July 10, 2025

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to “Amanpour and Company.” Here’s what’s coming up.

President Trump fundamentally changes America as his sweeping domestic policy bill comes into law Senator Bernie Sanders on galvanizing the

opposition. Then the fallout from Israel’s deadly bombing of Iran’s Evin Prison. And “The Banality of Evil,” a new documentary about the life and

legacy of Hannah Arendt and what she learned about tyranny in Nazi Germany and beyond.

Welcome to the program, everyone. I’m Christiane Amanpour in London.

Six months into Trump 2.0 and he is gathering more power than ever. The president’s quest to remake America is well and truly on with the passage

of his sweeping domestic policy bill. It’ll mean major and significant changes to the lives of most Americans. The bill ensures a huge transfer of

wealth from the less well off to the richest, a massive surge in funding for ICE, millions of people unable to access Medicaid and much more. Yet,

poll after poll shows the bill is unpopular with most Americans.

So, what of the opposition? Democrats and their supporters are certainly frustrated. Bernie Sanders though is galvanizing support in a way that

mainstream Democrats are not right now. His “Fighting Oligarchy” tour has been drawing record crowds. And Senator Sanders joins me now from Capitol

Hill. Welcome back to our program.

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT): Great to be with you.

AMANPOUR: So, Senator Sanders, we’ve just said that the president is remaking America and Democrats seem to be out on a limb, unable to do

anything about it. First and foremost, what is the, you know, end oligarchy tour? What is it that you are trying to tell Americans about this bill?

SANDERS: Well, what’s going on in America today is that we have an unprecedented level of income and wealth inequality. That means we have

fewer and fewer people owning America society. The top 1 percent now owns more wealth than the bottom 93 percent, if you could believe that. And one

man, one man, Elon Musk, he himself owns more wealth than the bottom 52 percent of American society, American households.

And as you’ll recall, when Trump was inaugurated, he had the three wealthiest guys in America right behind him, Musk, Bezos, and Zuckerberg.

And right behind them were 13 other billionaires who Trump had nominated to head up major government agencies.

So, what you are looking at right now in America is a government of the billionaire class, by the billionaire class, and for the billionaire class.

And what these guys are doing is saying, you know, it’s not enough. We want more and more. And then, you have this so-called Trump’s big beautiful

bill, the reconciliation bill, and as you indicated, it is the largest transfer of wealth from low-income and working-class Americans to the top 1

percent, the very richest people who have never had it so good getting a trillion dollars in tax breaks, and that is paid for by massive cuts to

Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act, nutrition. Food is literally going to be taken away from kids who are hungry. Education is going to be significantly

cut.

AMANPOUR: OK.

SANDERS: So, what we are looking at time is the people on top never had it so good. Working families are struggling to put food on the table.

AMANPOUR: So, Senator, you’ve called it the most dangerous piece of legislation in the modern history of our country. I don’t know whether

that’s hyperbole, but what I don’t know —

SANDERS: No.

AMANPOUR: OK. Then what are you all doing about it? Because the Democrats seem to be frozen in time. And you, on the progressive wings, seem to be

going out and getting lots and lots of crowds. How is this going to change?

SANDERS: It is — by the way. It is not hyperbole. A recent study came out from Yale and the University of Pennsylvania which suggests that when you

deny — take away healthcare from 17 million people in America, an additional 50,000 people a year will die unnecessarily because they don’t

get to a doctor when they should. That’s not hyperbole. That’s a tragic, tragic reality.

Now, what are we doing? Well, as you indicated, needless to say, giving massive tax breaks to billionaires and cutting healthcare and education and

nutrition from working-class families is not popular. So, what I have been doing, working with people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is running around

the country, mobilizing people and the trade union movement to stand up and to show the rest of the country and the world that we will not tolerate

this oligarchy, we will not tolerate this massive transfer of wealth, we will not tolerate this kleptocracy of the Trump administration and this

continued war on working families.

And we’ve got to bring people together. We’ve got to mobilize the 2026 elections. We have been focusing, by the way, in most cases, not all, but

most cases, in districts that have Republican representation in Congress. We were in towns where we brought out 20,000 people in communities with

Republican representatives to make it clear that those people know what their members of Congress are voting for.

AMANPOUR: So, that’s so interesting. I was going to ask you about that. because you’re not just preaching to the choir, you are going out into red

states and — you know, and telling them what’s at stake as well. So, the question is, what is the big strategy? You have been very solid in your

political, you know, mission and your career. You’re a progressive. Once you were called yourself a socialist when you were a mayor in Vermont, and

now you’ve endorsed the campaign of Zohran Mamdani for New York Mayor. He, of course, has taken not just the U.S., but the world by storm.

