Read Full Transcript EXPAND
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to “Amanpour and Company.” Here’s what’s coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: That’s real starvation stuff. I see it. And you can’t fake that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Children starve in Gaza. As the humanitarian crisis there worsens by the minute and outrage around the world grows, I’ll speak to
humanitarian Jan Egeland, secretary general of the Norwegian Refugee Council.
Then —
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I think this deal will bring us very close together actually.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: — a trade deal for the U.S. and the E.U., but is it actually a good deal for Europe? I’ll ask journalist Steven Erlanger, who covers the
continent for The New York Times.
Plus —
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): We analyzed all concerns, all aspects of what needs to be changed.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: After protestors make their voices heard in Ukraine, a U-turn from President Zelenskyy. I’ll discuss what this domestic unrest means for
a country at war with Daria Kaleniuk who’s been at the forefront of combating corruption in Ukraine.
And —
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DAVID DALEY, AUTHOR, “ANTIDEMOCRATIC” AND SENIOR FELLOW, FAIRVOTE: Suddenly then you’ve moved the Republican advantage from three seats to
somewhere closer to six or seven.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: — “Antidemocratic.” How redistricting in Texas could change America’s political landscape.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I’m Bianna Golodryga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
Children starving to death with images beamed around the world. The hunger crisis in Gaza caused by Israel’s aid blockade is being seen by Israel’s
allies as increasingly intolerable. And while Prime Minister Netanyahu tries to claim there is no starvation in Gaza, here’s his closest ally,
President Trump, speaking to a reporter earlier.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. President, Prime Minister Netanyahu said there’s no starvation in Gaza. Do you agree with that assessment?
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: I don’t know. I mean, based on television, I would say not particularly this — those children look very hungry.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: And here’s what British Prime Minister Keir Starmer had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KEIR STARMER, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: Certainly, speaking for the British public and myself, seeing those images of starving children in particular
are revolting. And there’s a sense of revulsion in the British public at what they’re seeing. And they know and we know that humanitarian aid needs
to get in at speed, at volume.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Well, Israel is now pausing its military activities at specific times in parts of Gaza to allow some aid deliveries into the enclave. The
U.N. has welcomed the development, though cautions the humanitarian situation remains dire. Some aid is now being airdropped, but it’s often a
dangerous and inefficient method. Just listen to these people in Gaza.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): I didn’t get anything. I was crushed in the crowd.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): This aid is disgraceful. We are not dogs be made to run after aid. People fought over it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: My first guest has welcomed the daily pauses as better than nothing but cautions the complicated system of pauses, corridors, and
ineffective airdrops is not going to avert famine and mass death. Jan Egeland is a secretary general of the Norwegian Refugee Council, and he’s
joining me from Oslo. Jan, it is good to see you.
First, your reaction to President Trump when asked if there is a famine in Gaza, if that people are not getting enough food. The fact that he said
that starvation is real, you can’t fake the images that he’s seeing, followed by the British prime minister calling it revolting. Your reaction
to those comments from Israel’s — two of Israel’s really closest allies.
JAN EGELAND, SECRETARY GENERAL, NORWEGIAN REFUGEE COUNCIL: I’m glad that on long last President Trump, Prime Minister Starmer, Max in Germany,
Macron, everybody agrees with us who have been saying now for many months that people are dying from starvation, they’re dying from preventable
disease because there is no medicine, because the hospitals have been bombed. They are dying because there’s no water and sanitation. My
organization is one of those who are — have been trying to provide water and sanitation. We have no fuel anymore to do that. We cannot provide even
the basic of aid up until this point.
So, this has been deliberate starvation and these capitals have known so, because we told them for many months, I’m glad it’s — there is a wakeup
call now. It is very late.
GOLODRYGA: President Trump also went on to say that the U.S. has sent in some $60 million in aid for the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. Interestingly
enough, he didn’t really criticize the foundation itself, though he did say more needed to be done by setting up so-called food centers. How do you
interpret that? It seemed rather vague. How would a food center there work?
EGELAND: Well, I think what they refer to is that the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, which there is nothing humanitarian about, it’s a military set
up by the Israeli army and has gone some U.S. funding, it’s not working. What we had before, the breakdown of the ceasefire in March and Israel then
broke off that ceasefire, we had up to 400 distribution points.
There are 2 million people there. I mean, how many shops would there be for a population of 2 million anywhere else in the world? Many hundreds. Of
course, you can’t have two centers here and two point — distribution points there. It has to be massive.
So, the only way to avert a biblical famine on our watch, which Israel and its allies would be responsible for, is a massive opening of all of the
border crossings for all of the head organizations, including my own, which have been in Gaza for a generation since long before Hamas, but we’re still
denied access for our water and sanitation hygiene items, our food and our tents.
