Read Full Transcript EXPAND
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, ANCHOR: Hello everyone, and welcome to “Amanpour.” Here’s what’s coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
URSULA VON DER LEYEN, PRESIDENT, EUROPEAN COMMISSION: So, our response will be unflinching, united, and proportional.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Europe hits back against Trump’s tariff threats as America guns for Greenland. Senator Chris Coons weighs in on the fraying transatlantic
alliance.
Then —
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CROWD: Shame. Shame. Shame.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: — the actions of U.S. federal agents remains unchecked nearly two weeks after the fatal shooting of Renee Good in Minneapolis. Journalist
Lydia Polgreen tells me why she fears a civil war on the streets of Minnesota.
Also, ahead —
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NOUBAR AFEYAN, FOUNDER AND CEO, FLAGSHIP PIONEERING AND CO-FOUNDER, MODERNA: It’s important to speak up and point out perhaps the unintended
consequences of some of these actions because they’re extreme and they are urgent.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: From funding cuts to harsh immigration policies. How Trump’s decisions may be damaging U.S. medical prowess. Co-founder of Moderna,
Noubar Afeyan, tells Walter Isaacson why America must return to choosing science.
Welcome to the program everyone. I’m Bianna Golodryga in New York sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
Well, today marks one year since President Trump began his second term. In just one year we’ve seen seismic shifts in America’s foreign policy, such
as his relentless bid for Greenland. Ahead of his trip to Davos for the World Economic Forum, this is what he had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: We have to have it. They have to have this done. They can’t protect it. Denmark, they’re wonderful people. And I know
the leaders are very good people, but they don’t even go there.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: President Trump has agreed to meet with European leaders in Davos on the matter. But he’s also been ramping up his feud with them by
exposing private messages on Truth Social, including that of French President Macron, who wrote, I do not understand what you are doing on
Greenland. Plus, he’s now threatening an additional 200 percent tariffs on French wine if Macron refuses to join his Gaza Board of Peace. In an
address at Davos, President Macron said, we do prefer respect to bullies, and held his ground.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
EMMANUEL MACRON, FRENCH PRESIDENT: Conflict has become normalized, hybrid, expanding into new demands, space, digital information, cyber trade, and so
- It’s as well a shift towards a world without rules, where international law is trampled underfoot, and where the only law that seems to matter is
that of the strongest, and imperial ambitions are resurfacing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: So, how do we make sense of this incredibly turbulent moment for America and Europe? And where does it leave the NATO alliance?
Democratic Senator Chris Coons wants to de-escalate tensions and has just finished a bipartisan congressional visit to Denmark, and he joins us from
Davos with more.
Senator, good to see you. I want to get to your trip in just a moment to Denmark, but let’s talk about the latest headlines, specifically from the
President and his escalating threats for Greenland. The Wall Street Journal editorial board warned that President Trump’s Greenland campaign risks
accomplishing Russia’s long-held goal of breaking the transatlantic alliance. You yourself have said that this is a fight, quote, “with
enormous cost for U.S. security and prosperity, driven by little more than a vanity project.”
At what point does Congress have to treat this as not just pure rhetoric, but a threat to the NATO alliance as a whole? Because that does seem to be
how European leaders are viewing this.
SEN. CHRIS COONS (D-DE): That’s right. A year ago, I sat down and met with the Danish foreign minister, the Icelandic, excuse me, the Greenlandic
foreign minister, and asked them a few simple questions. Is there a real and imminent threat to Greenland and its security from Russia and China?
No. Would you welcome additional investments by the Americans in Arctic security in Greenland? Yes. Would you work with us to unlock the economic
potential of Greenland? Absolutely. This was a year ago when President Trump was first threatening to try and take Greenland, and he moved on from
that subject. Few months later, it died down, it went away.
Now, it is an urgent threat, both to NATO, to our economic relationship with Europe through the E.U., and to our reputation as a trustworthy
partner and ally. I hope before it is too late that President Trump waters down or slows down his harsh and unprincipled rhetoric, because it is
beginning to move.
Our markets have responded today. The largest Danish pension fund is selling off its U.S. treasuries. The European leaders I’ve met with
yesterday and today are saying they are alarmed, and they’re going to begin hedging. They’re going to begin opening to other partners than the United
States. These developments by President Trump are encouraging Putin, because his goal for decades has been to end the NATO alliance. This is
accelerating that dangerous day.
