July 7, 2025

BIANNA GOLODRYGA, ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to “Amanpour and Company.” Here’s what’s coming up.

Netanyahu meets Trump in D.C. as Gaza ceasefire talks continue in Doha. Could a deal between Israel and Hamas be within reach? Israeli journalist

Nadav Eyal explains.

Plus, a report from the enclave where Israeli strikes continue to devastate.

Then —

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: everyone’s just trying to do their part. You know, there’s a — it’s a horrible sense of search, right? Because you’re

searching for something you hope you don’t find.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: Texas braces for more rain after floods kill over 80 and the search for survivors enters its fourth day. We get the latest on the

ground. And as extreme weather events become more frequent, how can we prepare?

Also, ahead —

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HELEN LEWIS, AUTHOR, “THE GENIUS MYTH”: This is my idea that geniuses, you know, anointing somebody a genius is often a kind of political argument

behind it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: — Journalist Helen Lewis speaks to Walter Isaacson about her new book, debunking the genius myth.

Welcome to the program everyone. I’m Bianna Golodryga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is back in Washington to meet with President Trump for a third time this year. Now, this comes at a

pivotal moment in the Middle East as indirect talks between Hamas and Israel continue in Doha to secure another ceasefire and hostage release.

Netanyahu appeared optimistic as he boarded his plane to the state saying that Trump would, quote, “Help us move closer to an agreement.” And Trump

himself also sounds hopeful.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: I think we’re close to a deal on Gaza. We could have it this week. I think there’s a good chance we have a deal with

Hamas during the week, during the coming week, pertaining to quite a few of the hostage. Yes. You know, we’ve gotten a lot of the hostages out. But

pertaining to the remaining hostages, quite a few of them will be coming out. We think we’ll have that done this week.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: But although Netanyahu appears supportive of this U.S.-backed proposal, he also claimed Hamas is seeking changes that are unacceptable.

Meantime, for those in Gaza, it’s a deadly waiting game. Israel continues to strike the enclave with dozens killed on Sunday, and the death toll now

exceeding 57,000 according to the health ministry there. Paula Hancocks brings us the report on the ongoing devastation.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

PAULA HANCOCKS, INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Hamas and Israel may be closer than they’ve been in months to a ceasefire, but

there’s no evidence of that in Gaza.

Well, over 1,000 people killed in the past 12 days, according to Ministry of Health daily counts. An Israeli airstrike killed two dozen in this house

in the west of Gaza City, including eight children, according to hospital officials. The house was targeted around 2:00 a.m., this neighbor says, we

got two people out alive after three hours of trying. There were about 35 people in the house. It is horrifying, another neighbor says, a mother and

son was sleeping, then broken into pieces. There’s no reason for this.

CNN has reached out to the Israeli military for comment, but in an update Sunday, the IDF said it continued to target terrorist organizations in Gaza

and recently dismantled an observation post in the northeast.

A desalination plant in the Al Rimal neighborhood of Gaza City was hit by an airstrike on Saturday, funerals held for those killed in Al Mawasi

Southern Gaza Saturday evening. News of a possible ceasefire edging closer has reached those who stand to gain the most from the guns falling silent.

This woman says, I agree to a 60-day truce, even if it’s 50 days or 40 days, just to rest a little. We are exhausted, psychologically and

physically. No country has endured what the Palestinian people have endured. The ceasefire at the start of this year lasted just two months

before the airstrikes resumed.

I hope this truce will be real and not just ink on paper, this man says.

Others call on both Hamas and Israel to agree to the deal with dozens dying every day in recent weeks, every further day of negotiation will be a death

sentence for some.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

GOLODRYGA: Paula Hancocks reporting there. So, what exactly is being proposed in the current ceasefire deal? Can the two sides reach an

agreement? And what are the sticking points? Israeli journalist, Nadav Eyal joins me now.

Nadav, it is good to see you. Thanks so much for taking the time. So, we heard from President Trump over the weekend saying there’s a, quote, “good

chance” of an Israel-Hamas deal being announced as soon as this week. Do you share his optimism?

NADAV EYAL, ISRAELI JOURNALIST, YNET: Well, I think that my sources do share it. If you look just as statements made by Hamas, Bianna, in the last

hour or so, they’re saying that there is a chance to reach an agreement by Thursday this week. Now, I think that might be too optimistic. There are

still issues and sticking points at hand. But if you look at the overall picture, there is motivation both on the Hamas side, the Israel side, and

mainly with the mediators and the president at the White House to get an agreement.

GOLODRYGA: So, all eyes are on both Doha and D.C. We know these negotiations have been going on in Doha for several hours already today.

There are some sticking points still jeopardizing a deal. Can you walk us through exactly what those sticking points are and how, if at all, they’ve

changed over the course of the last few months? Because we know that the deal being negotiated now is basically the same deal that was presented

months ago.

EYAL: Yes, that’s right. And the main sticking point is always the same, Israel wants to retain the possibility of resuming the war between this

phase and the final phase in which the war would end. And I need to explain here that these Israelis want to have that sort of leverage because they

have a specific demand of Hamas that Hamas can’t live with, and that demand is to release its control of the Gaza Strip and to disarm.

If Hamas would’ve said yes to that, the war could be over in five minutes, but Hamas would not disarm and it doesn’t want to lose control of the Gaza

Strip right now. And because of that, what the Israelis are saying, if this is the case, we’re willing to have a two-phase deal and to negotiate about

that issue of how the Gaza Strip is going to be governed between the phases.

