July 8, 2025

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

Gaza ceasefire talks are going well, that’s the assessment of the U.S. president as he met with Israel’s Prime Minister in Netanyahu in

Washington. And while the world waits for an agreement, the people of Gaza continue to be bombed. More than 60 people have been reported killed there

today.

Meanwhile, the Israeli prime minister was extremely optimistic after his meeting with Trump saying even that peace between Israel and the entire

Middle East was possible under President Trump’s leadership. This as Israel’s defense minister, Israel Katz, says he has ordered the military to

prepare the establishment of a, quote, “humanitarian city” in the ruins of Rafah. He said 600,000 Palestinians would initially be moved into it and

not permitted to leave with the entire population of Gaza eventually moved in. The plan is highly controversial and raises concerns under

international law.

Let’s get into all of this now. Noa Landau is the Deputy Editor in chief of the Israeli newspaper Haaretz which has done extensive reporting on the

war. She joins us from Tel Aviv. Noa, it’s really good to see you. It’s been a while.

So, yesterday was quite a display of platitudes, the president being given the notification that Israel has officially nominated him for a Nobel Peace

Prize, and of course, more talk about a potential ceasefire deal, but nothing concrete was announced. Was that a surprise?

NOA LANDAU, DEPUTY EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, HAARETZ: Which part was a surprise? I don’t think it was a surprise. Well, you know, the Nobel Peace Prize, let’s

see that there’s peace before there’s a prize. And regarding the ceasefire, you know, we’ve been hearing for President Trump for a long time now that

we’re so-called approaching a deal. He said that even before the operation in Iran, and Netanyahu has been saying that also from time to time that

we’re near some kind of a ceasefire, but we haven’t seen it yet.

GOLODRYGA: There are still several sticking points, though we did hear just moments ago from Steve Witkoff as the president was meeting with his

cabinet that a deal could be announced by the end of the week. That is, of course, a 60-day ceasefire deal where we would see as many 10 living

hostages released as well as 18 bodies of the deceased hostages, a pause in the fighting, renewed humanitarian aid, even more humanitarian aid going

into Gaza and the release of Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jails.

But I know that there are still several sticking points. And among them are calls for Israel to leave the Morag Corridor as well as the Philadelphi

Corridor. and President — Prime Minister Netanyahu seems very reluctant to do so even against the urging of his military leadership there. Just how

sticking are those sticking points?

LANDAU: It’s all part of the negotiations. But what we’re seeing here now is basically another partial part of a bigger ceasefire that’s not really

on the table. We’re seeing another round of negotiations on releasing part of the hostages and Gaza, not all of them. There’s still, you know, a part

in the end of this deal, this partial deal that will, you know, say something like in the end of this stage, the 60-day ceasefire will again

negotiate the true final ceasefire. So, this is still a partial part of this long, long negotiation process.

GOLODRYGA: And Prime Minister Netanyahu continues to demand that part of the end of the war would include that Hamas is no longer in control of

Gaza. That is something the United States has also supported. But then when it comes to who would be in control, both militarily, politically of Gaza,

that’s where the two sides, at least in the past, have differed.

President Biden has said that it should be the Palestinian Authority. I don’t know that we’ve heard much from President Trump on who that governing

body should be. But then, that raises the question of a suggestion, an idea proposed by President Trump a few months ago, and that is the relocation,

the transfer of Palestinians to other countries. Prime Minister Tenya said that there are several countries who are now thinking about and perhaps

even open to the idea of taking in some of these Palestinians. These countries have not been named. Here’s what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: I think President Trump had a brilliant position, it’s called free choice. You know, if people want to

stay, they can stay, but if they want to leave, they should be able to leave. It shouldn’t be a — you know, a prison. It should be an open place

and give people a free choice. We’re working with the United States very closely about finding countries that will seek to realize what they always

say, that they want to give the Palestinians a better future.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: So, this is an idea that has raised a lot of eyebrows, has been condemned by many. What is the likelihood of a scenario like this actually

coming to fruition? Because we haven’t heard President Trump go back to this plan in quite a while.

LANDAU: You know, saying this is a free choice is pretty cynical when you look at what’s happening in Gaza, you know, do people really have free

choice? And also, the fact that Minister Katz said that these people that will go into that what they call humanitarian zone or city will not be

actually allowed to leave, only to leave to other countries, you know, puts in question this whole issue of free choice. I think, you know, this idea

sounds also horrible when they say they want to concentrate people in this city or camp.