GOLODRYGA: It does seem like the justification and the explanation from the President’s top advisers keep changing, and that from the president
himself. First, you have the treasury secretary saying that the president is trying to preempt a threat here. The Wall Street, in the New York Times,
the president had said that this was a psychologically needed success for him personally. He also alluded to the fact that he was doing this because
he did not win the Nobel Peace Prize.
In the latest, I do want to get you to respond to, because his special envoy to Greenland, Jeff Landry, today is now arguing that because more
Americans died defending Greenland in World War II than Danes died, the U.S. have a superior claim to the territory today, calling Denmark
unserious about its own defense.
You, I know, were at a wreath-laying ceremony in Denmark this week with a group of bipartisan members of Congress honoring those Danes who fought
alongside and served with U.S. troops in both Afghanistan and in Iraq. How do you respond to this new claim?
COONS: Look, the way that you earn trust with allies is through sacrifice. 25 years ago, when the United States was attacked, the Danes didn’t even
ask. They immediately joined us in deployments to Afghanistan and later to Iraq, and on a per capita basis, they lost more Danish soldiers than any
other NATO ally.
So, when I was honored to join with my Senate and House colleagues in laying a wreath at the memorial to those who served and died in Iraq and
Afghanistan, it was a very emotional moment. As we were thinking about how their families view this, when President Trump says that Denmark can’t
defend Greenland, that’s not the right framing. NATO is what is supposed to defend Greenland, and we’re a part of NATO.
None of the other NATO countries in Europe can defend themselves alone against Russia. Latvia can’t, Greece can’t, Romania can’t, Finland can’t,
but all of us together, all the nations of NATO, we are the strongest military alliance on Earth, and our NATO allies have stepped up in the past
year and dramatically increased their spending, their investment in defense. That’s something that’s happened in this past year, and it’s
something President Trump should be celebrating and recognizing rather than berating and threatening them.
This is a pivotal moment for him to either recognize that Danes have sacrificed and NATO has value, or to put it at further risk.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, I do notice you’re wearing a Danish U.S. flag pin there as well. You have also been trying to ease tensions and suggesting that you
hope business leaders and world leaders can level face with President Trump tomorrow and really explain to him everything that you’ve just laid out.
I would imagine this isn’t the first time that people have tried to explain to him what’s at stake. Why are you still optimistic that something can
change between now and then?
COONS: I’m not sure I’m that optimistic. It’s just that the alternative is so catastrophic. Most of the folks I’ve spoken to, business leaders,
military leaders, elected leaders, have said this is unthinkable. The problem is we now have to think about it seriously and take seriously the
risks of this moment. President Trump is risking enormous costs to the United States for very little gain.
And Greenland is a remote, barely accessible place that is overwhelmingly ice and rock and has a very small population. Picking fights with our most
trusted and valuable allies over this, it’s just not a smart thing to do.
GOLODRYGA: There have been a number of different approaches that allies and even members of Congress here have tried to take over this last year
with President Trump to try to talk him out of some of his more questionable policies and decisions.
And I’m asking this because I want to get your response to Governor Gavin Newsom, who’s also there in Davos, and kind of berated the approach that
European leaders have thus far taken in response to President Trump, in saying that he says that that does not present strength, and he thinks that
they should stay tall and united and stop appeasing the president. Do you think that’s the appropriate approach? Do you agree with Governor Newsom?
COONS: Look, I think if you review the last year, when President Trump launched tariffs against China, China pushed back hard, because they have a
critical advantage in minerals and mining and processing, because they had prepared for a tariff fight, and ultimately President Trump backed down.
We did have a nearly finished tariff deal that Secretary Bessent has been working on between the United States and the E.U., and Gavin Newsom,
Governor of California, is right. The Europeans chose not to punch back, but to negotiate in good faith. Believing that the importance of market
access here in Europe, and the significance and depth of our security relationship, made it more valuable and more reasonable to negotiate.
That hasn’t worked out well, if in fact President Trump keeps using tariffs to threaten our E.U. partners. This is going to be a moment of truth for
them, where they’ve got to decide on their path. And I think Governor Newsom is giving them good advice.
GOLODRYGA: So, that’s advice that you think that they should follow, that at this point, they should stand up to the president and perhaps respond in
kind?