You posted, at this dangerous moment in history, status quo politics isn’t good enough. We need new leadership that’s prepared to stand up to powerful

corporate interests and fight for the working-class. Zohran Mamdani is providing that vision. He’s the best choice for New York City mayor.

So, what would you say to the number of New Yorkers who say, oh, my God, he is never run anything and he says, free buses, and he’s — you know, is he

antisemitic or not? What would you say to people?

SANDERS: All right. Let me deal — look, first of all, understand, he’s going to have the entire establishment, the oligarchy, the billionaires

coming down on his head, not only because he’s demanding that the wealthy and large corporations in New York City start paying their fair share of

taxes, they are worried that his campaign is an example of what can happen all over the country when you bring people together to demand the

government that works for all of us and not just a few. So, they really want to crush this guy.

And you have billionaires saying quite openly, we are going to spend as much as it takes to defeat this guy. You have Democratic leadership not

refusing to jump on board a campaign where this guy is the Democratic nominee. So, most importantly, I’m going to do everything I can to see that

Zohran becomes the next mayor of New York.

In terms of his policies, look, it is very, very hard to govern a major American city. A lot of problems out there, but I think he is a very smart

guy. I do know that he is prepared to reach out to his — het as many advisers in New York City and around the country. How do you deal with the

crisis of affordable housing? How do you make healthcare more accessible and affordable in New York City? How do you deal with transportation?

You know, the idea of having municipally funded grocery stores, it’s not a radical idea. Working-class families want to have a healthy food for their

kids. They can’t afford it right now. Not a radical idea. But it is no easy task to become a mayor, but I am confident that he himself and the people

around him can do a good job.

AMANPOUR: So, when — you know, put the pedal to the medal, so to speak, and the Democratic Party does seem to be moving more to the progressive

side, your wing of the party. But that’s not all America. The Democratic Party maybe, but not all of America. You yourself didn’t have a huge amount

of success when you were running for the presidency in New York primaries and stuff. Do you think that the concern about, well, progressive politics

in America, certainly at the presidential level, you know, could hamper your progressive mission, even though you are creating so much excitement

now?

SANDERS: Look, this is what I think, there is a lot of confusion about what being a progressive is about. And you got people throwing, they go,

you want to defund the police, you want open borders. That’s crap. No serious progressive that I know believes in that. Crime is a serious

problem. We have to figure out intelligent ways, humane ways to deal with it.

But this is what I do know. What I do know is you ask people, is it appropriate in America that you have one man owning more wealth in the

bottom 52 percent of America, that you have large corporations, in some cases, making billions, not paying a penny in taxes to people? Whether

you’re conservative or progressive, do you think that makes sense? No. Do people in America think that we should be the only major country on earth

not to guarantee healthcare to all people at a time when we’re spending twice as much per capita as the Canadians or people throughout Europe? Our

system is much worse.

Do we have the courage to take on the drug companies and the insurance companies, guarantee healthcare to all people? Should we be addressing the

major crisis that we’re dealing with in affordable housing? That’s true with New York City, it’s true Burlington, Vermont, true cities, towns, all

over this country. Why are we not building more low-income and affordable housing rather than putting money into the military industrial complex?

So, I think that the issues that we are talking about, an economy that works for all, not just the few, demanding that the wealthiest people,

largest corporations start paying their fair share of taxes. I think those are ideas that will resonate all over this country and will lead to strong

election victories.

AMANPOUR: Some of those issues like trying to destroy Obamacare in Trump 1.0 did apparently lead to a defeat in the midterms. So, I understand what

you’re trying to do. But I want to ask you also, because I just heard an interview with a previous presidential candidate and Secretary of State

John Kerry. And he was asked about immigration. And Trump has won the war on immigration, at least that’s how he got elected. I don’t know about now.

And Kerry was saying, you need borders. We have passports for a reason. The Democrats screwed up. They let that border be open territory and they’ve

paid for it. Now, Trump is pouring, I think, in this new bill, $150 billion into immigration enforcement by giving all this money to ICE. So, what are

you going do as Democrats to address the legitimate concern about immigration and borders?

SANDERS: I am not a Democrat. I’m an independent.

AMANPOUR: Yes, I know, but you caucus with them. Yes. Sorry.

SANDERS: But this is what I do think, Kerry is certainly right that you don’t have a country without borders. If you have borders, you should

enforce that border. Democrats have not done as good a job as they should, period. End of discussion. That’s correct.

But I will tell you something else. In this country right now, you have millions and millions of people who came from Latin America or wherever,

who are working in meat packing plants, they’re harvesting crops, they’ve been in this country for years. They’re law abiding. They are paying taxes,

and they are doing some of the most dangerous underpaid work in America. They are in the fields. They’re in meat packing plants. They’re working

with our children in childcare centers. They’re working with our parents in nursing homes.