GOLODRYGA: That’s Israel denying access. Do you think Egypt, which also shares a border with Gaza, would be open to or can be persuaded or
pressured to do the same?
EGELAND: Well, Egypt says that they really want to provide, and the Egyptian Red Crescent was one of those who wanted to give much more and who
I believe have crossed with some consignments. But of course, the Israeli army is on the other side of the border crossing. It’s an occupation force
that is one of the strongest militaries in the world. They control Gaza. So, it is Israel and the western powers that provide the arms to all of
this that has to change this. They have the fingerprint all over this catastrophe really.
We can change it. It’s still possible. But then not a system of a 10-hour pulses, some few corridors, a few airdrops that look good on television,
but doesn’t really give anything to the population. It has to be a massive ramp up. And time is running out.
GOLODRYGA: And the time is running out. And we’ve seen that from the images. We’re hearing it from doctors on the ground there. Aid
organizations. You’re hearing it from Israelis. I mean, this is, for the first time really, penetrating into the Israeli media as well.
How to best go about doing that as effectively, as efficiently, as rapidly as need be, flooding the zone with the needed aid? Is there any
alternative, in your view, other than going back to the status quo prior to March when Israel put the blockade in and then put in the Gaza Humanitarian
Foundation instead?
EGELAND: No. I mean, we had a functioning ceasefire. There was enough food and other supplies coming in every single day by trusted international
organizations from Europe, from the United States, from elsewhere. It functioned at the time. Israel broke off this. They sealed the border and
starvation, which is similar to the one of the Assad regime in Syria and shoot, but with no sanctions to punish those — that strangulation of a
population.
So, what needs to be done? Ceasefire is really number one. I mean, today, there was a lot of air raids and they killed a mother with a newborn baby
among many civilians. There — people are shot every single day as they rush, hungry as they are, for food. If I was a 17-year-old boy in Gaza, I
would rush to get some food for my starving little sister.
Then all of the aid organizations have to be allowed in, not just a few U.N. agencies and a couple of the NGOs. We are a hundred organizations that
have a track record of effective delivery and independent delivery in Gaza. And then, we have to have all of the border crossings open so we can flood
it, as you say, the aid. So, that it’s not the gangs that can loot whatever comes in desperation. We can have orderly distributions. And we need
hundreds of distribution points.
GOLODRYGA: Yes.
EGELAND: There are, after all, 2 million civilians and nearly all of them are innocent of the atrocities on the 7th of October.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. Gaza essentially functioning as a failed state at this point. Let’s talk about the people that you have, your colleagues there on
the ground right now. You have about 64 people working in Gaza. What are you hearing from them, accounts that they are reporting back to you from
what they’ve been seeing?
EGELAND: Well, I mean, there is a new tone, because these are true heroes. I mean, if there is anyone, I would give the Nobel Peace Prize to, I would
give it to my colleagues on the ground, Palestinian in Gaza, the single mothers who are also aid workers, many of them. But they’re really broken
now, after all of these months of starvation, all of these months of having their homes destroyed, the stories they tell of having being in there
eighth home and then hearing a drone with an Israeli military loud speak in the morning saying, you have two hours to leave. Take whatever you can
carry and leave because we’re going to destroy also this civilian home. You know, no one of us would be able to sustain such inhumanity for such a long
time.
GOLODRYGA: Jan, you have been an expert in this region and having a front row seat to numerous, sadly, conflicts and wars. You took part in the Oslo
talks as well. You mentioned earlier that the best way to get to a place where adequate food and humanitarian aid is brought in is through a
ceasefire. As you know, not only Israel, but the United States placed the blame this time around in negotiations on Hamas saying that they would not
budge. Your reaction to that and what it could take to get to that ceasefire.
EGELAND: I’m not privy to the negotiations. What I see is that it — as a military conflict, it was all over long time ago. There is as many Israeli
militaries have said no more military gains to be made. This is not targeted anti-terrorist warfare, it’s the destruction of a civilization
now.
Hamas has a million sins on their conscience. And worst of all, on the 7th of October, massacres, that organizations closed down my organization, NSC
when they tried — when we were not willing to budge, when they asked us to give aid to certain groups only, they yielded. We continue to be in
independent. Hundred million sins on the conscience as Hamas.
But those dying, bleeding have nothing to do with Hamas. These are women and children. They had nothing to do with 7th of October. And that’s why a
ceasefire has to be declared immediately, whatever is said by men in hotel suites in Qatar.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And you talk about Israeli military officials, a former defense minister, saying that they achieved all of their military goals
last summer when a deal was close.