But if you are not going to allow us to disarm you, if you are not going to agree to release your control of the Gaza Strip, the war might resume. This

point has been the point over a year now in the different negotiations, in this deal, in the previous deal, in the first deal, it’s always the same

issue.

Now, there are other issues. For instance, Hamas doesn’t want this new system of the GHF of the way that Israel is releasing humanitarian aid and

assistance into the Gaza Strip in a way in which Palestinian civilians can actually pick up their own food. Hamas wants to have its control of the

convoy going into the Gaza Strip. It’s very important for Hamas, because Hamas is making money out of this, and it’s also a show of its own power

towards its people.

So, they want Israel to agree to stop the operations of these centers that are distributing food to begin with, and Israel right now is not willing to

agree to that. That’s another sticking point.

Now, there’s the issue of who would be exactly the Palestinian prisoners convicted for terrorism and for murder in Israeli prisons that will be

released as part of this deal. That’s another issue. And all of these issues are mainly stuck on details, right? It’s always about the details.

And this is the reason why it took so long the last time that Israel and Hamas (INAUDIBLE).

GOLODRYGA: And the aid distribution itself, the GHF, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, has been mired in controversy, we should say, as this plan that

has been backed by both Israel and the United States has been on the ground delivering. They’ve opened more hubs, yes, over the last few months, but we

know that there have been dozens of those killed almost, you know, on a weekly basis. And so, this isn’t necessarily going in Israel’s favor

either. And as you note though, there is concern in the government that giving into Hamas’ demands will only give them more leverage as well,

though they are so weakened now, one has to wonder who would even be in charge of the distribution at this point.

What do you think Prime Minister Netanyahu would be willing to budge on out of those sticking points at this time?

EYAL: I guess that a perfect solution or at least compromise would be that both systems would work at once. You would have convoys of aid, of these

trucks going into Northern Gaza.

You had some going in today, and this was authorized by the Israeli cabinet after a fierce battle with the far-right ministers, Ben-Gvir and Smotrich,

that didn’t want this to happen. So, you will have the convoys, but you will also have the GHF distributing food directly to the Palestinian

civilians. So, that’s the type of compromise that the mediators are right now discussing in Qatar, whether or not the Israelis and Hamas can agree on

that, that’s a question.

But looking into the horizon, the Israelis are also discussing the possibility of part of the population in Gaza moving to other areas in the

southern part of Gaza so they can focus on the Hamas strongholds in the center of Gaza City and the center of the Gaza Strip, some of the refugee

camps like Deir al Balah where Hamas is still strong.

This is another issue. It’s right now discussed in Israel. Is this going to be part of what President Trump and Netanyahu are going to discuss in the

White House? I think it’s extremely likely. I think it’s likely that we would hear the president or the prime minister talking about the future of

Gaza, not only about the ceasefire, but how this conflict actually ends, including the possibilities of Palestinians being allowed to voluntarily

immigrate something that the president discussed back in February and the prime minister wants to keep alive for his coalition needs.

GOLODRYGA: Yes, it’s notable. We haven’t heard the president reference that much as of late, but it will be interesting to see if it comes up in

discussions between the two of them later today. It seems over the past few weeks, the entire region has turned around following the Israel-Iran War

and the United States obviously participating as well. Some viewed this visit as actually a celebratory event where both can sort of give each

other applause and praise for how that mission was conducted and how much it weakened Iran.

Does this give Prime Minister Netanyahu more leverage, in your view, over some of the more extremist members of his coalition in ways that it didn’t

just three weeks ago?

EYAL: Absolutely, Bianna. Prime Minister Netanyahu right now is extremely powerful politically compared to where he was after October 7th. Now, I

don’t want to overplay this. The prime minister’s coalition is still losing in every poll in Israel, but the prime minister personally got a lot of

credit for the Iran campaign, and because of that, he has much more leverage politically to play with.

Just look at the statements made by, for instance, the centrist Benny Gantz who’s part of the opposition right now. He’s not ruling out completely the

possibility that his party will offer some support to Netanyahu from outside the coalition if Netanyahu does the right thing, as he sees it,

which is going for a deal and maybe going through this process across the Middle East of more normalization.

So, there is a normalization package here in the air between Israel and its — some of its neighbors that is supposed to tempt the Israeli public and

mainly the right-wing within the Israeli coalition for Netanyahu to say, look, we’re striking a deal right now with Hamas and the Gaza Strip. It’s

true. But it’s just one phase. And look what we’re getting in return. We’re stopping the war. We’re getting hostages back. That’s the most important

thing for the Israeli public. But we’re also seeing developments across the region that are positive, maybe with Syria, maybe with Turkey, maybe with

other countries.

GOLODRYGA: Right. And as the government goes into recess now and the Knesset is in summer recess, the odds of the government falling apart right

now are slim to none as well. And perhaps that buys him some additional time. The biggest concern for Prime Minister Netanyahu has always been that

of Iran. And though it has been debated how far back these recent strikes at Iran’s nuclear and ballistic programs, whether it’s a few months, I know

a lot of your sources say it’s more like a few years, something else that’s really important for Prime Minister Netanyahu is to get reassurances from

the president that if they start to see Iran attempt to reconstitute either one of those programs, he would give them the green light to continue those

strikes. Talk about the significance of that alone.