And if you ask the American people, should we be just throwing these people, millions of these people out on the street, where often without any

due process, the American people will say no. So, we need to find some solution to that problem, but it cannot simply be throwing millions and

millions of people out on the street. And throwing — in some cases insanely taking people and putting, I think, in Sudan, countries where they

have no knowledge of.

So, do we need comprehensive immigration reform? Yes. Do we need to protect, in my view, workers who were doing essential work? And by the way,

let’s remember a few years ago, these were the people who we called essential workers during COVID. They put their lives on the line and

sometimes died keeping the economy going, because they were doing the dirtiest, most dangerous work in this country.

So, we have to deal with immigration broadly with comprehensive immigration reform. We have failed in that, Democrats, Republicans have failed in that

for many, many years. We need right now to come up with some way to protect these workers who are maintaining the economy.

Trump wants to throw them all out, fine. The price of food will double or triple. God knows what’ll happen to nursing homes in this country. So, we

need a rational humane solution, not having people with masks on them, throwing people into vans and then transporting them to God knows what

country.

AMANPOUR: I know you’ve got to go to a meeting. Do you have time for another question or not?

SANDERS: I think I should probably go.

AMANPOUR: Off you go. Thank you very much. Thank you, Senator. Now, Russia continues to relentlessly pound Ukraine from the skies, conducting large

scale attacks on the capitol for two nights in a row. It comes as Trump makes a U-turn voicing frustration at Putin and resuming weapons shipments

to Ukraine after the Defense Department paused them last week.

But the Kremlin says it’s taking Trump’s anger in stride. Matthew Chance has the details.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MATTHEW CHANCE, CHIEF GLOBAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Across Kremlin controlled television outrage at a frustrated President Trump’s remarks

about Vladimir Putin. After months of fawning coverage of the U.S. president in Russia, it’s now turning hostile amid US threats of new

sanctions and military aid for Ukraine.

Threatening Russia is pointless, this state TV anchor reminds her viewers.

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: We get a lot of — thrown at us by Putin.

CHANCE: It was these unusually critical remarks that shocked many Russians, more used to praise from President Trump and now just confused.

Trump is first our friend who will give us Ukraine, says this Russian official. Then he’s an enemy who will impose sanctions, then a friend

again.

For its part, the Kremlin has played down any suggestion that President Trump’s critical outburst has had much impact. We’re taking it quite

calmly, the Kremlin spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, told reporters on a conference call, adding that Trump in general tends to use a fairly tough

style and expressions.

But back on state television, influential voices are far less diplomatic, warning of dire consequences of a renewed fallout between Russia and the

U.S.

Trump is bringing a third World War closer with all of this, warns a prominent pro Kremlin presenter, even though Trump said his main task, he

adds, was to prevent exactly that.

Matthew Chance, CNN London.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: Now, over 1,000 Iranians were killed during Israel’s 12-day bombing campaign. Among its targets, the notorious Evin Prison in Tehran,

where opposition figures and political prisoners are also locked up. It’s where Siamak Namazi was held when he spoke to us a few years ago to plead

for his release. And now, we are learning more about the true devastation of the strike and who died there, and also the consequences of those

bombings, a cracked down on dissent and a potential strengthening of the regime’s position.

Let’s bring in Farnaz Fassihi of The New York Times. She has covered Iran for so many years and she joins me now from New York. Welcome to the

program.

FARNAZ FASSIHI, REPORTER, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Thank you for having me, Christiane.

AMANPOUR: So, let’s talk about the big picture. You know, clearly both the United States and Israel and maybe some Iranians inside and out hoped that

amongst other things there would be some kind of weakening of the regime and maybe regime change. I mean, everything I read now speaks to the exact

opposite. What are you hearing about the crackdown?

FASSIHI: Well, what we are hearing from both officials and from ordinary Iranians and people in Iran is — that there is really no signs of the

regime collapsing. Although that it’s been weakened, its military command base was assassinated, the most senior commanders, it sustained some severe

blows to its military and nuclear program, but the system is still intact.

And what tends to happen after episodes like this, particularly in a state of where Iranians feel like they’re still in a state of war and a pause in

the conflict, is that they try to sort of tighten the noose and crack down. All over Tehran and in the big cities there are checkpoints everywhere.

They’re searching vehicles. They’re looking at people’s phones. They’re cracking down on dissidents and arresting lots of people that they suspect

of either dissent or being spies for Israel. So, we’re seeing a sense of that.

But also, what didn’t happen, and I think this is noteworthy to your point about regime change, is that I think there were some people in Iran’s

opposition, the United States, and Israel, that thought perhaps if there’s military strikes on Iran, people are going to rise up, there’s going to be

protests and a domestic challenge to the regime, but we’ve seen kind of the opposite, Christiane. We’ve seen people really coalescing around one

another. It doesn’t mean that they agree or like the Islamic Republic, but there’s also been a rejection of war as a means to freedom or democracy.