But I think what’s really going on, you might — maybe understand if you listen closely to some of the prime minister’s advisers who are speaking

anonymously from Washington in the past day, and they’re saying things like, we hope that this might maybe encourage some of the Gulf States to

come in and take control themselves.

So, you know, we saw in the past plans like the annex — the full annexation of the West Bank used as a bargain ship in a bigger deal with

the UAE in the Abraham Accords. I don’t know if this is what will happen now, but it could be also part of a bigger negotiation for a regional deal

where, you know, Israel could drop these plans in exchange for someone else taking the responsibility.

GOLODRYGA: Yes. And talking to my sources, the likelihood of that happening thus far for Gulf States to come in and take the responsibility

here are slim to none. And you mentioned consolidating people, millions of Palestinians into a tight space, that is Prime Minister Netanyahu wanting

to establish a tent city in Rafah for 2 million Gazans. That’s also something that he’s clashed with the IDF chief about because the IDF chief

does not want to see the IDF actually controlling this land in so many people in this space for such a long, extended period of time.

Can I just talk to you and ask about the mood in Israel as it relates to the war in Gaza? We are now fastly approaching the two-year mark, it’s hard

to believe, since the horrors of October 7th. There are still 50 hostages in Gaza. 20 of them believe to be alive. We’ve seen tens of thousands of

deaths in the enclave since and a humanitarian tragedy unfold there. And you juxtapose that with the 12-day war in Iran, which sadly yes, there were

civilian casualties in Israel, but you didn’t see IDF soldiers killed. Now, it’s a different type of war, obviously, aerial versus ground, but I

believe even since last night, five Israeli soldiers have been killed as well. So, what is the mood in Israel as it relates to the war in Gaza?

LANDAU: Well, you’re right. And I think for many Israelis from the center leaning camp, there’s less and less patience for this war. We see that

mostly, you know, because in Israel there’s mandatory military service. We see that many families are losing their patience. They don’t want to see

their children there anymore. They’re having a harder time to see the goal, to see the end game of all of this.

And when you see the far-right in the government talking about, you know, building settlements in Gaza or, you know, transfer plan and all these

things, these are things that the Israeli political center has a harder time to accept. And they don’t see it as a legitimate and you know, for

this war. And so, we do feel that there’s more and more pressure from within the Israeli society to, of course, bring the hostages back, but also

end the war.

GOLODRYGA: And we should note, so many of these soldiers fighting this war now, vastly, as we noted, approaching the two-year mark, are a reservist.

And in a recent Haaretz piece, one of your journalists, Tom Levison, wrote it on — wrote about five soldiers that they described a traumatic reality

now of 21 months of war in Gaza. The voices of active duties soldiers have been largely unheard and unknown to the Israeli public. Talk to us about

some of that reporting.

LANDAU: Right. So, that was a great piece about, you know, the testimonies of the soldiers themselves. Tom has been covering a lot of also post-

traumatic syndrome amongst these soldiers. And the fact that these soldiers themselves, fresh out of high school, have been only, you know, fighting in

Gaza for all these months, and they’re having a harder time too to continue.

GOLODRYGA: How do you respond, Noa, to some of the criticism and pushback that your reporting has garnered from the administration, the Netanyahu

government calling it blood libel that you are spreading in some of this reporting. What is your response to that?

LANDAU: Well, it’s — we’re used to it. We brought the testimonies of the soldiers themselves. They speak to them for themselves. The military also

did not — they also said that they’re actually going to change some of the orders on the ground because of that story that we publish and others. So,

we understand that the government is not, you know, fond of criticism, but we will still do, you know, what we do. And that is to report the truth and

bring testimonies to our readers.

GOLODRYGA: Noa, what does the likelihood look like now, the possibility in a post-Iran war, at least this last stage of the Iran-Israel war, which set

back its nuclear and ballistic program significantly and really weakened the country? What is the optimism there in the country for wider peace in

the region? And I’m talking about potential normalization with countries like Syria, Lebanon, I mean, names that would’ve been unimaginable just a

few months ago?

LANDAU: Well, it’s interesting to see that the Israeli — most of the public reaction within the Israeli society to the possibility that there

will actually be some kind of an agreement with Syria is widely accepted. So, this is, you know, something that regional changed caused that we

couldn’t see before.