EGELAND: Yes.
GOLODRYGA: And sadly, not reached at that point.
EGELAND: Yes.
GOLODRYGA: Can I get you to respond to what President Trump also said, that he was working with Prime Minister Netanyahu on various plans, sort of
a plan B now to free hostages still being held by Hamas? The alternative options. You know, I spoke with a hostage family that said this very —
this really worries them because they know that it endangers the lives of hostages, if this is in fact a rescue or military operation. What do you
make of alternative options? What other alternative options do you think there could be other than a ceasefire at this point?
EGELAND: Well, again I — it’s hard to see that hostages can be released without some negotiations. The majority of the hostages have been released
as part of negotiations. It did work. Of course, the hostage taking is abhorrent. I’ve seen that in many parts of the world. It destroys families
and these are completely innocent people that were just kidnapped and brought into tunnels. The suffering is unimaginable for them.
But it has been negotiations that has gotten them out. And also, by the way, the many hundreds of Palestinian civilians who have been sitting
without any trial for a very long time, and many of them also maltreated. It’s undeniable. So, the negotiations have to be pushed much harder by the
United States and by Europe and the Gulf countries on both sides. That’s our only hope, really. This only way Israelis and Palestinians can live
together.
I’ve seen that myself since we facilitated the Oslo Agreement between Israel and the PLO. PLO being a terrorist organization in the eyes of
Israel at the time, and it led to a lot of good on both sides and then it all collapsed, thanks in part because of Hamas’ terror and because of
Netanyahu’s anti-peace platform.
GOLODRYGA: Quickly, Jan, in the days to come minus a ceasefire, which so many people are hoping and praying for, what will give you any sort of
optimism? I know you said it’s better than nothing. These pauses in fighting, even the airdrops, more aid going in. Without a ceasefire, what
is it that would make you at least a bit more hopeful that a crisis or complete failure has been averted?
EGELAND: The only hope is that the pressure from Washington, Berlin, London, Paris, Brussels, and the Gulf Capitals is sustained. It becomes
tougher. I think these leaders now understand that their legacy is — has a lot of black stains on it because they’ve been part of something that led
to the killing of 18,000 Palestinian, children and baby. 18,000.
So, I think that pressure will be — will just grow and that’s why the Netanyahu government finally admits t that their policy has not worked and
that they must change. So, hopefully, we will be able to have the search, but then we have to — 5, 6, 7-fold increase the aid that came in today and
yesterday, which was, after all, more than in previous days. I hope we are now seeing the beginning of the end to this nightmare.
GOLODRYGA: And getting it to the people who need it the most, specifically children and women. Jan Egeland, thank you so much. And stay with CNN. We
will be right back after this break.
GOLODRYGA: President Trump’s trip to Scotland also yielded a trade deal between the U.S. and E.U., which he billed as the largest trade deal in
history. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I think it’s great that we made a deal today instead of playing games and maybe not making a deal at all. I think it’s — I’m going to let
you say it, but I think it’s the biggest deal ever made. Thank you very much.
URSULA VON DER LEYEN, EUROPEAN COMMISSION PRESIDENT: Thank you very much.
TRUMP: Congratulations.
VON DER LEYEN: Thank you. It’s a huge deal. It will bring stability. It will bring predictability. That’s very important for our businesses on both
sides of the Atlantic.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: But it seems to be more of a framework for an agreement than a full trade deal with many details still unclear. And it’s also facing
pushback from some in the E.U. with the French prime minister, calling it a dark day for Europe.
So, let’s get into the details now with Steven Erlanger, the chief diplomatic correspondent for The New York Times. He joins me from Berlin.
Steven, it’s been a while. It’s good to see you. So, as we noted, neither side released the full text of the agreement. There are still elements that
remain unclear here, but it does appear our framework is at least in place.
The exports now from the bloc will be facing a 15 percent tariff. There will be some exceptions. 50 percent on steel will still be in place. Zero –
– and some zero-tariff trade as well. The E.U. has also pledged to buy $750 billion worth of U.S. energy products committed to investing an additional
$600 billion to the U.S. economy. Seems like perhaps if there’s a winning party, it would be the United States. How is this being interpreted in the
E.U.?
STEVEN ERLANGER, CHIEF DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENT, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Well, I think there is a winning party, and it is the United States. The United
States is just stronger. It’s exercised its power in a pretty brutal way. The European Union has power, it has economic power, but it chose not to
use it, which is one of the reasons why there’s a lot of criticism inside the E.U.