COONS: Look, they’ve got to make their decisions based on conversations tomorrow that will be happening here, between senior leaders and President
Trump. At the end of the day, what I’m doing as an American senator is trying to advance what is in America’s best interests.
Three quarters of Americans don’t want us to go after Greenland, to use force or to use threats against our allies to try and secure Greenland.
They’d rather see us focusing on lowering healthcare costs, on dealing with housing costs, on making America healthy again. And that’s not what is
being principally advanced by a variety of foreign adventures by President Trump.
So, I’m hopeful that in their direct conversations between European leaders and President Trump tomorrow, they can avert going over the edge. But if we
do, we’re going to be in for a rough ride as a country.
GOLODRYGA: Well, and you are answering for constituents back here in your home state. And I do wonder, because you have the President’s Treasury
Secretary warning, warning these allies not to retaliate and not to potentially even use the bazooka tariff response, which they have at their
disposal, and that’s issuing tariffs on goods and services. That would have a direct effect on your constituents as well here in the United States.
Is that something then to follow up on what Gavin Newsom has advised European leaders? Is that what you think is warranted at this point? And
doesn’t that put you in an awkward position with your own constituents?
COONS: So, let me tell you what’s just happened with one of our other close, trusted allies, Canada. Canada is the largest export market for
products and services for my home state of Delaware, as it is for a majority of American states.
The prime minister of Canada just went to China and is opening a new trading relationship with China. Canada stood by our side for years and
joined us in some important security issues, took some risks on our behalf in the last couple of years, and they were rewarded with tariffs that
punished their automobile industry. Ultimately, the prime minister decided they had to go stand tough against the United States and cut new deals with
China. President Trump complimented Prime Minister Carney on doing this.
In my view, this is an alarming trend that close and trusted allies whose economies are intertwined with ours are going to start pricing risk from
the United States and finding alternatives. Canada is one economy, but the European Union is the single biggest economy in the world, other than the
United States and China. We’d rather have them open towards us rather than realigning towards China. And that’s one of the key things that’s at risk
here.
If they apply 90 billion euros of tariffs on American products and services, that’s over $100 billion, that’ll have a huge impact on our
economy and our cost of living.
GOLODRYGA: Right, and despite the tariffs that the United States has posed on China, China last year for the first time recorded a trade surplus,
really highlighting the point that you are making, that they have many other trade partners that they can seek out around the world.
The president still hasn’t ruled out the use of military force, however unlikely that may be, to acquire Greenland. I know so many people are
asking you, both domestically here in the States and while you’re traveling abroad, what can Congress do to prevent that from happening? So, what is
the answer to that question?
COONS: So, first, that is the single most outrageous and dangerous thing President Trump is doing, is not ruling out the use of force against a NATO
ally. That undermines the entire idea behind NATO. And I’ll remind you, the only time that the mutual protection, the mutual security guarantee of NATO
has been invoked was on behalf of the United States after the attacks of 9/11, where those Danes who served and died alongside Americans went to
Afghanistan.
So, Congress can and should take up and pass a war powers resolution to restrain the use of force against NATO allies. My hope is that won’t be
necessary, but it may very well. There are different bills that have been introduced in both the Senate and the House that would restrain the
president’s use of tariffs against NATO allies, or restrain the president’s use of force against NATO allies. NATO is strongly supported in Congress in
both the House and Senate, because for more than 75 years, it’s kept the peace in Europe and it’s helped keep America secure and prosperous. Again,
the only folks cheering this development are Xi Jinping of China and Vladimir Putin of Russia.
GOLODRYGA: At this point, how many Republicans do you think can speak publicly and live up to their pledge to restrain the president the way you
just did?
COONS: We’ll have to see, because as of the time I was leaving Washington, a lot of folks were still saying, oh, this is just an idle threat or we
need to see how this plays out, and we’re not ready to take any tough public steps.
But as this has become clearer and clearer as a real threat to our security, to our economy, to our future as a country, more are willing to.
They’re hoping that private conversations will achieve that objective, and that’s going on right now. There are members who’ve been making real
efforts to get the president to reconsider, but if not, when we get back into session next week, we’re going to need to move ahead.
GOLODRYGA: Senator Chris Coons, always good to see you. Thank you so much for the time. Really appreciate it.