Regarding Iran, there’s still a debate within Israel, as you know, there is and the rest of the world, how much did it really, you know, took their

plans back. There’s still the question of, will we see an actual deal with them? But I think there is a slim slight hope that maybe all, you know,

what we went through this past more than year and a half, well could maybe end with a bigger original change.

GOLODRYGA: Yes. And of course, the big prize would be for Saudi normalization. But as MBS has long said that the issue of Gaza and

Palestinians there in the enclave and in the West Bank has to be resolved before that can happen. Noa Landau, thank you so much for joining the show.

Really appreciate it.

LANDAU: Thank you.

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

GOLODRYGA: All right. Turmoil, threats, and a global scramble all surrounding President Trump’s latest move on tariffs. The deadline for

imposing higher rates was meant to come at midnight tonight, but that won’t happen. That’s after the president extended his initial 90-day pause until

August 1st, and he renewed his threats of even steeper tariffs in a series of letters to countries like Japan and South Korea.

Now, it seems many trade deals are in the state of limbo. So, what happens next? Let’s ask my next guest. Ernie Tedeschi was chief economist at the

White House Council of Economic Advisers. Ernie, we could almost play back the previous time we had you on the show as we discussed the uncertainty

surrounding some of these tariffs.

First it was Liberation Day back in April. We saw the markets, the stock market, the bond market react. The president was spooked. He delayed it

through July. Now, we know he’s delaying it through August 1st. Just talk about that alone, the constant delay and the extended uncertainty, the

impact that has on corporations and on the U.S. economy as a whole.

ERNIE TEDESCHI, FORMER CHIEF ECONOMIST, WHITE HOUSE COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS AND DIRECTOR OF ECONOMICS, YALE BUDGET LAB: Right. The

uncertainty is really what’s punctuating the economic effect of these tariffs right now. I mean, no tax is, you know, great for the economy or

businesses. But I think, in particular, what is making these tariffs more damaging than they otherwise would be, is the way in which they’re being

rolled out and the uncertainty for consumers and businesses.

If you’re a small business, for example, you’re not sure when the optimal time is to order for the holidays this year. You certainly don’t know

whether it’s appropriate to invest in your business for the next several years or to higher up for your business over the next several years because

you don’t know what the state of tariffs will be at that time. And you don’t know what the overall economy is going to look like. So, it makes it

very difficult to make anything other than, you know, extremely short run overnight decisions.

GOLODRYGA: And what position does that put our trading partners and some of our closest allies in at this point? Because if you’re to be an

optimist, you’re going to say, OK. well, listen, it’s clear the president is willing to negotiate. European economist wrote to clients that it

strengthens the view that Donald Trump will be flexible in the end.

But there’s reason for concern as well. Because you look at these rates, they’re very similar, at least in these letters that he wrote to 14

countries, to the initial rates on Liberation Day back in April that spooked the markets.

TEDESCHI: Exactly. I think that people initially interpreted the Liberation Day tariffs as a negotiating tactic, as very high rates, you

know, from which countries would negotiate down. And remember, we have very low overall tariffs with most, if not all, of our trading partners. So, I

think the hope among them was that they would be — be able to negotiate tariffs down to something close to 0 percent, or if not 0 percent exactly,

something, you know, just slightly above that.

But what we’ve seen with the deals that have been announced so far, first with the U.K., then with China, now with Vietnam, and now these 14 letters

that went out yesterday, is that the administration is flexible in the sense that it’s willing to come down a little bit from Liberation Day, but

we’re still talking about very high tariffs. 10 percent on the U.K. You know, tariffs between 25 percent to 40 percent on the countries that were

announced yesterday. These are not the norm for global trade arrangements. These are extremely high.

GOLODRYGA: Right. And as we noted, at least in these 14 letters, the minimum rate here appears to be 25 percent and it only goes up. And he’s

asking for quite a bit of concessions as well. He wants more than just lower trade barriers, he wants countries to move their manufacturing back

to the United States. These type of moves really, as we noted, spooked the markets back in April. Yes, the stock market, but more significantly,

perhaps the bond market. We saw yields, treasury yields, spike to levels that even concerned President Trump and thus his delay. What’s to say that

it’s not going to happen again in a few weeks’ time?

