves in Latin America. So, there's never been a need for them to develop a native drug-producing industry.
AMANPOUR: So, on that point, what do you think is -- you say, regime change, but what's the big picture for the Trump administration? Is it
about -- you know, is it because it's a petro-state and that's valuable? Is it about, you know, dominance, as everybody talks about, oh, my goodness,
is Trump going to divide the world into spheres of influence? What do you think is the strategic impetus behind this?
GONZALEZ: I mean, that's a good question. I think there are a lot of tactics in search of a strategy. These tactics are contradictory. On the
one hand, they're suspending temporary protected status or trying to eliminate it. The courts are pushing back on that for Venezuelans. They are
violating the due process and human rights of Venezuelans by deporting them to a notorious prison in El Salvador, SECOT. And then, at the same time,
they have a migration agreement with the Venezuelan government. They allowed Chevron to actually extract petroleum from the country.
So, it's unclear whether this administration actually has a strategy. The concern with that is that, you know, this is something that's going to go
beyond a naval deployment in the Caribbean. I think the logical next step in an escalation is that they lob some of those 250 Tomahawk missiles that
they have at ELN, the National Liberation Army, safe havens in the west of the country, maybe some clandestine airport or landing strips. Once you get
into Mida Flores, the situation becomes much more complicated.
And, loOK. I agree with David that Nicolas Maduro lost the election. He's been in power since 2013. And because of mismanagement, massive corruption,
and, yes, U.S. sanctions, the economy is decimated, and they've had to maintain control, including through election tampering. They've lost
elections, refused to concede the results, but to ensure the safety of Edmundo Gonzalez, as the president of Venezuela is going to require 20,000,
30,000, 18- and 19-year-old Marines in the country, and that is a recipe for a prolonged conflict.
[13:35:00]
AMANPOUR: And we all know where that has been in the past and what it might look like in Venezuela. You personally led talks for the Biden
administration that eased some of the sanctions, secured the release of some American hostages, political prisoners. As you've said, Maduro stole
the election. So, the question is, is there any way to negotiate with this person? You know that.
You know, Rick Grenell, who's President Trump's envoy to Venezuela on this issue, was doing some, I think, diplomacy at the beginning, and then that
stopped. What do you think has been the turning point? What changed the direction of travel here for the administration?
GONZALEZ: Certainly. Well, yes, we did engage in negotiations. I think one of the successes of the negotiations was the outcome of the elections,
where -- which clearly elected Edmundo Gonzalez. It created a democratic opening, but certainly Nicolas Maduro did not respect the results of the
elections.
I think still a negotiation channel is key. I think the approach -- the smart, logical and strategic approach is to have conditional sanctions
relief that is tied to clear outcomes. There should be a channel for dialogue. If we look at any sort of similar processes around the world,
there has to be a channel for dialogue. And certainly, what is -- the Maduro government or regime is not subject to the normal puts and takes of
a negotiation with a state, because there are criminal elements. There is the influence of China, Russia and Iran. But the United States has to
really, I think, invest in the long-term in trying to promote a democratic transition in the country.
You know, we have seen -- I think, Venezuela is useful to look at, I think, from the context of maybe post-Soviet transitions, where countries like
Poland are still transitioning. There is not going to be an easy solution to the situation in Venezuela. There needs to be, I think, a channel for
dialogue, but also the United States needs to put pressure on.
I think there is also a failure here of the governments of Latin America and the Caribbean that have largely stayed silent. And I think they would
be wise to actually organize and try to pressure Maduro to cede control or make concessions to avoid the United States escalating.
AMANPOUR: It's really interesting. Juan Sebastian Gonzalez, thank you very much for joining us. And we'll be right back after this short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
AMANPOUR: Next, build, baby, build, as they might say. That is the White House Silicon Valley slogan, urging companies to invest in artificial
intelligence infrastructure inside the United States. The campaign has so far been extremely successful, with tens of billions of dollars funneled
into data centers across the country. But while these investments may appease President Trump, they are causing major issues for surrounding
communities as well as for the climate and the environment.