COONS: Thank you, Bianna.
GOLODRYGA: Well, turning now to President Trump’s plans to hold a signing ceremony for his Gaza Board of Peace. It’s part of his 20-point plan to end
the Israel-Hamas War and oversee the reconstruction of Gaza. Many countries received an invitation, including Russian president Putin and Belarusian
president, Lukashenko. But since the administration revealed its plan, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has expressed frustration at the inclusion
of Turkey and Qatar as key — in-key committee roles, citing a lack of coordination from the United States. Opposition leader Yair Lapid also
agreed, saying this is a, quote, “diplomatic failure for Israel.”
So, let’s bring in correspondent Jeremy Diamond for more details. And Jeremy, specifically as it relates to Israel and their pushback on the
inclusion of Turkey and Qatar on this Board of Peace, how much of this is just the Israeli government and the prime minister, for his part, publicly
posturing his outrage, or is there real daylight behind the scenes between the Trump administration and the Netanyahu government on the planning for
this Board of Peace?
JEREMY DIAMOND, JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT: Well, there’s no question that it certainly is. The former, the Israeli prime minister, needs to make
kind of a big public statement here in Israel where even opposition figures such as Yair Lapid have been — you know, expressed some degree of outrage
that Turkey and Qatar are going to be involved in post-Gaza governance.
But there does also seem to be some friction here, some real friction between the United States and Israel over the formation of this executive
committee to oversee the technocratic officials, Palestinian officials who will actually implement the day-to-day governance of the Gaza Strip. Some
of that is indeed over the inclusion of Turkey and Qatar as members of this executive board overseeing Gaza governance.
It is important to note that while the Israeli prime minister has talked about Qatar and Turkey’s roles in terms of harboring and at times financing
Hamas, they also were the two countries that were critical to getting Hamas on board with the ceasefire agreement that has resulted in the last three
months of a ceasefire and the return of all Israeli hostages minus one deceased hostage whose body is still inside of Gaza.
But there have been other friction points as of late as well. Remember Israel committed on January 1st after Prime Minister Netanyahu met with
President Trump to open that Rafah Crossing for Palestinians to go back and forth between Gaza and Egypt, that still has not happened amidst some of
these friction points that are still very much ongoing.
The Israelis, of course, were also upset at the fact that the United States announced the move to phase two before the body of that last deceased
hostage, Ran Gvili, could be brought back to Israel for burial. And I think in some ways the United States and Jared Kushner and the team that has kind
of been working to push this ceasefire along are very much trying to kind of take back control of what goes on in Gaza and when things happen in
Gaza.
And in the background of all this, it’s important to note that the Israeli prime minister and the Israeli military are preparing for a potential
ground offensive in Gaza. Military plans very much being cooked up at the moment for a potential return to war in the same way that Hamas has also
been preparing for a potential return to war, primarily over this issue of Hamas’s disarmament.
So, there are a lot of friction points current and also that may lay ahead in the coming weeks and months ahead of this phase two agreement. And some
of that, of course, does center on the governance of Gaza and the next steps there.
GOLODRYGA: And this Board of Peace, though, Jeremy, seems to have ambitions far wider than just the rehabilitation and the rebuilding of
Gaza. There have been those that have suggested this is a sort of trial balloon for a replacement for the United Nations, and invitations have gone
out to capitals around the world. Is that what the ultimate goal is here for the administration?
DIAMOND: I mean, it increasingly looks that way. And the president himself kind of hinted at that in an interview with Reuters last week where he
talked about the Board of Peace being used to manage and resolve conflicts around the world as they continue to crop up.
And in fact, this charter that was sent around to world leaders who were invited to join, which we’ve confirmed with sources that the authenticity
of this charter, it doesn’t mention Gaza at all. It talks broadly, very broadly about conflicts around the world and the role that this Board of
Peace could have. U.S. officials have talked about the inefficiency of other mechanisms to resolve conflicts around the world. And we know, of
course, that President Trump and his administration have been very critical not only of the United Nations, but kind of the concept of multilateralism
in general.
And so, in many ways, this does increasingly seem like an effort to kind of supplant the role of the United Nations, the United Nations Security
Council in particular. And I think that’s why you’re seeing some reticence in particular on the part of European officials who not only balked at the
inclusion of the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, who is invited to join this Board of Peace, but more broadly have concerns about what the actual
intention of the creation of this Board of Peace actually is beyond the Gaza Strip.