So, that’s the mood that I’ve picked up on in my reporting.

AMANPOUR: So, Karen Kramer, you know of her, probably, the deputy director of the Center for Human Rights in Iran, has written an op-ed for The New

York Times. And she says, the Iranian regime reeling from the humiliating losses it suffered at the hands of Israel and the United States appears to

be using the trauma of last month’s short but intense war to settle domestic scores and reassert absolute authority through fear.

She reports of, you know, mass arrest, execution, lack of due process. So, that goes to the heart of some of what you’re saying. But what do you know

specifically about, for instance, the supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, he’s been out for the first time in public over this past weekend? The —

General Shamkhani or rather Admiral Shamkhani who was actually previously a major military figure and now was leading the nuclear negotiation, he

survived, where Israel said they’d killed them.

What do you think they’re taking those figures from their survival? Is this a win for them just that they survive?

FASSIHI: They’re portraying it that way certainly. I think that we should also note that there is a climate of fear in Iran and also among officials.

Mr. Khamenei’s been, you know, in a bunker, not really present in his — since the war started in his compound and he made an appearance that night

for religious ceremony and then retreated back to where he had been sheltering fearing assassinations.

So, I think that there is still real concern that there might still be covert assassinations or attempts on Iranian officials. But also, I think

that these cameo appearances where President Pezeshkian comes in a street protest or Ayatollah Khamenei comes out. Mr. Shamkhani does an interview.

These, I think, are all meant to signal to the West, to Israel, to the United States that, you know, even — we even survived, the Islamic

Republic is intact, and we survived a war with considerably more powerful military forces.

So, I think this is exactly what the regime is trying to project, a sense of normalcy, although nothing is really normal, and survival.

AMANPOUR: And I want to get your long report about what actually happened at Evin Prison. I mean, right — so, let’s just go back. Israel bombed what

it said was the gates. And clearly, it turns out that the damage was so much graver than that. Amongst other things, it portrayed it as a symbolic

gesture to free, you know, dissidents and regime opponents.

But certainly, as we mentioned in our introduction to you, our friend Siamak Namazi, who is an Iranian-American hostage there for nearly eight

years, he and also Narges Mohammadi, who’s a Nobel laureate and spent decades in and out of there. Siamak wrote also about the people he knew who

had been killed, who he had, you know, been in the same prison.

And you’ve written some really devastating reporting along with your colleagues. So, give us the broad picture of what actually happened, who

actually bore the brunt of that Israeli strike on Evin?

FASSIHI: I think that the real victims of the Israeli strike on Evin were the prisoners who were captive there and had no way out. And their

situation has considerably gotten worse. And their families and administrative staff and people who were present there.

I’ll just do a recap. On June 23rd, Israel said it “symbolically,” in quotations, attack the Evin Prison, which has been long a symbol of sort of

oppression and crackdowns on political dissent. But our investigation forensic groups that do forensic investigations, we’ve sort of pieced

together that there were six strikes on the prison. Four of them direct hits on structures within the prison. The visitation center, which was full

of families, social workers, people visiting, putting bail to — you know, placing bail. It also housed the prosecutor’s office, and he was killed.

The administrative building where all the administrative staff and the business of the prison was there. The prison’s hospital, 47 bed clinic and

hospital. And the 209 ward, which is where political prisoners were held.

So, among — the official tally is 80 people were killed in that strike, and lots of people were injured. But we’ve also heard from lawyers that

there are, you know, maybe over a hundred people who are still missing, including the transgender inmates at Evin, which is really tragic. You

know, they had their own ward. It was in a basement in one of the wings, and that building has collapsed. And according to a lawyer and an activist

I spoke to in Iran, the transgender prisoners are missing. And they are presumed dead. Although, they’re not confirmed, but they’re presumed dead

because some time has now passed and we don’t know what’s going on.

So, even dissidents, even families of the prisoners and even prisoners in Evin that we interviewed were saying that this — that Israel’s attack on

Evin to — up to them it feels like they were — that there was no regards for the life of prisoners who were there or the families because it

happened at sort of a peak hour, on a workday.

Now, what happened far from prisoners being free or liberated or anything like that, what happened was actually to the prisoners was equally tragic

because security forces moved in, the prison had sustained severe damages. A lot of them were injured. Windows had shattered, walls had crumbled, and

they were trying to help and dig through the rubbles and find survivors and find the people injured.

But then, security guards moved in holding guns at them and placing them in a half-collapsed building, the men and the separate. And they were then —

the men were shackled in pairs. Their hands and feet tied together around midnight and forced to march through the rubble, through the dead bodies to

buses that were evacuating them to another prison. The women were transported exactly in the same way, shackled the next morning. Some of the

prisoners gave us testimonies of what had happened to them, and they’ve shared them on social media. They said that, you know, the humiliation, the

suffering was really extreme.