Some of that criticism is obviously about domestic politics. That would be true in France, certainly. But in general, I think you hear from Germany
and Italy and many of the other’s relief that there isn’t going to be a massive trade war. Trump tends to throw out a grenade and then make
everyone grateful that he didn’t use a grenade, but just a rifle. And that’s kind of what happens here.
I mean, the Europeans were worried there’d be a 30 percent tariff or even more. Instead, it’s a 15 percent tariff. But when you think about it, I
mean the Brits, the British got a 10 percent tariff. So, the E.U., for all its economic weight, didn’t do as well as Britain did, partly because
Britain’s trade balance with America was actually in America’s favor, which wasn’t really true with the European Union.
But you know, just to have Ursula von der Leyen go traipsing to Trump’s golf course, which he’s there to promote, you — gives you an idea. I mean,
this is the mountain coming to Mohammed and it gives you an idea of the relative power in this relationship.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. Even more awkward one could argue for the British prime minister to make it appear as if he’s coming to visit Trump in his own
country there. And yet, here we have it. And —
ERLANGER: It’s a little humiliating, but — ye
GOLODRYGA: But yes, they also managed to have somewhat of a warmer relationship between these two men, Keir Starmer and President Trump.
President Trump, you know, praised him effusively and his family and went on to say, you know, that this is where his mother is from.
And for President Trump, it really does come down to personal relationships as well. Talk about that among the E.U. member states, because some he is
closer with. I think he’s taken off quite nicely with the new the new chancellor in Germany, but other countries, not so much in the E.U. And
overall, is that a negative?
ERLANGER: Well, he — the whole point of power is to divide and conquer. And the European Union on trade is a pretty solid bloc. So, it was doing
the negotiations. So, you know, he likes Keir Starmer but Britain was a less important issue. He is proud of his mother. He has golf courses there.
He is going to have a state visit where he is going to be able to go ride in a carriage at Windsor and meet the king, and Trump loves all this stuff.
The European Union is basically lawyers and trade negotiators, and they have power. And while he can say he loves Britain, he has said often that
he really hates the European Union. He believes wrongly that it was organized to “screw the United States,” direct quote, because it does
represent an important big trading bloc.
So, there are people like Giorgia Meloni in Italy, Friedrich Merz in Germany who get on with him, and that you should include Viktor Orban too,
who’s one of his soulmates from Hungary. But the E.U. is by itself a little bit divided, that’s always been true, which is why they let people like
Ursula von der Leyen and Sefcovic, the trade negotiator do it.
But Trump doesn’t really like those people. It was very, very hard for Ursula von der Leyen even to get a meeting with Trump for months and months
and months because he really doesn’t like the European Union. He considers it kind of the headquarters of Neoliberal gender bending politics, shared
sovereignty. He is — you know, he’s a nationalist and a transactionalist. So, in a way for him to humiliate the E.U. this way I think gives him also
a degree of personal pleasure.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, we’ve heard as much also from his vice president who reiterated those same sentiments earlier this year. You mentioned Viktor
Orban. He called this deal basically just saying that Donald Trump ate von der Leyen for breakfast. The French prime minister said that it is a somber
day when an alliance of three peoples brought together to affirm their common values and to defend their common interest, resigns itself to
submission.
And then, as we noted, the E.U. trade commissioner said he is 100 percent sure that this deal would be better than a trade war. So, overall, do you
think that he’s right as opposed to some of these other leaders who view this as the president belittling the E.U.?
ERLANGER: Well, I think part of the criticism is not for yesterday, it’s that the commission and von der Leyen decided not to put in countervailing
tariffs on the United States right away. So, it showed a degree of weakness. Now, this was in the interest of negotiation. I think having a
trade war would be terrible actually for both countries to be honest.
And you know, I think the E.U. is right about that, but there is a lot of domestic national criticism from the French where, you know, there’s a big
presidential election coming up. Viktor Orban hates the — you know, he’s a Euro skeptic, that’s the sort of nice word for it. He doesn’t like
Brussels. So, he’s going to jump on any possibility to criticize Brussels.
And there’s one thing we haven’t really discussed, which is one of the things that interested the Europeans and worried them was a connection that
a lot of the Trump people were making quietly, but explicitly between security provisions and a trade deal. Trump himself talked about that.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, they do.
ERLANGER: So, there were a lot of Europeans, particularly — yes. Well, particularly in Poland, in the Baltic States who said, look, let’s do this
deal with the Americans. Let’s keep them happy. Some of what Trump announced won’t ever happen. I mean, he said the E.U.’s going to, you know,
invest billions and billions. Well, the E.U. doesn’t have money to invest. Maybe countries will. They can buy more energy, that’s for sure, which
would be a good thing because they’re still buying too much Russian gas, frankly.