And so, it seems like there are some last-minute kind of backroom conversations before President Trump has this event at Davos to kind of
unveil this Board of Peace with European diplomats and officials trying to very much change some of the language in this charter and get a better
grasp of what the actual intention is here.
GOLODRYGA: Jeremy Diamond in Jerusalem for us. Thank you so much. I glimpsed a civil war, those are the words of our next guest, who’s witnessed Donald Trump’s ongoing immigration crackdown in
Minneapolis. New York Times columnist Lydia Polgreen is a Minnesota native. And in her latest op-ed, she calls the administration’s mission there a
quote, “spectacle of cruelty.” As demonstrations against federal immigration agents continue, the Pentagon has some 1,500 active-duty
soldiers preparing for possible deployment to the state.
Meantime, Minnesotans are still seeking justice for the death of Renee Good. Sources say the FBI has shifted its focus from a probe into the agent
who shot Good to an investigation into the conduct of protesters who were around her at the time. And now, the DOJ is fighting a federal court order
restraining ICE’s aggressive tactics in Minnesota.
Lydia Polgreen joins us now to unpack what’s going on in Minneapolis and across America. Lydia, it’s good to see you. Welcome to the program. So, in
that New York Times piece, you write, Minnesota is under siege. Not just immigration enforcement, but an occupation designed to punish and
terrorize. You say this as someone who has covered wars, civil wars abroad. So, I would imagine you don’t use those words lightly. What is it that you
saw that brought you to that stunning opinion?
LYDIA POLGREEN, COLUMNIST, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Well, you know, we’ve all seen the viral videos. Obviously, the killing of Renee Good, you know, the
people who are being dragged out of cars after having their windows smashed. There was the disabled woman who was almost kind of hogtied and
carried down a residential street in Minneapolis.
So, we’re getting these glimpses and snapshots of what’s happening. But in fact, there’s just a broader atmosphere of intimidation. And I think I
would go so far as to call it terror. You know, you have people like the mayor of Minneapolis — I’m sorry, the people like the mayor of St. Paul
who came to the United States as a Hmong refugee at the age of three, who told me that she carries her proof of citizenship with her everywhere she
goes, because she’s worried that if she was stopped by ICE, they don’t determine your status. You know, they’re basically detaining first and then
asking questions later.
And in fact, a family friend of hers was that gentleman that we all saw on social media who was dragged out, an elderly gentleman who was dragged out
of his home in his boxer shorts with just a light blanket draped over his shoulders. This is a place where with the windchill factored in, you’re
talking about minus 20 degrees. This guy was wearing boxer shorts and Crocs.
So, you know, school desks are empty across the state because, you know, children of immigrants are afraid to send their children to school. You’ve
got all kinds of people who are just engaging in expressing their First Amendment rights by videotaping the activities of ICE or asking questions
or trying to delay or distract ICE who are getting arrested. We have U.S. citizens. We have Native Americans, people who have been on this land
longer than any of us who are getting caught up in this. So, it really is an extraordinary reign of terror that’s happening in Minnesota right now.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And the administration hasn’t ruled out further escalation, including the president invoking the Insurrection Act and the
deployment of potentially thousands of more troops that are now stationed in Alaska. Judging by just what you’ve witnessed and what you’ve heard from
Minnesotans there, what would that do to further divide the tensions between law enforcement officials there and residents?
POLGREEN: Yes, I think one of the things that’s been really extraordinary about the response of people living in Minnesota is that it has been — you
know, it has been very much out in the streets and people are very organized, but it’s been extraordinarily disciplined. I think there is a
desire to see this as, you know, kind of rioting, domestic terrorists is what the Trump administration is trying to call the people who are coming
out to protect their neighbors.
The problem is that you’re going to see an increasing confrontation. And I saw this on the ground where you have the Minneapolis Police Department,
you have other state law enforcement bodies that are really kind of caught in the middle between, you know, the federal agents who are there to carry
out what they call is an immigration mission and local law enforcement who are, you know, frankly, getting flooded with 911 calls and emergencies
because of the activities that ICE is engaged in right now.
And I think if you imagine adding another layer of active-duty troops on top of that, I think you’re looking at a really combustible situation.