And you know, Christiane, what I keep hearing, and even Siamak told me, and I quoted him in my piece, is that, you know, the Evin strike sort of has

come to symbol what a lot of Iranians say that they feel like they are caught between two vicious forces, the regime that harms them and cracks

down on political dissent and punishes them, and the Israeli military. And as Siamak put it, you know, people feel like they’re stuck between, you

know, two blades and have no way out.

AMANPOUR: You know, Farnaz, it’s such an awful story and it’s so resonant, of course, of the unbelievably unintended consequences of what — you know,

of what certain governments do in the belief that they’re doing something else. I mean, it’s really — the loss of life there and the backlash is

really awful.

I want to just quickly end by asking you what you think is going to happen, because, of course, all of this was supposedly to, you know, obliterate, in

Trump’s words, the nuclear program. So, an Iranian official says the U.S. has now sent Iran messages to restart the negotiations, according to CNN

reporting.

But the foreign minister has published an op-ed in The Financial Times. He says, although Iran has in recent days received messages indicating the

U.S. may be ready to return to negotiations, how can we trust any further engagement? And he says, Iran remains interested in diplomacy, but we have

good reason to have doubts about further dialogue. If there’s a desire to resolve this amicably, the U.S. should show genuine readiness for an

equitable accord. Washington should also know that its actions in recent weeks of change the situation.

So, what do you make of this, first defiance? I mean, how much leg room do they have for defiance? And B, on this substance? Are you hearing anything

about talks and a return to the bargaining table?

FASSIHI: Well, I think there are conversations and back channels going on to try to resume the diplomacy channel, because I think even though Iran is

taking this defiant stand saying, well, we need some trust building measures to return, the reality for Iran is still that it’s under severe

economic sanctions. It is having, you know, a crisis of energy. It’s having a crisis in its economy. And now, a crisis in its security with these

massive infiltrations of Israeli spies inside the country. And it’s now been weakened militarily, both at home and in the region.

So, if you look at the reality for the for the Iranian government, it really has to come back to the negotiating table if it wants some relief

from those external threats and the sanctions.

AMANPOUR: We will —

FASSIHI: So, I think that they’re posturing, but it seems that it’s inevitable that they’d have to come back and try to resolve things

diplomatically.

AMANPOUR: Farnaz Fassihi, as always, thank you so much. Thank you very much for that reporting. Now, scenes of utter devastation and grief at a

Gaza Hospital where an Israeli strike killed 15 people on Thursday. The Aqsa Martyrs Hospital says eight of those were children, purportedly while

queuing for vital aid. The youngest victim was just two years old. The IDF claims it was targeting a Hamas militant.

Amid struggling ceasefire talks, the E.U.’s top diplomat says Israel agrees to expand humanitarian access to Gaza, but this may be too little, too late

for so many. Paula Hancock has this report.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

PAULA HANCOCKS, INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Four babies crammed into one ICU cot. The stark reality of trying to keep preterm

babies alive in a war zone where formula, medicine, and fuel have virtually run out.

DR. NASSER BULBUL, HEAD OF ICU, AL-HELOU HOSPITAL: But we have no incubators to keep this baby inside the incubator. So, put the baby for

more than one week in the (INAUDIBLE). Also, this acute baby in risk of complication because of the temperature control and the risk of getting

infection.

HANCOCKS (voice-over): 12 incubators in this ICU with 22 cases of extreme preterm babies. Dr. Bulbul says they have lost babies when the generators

break down.

Baby Asil (ph) was born three months early, weighing half a kilo. She needed two months in an incubator.

We all want our children to be safe, her mother says. If the power is cut off, these children will be in a dire situation. We need electricity to

power the incubators.

Hospitals across Gaza and the United Nations warn fuel shortages are at a critical point. Nasser Medical Complex warns it is 24 hours away from

disaster. If the power goes out, it says, dozens of patients face certain deaths.

This kidney dialysis center has been closed at Al-Shifa Hospital. It can only reopen once more fuel is delivered. We have asked COGAT, the Israeli

agency in charge of coordinating aid deliveries into Gaza, about the acute shortage of fuel for hospitals. And the daily fight for food becomes ever

more desperate.

JAMAL ABU HASIRA, GAZA CITY RESIDENT: Daily, I’m fighting this kind of starvation. And I barely get one meal for two days.

HANCOCKS (voice-over): Chaos and desperation is clear to see at this Gaza city soup kitchen fear another day may pass with no food for themselves and

their families.

In the struggle, one girl spills boiling soup on her hands. Screams of shock and pain as she nurses the burns. Beyond her injury, she has lost her

food.