Hannah Beckler, investigative reporter at Business Insider, joins Hari Sreenivasan now to discuss her findings.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HARI SREENIVASAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Christiane, thanks. Hannah Beckler, thanks so much for joining us. You had a recent
investigation in Business Insider titled "Exposing the Dark Side of America's Data Center Explosion." What surprised you about this
investigation?
HANNAH BECKLER, INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST, BUSINESS INSIDER: Sure. Thanks so much for having me. I think we have all of these big tech companies who
are racing to build out a speculative future built on A.I.
[13:40:00]
But the impacts that are happening on our communities, our water, our electricity grids, are happening right now. So, what we really wanted to
investigate is what's happening on the ground, what's going on, and how resource intensive is this build-out.
SREENIVASAN: You know, for our audience, unless they are watching this conversation live over the air, so to speak, even the YouTube archive of
this is part of what is stored in the data center, right? Kind of give us an understanding, I guess, of what these are and what's different about
these versus all of these A.I. focused data centers that are coming in the future versus the ones we're familiar with today.
BECKLER: So, the first thing to understand is that a lot of the data centers, they're used for things like social media, our e-mails, our
applications that we're using every day. So, all of that doesn't really exist in a cloud, it exists in data centers, which are this kind of big
warehouses full of servers that are sort of processing all of that information, all that data all the time.
What's different about data centers that are built to process A.I. is they are even more power intensive. So, they require servers that are just many
magnifold more power intensive than what we're usually seeing. So, we're just seeing a huge escalation in how much electricity these data centers
are using.
SREENIVASAN: OK. And where does that electricity usually come from? If somebody puts one of these data center warehouses into a community, what
are they plugging into to get that power?
BECKLER: Well, they're plugging right into the electricity grid, just the same as, you know, our houses and small businesses, that sort of thing. But
I think what we're really seeing is that in order to handle the sort of extreme power load, they're often needing to build sort of specialized
transmission lines that, you know, large scale infrastructure to support that kind of power. And what we're seeing is utilities sort of
democratizing those expenses across all the rate payers.
So, that means that it's not just the data center, it's, you know, our houses and our small businesses who are paying a little bit more to be able
to support that kind of infrastructure.
SREENIVASAN: OK. and if everybody in the neighborhood, so to speak, is paying for the new transmission line to keep that data center alive, and
our bills go up, I'm assuming some of these communities are pushing back.
BECKLER: They are. We're starting to see some pushback, places like Georgia and Virginia in particular. Virginia, a filing from Dominion, which
is the largest utility company in Virginia, sort of estimated that Virginia rate payers could be paying as much as 50 percent more on their electricity
bill in order to sort of support broad expansion of the electricity grid in Virginia. So, we're starting to see a little pushback. We're starting to
see residents say, you know, what's going on here? What does this look like? And regulators are starting to take notice as well.
SREENIVASAN: In response to your investigation, Amazon, Microsoft and Google told Business Insider that they were committed to paying their full
share for upgrades to grid infrastructure like high voltage power lines. Is that the case for the 1,200 data centers that are out there? Because these
are just kind of a couple of the companies. Are there companies and municipalities with all kinds of different policies and expectations?
BECKLER: I mean, I think those companies really dominate electricity use nationwide. So, it's meaningful that they are at least saying that they are
committed to paying their full fair share. The problem is that when we look at the actual regulatory filings, we're still seeing a number of data
centers. For example, there was one in Georgia recently, QTS facility, you know, and they're submitting regulatory filings asking for a $300 million
transmission line that's being built out there. And that cost will be displaced against all the rate payers in that area.
So, it can be really difficult to measure these things and exactly how much data centers are actually paying for the massive infrastructure build out
that is required to support their electricity load.
SREENIVASAN: OK. Give us an idea of how widespread this is. I know in your story, you guys had a map and there were a lot of little dots all over the
country.
BECKLER: So, I think what was really striking is that around 2010, we were seeing about 311 data centers that was nationwide. And then, by the end of
last year, that number had nearly quadrupled to 1,240 data centers. So, it's a massive expansion in pretty short amounts of time. And they're
mostly concentrated in Virginia, but we're starting to see some other hotspots. So, in Maricopa County, for example, in Arizona, or in the
central Ohio area.