TEDESCHI: You know, it could. It’s very hard to predict the markets and there are a lot of dynamics happening at the same time. But loOK. I think

that there are several things that are converging at once. You have, on the one hand, this tariff policy that the administration has announced, which

is making it very clear that it no longer sees the United States as central to the United States, to the global trading system, and by extension, the

global financial system.

You then also have the debates in Congress over the tax cuts being extended. And the fact that the bill that they passed increases our debt

against what should have happened under current law by several trillion dollars over the next 10 years. And so, you have a market that is, at the

same time, concerned about our debt trajectory and just the sheer amount of government paper floating around.

So, I think these two things together, number one, are definitely going to raise yields. And number two, are going to make markets start to question,

you know, the safe harbor investment premium that the United States has enjoyed, you know, as being a place where you get safety and security and,

you know, relative calm in markets. They’re beginning to question that, which is going to lead to higher interest rates, which affect both

businesses and consumers in the end.

GOLODRYGA: We saw the president today tout the revenue that they say and the treasury secretary said was already brought in from some of these

tariffs. He said, a hundred billion dollars thus far by the end of the year, it could be well over $300 billion. And after slamming the CBO, then

said, well, the CBO even cited $2.8 trillion worth of revenue over 10 years, but they think that’s going to be even higher.

And that is a bit of a head scratcher because, is the goal ultimately to bring in more revenue, perhaps to pay down his big beautiful bill, or is it

to actually change the economic structure here in the United States and of the world really, and bring back manufacturing and negotiate lower deals

because it seems like the two camping mutually exclusive?

TEDESCHI: Right. The — let’s be clear, first of all, tariffs are attacks. They’re attacks on Americans. When you raise tariff rates, you do raise

revenue, unless you raise tariff rates to extraordinarily high rates and then you start losing revenue from that.

But you’re absolutely right that the two goals of this tariff policy are at odds with one another, because on the one hand, this administration wants

to raise revenue to offset the cost of the tax cut extension, which, you know, to be absolutely fair, I think that that is a noble goal to have. But

on the other hand, they want Americans to be buying fewer imports. And to be — and for there to be more reshoring of different industries. Well, the

fewer imports that Americans buy the less that we raise in tariff revenue and the less successful it is on that goal.

So, you know, you have to choose one of them. Either tariffs are going to be a revenue raiser that, you know, overall lower the deficit, although I

would note, they still don’t raise enough revenue to cover the cost of this tax bill, or you have a policy that is trying to get Americans to buy fewer

imports. The two of those can’t coexist as goals.

GOLODRYGA: Ernie, we also know the Yale Budget Lab has estimated the effects of U.S. tariffs and foreign retaliation implemented this year

through July 7th, which would include the two framework deals, and that being with the United Kingdom and Vietnam. What have you found?

TRUMP: Yes. So far, if you look at everything that’s been done in 2025 so far. So, the tariffs that have been announced, the 14 letters that went out

yesterday, the deals with Vietnam, China, and the U.K., altogether, you know, that would increase the average effective tariff rate in the United

States to 17.5 percent.

Now, to put that in perspective, we started the year at about 2.5 percent. 17.5 percent is the highest rate since 1934, since the days of the Smoot-

Hawley Tariff and the Great Depression. For consumers especially, that’s going to mean higher prices over the next couple of years. We think around

1.7 percent higher prices, which for the typical American household is like losing $2,300 a year.

But when you open up the hood and dig even deeper that’s — you know, not every American family is going to feel that same 1.7 percent. Lower income

families in particular are going to be hit even harder, because low-income families are particularly sensitive to tariffs. They spend a greater share

of their income in general, and they spend a greater share of their budget on imports. So, the impact on the lowest income Americans relative to the

highest income Americans is three times as much because these tariffs are a regressive tax.

GOLODRYGA: And you don’t give a specific deadline or timeline as to when this will be felt. But we already hear this administration pushing back.

CEA Chair Stephen Miran just this morning continues to say, we’re not seeing prices impacted, despite the fact that we’ve seen a number of

economists, yourself included, warning that that would indeed happen. He said, yes, it is possible for volatility in the future. Sure. Rare events

happen. Never say never. But there is no evidence of this happening. You have that from the CEA chair.