As ceasefire talks continue in Doha, dozens continue to be killed daily across Gaza. This the aftermath of a strike on a tent city in Gaza City.

Talk of progress in Qatar has no impact on life in Gaza.

ABU HASIRA: More than miserable, more than starvation, more than genocide. We are really living in hell. Really.

HANCOCKS (voice-over): Paula Hancocks, CNN, Abu Dhabi.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: A ceasefire could not come soon enough, also for the Gaza residents and for those hostages who are still there. We’ll be right back

after this short break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

AMANPOUR: Now, a dire warning from history.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Never has our future been more unpredictable. Never have we depended so much on political forces that cannot be trusted to

follow the rules of common-sense. Forces that look like sheer insanity if judged by the standards of other centuries.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: The striking words of Hannah Arendt, one of the most influential political thinkers of the 20th century. After being forced to flee her

native Germany during the Nazi persecution of Jews, she found refuge in the United States writing about the dangers of authoritarianism. She coined the

phrase, banality of evil, covering the trial of Adolf Eichmann, the key architect of the Holocaust.

Jeff Bieber is an Emmy award-winning filmmaker and co-director of the new documentary, “Hannah Arendt: Facing Tyranny.” And he joins Michel Martin to

talk about his film.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, Christiane. Jeff Bieber, thank you so much for talking with us.

JEFF BEIBER, CO-DIRECTOR, “HANNAH ARENDT: FACING TYRANNY”: Oh, it’s real pleasure. Thank you for having me, Michel.

MARTIN: Philosophy majors might know about Hannah Arendt, maybe people who’ve studied the rise of Nazi Germany. She’s just fascinating personal

story, which people may know fragments of, but might not have, you know, known the whole story. So, give us — just give us the basics. Give us the

basics of her life. Yes.

BEIBER: Absolutely. Hannah Arendt born in — Germany in 1906, a brilliant, precocious, rambunctious, funny kid who starts studying philosophy, starts

reading Kant, Nietzsche at the age of 12 or 14 years old. So, she’s this brilliant kid. And she goes to the university to study philosophy 1924,

right after World War I when things are really changing in Germany,

You know, after World War I, Germany had lost the war. The Allies had made Germany pay reparations. They demilitarized Germany. And people were really

angry. There was unemployment. There was hyperinflation. But she — basically, what happens is she goes to Berlin in 1929 after she gets her

doctorate degrees and she sees things changing in Germany.

She gets married to a nice Jewish guy in September, 1929 — October ’29, the stock market crashes. And all of a sudden, everything goes haywire, not

just in Germany, but all over the world. People are unemployed. People are angry of what’s happening. And out of Hitler, who had published “Mein

Kampf” in 1925 when she was in university, and that was kind of his blueprint for, you know, what he does in World War II and the Holocaust,

and he starts blaming the Jews and immigrants who are coming in to Germany looking for jobs.

And she sees this, she’s experiencing it. And she joins the resistance after the Reichstag fire in 1933 to fight Hitler, to resist, after he

declares martial law. She gets arrested. She escapes to France. She helps Jewish kids escape from Germany to go to what was then Palestine. And after

Germany attacks France, she gets interned like other Germans and escapes again after the camp falls, after France falls to Germany. And she and her,

actually at the time, second husband escaped to the United States in 1941.

And in ’43, after she learns about Auschwitz and the Holocaust, she starts asking the question, what was going on? What happened? How did this happen?

And she begins to write this book, “The Origins of Totalitarianism.”

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Finally, we get into ’43 and she starts to see a pattern. She starts to see a book.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Propaganda provided the foundation for building totalitarian power. The Nazis translated the propaganda lies of the

movement into a functioning reality. Totalitarianism replaces all first- rate talents with crack cuts and foods whose lack of intelligence and creativity is still the best guarantee of their loyalty. The Nazis exodus

though the world were dominated by the Jews and needed a counter conspiracy to defend itself.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MARTIN: I just find her so fascinating because, first of all, to be a woman in philosophy at a time when a woman of letters, at a time when that

was difficult to be, and then to have been arrested twice, to have been interned twice, and then to escape both times to somehow kind of get out,

to have survived as a German Jew, to have survived the Holocaust, to have figured out how to survive in that era, her experiences were incredible.

But tell me more about how she was sort of, her work was viewed at the time.

BEIBER: So, in 1951, she publishes “Origins of Totalitarianism,” her very first book about how did Hitler and Stalin come to be. How did, not just

thousands, but millions of people subscribe to a cult leader. You know, educated people subscribed to the lies of Hitler. And it’s very well

received. And there was some mix reviews in it. But you know, the thing is it was a groundbreaking book because it — really, it sets the mold for

what happens later.