But, you know, some of these promises Trump makes, as he usually does, I mean, will they be followed up on? Hard to know.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. But they sure know how to placate him now at this point. Two terms in.
ERLANGER: Yes.
GOLODRYGA: And speak to his proclivities there for sure. Steven Erlanger, thank you. It’s great to see you.
ERLANGER: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: Well, on that trip to Scotland, President Trump has certainly had plenty to say. Here’s what he said on Vladimir Putin.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I’m disappointed in President Putin. Very disappointed in him. So, we’re going to have to look. And I’m going to reduce that 50 days that I
gave him to a lesser number because I think I already know the answer what’s going to happen.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: So little hope is seams of peace in Ukraine anytime soon. Meanwhile, on the country’s streets, for the first time since Russia’s
full-scale invasion, serious domestic unrest is unfolding as floods of protestors last week voiced outrage about a law that removed the
independence of two anti-corruption agencies.
President Zelenskyy has now backtracked introducing another law to restore the independence of the agencies. My next guest has spent years combating
corruption in Ukraine. Daria Kaleniuk is the co-founder and executive director of the Anti-Corruption Action Center, and she’s joining me now
from Kyiv. Daria, it is good to see you.
Before we get into domestic politics there, and there’s a lot to discuss, I do want to get your reaction to this rather surprising statement and
announcement from President Trump where he narrowed the window of time that he gave Vladimir Putin to really come to the peace talk deal and any sort
of negotiations from 50 days to now he said 10 to 12 days before potentially secondary sanctions would be leveled against any countries
buying oil and gas from Russia.
DARIA KALENIUK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ANTI-CORRUPTION ACTION CENTER: Well, it’s it sounds good. I wish there was no 10 or 12 days either because
Vladimir Putin missed so many opportunities to end the war. And clearly, I do hope that President Trump will execute, push and force on Vladimir Putin
and on Russia.
Because, in Ukraine, we witnessed earlier this year that the pressure is more on Ukraine and Ukrainians as nobody else wants to end the war, but we
want to end the war on just and fair terms when we are not losing the war.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And we’ll continue to follow that to see if he will actually stand by that new policy and perhaps new sanctions being announced
within a matter of 10 to 12 days. But as it relates to what has happened in Ukraine in the last week, we saw the largest antigovernment protest since
Russia’s large-scale invasion of 2022. Again, all relating to a new law that was introduced that would take away the independence of two anti-
corruption organizations.
In an interview on NBC, you said that this was a red line that President Zelenskyy had crossed, undermining the development of Ukraine. Still
thought to have such a mass number of people take to the streets in the middle of war that’s only grown increasingly deadly, what does that say
about how Ukrainians viewed this action in this state, the fight against corruption in the country?
KALENIUK: I think it says a lot about the people of Ukraine. The people of Ukraine are the source of power. And if President Zelenskyy forgets about
that, people of Ukraine go to the streets despite the large-scale war and remind him how to serve its people.
And I’m proud of my people. I’m proud of very young people, primarily those who are going on the rallies are youngsters, teenagers, people in their
early 20s, and they stood up not against the government, it’s not anti- government protest, it is the protest against the law which destroys independence of anticorruption bodies.
So, this is the protest to have justice, to have fairness, and the rally for good policies, for rule of law, for good governance. And this is where
Ukrainian people, especially our younger generation, want President Zelenskyy to stay firm on and not do any backsliding.
GOLODRYGA: How do you interpret the timing? How do you explain why now? Why introduce this law now?
KALENIUK: It’s not out of the blue. We were witnessing, you know, some backsliding in Zelenskyy administration with other reforms. And it’s good
that Ukrainian people actually stood up because I would expect even worse things happening later on if Zelenskyy would have forgotten that he’s the
servant of the people of Ukraine.
Partially, that could be caused that reasoning for such a backsliding, could be caused with Zelenskyy understanding that there might be end of the
war and it could be related to the post-war elections, which might happen. And for Zelenskyy, he will need to run for elections. And in democratic
fair and just elections, it’ll be hard for him to win.
Therefore, you know, having independent anti-corruption institutions which can investigate close associates could be a problem for Zelenskyy. That
could be one of the reasons. Another reason could be that for the United States, it’s not more a priority to have good governance, rule of law,
anti-corruption reforms. Usually, the U.S. would be one of the top supporters for these reforms on the level of both financial support, also
the leverage. And it would be starting from the embassy here on the ground in Kyiv and then up to the president prioritizing these reforms and
speaking directly straightforwardly to President Zelenskyy, or in the past, President Yushchenko, if there was any backsliding.