EYAL: That’s really important. That’s one of the talking points that’s going to definitely be raised in the White House in the next 24 hours in

the meeting between Prime Minister Netanyahu and the president. What Prime Minister Netanyahu wants is a sort of a public commitment by the president

that if Iran’s strays again, tries to release itself from its duties according to the NPT, to rebuild its nuclear program, either Israel would

be green-lighted to attack, to strike against Iran again, or the U.S. would do it itself.

Now, the president has already said something about this before, but getting this again in a public statement together with the prime minister

would be seen as a major win for the Israeli prime minister. And it’s also essential, as far as the Israelis are concerned, to deter the Iranians and

to push them towards an agreement. An agreement was always sort of the final aim of the Israeli strike and the American strike. Everybody knows

that this needs to end with some sort of a strict agreement as to Iran’s nuclear program.

GOLODRYGA: There may be some surprising news too that’s been hinted at over the last few weeks, and that is potential normalization with other

regional countries, perhaps even Syria at some point, or even Lebanon. The Trump administration today announcing that they’ve revoked the foreign

terrorist organization designation for Syrian-based Nusrah Front. Perhaps another indication of the path that is going towards any sort of

normalization with Israel.

What are some curve balls though that we could also see thrown at Prime Minister Netanyahu? Because President Trump has done that as well. Most

notably their most recent meeting where in front of the world the president said that, yes, the U.S. is engaging with Iran.

EYAL: Yes. Although, looking at that curve ball, in retrospect, Bianna, I think we should recognize that this was coordinated to an extent with the

prime minister. And in that —

GOLODRYGA: So, were we played?

EYAL: — sense, the White House — sorry?

GOLODRYGA: Were we all played then?

EYAL: I think to an extent, yes. I think we should recognize that we were all played to an extent by the White House and the prime minister’s office

in Jerusalem. We did write — you know, I did report that my sources are saying that the conversations between the prime minister and the president

are not the same as they are presented by parts of the media. They’re much better as to Iran, but we didn’t know that they were working as a team, and

I’m quoting President Trump about this.

Now, as to the actual curveballs, look, the president has stated clearly, he wants the war in Gaza to end. And the prime minister, in order to supply

with some root to that, needs to maintain his coalition. So, what we’re going to see are two layers. The first layer is of course the ceasefire and

the end of the war. The second layer is going to be the type of stuff that Netanyahu can come back to his far-right coalition partners and say, look,

look what’s happening here.

GOLODRYGA: Yes.

EYAL: You know, the president gave me this and that, and this is the reason it’s worth to stay in this coalition and government. And that’s the

secondary, it’s a political layer. It’s really important to the prime minister.

GOLODRYGA: Yes. And important to Israelis to see and into this war where all 50 of the hostages, both alive and deceased, come home as soon as

possible as well. Nadav Eyal, thank you so much for joining us. Good to see you.

EYAL: Thanks, Bianna.

GOLODRYGA: And stay with CNN. We will be right back after the break.

GOLODRYGA: Well, rescue efforts continue in Central Texas after catastrophic flash floods devastated the region in the early hours of

Friday morning, leaving at least 89 people dead and dozens missing. Among the lives lost, 27 young girls and counselors at Camp Mystic, a non-

denominational Christian summer camp situated on the Guadalupe River, which rose more than 20 feet in less than two hours’ time.

The flooding left people clinging to trees, floating on mattresses, and climbing through windows. The stories of survival from the harrowing

disaster have been extraordinarily heartbreaking. Correspondent Isabel Rosales has been speaking to residents and rescue workers on the ground in

Center Point, Texas.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ISABEL ROSALES, CORRESPONDENT: Center Point, just southeast of Hunt, about 25 miles away, still impacted by the Guadalupe River and the

tributaries there that feed into the river. And what we’re seeing out here by a volunteer fire department is a lot of activity. We’re seeing

volunteers rolling in truck after truck after truck. They’re bringing in heavy machinery.

Like you can see over there, they’re removing this gravel from what appears to be a boat ramp here, just clearing the way. Not just there, but look at

all of this work that they have ahead of them. Heavy tree limbs all over the place. And the work is not easy for these hundreds of volunteers who

are carefully combing through this area, making sure that they’re not missing any victims and they’re searching underneath these heavy piles of

debris and into holes exactly like this one. So many areas where somebody, a victim might be found.

I want to actually introduce you to Michael, who is a Marine. Michael, you — tell me about what actually inspired you to come out here, because

you’re from this community.

MICHAEL GUYER, VOLUNTEER: Yes. And honestly, what inspired me is the fact that I figured I could be prioritizing myself in an important way, even

though I’m not actively involved as a first responder and everything, I figured I can at least come and help relieve them of some stress and

exhaustion. And also, it’s my community. Like my fiancee is from — she’s a nurse over in this community. I work in this community. We have friends and

family in this community.

And honestly, my biggest passion that kind of brought me out here is just, if anything, to find closure for the families. Because we don’t know what

we’re going to find, if we’re going to find anything, but at least the fact that we can find closure for each and every individual and family member,

especially for the children that were lost at the camps and are still missing, I figured I could be doing my part just as much as these first

responders and active personnel are doing.

ROSALES: Yes. And you’re actually out here with your mother too. You took your entire family out here to help out and it’s incredible seeing the love

from this community to lend their time to search for these missing people. What can we expect to see today out here that we haven’t seen for the past

two days?