You know, Governor Tim Walz of Minnesota has called in the National Guard and they on social media, they said that the National Guard will be wearing
these yellow reflective vests. And that’s how you could tell the difference between one side and the other. And, you know, this is really, you know,
kind of redolent of other kinds of conflicts that you’ve seen, you know, where you have the blue and the red and the American Revolution, you know,
and it’s just — it’s really shocking to think about those types of confrontations.
GOLODRYGA: And he hasn’t deployed the National Guard just yet, but he says that they are at the It’s now been two weeks since or nearly two weeks
since the shooting of Renee Good. Now, ICE says that there have been three thousand arrests under Operation Metro Surge and that they are targeting
the worst of the worst. We don’t know much about who they’ve detained.
What can you tell us from your reporting about who these people are? Are they people who are indeed the worst of the worst with criminal records
that are here illegally?
POLGREEN: Well, as we’ve seen nationwide, an ever-diminishing percentage of those who are arrested in these detained, I think it’s fair to even call
them abducted in these circumstances are not criminals. I mean, I think at this point, the national numbers, which go back to about October, say that
70 percent of the people who have been detained have not even a traffic violation in their background. So, it’s sweeping up everybody.
But, you know, one morning when I was there, it was incredibly cold and I rolled up on a corner where I found some volunteers who’d been patrolling
the neighborhood near a school. And I had just missed an ICE encounter between two girls, one who seemed to be a teenager, the other who seemed
almost preteen. And they had a little white dog in their pickup truck with them. You know, I think the older teenager was dropping another child off
at school.
And it’s really hard to imagine how children of that age could possibly be the worst of the worst. I mean, this, you know, this little girl that they
were handcuffing and putting into their vehicle, you know, to my eye, didn’t look older than 12. So, you know, when you say the worst of the
worst, it’s hard to know exactly what you mean. It just doesn’t — it really beggars’ belief.
GOLODRYGA: And we’ve heard the state officials, the governor, Mike Walz. We’ve heard Jacob Frey, the mayor of Minneapolis, warn residents not to
escalate and not to use this as an excuse for ICE officials to become much more aggressive in their tactics. They are arguing, ICE officials, that
some of these tactics are obstructing them from doing their jobs. And thus, it is some of these protesters that are escalating tensions.
What have you seen when you’ve been there in terms of protest or escalation? And we should remind viewers that the weather temperatures here
are far colder than I believe in Greenland today and in Dallas, where we’ve been covering the other part of the show.
POLGREEN: Yes, it’s incredibly cold. And I think that’s another thing that makes it remarkable to see how Minnesotans are out in force. Now,
Minnesotans are very tough people. They think of themselves as the North Star, providing a kind of moral guidance to the country, which I think very
much is the spirit that I grew up with.
But, yes, I think that you are definitely seeing protesters go out there and quite forcefully assert their First Amendment rights. I did not see
anything that I would even remotely characterize as violence. Are people blowing whistles? Absolutely. Are they following cars, ICE vehicles that
they’ve identified? Absolutely. Are they obeying the traffic laws and not running red lights, which is something that the ICE vehicles have been
doing? They are obeying the laws.
You know, I was on the streets during a very tense confrontation after a Venezuelan man had been shot in a neighborhood in North Minneapolis. And,
you know, the protesters were extremely vocal. But, you know, there was no throwing of rocks. There was no attempt to block the roads or to interfere
with anything that they were doing. The tactics really seemed to be walking right up to the edge of what would be considered obstruction.
So, filming, delaying, distracting, things like that is the overwhelming mandate. And the other thing that people are doing that, you know, really
has nothing to do with, you know, obstructing or delaying is they’re just trying to help people. There are lots of people who are sheltering in their
homes. You know, there are these big, you know, text message networks by which people organize dispatching food deliveries to people who are afraid
to leave home to go to work or to go to the grocery store. Just a huge amount of solidarity among residents of Minneapolis, St. Paul, and indeed
the entire metropolitan area.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. We should note the Department of Justice has opened an investigation into obstruction charges against the governor and the mayor.