So, this leverage, the push for the good governance anticorruption reforms from international caucus (ph), including the U.S. and the push from
Ukrainian civil society for good governance reforms caused significant progress in Ukraine for the past 10 years after the evolution of dignity.
And we have to maintain that progress despite large-scale war.
GOLODRYGA: Well, it may not be a top priority for the Trump administration, but we know it remains one in the E.U. and the Ukraine’s
goal of joining the E.U. at some point. Also, the IMF watching closely. The E.U. recently suspended, I believe, about $1.7 billion in aid. How big of a
threat would that have been for Ukraine as a whole, if they had actually distanced themselves by these actions from the E.U.?
KALENIUK: Absolute majority of Ukrainians, probably more than 90 percent Ukraine to become member of the E.U., and the sociology also shows that
Ukrainians want reforms to be done all the way towards the E.U. So, we are pretty fine with giving up part of our sovereignty in exchange for the —
you know, some benefits, some security guarantees, and some dignity and the quality-of-life which E.U. is providing.
And Ukraine — Ukrainian society is a very democratic society. We are not accepting authoritarian style of decree. And even during the large-scale
war, we — it’s our strength. It’s when the charity foundations are collecting donations in order to buy drones for the forces. So, that’s
coming not from the state, it’s coming from the grassroots movements in Ukraine. We have to maintain our democracy.
GOLODRYGA: But you do have a history of corruption in the country, hence the position that you in and — you’re in the job that you have. What is
the state of corruption in Ukraine today?
KALENIUK: Obviously, there is still corruption as in every country in the world. However, there — until this law was adopted, there was the system
of checks and balances. So, it is critical for us to have independent body, which can investigate even untouchable people, close friends of the
president. And when National Anti-Corruption Bureau charged the former vice prime minister, which is a close friend of the family of Zelenskyy, that
was important message that in Ukraine, yes, there is corruption, but there is the system which can tackle it. Disregarding who is engaged in
corruption.
So, we are treating seriously the issue of corruption. The previous revolution in Ukraine in 2014, 2013, revolution of dignity was also a
revolution against corruption, against kleptocracy. And for the 10 years, we’ve done significant progress. There is a lot of tools on transparency,
accountability, as a disclosure system of public officials and this anti- corruption bodies, which we have to protect.
GOLODRYGA: And we do know that a new bill to restore independence has been introduced. I believe it will be voted on this Thursday. Obviously, we’ll
be watching this very closely as well. Daria Kaleniuk, thank you so much for the time.
KALENIUK: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: And we’ll be right back after this short break.
GOLODRYGA: Texas Republicans are breaking tradition as they plan to redraw congressional maps ahead of next year’s midterms. It’s a move that many
weren’t expecting until the end of the decade, but comes at the behest of President Trump who’s hoping to keep the narrow GOP House majority intact.
Democrats are trying to push back with some calling this unusual redistricting drive completely unethical and deplorable.
David Daley is a senior fellow at the organization FairVote and he joins Hari Sreenivasan to discuss the impact of this decision.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HARI SREENIVASAN, INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Bianna, thanks. David Daley, thanks so much for joining us. Last week in Texas, there was an
extension of a legislative session and redistricting is back on that, and I think that probably caught a few people by surprise because we’re kind of
used to redistricting being once a 10-year event.
DAVID DALEY, AUTHOR, “ANTIDEMOCRATIC” AND SENIOR FELLOW, FAIRVOTE: That’s what redistricting is in most states. That’s not the case in Texas. There
are a handful of states where you can do a mid-decade redistricting.
Those usually tend to be doubly political, right? I mean, gerrymandering that takes place after the census and state legislatures oftentimes locks
in political maps for a decade, but when you do this in the middle of a decade, you’ve got the benefit of the previous couple elections, you can
tell which seats are competitive and it gives you a real advantage if you jump back in and take another crack at those maps. That’s what’s happening
in Texas right now. It could have real consequences for the midterm elections in 2026.
SREENIVASAN: So, just so I don’t lose my kind of overseas audience for people who aren’t that familiar with redistricting versus gerrymandering, I
mean, first of all, what is the purpose of redrawing map lines per state and creating new House districts?
DALEY: It has a wonderful idea behind it. Every 10 years after the census, we want to redraw every congressional and state legislative district in the
country in order to account for population changes and population shifts over the previous decade. So, essentially it has fairness really at its
core. The trouble is the politicians who draw these lines, especially these days with the kinds of technology and voter data and sophisticated mapping
systems that they have, can use this process not to create an actual fair map or a competitive map, but to lock in a partisan advantage for their
side.
Those advantages have only become bigger and bigger as the technology has improved. And that’s gerrymandering, that is the use of redistricting in
order to lock in political benefits.