GUYER: So, honestly, it’s really just more search and recovery. Hopefully, people find — turn up missing, but at the same time, we’re prepared for

more of a recovery effort. But at the same time, today’s brunt force is going to be more pulling debris.

ROSALES: Actually, removing all this stuff out of the way.

GUYER: Yes. And I mean, you can see already there’s workers going like digging and then also cutting and everything. So, our job’s going to be

more of like the heavy lifting, pulling debris, actually like fining through a lot of this brush.

ROSALES: Yes.

GUYER: Now, I know that up towards Hunt and everything, they’re still expecting possibly more storm surges. So, we have to be —

ROSALES: That’s a big problem.

GUYER: Yes. And we have to be on the lookout for that too. I mean, we had to evacuate the area yesterday because they had more flooding. So, it’s

kind of mentally challenging because you hear a weather warning now and we’re — we typically blow off the weather warnings. It’s kind of like

we’re — we have a little bit of trauma now because it’s like you don’t know what to expect now.

ROSALES: Right.

GUYER: Especially with hearing that flooding came up about 30 feet and 45 minutes on the first day. So, the fact that —

ROSALES: You have to take it seriously. Of course. Yes. Yes.

GUYER: Yes. And the fact that it could just happen so fast in an instant, like we just have to be prepared for anything.

ROSALES: Michael, thank you so much for your time and the work that you guys are doing. Super. I appreciate it. Thank you so much.

GUYER: Thank you. Back to you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

GOLODRYGA: Our thanks to Isabel Rosales for that report. Well, the National Weather Service sent out live threatening flood alerts early

Friday morning. But just how many did these warnings reach and what could have been done to prevent this tragedy?

Juliette Kayyem is a former assistant Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, and Richard Spinrad is a former administrator for the

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. They’re joining me both now. Rick and Juliette, thank you so much for taking the time.

Rick, let me start with you. We heard both the president and the Texas governor say this was a once in a century type of storm. This part of Texas

in particular is known to have flooding, but obviously, not to such a scale and deadly scale at that. Really heartbreaking to hear that they’re more in

recovery mode at this point four days later, suggesting that the chances of finding living survivors are diminishing by the hour and by the day.

When you first saw these headlines, saw these images, read these reports, what was the first thing that came to your mind? If you want to answer that

as both a human being and American, but also as an expert and somebody who knows NOAA in and out, you can answer it from both perspectives.

RICK SPINRAD, FORMER NOAA ADMINISTRATOR: Yes. Thank you, Bianna. And obviously, this is a devastating set of events. And the first thing that

went through my mind is I do hope that these people who are being hit by this have the benefit of being able to evacuate, having resources available

to them.

As the former head of NOAA, I was wondering about the machinery that was put in place for the forecast and for the response. And I was pleased to

see that the Weather Service was doing their job, doing it well, getting watches, warnings, and what are called WEAs, these Wireless Emergency

Alerts out in a timely and accurate manner.

But as your audience knows, and certainly as Juliette knows, that’s only half of the equation. You can send out a message, but if it’s not picked

up, if emergency managers don’t get the information they need, then you can have the kinds of consequences that we saw. So, my real worry was about

whether the full continuum of forecast, response, and recovery were being attended to in the most appropriate and most efficient manner.

GOLODRYGA: Yes. And, Juliette, listen, there are so many heroes out of this tragedy. This Michael Guyer, who Isabelle was just speaking to, he was

just a volunteer and he’s going out there doing everything he can, risking his own life as so many others have done to try to find survivors. And we

know that miracles have happened and they have actually found many survivors over the course of the last few days.

But when you look at what perhaps could have been done differently, lessons learned. One of the worst types of flooding we know is flooding that

happens in the middle of the night. These children were at camps where they don’t have cell phones. So, even if alerts were made, they likely wouldn’t

have heard them or received them. So, as you are now assessing from this, what are some of the biggest takeaways you have?

JULIETTE KAYYEM, SENIOR NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST AND SECURITY FORMER ASSISTANT SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND: Yes. And thank you for

this opportunity. And, you know, agree with everything that, that Rick said. To examine and study a disaster is sort of a requirement. I often say

we owe it to the dead because we need to learn what happened, not for blame, but so that we’re better the next time.

And so, right now, the questions that I have are really what Rick was talking about, that sort of connectivity between an alert system that we

knew was not only giving alerts, they were — overnight, they were increasingly panicked, I have to say. I mean, they were seeing what you

would want people to — what you would want NOAA or the National Weather Service to see. And then, you have a response after the flood hits, and

that seems to be going as well as could imagine in this kind of disaster. It’s that connectivity.

Because these alerts are not self-executing. There’s a whole bunch of things that are happening simultaneously. Community outreach, as local and

tribal, you know, sort of emergency management outreach, notifications, not just through phones, but of course, we’ve been talking about sirens all

day. There were no sirens in this community. So, we have to figure out why that was.

This is — this was a deadly storm. It was a unique storm, but it’s not going to be the only storm. And that is — that’s what I’m looking at now

is sort of that gap in between what we knew the National Weather Service was doing and the tragedy that happened.

And in particular, at one particular camp, I mean, you do — you — when you study disasters, you look at the pools or the areas where people were

most impacted. Was connectivity to that camp and were people (INAUDIBLE), was it a weekend, in the middle of the night? We don’t know. But those are

the difficult questions we have to ask as we prepare for more climate disasters.