You have the treasury secretary over the weekend with Dana Bash when she was quoting from some of your findings as it relates to the big beautiful

bill, he just said, listen, they’re all ex-Biden officials. So, I think we can just discount everything they say. How do you respond to that?

TEDESCHI: You know, I would say, first of all, loOK. we’re nonpartisan. We have both Democrats and Republicans on our board. Our priority is to get

the data and the economics right, number one.

I would say number two on the evidence of price effects so far, I think everyone in this debate would agree that it’s very hard to isolate the

effect of imports when we look at overall prices and say, CPI or in the PCE price index. But here’s something that I was looking at just today. Durable

goods prices. So, the goods that are the most susceptible and sensitive to tariffs, they were falling over 2023 and 2024 at a pretty steady rate. And

then, at the beginning of this year, that fall switched and they started rising again.

So, you know, goods, prices tend to drop over time. That’s not what we’re seeing now. We’re seeing goods prices start to rise again, which is very

unusual for goods prices. And if you compared sort of how goods prices have behaved year to date versus where you would have thought they would’ve

gone, given what we saw in 2023 and 2024, they’re 1.2 percent higher than they were.

So, that’s very much consistent with sort of the beginning of what we are saying will happen over the next one or two years, right, which is higher

prices particularly for goods, particularly for imported goods.

GOLODRYGA: All right. Ernie Tedeschi, I bet we’ll have you back in August when we have yet another deadline. So, don’t plan on any vacation that week

so we can have you back on.

TEDESCHI: Yes, I’ll keep my schedule clear for sure.

GOLODRYGA: Yes, please do that for us. It’s good to see you. Thanks so much.

TEDESCHI: Likewise. Thanks for having me.

GOLODRYGA: Well, it has been just over three years since the Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe versus Wade and a woman’s constitutional

right to abortion in the United States. Three years in which reproductive healthcare has been set back decades. The human impact has been massive,

and we’ll get into some of those stories with my next guest, as well as the potential impact of President Trump’s domestic policy law, which aims to

revoke Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood.

Let’s speak now with Caroline Kitchener. She won a Pulitzer Prize for her coverage of reproductive rights for The Washington Post. She’s now a

reporter for The New York Times. Caroline, thank you so much for joining the program. So, let’s start with Planned Parenthood, because as we’ve

covered for so many years now, it does more than just provide abortion care, obviously, it provides a great deal of non-abortion services for

women and family planning. Can you spell out what it means for the average viewer here who doesn’t quite understand what happens if Medicaid funding

is stripped?

Caroline, can you hear me? I believe we have some technical issues. We’re going to go to a break and — Caroline, can you hear me? All right. We’ll

try to work out the technical issues and come back after a short break.

GOLODRYGA: All right. We turn now to Broadway where award-winning playwright Branden Jacobs-Jenkins made history at this year’s Tony Awards,

becoming the first black playwright since 1987 to win best play for his production, “Purpose.” The plays Kara Young also took home the best

featured actress award for her performance. Said in Chicago, the Pulitzer Prize winning drama is a dramedy, is a behind the scenes look at an aging

civil rights icons’ household as they navigate complex family dynamics that perhaps many of us can relate to.

And Jacobs-Jenkins joins Hari Sreenivasan to discuss why he created this work.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

HARI SREENIVASAN, INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Bianna, thanks, Branden Jacobs-Jenkins, thanks so much for joining us. Your play “Purpose,” which

won two of the six Tony Awards that it was nominated for, which won a Pulitzer Prize for drama. For folks who were not lucky enough to be able to

see it on Broadway, can you give us a digest of what’s the plot?

BRANDEN JACOBS-JENKINS, PLAYWRIGHT, “PURPOSE”: “Purpose” is a kind of family drama in the American mode about two generations of a family that

descend on a home to celebrate the homecoming of one of the youngest sons from a period of incarceration. And the parents are both sort of tangential

luminaries of the civil rights era. It’s sort of a dynastic family, black political dynastic family.

And the youngest son, who’s a photographer, brings along a friend, and hilarity ensues. You know, it’s kind of classic like family trapped in a

house. Its surreal. But hopefully —

SREENIVASAN: Throw in a snowstorm. Throw in some generational tension. A little bit of sexuality in there. Yes. Yes. OK.

JACOBS-JENKINS: Yes, yes. The themes are — yes.