It’s not just about Adolf Hitler, it’s about what happens when people, good people, educated people start subscribing to the lives of a cult leader?

And one of the things she writes about in that book is about loneliness.

You know, Vivek Murthy, the certain general in 2023 put out a report about loneliness. And he said it was an epidemic of loneliness and it was a

health issue, right? Well, she observes that after World War I people in Germany felt disconnected to their lives, disconnected from society. You

know, people had lost their jobs. People felt they weren’t being treated well. They were retreated, in essence, and they were looking for meaning in

their lives.

And along comes Adolf Hitler who says, I’m going to give you your jobs back again. You know, I’m going to make Germany great again. I’m going to

rebuild the military again. And he gets thousands of people to believe him, even though many people know the guy’s lying, but they feel, you know what,

he’s going to help Germany again. And she writes about that as a key ingredient that led people to subscribe to a totalitarian government,

loneliness.

So, after the book is published, she begins a teaching career. She ultimately teaches at the new school in New York. And she really starts to

observe the student protest movement in the ’60s and ’70s. But, you know, I’m jumping ahead —

MARTIN: But I just — let me just — let me go back. Just for people who – – again, who have not followed this or don’t understand this as closely, who is Adolf Eichmann and how was it that he went to trial in Jerusalem in

the ’60s, what happened there?

BEIBER: Right. So, Adolf Eichmann was in charge of transporting people. He was in charge of transportation during the Third Reich of transporting

people, Jews, others from ghettos to concentration camps, to extermination camps. He was, as one of our advisers said, one of Hitler’s chief

logicians, right? He would figure out, you know, the timetables and trains and all of that to get people from here to there. And people would be

killed basically, right?

So, like many other Nazis he escapes, he goes to Argentina, which seemed to be a haven for Nazis. And in 1960, the Israeli government captures him,

kidnaps him, and brings Jerusalem to stand trial. And so, she goes and she expects to see this raving lunatic, this anti-Semite, you know, who’s going

to be, you know, off his rocker. And instead, she sees this bespeckled guy in a suit. He’s constantly blowing his nose. He’s like any other bureaucrat

you might see. And he’s speaking in cliches. She says he’s kind of speaking in Nazi speak.

He — and when he’s questioned about his role in the Holocaust, his role of killing millions of people, he said he didn’t kill anybody. All he did was

he was in charge of transporting people from here to there. And what she comes — she coins this phrase, banality of evil basically. She writes a

report in the New Yorker, called Adolf Eichmann on trial, the banality of evil.

And what does that mean, the banality of evil? She’s not calling evil banal. What she’s basically saying is that the work that he did of

transporting people, the commonplace work that he did was evil because she basically said banality of evil meant he failed to think about what he was

doing. He failed to see the people he was actually sending to their deaths. And instead, he said, I was just doing a good job. And what she writes

about is he would’ve killed his own father if he was asked to do that because he was following the laws. He didn’t think about what he was doing.

And what Leon Botstein then says is that there were thousands of people like Eichmann. There were thousands of people, you know, middle-class

people, educated people who were participating in the system of killing millions of people.

MARTIN: The film does focus very much on Hannah Arendt and it tells her story, but it is set against the backdrop of the current moment. And what –

– she did live long enough to see, you know, the rise of McCarthyism in the United States. And she saw the kind of backlash against social justice

movements in the United States. What do you want to tell us about that?

BEIBER: Well, I mean, you know, no one had to — no film had covered, that I had seen, her time and experiences in the United States. So, in 1951,

when McCarthyism takes shape, 1950 to 1954 she’s horrified by that, because what she writes what she sees is that people were turning against their

fellow Americans and turning them in. There was no due process. They were being called up and they were being, you know, canceled or they were being

shut out of jobs.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOSEPH MACCARTHY: One communist on the faculty of one university is one communist too many aren’t.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Arendt was actually teaching at Berkeley, and she talks about how the academic environment on campus was chilled. How people

were afraid to laugh in public or to make jokes, or just to speak freely.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Can you see how far the disintegration has gone and with what breathtaking speed it has occurred, and up to now hardly any

resistance. The whole entertainment industry, and to a lesser extent, the universities have been dragged into it. It all functions without any force,

without any terror. They’re introducing police methods. They name names, and in this way, the informant system is being integrated into the society.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BEIBER: And then the 1960s unfolds and she sees the student protest movement against the Vietnam War. So, she really supports that because she

writes about that people have the power for change if they come together. So, she’s a big believer in the civil disobedience movement.

But then when the Pentagon Papers come out in June of 1971, and she sees that the government had been lying about the Vietnam War for decades, not

just during the Nixon administration, and she comes to the conclusion they lied about Vietnam War just to save face, basically, they knew they were

losing, but they wanted to project an image that they were winning.