SREENIVASAN: What's the incentive that towns and municipalities around the country have to try to lure the data centers in? I'm assuming that there's
a benefit that they're saying, OK, well, we want this data center in our area.
BECKLER: So, what we found is a couple -- three dozen states have state level sort of incentives, where they're giving sort of 100 percent sales
and use tax abatements to data centers, which is really significant when you're thinking about the amount of investment that is going into building
these centers.
[13:45:00]
And then on top of that, municipalities or counties are also offering significant incentives for data centers. So, they're saying you can get 100
percent property tax abatements, for example, for 15 years, which is really striking.
What data centers are saying, and their operators are saying is this is an opportunity for these areas to sort of transform their economies into high
tech economies where there's lots of high paying jobs. The reality that we found is that 80 percent of data center jobs are in their construction. And
once they're actually fully built, you're only seeing, you know, maybe as few as 25 full-time permanent jobs at each facility. So, they don't really
employ that many workers.
SREENIVASAN: You know, when you looked at this, you had to figure out how much electricity these data centers were going to be using. How did you do
that?
BECKLER: Complicated. So, many of these operators, they don't really want to disclose how much power their fleet of data centers is using at any one
time. So, we actually followed our own methodology, which we developed in very close consultation with many academics, engineers and industry
insiders.
So, we use the air permits. So, these are regulatory permits that are issued to the backup generators that each data center has. So, data centers
can never be without power. So, they're always built with these backup diesel generators. And those diesel generators are a point of pollution.
So, they're regulated by state departments of environment.
So, we went and requested from all 50 states and D.C. for those permits issued to data center backup generators. So, it's a bit of a -- you know, a
couple step process here. But that's how we were able to extrapolate the -- our estimate electricity use is we added up the amount of power those
generators are able to produce. We applied sort of a redundancy estimate. So, you always build more generators than you actually use. And then
estimated the amount of what's called capacity, which is how much, you know, power or how much use of those servers running at any one time.
So, somewhat complicated, but we're able to estimate a range of what these data center are -- we estimate their electricity uses.
SREENIVASAN: And put that in perspective for us, how much power our data center is going to be drawing in the United States if all of these come
online?
BECKLER: So, by the end of 2024, if all of those permitted data centers are built and constructed and come online, we're estimating that their
power use in total could be as much as Ohio, the entire State of Ohio used in 2023, on the low end, and on the high end, it could be as much as
Florida used in 2023. So, it's a really massive amounts of power.
A federal estimate actually puts that far higher. So, by 2028, they estimate that data centers could be using as much as 600 terawatt hours of
electricity each year, which is 12 percent of what the U.S. uses each year. So, it would be a significant amount of power.
SREENIVASAN: There was a study that was estimating that A.I. driven data centers could consume 1.7 trillion gallons of water every year by 2027
around the world. In Oregon, there was a local newspaper that found that the Google data centers in The Dalles had used 355 million gallons. They
put it in the context of roughly 500 Olympic sized swimming pools.
And it's just -- I don't think people understand the scale of the kinds of water we're talking about or the scale of the kinds of electricity. I mean,
when you talk to different researchers, how concerned were they?
BECKLER: Very concerned. So, something that we identified is that as many as 43 percent of data centers, and these are our largest data centers, are
constructed in areas where we're already seeing extreme water stress. And what that means is there's not enough available water for the residents
that are already there.
I think what's also really unique about data centers is unlike other water intensive industries, data centers are using drinking water. So, that
means, again, that they are competing directly with residents who are -- you know, or need that drinking water to just survive in the desert. For
example, some of these data centers that are built in Maricopa County, it's in the desert. So, water is a precious and finite resource.
SREENIVASAN: Who owns most of the data centers that are coming out and how did you find that out?
BECKLER: So, sometimes the permits are issued directly to the companies. It's very clear, you know. But in many cases, they are issued to Shell
LLCs. So, we had spent a lot of time looking at other regulatory filings, both at the state and federal level, to sort of match those LLCs to their
parent company.
[13:50:00]
Once we did that, it was pretty clear, the most data centers are operated by Amazon. So, by the end of 2024, they had 177 data centers by our count.