SREENIVASAN: So, what made you want to pick on this kind of a family? Because is this kind of modeled around the Jackson — Jesse Jackson family?

JACOBS-JENKINS: Well, it’s — you know, I was very interested in writing a play about kind of a black political dynasty, and there aren’t that many.

And there’s a few models that I drew from, I think that the Jacksons seem to be the most legible to people.

But I was really curious about thinking through the legacies of that era, really thinking through the way that — the kind of politics and the kind

of ideological, in some ways in cultural warfare actually comes at a cost. And that cost often happens in the family space or the family unit. I was

interested in thinking through sort of the scars and legacies of the mid- 20th century as it affected the entire generation of Americans and how that might have trickled down to their kids. You know, really just trying to

explore the kind of intergenerational effects of American political life.

SREENIVASAN: What is it that people are finding, connecting to? Why is that American family such a kind of interesting vehicle to tell all these

other stories?

JACOBS-JENKINS: Yes. I mean, I’ve been hearing a lot of amazing audience members tell me about how they saw themselves in the family, that

ultimately, you know, I think family dramas are like the American pastime after baseball and you know, we love talk about our families. We love

hearing gossip about other families. We make TV shows about families.

SREENIVASAN: Yes.

JACOBS-JENKINS: But I think it does kind of operate in that world as well, while also kind of touching on these. More unique subjects. I also think

that it’s — you know, I wrote this play with the Steppenwolf Theatre Company, which is the world’s premier acting ensemble based in Chicago. And

they’re just giving like a set of killer performances.

You know, five of our six actors were nominated for Tony Awards, one of them won. It’s really like a feast, if you’re into like seeing some

incredible actors go at each other, it’s really spectacular. Yes.

SREENIVASAN: I was sitting in the theater, it was interesting to me because you kind of felt like you were a fly on the wall watching, you

know, you almost were kind of like looking in the window, but you could hear in great detail all the stuff that was happening at this dinner table

where there’s a really kind of feisty scene. What is it that you want to expose in these conversations, in these spaces where people are speaking in

a way that they don’t think anybody’s listening?

JACOBS-JENKINS: Yes, I guess I wanted to explore a lot about this idea of shame in the family and how it operates. You know, that everyone in the

family is manipulating or navigating their relationship to shame, and it’s the thing that makes love so difficult, I find, in these familial contexts,

and you’re really seeing people who do love each other kind of hitting their heads again and against this sort of egotistic relationship to

something they’re not willing to share, some kind of secret.

And that was really the — that always — that engine is, for me, in every scene, especially at the dinner table, which people are really loving, is

like I compared it to like the gladiators into the arena and no one kind of leaves the same, you know. And I think that’s one of the high points we

have people in our show.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You are apparently the guest of honor.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, father, that was just me on autopilot. You are the head of this family.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Buckle up.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SREENIVASAN: OK. So, let’s take a look at some of these characters one by one, you’ve got Harry Lennix for a mainstream audience. They might remember

his face from a very big TV show called “Blacklist,” right? But he’s actually a gifted actor on stage if they’ve never seen him. And he’s the

father of this pro — of this family. But he’s a civil rights activist and he is just got these deep flaws as a father and a husband.

But you also do kind of want to root for him a little bit because you feel — you empathize him trying to get this connection.

JACOBS-JENKINS: The thing I’ve discovered being a recent parent myself is you really don’t know what you don’t know.

SREENIVASAN: Yes.

JACOBS-JENKINS: And you know, you can literally dedicate your life and pour all your love into this small creature you’re keeping alive. But they

will grow up one day and say, you ruined my life.

SREENIVASAN: Yes.

JACOBS-JENKINS: And that, you know — and understanding that in some ways that’s Solomon Jasper’s journey is having to sort of wake up to this — his

report card on fathering, and then wanting to actually make good on that and repair that work, but realizing in some ways things — it’s too late,

you know.

SREENIVASAN: Yes.