GOLODRYGA: We know that the National Weather Service issued flash flood warnings with at least three hours’ notice. Again, if that were the case,

then you’re still talking about midnight, at 1:00 in the morning. Obviously, not an ideal time to alert a community and have them leave their

homes and seek shelter.

But I did read that local emergency officials and the National Weather Service get their information from four gauges along the Guadalupe River

upstream from Kerrville. One of the four gauges of the river failed, likely because a wall of water came crushing down in the early hours. And here’s

what one expert said that is — have been studying flood design prevention for years. He said, no design, dam or flood, can control or solve the

threat posed by the uppermost part of the river basin. This one is for crying — this is crying out for a new warning system. State and local

officials are now relying on these gauges, and they need to do more to invest in better warning systems. How feasible is that, Rick, in your view?

SPINRAD: Yes. I think the important element of any warning system is that you have redundancy built in. And so, those gauges are part of that. I

would say that the weather service was relying on radars. They were relying on satellite imagery. They were relying on river gauges. And so, until

there’s definitive analysis of the sources of problems, it’s hard to say, hey, this gauge is what needed to be fixed, or this radar needed to be

improved.

And so, I think we need to wait and see what the analysis shows us with respect to what parts of the observational systems are working and what

elements need to be improved. But again, I would point out that the forecasts were really well done. And we can argue about how much rain was

forecasted, but the fact of the matter is the observation supported the predictions very well.

GOLODRYGA: Yes, the Kerr County judge, Robert Kelly, on Friday called Guadalupe, quote, “The most dangerous river valley in the United States.”

And given that, Juliette, I’m just wondering what you think looking back over the course of the last four days, what could have been done

differently with these forecasts? I mean, listen, it’s not like forecasting a hurricane where you have days to prepare. If you even have hours to

prepare for institutions like these campsites, for homeowners there, what can be done going forward knowing they may have limited time, but they

still have time to do something?

KAYYEM: Well, I mean, I think on the specifics, right? So, we’re — is the siren system. I mean, in other words, if you’re looking at the need to get

people to quickly wake up and get moving, it’s — flash flooding is a lot like tornadoes in that sense. It’s not like hurricanes. It is — you want

things going off that are telling people move as quickly as you can.

The second is what you might just call sort of special circumstances or special areas. There are a number of camps with children all along this

river understanding this now. What kind of alert system would you want for them given their population, younger kids, people without phones? And then

you’d want to sort of upgrade in terms of communications. This may also be true of visitors or vacationers who may not have access to all the alert

systems or the apps that others may have.

More generally, I do hope and I look for silver linings, even in these tragedies, it gets us committed to a system of preparedness and early

response. A system that is under stress now. We don’t know if a particular budget change, you know, was at play here. But in reality, we do know end

up — you know, National Weather Service, NOAA and FEMA are all under stress, or some FEMA is threatened to go away by the president and we need

to commit to a preparedness early alert apparatus.

I’ve been saying it’s like intelligence at in war. These are intelligence agencies. You wouldn’t go to war without your defense intelligence or your

CIA telling you what’s going on on the ground. We have to think of the National Weather Service and NOAA as intelligence to protect our citizens

and then — you know, and protect our children.

GOLODRYGA: And, Rick, I mean, two things can be right at the same time. You can have sort of these unexpected flooding type of events once every

hundred years, or in this case, we’re starting to see more and more of them given what is happening with climate change. And then, you couple that with

cuts that we’ve seen two FEMA to NOAA and again, without getting too political here, I’m just wondering objectively your first questions as you

hear about some of these cuts. You have the National Weather Service that’s been cut by personnel, that’s had personnel cuts under the president.

The legislative director for the National Weather Services Employees Union told CNN that while he believes the office had adequate staffing and

resources, we know the Austin San Antonio office is missing a warning coordination meteorologist. So, just talk to us about what potential lapses

have been exposed here, even more so with these cuts.

SPINRAD: That’s such an important point. And in fact, one of the first things I wondered when I heard about this development was, what are the

WCM’s doing? The Warning Coordination Meteorologists. And learned that, in fact, the Austin San Antonio office was without WCM. He was one of the

people who left the agency, almost 20 percent of the weather service staffing has been reduced. And so, consequently, you know, it doesn’t

matter how good these heroes are at places like the Weather Service or FEMA if we have only 80 percent of the required staffing to do the job, things

are going to suffer.

And there is no doubt in my mind that the Weather Service staff cuts likely contributed to the inability of emergency managers to respond. With no WCM,

there’s no way you can coordinate with those emergency managers.

GOLODRYGA: Yes. A NOAA official, we should note, defended the National Weather Service Forecast. Said the disaster ultimately results from too

much rain in too short a period of time in one of the most vulnerable spots in the country for flash flooding. And, Juliette, that leads me to my

question to you. You know, constantly we hear a refrain of we will rebuild as a sign of resilience after situations like this. But should we be asking

ourselves the question of, well, you know, should we be rebuilding in some of these locations, which have proven to be more and more vulnerable to

mother nature and changes given climate change?

KAYYEM: Right. It is true. I mean, this is a huge debate right now, and it’s something that both Democrat and Republican emergency management

agency heads, FEMA heads, as well as those of us in the field can all agree on, which is we are at the stage where as we look to communities to

rebuild, we may want to begin to rethink how they rebuild. It’s — you know, Build Back Better sort of assumes that you’re not making significant

changes. Some of these communities will.