And then we looked at, again, how power-intensive these data centers are. And the top five probably won't surprise most people, they're the big, big
tech companies that are investing billions of dollars into data center expansion, but it's Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Meta, and QTS.
SREENIVASAN: Microsoft, they said that they remain committed to developing and supporting innovative solutions to reduce emissions, focusing on long-
term solutions. Amazon, which you mentioned, they said, they aim to reach net-zero carbon emissions across their operations by 2040. Meta said
they're committed to fostering the long-term vitality of the communities where they operate. QTS, which is a company that most people haven't heard
of, but that owns a lot of these data centers, as you point out, said 100 percent of QTS centers constructed since 2018 consumed no water for
cooling. And then, Google, they said they reduced their data center energy emissions by 12 percent in 2024, despite significant growth in electricity
demand.
So, you know, you spoke to a lot of different people that were kind of living in the neighborhoods where these data centers are coming now or
they're planning to come. What were the concerns that they had as, I guess, neighbors?
BECKLER: So, what you have to imagine is these facilities are, first of all, they're enormous. Many of them are very, very large. They operate
24/7. So, what that means is that they have these large industrial cooling fans that are operating constantly. And those fans are loud. They emit sort
of a loud, sort of buzzing, droning noise that's so loud that when we spoke to some residents who their houses are built, you know, just a couple
hundred feet away, that constant noise, it's shaking their windows.
One resident told us that he had to move his family into the basement in order to try to escape the noise to be able to sleep. So, it's sort of an
omnipresent fixture of their lives now.
SREENIVASAN: In response to one of the people that you were talking to in your story, Amazon said that we saw a meaningful reduction in the noise
from the improvements, basically, mufflers on fans, taller exhaust vents, and they now are operating well below ordinance.
So, what is the role of government to try to regulate this? I mean, maybe give us some perspective from one administration to the next, or as these
projects keep rolling out, is there regulation somewhere that we should look at as a model? Is there regulation that's failing somewhere that we
should try to avoid?
BECKLER: Well, you know, it's been interesting to look at it historically. So, when you're looking at 2017, for example, some of these very giant data
centers are going into Ohio. Ohio regulators are allowing the utility, for example, to give them what they call economic development rates. So,
meaning that a company like Meta might actually pay a cheaper electricity rate in order to kind of build their data center.
So, you go from that perspective in 2017 to as recently as this year, we're seeing regulators actually think, actually, we need to add additional
riders onto these data centers to make sure that they're paying their fair share for this transmission cost, that we're not displacing the electricity
cost onto residents and small businesses in the nearby areas that data centers are paying their fair share for electricity costs.
So, we are starting to see some regulatory efforts taking shape in Ohio and Virginia and Georgia. So, it kind of remains to be seen if those same
regulations are adopted nationwide.
SREENIVASAN: Is this just the cost of doing business and a future with A.I?
BECKLER: Great question. I think the problem is that none of us really know. So, much of this, again, is speculative. We're not seeing the payout
that we'd expect to see in economies or how it's transforming sort of our work life in the same way that some of these big tech companies are
promising. What we are seeing, though, is a dramatic change in how our electricity is produced, how the impact on the environment is, our
electricity costs, the amount of clean water we have.
So, I think we just have to really think, yes, maybe this is the cost of doing business if we want this future built on A.I., but is that cost too
high?
SREENIVASAN: Investigative reporter with Business Insider, Hannah Beckler, thanks so much for your time.
BECKLER: Thank you so much for having me.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And finally, while President Trump and Silicon Valley turned their back on the climate, Chilean scientists studying in the world's
driest desert, Atacama, have made a breakthrough that could solve worsening drought issues. The key, a small, resilient flower that blooms during rare
rainfall events. Many studies have suggested Chile's droughts could reach extreme levels by 2050, but it appears this unsuspecting plant holds the
genetic clues capable of helping crops withstand extreme conditions and create long-term agricultural sustainability. Well, what a good new story.
[13:55:00]
And it's been a positive week for the climate after it was announced that history has been made because for the first time ever, renewable energy
generated more electricity than coal this year.
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 our social media. Thank you for watching, and goodbye from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