JACOBS-JENKINS: And to figure out how to accept his children for who they’ve become. That’s going to be the most kind of significant act of

radical action for him in this space. And also thinking through, you know, for someone who’s spent their entire life in the trenches fighting for

freedom, you know, how does free — what does freedom really look like? You know, who get — when your children come up, what — do they get to choose

their experience of it? You know, that’s kind of one of the more highfalutin philosophical, I think, he’s having for himself internally.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don’t know if my son told you, but tonight, we are celebrating my belated birthday and him bringing home a girl — a friend is

about the greatest gift I could have asked for. I also couldn’t have it on my conscience, you slipping and sliding into some roadside ditch on the way

to New York all because my son decided to be withholding. So, as the birthday girl, I’m going to need you to give me what I want.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Claudine Jasper is played by LaTanya Richardson Jackson. She is, you know – – in the beginning, you’re kind of like sort of overbearing mom figure, but you realize that she’s kind of a glue that’s kept this idea of a legacy

through hook and by crook alive.

JACOBS-JENKINS: I think to me, she embodies a certain idea of the traditional matriarch and what that meant to take that on, not as a lark,

but as a calling to believe in the deepest of yourselves that your job is to just keep a family alive and keep it together and be a quiet protector

behind the scenes. You know, she really — like a lot of the women of this generation, you know, it was a collaboration what they were doing socially,

but the male was always public face — the public facing part of it.

And what does it mean to wake up in a world where those gender dynamics are questioned on the daily? You know, we’re looking at women rising to very

prominent places in the political system. That was just unheard of, you know, and the era that she was growing up and her models were being kind of

forged in, you know.

SREENIVASAN: Nas and Junior are two of the sons, the brothers in this household. Nas played by Jon Michael Hill, who’s also the narrator of this

play. And you see them kind of struggling with the ripple effects of the same legacy, right, the name that they carry and why, and all the kind of

baggage that comes with it, even though, you know, your father was a well- respected civil rights figure.

JACKSON: Yes. I think for me they’re, you know, very different brothers, right? I mean, they kind of can be — you’ve got one brother who doubled

down on the legacy, kind of bought the whole thing, hog and all, it’s not even the phrase. But you know, he has this father’s name. He tries to like

reenact the kind of steps that his father did. And then, you have this other son who opposite. He ran away to become a nature photographer and

spend his life in isolation sort of in the woods where, you know, rabbits and squirrels don’t know anything about civil rights, right.

And trying to sort of make sense of how these two might belong to the same family is one of the great joys of working this out with these actors. And

you know, for me, I think I’m just trying to explore new versions and iterations of masculinity of, you know, creative life. Again, this idea of

like these children were born in a space where they could kind of take their freedom for granted. And for them, they were both exercising what

they felt freedom should be and have received kind of interesting forms of blow back from the world in which they’ve found themselves.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You said your daddy was some sort of reverend, but not like this kind of reverend, not like a, I organized marches reverend,

not like I used to kick it with Rosa Parks reverend, not like an MLK shrine in the living room reverend. Didn’t his son go to jail? Wait, that’s your

brother.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SREENIVASAN: Kara Young, who plays the — she’s the actress who won the Tony for best featured actress in a play, and she — her character’s name

is Aziza Houston. What is the purpose of having her here? I mean, is she kind of the audience, the observer, the outsider coming in? I mean, what —

why did you write her in the way you did?

JACOBS-JENKINS: My teacher, great Marsha Norman, she used to say, there’s only two kinds of plays, either this character’s going on a journey or a

stranger comes to town. And she’s definitely the stranger who comes to town.

You know, I think, for me, I was interested in bringing someone on stage who might embody a different idea or more contemporary idea of what we

think of as like black political action life and that calling. She kind of speaks very vividly about this. She’s also in Easter coast, sort of

northern born idea of black life that’s sort of showing up to be in contrast to this kind of southern origin, Chicago, Midwest, traditional

church-bound space.

And, you know, she really does become a catalyst for a lot of self- reflection for a lot of folks, you know. But most importantly, is her connection to Nas, who is — I mean, this isn’t spoiling anything, but

she’s asked Nas to father or sire for her child that she wants to carry, which of course is what creates a lot of interesting political and

emotional tension inside the family.

SREENIVASAN: So, how does a playwright work with a director, for someone very outside the theater, and the director of this play is Phylicia Rashad,

who, you know, there’s a certain generation, I should say now, of people who would remember her as Clair Huxtable from “The Cosby Show,” right, and

really help redefine a different vision of a black family in America through that TV show, but she’s also now a successful director in her own

right.

But what is — where does the directing start? What does the playwriting end and how does that go back, and forth?