This may be as simple as, you know, requiring the locality to have sirens in this case or not letting them build or post-temporary camps. These camps

are temporary in the sense there’s not people in them at all times that close to the river. So, the — so, we should not — there are solutions

that are practical and affordable if we require them. And I think it’s time — I think the president, President Trump is right, to begin to look to

recovering money to make us stronger.

GOLODRYGA: Well, he will be visiting the region later on this week, he said. And of course, our thoughts are with the families of those who are

still missing and sadly, those who have not survived these catastrophic floods. Rick Spinrad and Juliette Kayyem, thank you. And we’ll be right

back after this short break.

GOLODRYGA: Now, from Shakespeare to Elon Musk, Marie Curie to Taylor Swift, what actually makes a genius and why are we so attached to the term?

In her latest book, “The Genius Myth,” journalist and Atlantic staff writer Helen Lewis explains.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Thank you, Bianna. And, Helen Lewis, welcome to the show.

HELEN LEWIS, AUTHOR, “THE GENIUS MYTH”: Thank you for having me.

ISAACSON: Your book’s called “The Genius Myth.” Let’s start with that. Why is it a myth and why in your subtitle do you call it dangerous?

LEWIS: Well, I think the first thing I should say is I’m not trying to argue that genius, you know, the idea of exceptional talent and wonderful

innovations, that doesn’t exist. But what I do think happens is that we end up writing stories around those talents myths, you know, they end up with

the kind of these templates really that we kind of jam real-life human stories into.

And you can see that — you know, one of my most obvious examples is somebody like Shakespeare, undoubtedly an incredibly gifted playwright, but

when he died, he wasn’t recognized as Shakespeare that we know today. He was, you know, a well-respected player, and it took a lot of people over

the course of the next two centuries to build up the myth, the legend of this kind of the bard of Avon, you know, and to make him into the figure

that he is now.

ISAACSON: One of those myth makers you talk about in the book is Vasari, this wonderful biographer, especially of Renaissance, of Michelangelo,

Leonardo da Vinci, Brunelleschi, I think, and others. One of the things Vasari writes about Leonardo da Vinci is he was touched by God with his

incredible talents as if he had been anointed.

And when I wrote about Leonardo, I’m going no, no, that’s not right. This guy wasn’t necessarily a genius, different from everybody else, but he

worked harder. He taught himself, he read books, he did experiments. To what extent is genius innate, the way Vasari says, and to what extent do

you have to work at it?

LEWIS: I think it’s fair to say that there are people who are — who start off with a particular talent. But you are exactly right, what they choose

to do with that talent is part of it. And one of the things I think the research does bear out is lots of people, lots of very senior politicians

and lots of military leaders, lots of people we would describe as geniuses, often had a really broken or unhappy childhood. And that seems to have

given them some sort of internal engine that drove them to succeed.

So, I think what you found researching Leonardo is borne out by so many other cases. You have somebody who has an aptitude, but they also have this

kind of drive in them that takes them past other people. And also, one of the things I think is underrated is they have to be willing to deal with

envy, you know, they have to be willing to be somebody who is seen as being different, and not everybody actually finds that particularly comfortable.

ISAACSON: You begin your book and you end your book with Elon Musk. And you have that problem we all have, I’ve been there, of people wanting it to

be binary, which is, oh, he’s a genius. Oh, no, he’s a total idiot and just stole everything. We’re not very good at this non-binary thing. Explain

that when it comes to the genius myth.

LEWIS: Yes, I think you are right. This is my idea that geniuses — you know, anointing somebody a genius is often a kind of political argument

behind it. And Elon Musk is a really good example of that. You know, the people who champion him often see him as this kind of Superman, you know,

this kind of American dream of somebody who just had this exceptional drive and talent and made it on their own.

And then, you get about people on the other side of the political aisle who don’t like that story. They much more want to stress the kind of — you

know, the influence of society and the fact the support he got from the government and all that kind of thing for his businesses, or they want to

debunk him entirely because they don’t like his politics and therefore, they feel that championing him as a businessman is in a kind of an

extension of championing his politics.

So, most people who are geniuses, there is some kind of argument going on about the assessment of them. You know, and that can be in the case of

perhaps some of the people in the Renaissance, an argument for one city in Italy over another city. It could be an argument in the case of Shakespeare

for the English language being the most beautiful language in the world.

And so, that, you know, ends up kind of conscripting these people into, again, this more — this wider mythology. But I really liked one of the

things that you said about Musk in the book, which was that the way to understand him really apart from anything else is he’s a risk taker.

Because I think that does give you a really good insight into the fact that, you know, there’s a kind of — they call it the Texas sharpshooter

fallacy. You know, the idea you fired a bomb door and then draw a circle around the bit with the heaviest density.

He’s the — you know, he’s the one risk taker out of everybody else who maybe took as many risks as him for whom those risks came off. And that,

again, we look at the person, the finished product and try and work back. And maybe that isn’t — you know, maybe there is a version of him for whom

one of those really big gambles didn’t come off and we’re simply never going to hear about them.

ISAACSON: One of the things that happens to geniuses in your book, this — it’s all me phenomenon, is they get sort of intoxicated. As Leonard Lauder

used to say, they love the smell of their own perfume. How often does that happen to geniuses and is that a problem you see with Elon Musk?