And that hasn’t deterred them from continuing to speak publicly and encouraging their citizens to use their constitutional rights, but also not
to fall into the trap of escalating to the point where we are seeing more violence on the streets. Let’s play sound from the mayor, Jacob Frey, from
over the weekend with our Jake Tapper.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JACOB FREY, MINNEAPOLIS MAYOR: We’re not going to be intimidated. If the goal here is safety, we’ve got many mechanisms to achieve safety. And the
best way to get safety is not to have an influx of even more agents, and in this case, military in Minneapolis. I never thought in a million years that
we would be invaded by our own federal government.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: And he also issued a warning to Americans that this could be a case study for something similar happening in your own cities. Why is it
that the administration has focused on Minneapolis, on the state of Minnesota? And do the numbers back up this type of action?
POLGREEN: Well, it’s ironic because, you know, Minnesota actually has a rate of undocumented immigrants that is half that of the national average.
This is a state that, you know, is, you know, about 75 percent white. So, I think that the reasons — there are many reasons for targeting Minnesota.
Obviously, Governor Tim Walz was on the ticket that opposed, you know, Donald Trump and J. D. Vance in the 2024 election.
You know, ostensibly, the reason that has been given by the federal government for going into Minnesota is, you know, I think a very clear and
well-documented and quite massive fraud case that was being investigated and involving many members of the Somali-American community. That is an
investigation that was actually started during the Biden administration. There have been dozens of arrests and convictions already. So, there are
lots of reasons on paper.
To me, as someone who’s from Minnesota, I think that really what this is, though, is an assault on a state that represents in some ways the kind of
polar opposite of what the Trump administration and what Donald Trump himself and Stephen Miller, his sort of henchmen, are trying to impose upon
the United States. This is a state that has a long history of welcoming refugees, of, you know, really robust civil services, that really believes
in neighbors helping neighbors. And I think that they’re trying to teach Minnesota a lesson.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. Lydia Polgreen, you go from one cold state to another here. Brutally cold temperatures in New York. Welcome back home. Thank you
so much for joining us. Appreciate it. Hear the New York police sirens there behind you.
All right. $3 billion, that is the estimated amount of funds left unspent this past year, after the Trump administration froze or terminated
thousands of grants for the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation. Trump’s stance on science has been notably critical in
his second term, making inflammatory statements on everything from vaccines to autism. At the same time, the U.S. has experienced growing public health
complications, including measles cases surging last year to their highest level in decades.
Best known for co-founding the biotech company Moderna, Noubar Afeyan joins Walter Isaacson to discuss why the U.S. should be choosing science.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Thank you, Biana and Noubar Afeyan. Welcome back to the show.
NOUBAR AFEYAN, FOUNDER AND CEO, FLAGSHIP PIONEERING AND CO-FOUNDER, MODERNA: Great to be back, Walter.
ISAACSON: Every year you write a letter about the miracles that are happening in biotech, and I read yours this year and it hit me suddenly
that you had something you were very angry about, too. You said things you’d not seen in 40 years in biotech, and let me read you what you said.
While we’re closer than ever to realizing biotechnology’s full potential to make miracles, we’re also closer than ever to throwing that potential away.
We’re at a risk of taking a sledgehammer to our miracle machine. What were you — what was — what were talking about?
AFEYAN: Well, Walter, as you know, the biotech industry, the pharmaceutical industry, is one of a few science-based industries. That is
that the work that we do as a society to make new findings of mechanisms of disease, new targets, and ultimately new drugs and vaccines is very much
predicated on a robust scientific enterprise, which in this country has operated as a partnership between the government and private sector and is
entirely based on the scientific method.
And what we’re seeing in the recent past is a level of attack on the output of science and on what the scientific community considers as the most
objective facts based on all the evidence that is being basically attacked without any countervailing data. And what worries me is that since that’s
such a foundation of this entire biotech enterprise and broadly the $3.2 trillion of economic value that comes from the medicines enterprise, that
we risk to lose what has really been a mainly U.S.-based industry.
And that worries me because it’s coming at the worst possible time in view of all the opportunities that are coming out with technology and with all
the new findings.
ISAACSON: Well, let’s start with those opportunities. You say we’re risking throwing them away, but let’s just do a few in the past year that
shows what we’re able to do. And one of them is in an injection that would stop HIV infection, right?