SREENIVASAN: So, when we look at the relationship between drawing a map in Texas and national politics, are you saying this is because if I can make
sure that I have a district that is more likely to go Republican or more likely to go Democrat, and I can essentially secure more seats in the U.S.
House. And right now, we have a very small imbalance where the Republicans have an advantage by just a couple of votes. So, if they were to able to,
what, create entirely new districts, they would just have that lead?
DALEY: That’s right. Right now, Republicans have a three-seat advantage in the U.S. house. So, Democrats only have to flip a handful of seats in the
2026 midterms in order to take back the chamber. Ordinarily, the party that is out of the White House does a pretty well during midterms. You know, if
you look at the 2018 midterms, really good for Democrats. The 2010 midterms, really good for Republicans.
But if you can go into Texas and do a mid-decade redraw and take someplace between two and five Democratic seats off the board, suddenly, then you’ve
moved the Republican advantage from three seats to somewhere closer to six or seven. There is also likely to be a new map coming out of Ohio that
could flip too close Democratic seats there. And there is a really important voting rights act of redistricting case that the U.S. Supreme
Court will hear about majority minority seats beginning in the fall that could lead to the disappearance of majority minority black Democratic seats
in Alabama, Louisiana, perhaps elsewhere across the south.
So, when we say right now that Democrats need to flip three seats, that’s on the current map, that could really change. Democrats could be looking at
having to pick up somewhere closer to a dozen seats to win the House. And that gets much, much harder because there’s just not a lot of competitive
seats out there do in part to all of the gerrymandering.
SREENIVASAN: You know, the Department of Justice sent Governor Abbott a letter earlier this month. They were expressing serious concerns regarding
the legality of four of Texas’ congressional districts, they basically said that the — these are unconstitutional racial gerrymanders.
DALEY: I would say first that the DOJ letter is really designed to give Governor Abbott cover here. I’m not — I would not call those districts
racial gerrymanders, I would call those majority minority seats that are drawn in order to keep Texas in line with the Voting Rights Act.
SREENIVASAN: In a statement, the Texas Republican Party said, this latest round of redistricting is an essential step to preserving GOP control in
Congress and advancing President Trump’s America first agenda.
I mean, in a way, it’s a very honest declaration of their intentions, but it’s also, you know, very partisan. Is it legal?
DALEY: It’s very partisan and it’s very legal. First, it’s very legal because Texas allows this kind of mid-decade redistricting. But second,
that entire statement is on the table right now because of John Roberts in the U.S. Supreme Court in a decision in 2019 and a case from North Carolina
called Common Cause versus Rucho. The court said that partisan gerrymandering is a non-visible political issue. They closed the federal
courts to these claims and they did so at exactly the moment in which lower federal courts judges appointed by presidents of both parties made it very
clear that they had all the tools they needed to determine when a partisan gerrymander had gone too far.
They threw out Democratic gerrymanders in Maryland. They threw out Republican gerrymanders in Ohio, in Michigan, in North Carolina and
Wisconsin, and they had a range of evidence and they said, we know how to do this. And John Roberts and the court said, no. They said that all these
standards, all these measures were sociological gobbledygook. They said it was going to look like the courts were being political. Instead, it was the
U.S. Supreme Court that was being political.
They locked in these gains for Republicans. They incentivized both parties in 2021 to maximize their gerrymanders, knowing that nobody, would stop
them. And they encouraged statements like the one we see from the Texas GOP, because when politicians now say that we were doing an intentional
partisan gerrymander, that is exactly in line with the decision that Robert’s handed down. He made this possible, the court enabled this attack
on democracy that both parties are engaged in right now.
SREENIVASAN: So, what would be the impact if, say, Governor Newsom in California or Governor Murphy in New Jersey tried to counter whatever
happens in Texas?
DALEY: It would be additionally bad for voters in all of those states? I think the road in California is very difficult. California has a
nonpartisan independent commission draw its lines. If California wants to do something about this, they would either have to have a special election
to change their constitutional system, or the legislature would have to find some kind of fig leaf to suggest that they could do a mid-decade
redistricting on their own, above and beyond the commission. That would certainly wind up in court, and I can’t imagine that the legislature would
win.
New Jersey could do the same thing. They have a commission. The state legislature could try to step in. But I think that Democrats have really
maximized their gains on a lot of these maps. It’s currently a 9-3 Democratic delegation in New Jersey. It’s a 14-3 Democratic delegation in
Illinois. It’s a 7-1 in Maryland. There’s not a lot of blue states where Democrats can do what Republicans are trying to do in Texas. So, it’s going
to be very difficult for them to find a way to match this.