And then, when Nixon and Watergate takes hold, one year later, in June of 1972, she becomes very scared because she says that the founding fathers

never believed that tyranny could arise at the executive office, because they created a system of government, three equal branches of government.

But she says after Nixon, she realizes that tyranny, if it’s going to arise, it’s going to arise from the executive branch of the powers that the

executive wants to take.

So, when you see the film, you come away with a sense of not just about history, but about our present moment, because it brings up a lot of issues

of what we’re dealing with today. I don’t deviate from history, I stay within history. But what I want people to see is that we as a people have

to see what’s happening in front of us and we have to be real about it.

MARTIN: Of course, you know that there are — it’s a delicate line. It’s a delicate line to compare the Nazi era to anything, right? And there are

those who are deeply offended by the idea of comparing that era to any other era. And I just wonder if you have — how you sort of grapple with

that? Because obviously, Hannah Arendt’s was that human beings are human beings, and that we’ll behave as humans do given the right circumstances.

And her point was a point that is free of time.

BEIBER: All the quotes from Hannah Arendt, from her books, her letters, her essays are based on the experience that she had at the time and that

she witnessed, or she wrote about the facts of the matter is that a lot of the things she says has relevance to what is happening today.

So, when we see the film or we hear what she says, it’s not that we are trying to say, oh, well, the same thing that happened in Nazi Germany is

happening here. No, we’re not saying that, but we’re saying that we need to be aware of when things, norms, we take for granted change, and we need to

see it for what it is.

We can’t hide — her very last speech — she gives her very last speech during America’s Bicentennial. America Bicentennial starts April, 1975 and

it goes to July 4, 1976. And she gives a talk at the Boston Forum in April, 1975, and it’s called Home to Roost. And basically, what she says is that,

you know, she talks about McCarthyism, she talks about Nazism, she talks about Watergate, the Pentagon Papers, Vietnam War.

And she basically says that when the facts come home to roost, when you actually can see what’s happening in front of you, don’t escape into some

theories or a rationalization of what’s happening, but you have to see it for what it is, and you have to accept it as horrible as it may be. And

then you have to act. You should become politically active to save the republic. And that’s what she’s talking about in 1975.

So, my point is, when people see the film, of course their takeaway is about today. But the film itself never deviates from history.

MARTIN: Jeff Bieber, thank you so much for talking with us.

BEIBER: Oh, Michel, thank you so, so much.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: And Hannah Arendt remains required viewing and required reading. And finally, a bit of fashion history, and a new record set. The most

expensive handbag to ever sell at auction. Yes, folks, we are talking about a handbag. And it went for $10 million. Why is that? Well, apparently

everybody with money wants a Hermes Birkin bag, especially if it is Birkin’s Birkin. That would be Jane Birkin, who soared to fame with her

breathy voice and her infamous marriage to French crooner Serge Gainsbourg. They were the darlings of ’60 Paris and the counterculture.

Here’s what Jane Birkin told me about the genesis of that bag when we spoke several years ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JANE BIRKIN, ACTRESS AND SINGER: I was sitting next door to a man on a plane. He was very sweet, because I let my agenda — my thing where you

write your —

AMANPOUR: Diary.

BIRKIN: Fell onto the ground with a — my diary and a lot of other stuff onto the ground. And he said, really, you should have a diary with a pocket

on the inside to keep all these photos and all the mess I’ve usually got. And I said, it is Hermes diary. He said, but I am Hermes. And I said, why

don’t you make a bag that’s sort of four times the Kelly that you couldn’t leave open, sort of, and sort of half the size of my suitcase? Because

girls like to have things on the end of their arm to put all their stuff in.

And he said, well, draw it for me. And so, I drew it on one of those sick bags, the vomit bag in the airplane. And he was true to his word. And when

it came to coming over and paying for the bag he said, no, it’s a gift. And so, I was knocked out. And he said, but we think it’s so great that we’d

like to give it your name and to put it out, you know, as a handbag.

And he said, we’ve only had my grandfather’s traveling bag and the Kelly after Grace Kelly. So, I’m grateful. But it was funny to come to New York

and they said, oh, Birkin like the bag? I said, yes. Now, the bag is going to sing.

AMANPOUR: That’s a good one.

BIRKIN: And Lou told me that people say to her, you mean you are the daughter of the bag? So, I thought, oh, bless me. You know, when I’m dead

then not only is it Je T’aime Moi Non Plus but it’ll possibly even only talk about the bag.

AMANPOUR: On that note, Jane Birkin, thank you so much for being with us.

BIRKIN: Thank you so much.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: And what would Jane Birkin have thought about her bag going for $10 million? We spoke three years before she died.

That is it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. And remember, you can always

catch us online, on our website, and all-over social media. Thank you for watching, and goodbye from London.