AFEYAN: Yes. And so, we’ve seen an injection that on a twice-yearly basis can essentially stop HIV from persisting, propagating. And the impact of
that on the life of the people involved, not just therapeutically, but from an ability to live with this terrible disease is just really a life
changer. And not only that, but the company Gilead Sciences, which I don’t have anything to do with, but I’m very proud of as a member of the biotech
industry, has also worked with governments to make this available to low to middle income countries, together with the Gates Foundation and others,
that I think is really taking the miracles and bringing them to as many people as possible.
And so, that’s a really good example of a scientific idea and discovery going all the way to affecting people’s lives. And we have many, many more.
ISAACSON: Well, one of the other miracles this past year was using what Jennifer Doudna helped create in terms of gene editing CRISPR technology.
There was a kid, KJ, a newborn baby who had a very rare genetic disease. Explain how that is a new frontier, too, that we had last year.
AFEYAN: You know, the — we hear a lot about chronic diseases because many people are afflicted with them, which essentially makes what’s called rare
genetic diseases, some of them ultra-rare diseases. Some of them, there’s 10 people on the planet that have it, almost hopeless, because there’s no
economic case that could be made to develop a treatment for them.
But gene editing that allowed us to target, the company that worked on this and the researchers, academic hospital researchers, that could basically
design a one-off treatment to correct that error, inborn error that then leads to a disease. That is not only a lifesaver for the child who was
basically the first case, but also gives hope to many others with other similar errors that can be corrected with the same technology.
So, it’s this reusability, the programmability of a nucleic acid-based medicines that we learned about, you know, a decade or more ago through
mRNA, through even siRNA, now we’re seeing with gene editing. And again, it gives what seems like a miraculous hope. But in reality, it’s been reduced
to practice. And it’s a man made, a human made miracle.
ISAACSON: OK. So, those are the miracles. Now, let’s get to the bad news that you’ve talked about. You write, I fear we are headed for a dystopian
future of disease, deprivation and decline. Is that — let’s go through the factors. Is one of them the cutting of federal funding for research?
AFEYAN: Well, look, since the Vannevar Bush of frontiers kind of efforts that after World War II established the rationale for federal funding and
very generous and growing federal funding that was behind many of the scientific advances through NSF, through NIH over the last decades, we have
enjoyed a an expansive, progressive period where investments by the government, federal government, taxpayer dollars into the advancements in
basic and then applied science produced the thousands of inventions and advances and papers that then led eventually to practical applications,
medicines, vaccines, diagnostics, et cetera.
That has been to the benefit of American citizens and then the whole globe who’s come to depend on essentially that public private partnership. What
we’re seeing now with a fairly indiscriminate reduction of funding through NIH and NSF. And I say indiscriminate because it’s not specific to one
science project.
You might think that’s fair to cut across the board, but actually, cutting across the board just means that the enterprise is not valued. And I do
think that the notion that we can rely on other people funding basic research and then cherry pick the things that we like to develop in this
country is completely not feasible. So, yes, I do think that’s one of the ways in which the scientific enterprise is becoming crippled.
ISAACSON: So, what’s the — what is happening with the cooperation with universities and the federal government?
AFEYAN: Look, we’ve gone through a period where we’ve had budgets proposed that reduce NIH funding and funding to the tune of 25 to 40 percent.
Fortunately, very recently, Congress has pushed back on this and it looks like the full extent of those reductions will not be realized. And I’m glad
for that. But the mere suggestion that it should be our policy to dramatically reduce the funding of that type of academic research.
And you’re right in pointing out to me that most of what I was just mentioning starts with a significant investment in academic research. That
is something that we need to protect. And it is really kind of sacrosanct in the way the whole downstream process occurs. You cut off the roots and
everything else downstream from that will absolutely suffer.
ISAACSON: But is that just the money for the universities and fellowships are gone, visas are gone, and there seems to be a concerted attack against
research universities.
AFEYAN: Look, I don’t understand it. You know, most people who consider themselves world class want to go where world class competition is, and
that’s been in the U.S. The notion that we would exclude essentially students from different parts of the world or make it difficult for them,
not give them visa appointments, even if they’ve gotten in and they’ve gotten them, this is their life dream.
We don’t benefit from those students for just the five years that they do a PhD program, we benefit from them for decades because many, if not most of
them, want to stay here and contribute productively. So, yes, this is a surprising, in my view, regression.
And I’ll say, Walter, and I can say this having experienced it in my life, I view myself as an American by choice. I became —
END