LEWIS: I mean, I think that does happen. Because, you know, if you just think you’re a special person, you don’t start to think, I’m a talented

person who is lucky to have these people around me and be under these social conditions. You think, I can transfer this anywhere. And I do think

Musk is a really good example of that. And I think you’re right to say that people often downplay his earlier achievements because they don’t like his

politics.

And actually, I don’t think you need to do that to say that Tesla and SpaceX are both really, you know, innovative companies and exciting

companies, but to think that you could transfer the lessons of the private sector wholesale into public sector and government was hubris. You know,

that was I think a mistake. And sure enough, it ran into trouble because it’s a lot harder to make things work in a government that has to serve

everybody than, you know, if you’re running a car company that a — you know, that you’re trying to sell to a particular segment.

I just saw a similar thing earlier that Sam Altman of OpenAI had written this manifesto for artificial general intelligence, and he said one of the

ways that we can tell we’re not at super intelligence yet is we haven’t cured all diseases. And I thought this was really kind of fascinating to me

because it’s implying that curing all diseases is purely a technological problem.

And now, if you look at the last five years, the mRNA vaccine against COVID and maybe other diseases in the future, that is an incredible breakthrough

in science. But guess what? Lots of people don’t want that vaccine because they don’t trust vaccines, they don’t trust big pharma. And so, to it —

the idea that you would think that solving disease is only a technological problem seems to me to be a version of what I’m talking about, the genius

myth. No, you need people to advocate for treatments. You need delivery systems to get those treatments to them. You know, you need all of this —

that stuff around that is about society and politics. But because people get so into their lane and used to being treated like they have all the

answers, they don’t necessarily look and see the full picture.

ISAACSON: OK. Let’s take Paul and John, you know, Paul McCartney and John Lennon. And I want to talk about collective genius. Because maybe it’s only

when you put these two-star systems together that you get genius.

LEWIS: Yes. I think that’s a really lovely idea and I think it would — people being more aware of it would help them deal with the fact that most

people have a kind of hot streak and it doesn’t last forever. And you know, that does make people vulnerable to think it’s not all you. You know, you

need someone else. Whether that is a muse, whether that’s a brilliant manager, whether that’s your songwriting partner, whether or not, you know,

it’s your illustrator and you are the writer or whatever it might be. But I think this is what I mean about the genius myth ending up sometimes being

quite poisonous because people do start thinking, it’s me, it’s all me, you know, and everybody else becomes a kind of supporting character, and

they’re the protagonist of reality.

ISAACSON: Well, we talk about The Beatles. I remember Steve Jobs who was trying to figure out genius at one point, sitting there in his living room,

and he’s playing the bootleg tapes of Paul McCartney and John Lennon, trying to get “Strawberry Fields Forever” right, over and over again. And

he said to me, it wasn’t just genius, it was two people iterating, working with each other until they got it right.

LEWIS: I think that’s really beautiful. And I think it almost scares people because it makes it seem even more random and unpredictable. And I

think if you watch “Get Back,” that wonderful Peter Jackson documentary about The Beatles, you know, one of the things that — and this is sort of

slightly theoretical to say this, it’s a beautiful documentary. It is in places almost boring because you’re watching genuinely how long it takes

for them to sit there, noodle around on stuff, set up the equipment, and then somehow get back, which is one of my favorite Beatles songs, sort of

just emerges out of Paul’s fingers on the guitar.

And what I think you’re watching there is that process of someone putting themselves into the creative state where a moment of genius can strike. But

obviously, you can’t force it and neither, you know, McCartney nor Lenon ever wrote as well with other people as they did just the two of them. So,

clearly, there was that burning intensity relationship, which was finite, which only lasted for a certain amount of time.

ISAACSON: One of the issues in your book is why are geniuses so often jerks, as we’ve said, and you even use an example I wrote about, which is

Wozniak, Steve Wozniak, the partner of Steve Jobs, at the beginning of my reporting, sort of said, you have to ask, did he have to be so mean? Did he

have to be so cruel? And at the end I asked Wozniak, what’s the answer? He said, well, I would’ve been nicer. I would’ve given everybody stock

options, but if I had run Apple, we probably wouldn’t have gotten to the iPhone. Tell me, to what extent do you have to be a jerk in order to push

your genius?

LEWIS: I really struggle with that because, again, I wonder if we just — you know, we have a sort of sampling bias of hearing about it because

people feel innately that’s kind of — that should be how it works. One of the most interesting discoveries for me, and I don’t know if this is — you

found this in your reporting about this kind of big figures, is how much the people around them get from this exchange.

There’s a very simple story we tell of a kind of Stockholm syndrome where people are around a brilliant jerk, and their lives are miserable. But the

funny thing to me was finding out how many of those people have chosen to do that. You know, they could walk away. For me, the example was Sophia

Tolstaya, the wife of Leo Tolstoy, the Russian novelist. She hated being his copyist and having, you know, more than a dozen kids with him. So, she

was constantly pregnant. She was copying out all his manuscript drafts. You know, he was plunging her life for his novels. But when in middle age, he

drifted away from her and he had a new primary relationship in his life. He had this very strong friendship with a young military officer. She was

absolutely devastated.