SREENIVASAN: OK. So, there have been some critics of what the Republicans are trying in Texas saying, look there — this could backfire. and create
what’s — I think the phrase is a dummymander. What does that mean?
DALEY: A dummymander is a great term, right? A dummymander means a map that is drawn to benefit one side, but that the political situation changes
and it ends up backfiring. You spread your voters too thin, you get too greedy trying for too many seats.
I think this is unlikely to happen in Texas, and I think the fact that we’re talking about it in many ways is a sign that Democrats don’t have a
lot of good options here other than to try to tell Republicans, well, be careful this might not work. It might backfire on you.
Texas has a 25-13 Republican delegation. Only one of those 25 Republican seats is remotely competitive. That one seat that was won at 57 percent of
the vote in 2024. Of the other 24 seats, all of them were won with more than 60 percent of the vote. 13 of those seats were won with more than 65
percent of the vote or were completely uncontested at all.
If Republicans want to do this, the two South Texas districts, the 34th and 28th, which are currently Democratic districts, very close within 5
percent, you could wipe those away pretty quickly. And then, if you wanted to go for a third, a fourth seat, what you would do is you’d go up towards
like Dallas-Fort Worth. You would take a little piece of the city and then you would attach it to a big swath of. Central Eastern Texas, those red
districts right now that are almost entirely uncontested by Democrats, big Republican counties.
So, I think you could probably get to four seats without even putting a dummymander on the table. Republicans have not drawn a dummymander in the
modern technological era. They are very, very good at this. The consultant that they brought on in 2021 to work on their maps, it’s the same
consultant who drew the maps in Wisconsin, a map that has withstood Democratic waves and never come close to backfiring.
I think when we talk about a dummymander, we’re talking about something that might have been more apt to happen in the 1990s or the 2000s. Not
really going to happen right now.
SREENIVASAN: You know, there are people who will say, listen, the maps have been gerrymandered every 10 years, but in 2018, we had midterms where
the Democrats kind of overcame some of those.
DALEY: Yes, you’re right. Democrats took back the House in 2018. But I think what’s important to recognize about that is that Democrats were able
to win that back, not because they defeated gerrymandering or because these maps backfired, but it’s because Democrats and citizens defeated these maps
in the courts ahead of time.
So, you had court cases that created fair maps and got rid of the gerrymandered maps in Pennsylvania, in parts of Florida, in Virginia, in
North Carolina. So, the map in 2018 looked very different from the map elsewhere. Democrats also won that year because they were able to win about
75 percent of the seats that they flipped were drawn by courts or drawn by commissions.
So, they maximized their gains in the fair competitive districts where it was still possible to do that. They did not really make any gains at all on
gerrymandered maps. They were able to win back two seats in Texas and two seats in Michigan that way, four of them. And that is all that these maps
surrendered over a decade in all of these states, in all of these elections. Those districts don’t exist anymore.
Republicans in 2021 went into Indiana, they went into Oklahoma, they went into Kansas, they went into Utah. These seats that went to Democrats in
2018, in that wave, they were redrawn. They’re not going to go back the other way. So, there’s a really, really small pool of seats for Democrats
to go after. You had 37 of 435 races in 2024 that were within 5 percent. Democrats already won 22 of those that year. It leaves you with 15
competitive districts. There were only three districts in which a Republican was elected, but Kamala Harris carried the district. That’s Don
Bacon’s seat in Nebraska. Michael Lawler in New York. Brian Fitzpatrick in Pennsylvania.
So, you could give it a shot. But the number of targets and how many voters you’d have to persuade in these districts, very, very difficult at this
point.
SREENIVASAN: Senior fellow in FairVote and author of “Antidemocratic,” David Dailey, thanks so much.
DALEY: A pleasure. Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: And finally, a hero’s welcome for England’s champion football team, The Lionesses, who brought home their second straight Euros trophy,
winning a dramatic penalty shootout against Spain on Sunday. They’re back to celebrate on home turf ahead of a well-deserved victory parade in London
on Tuesday.
Fans across England are still buzzing after a tournament, which thrilled and devastated fans across Europe. The Lionesses’ victory concluded a
record-breaking euros with over 650,000 fans cheering on women’s football in Switzerland. Congratulations to them.
And be sure to tune in tomorrow for my conversation with country singer- songwriter Margo Price. Fresh from the Newport Folk Festival, she sat down with me here in New York City to discuss politics, empowerment, and her new
record, “Hardheaded Woman.” It’s a lovely conversation. Be sure to tune into that.
And that is it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. And remember, you can always
catch us online, on our website, and all-over social media.
Thanks so much for watching, and goodbye from New York.