So, you know, she wrote in her diary about the fact that she was suppressing what she felt was her own creativity and genius in the service

of this great man. But when that got taken away, she was heartbroken by it. And I think that is a really interesting thing is that, yes, one of the

things is maybe people like being around the brilliant jerks because they feel something big is happening, and if their sacrifices are being made,

then there’s something exciting going on. And that was something I didn’t expect when I went into writing this.

ISAACSON: You don’t really have any examples, I think, of a woman who is considered a genius. Why is that?

LEWIS: Yes. I mean, there are some that would, I think, enter the canon, like Marie Curie, for example, the chemist. It would be one example. Maybe

people would say Taylor Swift now. But I think you have to be very honest, and I say this to someone who’s written a feminist history, that our canon

of geniuses is really male.

And now, the interesting question becomes, is that something that is biological or is it social? And I think the jury is out. There are things

you could say, for example, that men are on average more ambitious. They are more willing to sacrifice family and domestic life for their careers.

They’re more willing to be selfish in those careers, but there’s also a fact that society has traditionally made it much easier for them.

And I think the thing, it’s easy to forget now, you know, sitting here in 2025, it’s just the enormous amount of barriers that there have been to

people who were excluded from the category of genius. So, to give you a couple of examples, you know, in Britain, where I live, women couldn’t go

to university until 150 years ago.

You know, Hertha Ayrton, who I mentioned the book, an extraordinary physicist. She won the Hughes medal from the Royal Society, but she wasn’t

allowed to join the Royal Society. So, these places where these —

ISAACSON: She was a very close friend of Marie Curie who also won the medal and wasn’t allowed to join the academy in France.

LEWIS: Right, exactly. And I think only inherited her professorship when Pierre Curie died and they said, OK, well you can sort of — you can have

it. But that — you know, that if you can’t join those royal societies, those professional associations, you’re not being in the place where the

most interesting, exciting discussions are happening.

You know, you could say the same thing from the exclusion of black Americans from larger parts of the academy or actually the way that the Ivy

League discriminated against Jewish Americans in the early part of the 20th century. You know, it wanted to try and preserve the kind of waspy nature

of those institution.

So, you get — through time huge numbers of categories of people have these immense legal or social barriers put in their way. The question is whether

or not that that will change. I’m not entirely sure that it will complete change because I also think we are more happy to look up to men, and a lot

of this is about us, the kind of the crowd, the kind of hero worship of the crowd. And I think maybe there are more men who are willing to climb onto

the pedestal, but maybe they’re also — we are more comfortable with men doing that. We don’t maybe take it so well when women are overtly ambitious

and driven in the way that you have to be, to be called a genius.

ISAACSON: As we enter this era of artificial intelligence, do you think machines can be geniuses? And what can that quest teach us about genius?

LEWIS: I — yes. I’ve been thinking about this a lot, because clearly, there are people who have developed very quickly, very intense personal

relationships with A.I.s. But I sort of — I go back to — there’s an interesting paper which showed people poetry written by A.I., and they

found out that people rated the A.I. poetry higher than the human poetry or, yes, all they thought it was as good as it, because A.I. can do a very

convincing imitation of a Seamus Heaney or whoever it might be. But when they found out that it was written by an A.I., they changed their minds.

They liked it less.

ISAACSON: Is there some usefulness to the concept of genius? Isn’t it something that actually is good for us to have?

LEWIS: That’s — I think that is true. And I think that’s where maybe a bit more tolerance for whatever you want to call it, neurodivergence, for

example. I think the concept of genius really helps with that. Or tolerance for people who, you know, maybe struggle with schizophrenia or bipolar

disorder. You know, they’re difficult to be around, but that doesn’t mean that they’re useless and they can’t contribute.

I think genius has helped those categories of people because it has been recognized that sometimes, you know, you don’t get one thing without

another. I think Stephen Fry, the British action writer, talked about living with bipolar and people said, you know, would you rather not have

it? And he said, well, you know, the lows are really, really bad, but the highs are incredible and I feel so productive and I can’t really imagine

what it would be like to be without it.

So, I think that it — in its best form, the idea that some people are different from the norm can express itself as genius, helps us to live and

be a bit more flexible about people who have great achievements inside them, but they also demand a level of tolerance from other people.

ISAACSON: Helen Lewis, thank you so much for joining us.

LEWIS: Thank you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

GOLODRYGA: And finally, amid tragedy, a reminder of the extraordinary human capacity to help. Scott Ruskin, a member of the Coast Guard is being

hailed a hero after saving 165 people, mostly children from the Texas floods. Listen to what he told ABC News this morning.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCOTT RUSKIN, U.S. COAST GUARD RESCUE SWIMMER: Kind of encountered some pretty serious weather, some of the worst flying we’ve ever dealt with

personally. It took us, you know, which should have been an hour flight, probably took us about seven or eight. I was kind of the main guy as far as

like grabbing people. Usually, like 15 to 10 kids at a time. Maybe one adult with them. This was my first experience, but I really just kind of

relied on the training we get. Coast Guard rescue swimmers get some of the highest-level training in the world. So, really just kind of relied on that

and that, you know, just knowing that any of the rescue swimmers in the Coast Guard would’ve done the exact same, if not better than me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: A big thank you to Scott, his team, and everybody else giving their all to rescue and recovery missions. If you want to help Texas flood

victims, you can visit cnn.com/impact.

Well, that is it for now. Thank you so much for watching, and goodbye from New York.