JACKSON: Yes. It really varies from project to project. It’s kind of like a marriage. You know, it’s like not every marriage is going to give you the

same effect, the same results. And Phylicia Rashad, I mean, I couldn’t believe she said yes when we approached her. Because we approached her with

like 20 pages of a script. But you know, not only is she — everyone really know her as Clair Huxtable, but she’s actually one of the most kind of

significant theater artists of we’re living today.

I mean, she’s the first black woman to win the best actress for Tony. You know — sorry, the Tony War for best actress. You know, she’s been — she’s

the original cast of “Dream Girls.” She’s the original cast of “The Wiz.” I mean, she’s touched every single pocket, meaningful theater making in this

like last — you know, last half a century.

And she brings all that wisdom and grace and warmth into these rooms and she really creates a space of kind of just shameless unselfconscious

inspiration and exploring, you know, and which is what we needed, because we were really building this play — we were building the plane as we were

flying it, right?

SREENIVASAN: Yes.

JACOBS-JENKINS: And the way that she could just like give the — she’d walk up to an actor and whisper in their ear, and whenever she was

whispering you would get this like completely different performance. I mean, she’s just a master of the art form. So, I think it’s so — five of

our six actors being nominated, it’s clearly something happening.

SREENIVASAN: She had something to do with it.

JACOBS-JENKINS: You know, yes, exactly.

SREENIVASAN: Yes. Yes. So, the whispers work. So, I wonder if — you know, do you have a body of work that you are trying — you know, I’m thinking of

August Wilson and the full cycle of plays that he wrote and really just one after the other different elements of the black experience in America. And

last round, you know, of the Tony’s, your play of appropriate won best revival of a play, and that takes place on a plantation in Arkansas with a

dysfunctional white family. I’m wondering whether, you know, these all are pieces that add up to something else that you’re thinking about?

JACOBS-JENKINS: Yes. I mean, it’s nothing quite as intentional as August Wilson’s project, which is really about sort of reclaiming the 20th century

for black American life. But I mean, all my plays do feel connected. And I’ll be honest that I was thinking a lot about purpose and honestly writing

a lot of it while I was in rehearsals for “Appropriate,” because there is something about — again, family drama is like what we’re good at, you

know, and I wanted to see what it would feel like to recast some of those themes and some of those relationships in a different space and different

time.

And I did write “Appropriate,” you know, about 10, 10, 12 years ago. So, I’m a different person now. I have kids, you know, I wanted to sort of get

back in the arena with it and see what would happen. But ultimately, I think all of my plays are about thinking through what is American. You

know, what is American about drama? What is American about us, the audiences? You know, trying to challenge our own ideas of what we are

versus what we are told we are, what we think we are.

And also, really exploring the way that things like history and politics, these subjects you can major in college actually do have a direct and

significant and specific impact on the ways that human beings live their lives and love each other. You know, there’s a relationship between

politics and family, you know?

SREENIVASAN: Yes.

JACOBS-JENKINS: And what you do inside, at your dinner table is absolutely connected to those headlines and trying to get people to have a sense of

ownership over civic life and their role in the polis, if you will, you know?

SREENIVASAN: Yes.

JACOBS-JENKINS: And it’s there for me.

SREENIVASAN: Branden Jacobs-Jenkins, playwright for “Purpose,” thanks so much for joining us.

JACKSON: Thank you. Such a wonderful time. Thank you so much.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

GOLODRYGA: All right. Let’s return now to abortion rights in the United States. Just over three years after the overturning of Roe versus Wade,

President Trump’s new domestic policy law threatens Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood. Let’s bring back New York Times reporter Caroline

Kitchener.

Caroline, I think you can hear me now. So, I want to get started —

CAROLINE KITCHENER, REPORTER, THE NEW YORK TIMES: I can.

GOLODRYGA: — by asking about the impact of revoking Medicaid coverage for Planned Parenthood, which we have long explained to so many of our viewers

does far more than provide abortion care service, it provides healthcare service for women and families as well. So, what would the impact of

rolling back Medicaid be?

KITCHENER: Well, Planned Parenthood is the nation’s largest abortion provider and this strips Planned Parenthood of federal funding. So, you

know, Planned Parenthood says that it serves about a million women a year who have Medicaid. And you know, as we know, Medicaid cannot cover

abortions, but it can cover the wide array of other services that Planned Parenthood provides. So, things like birth control, plan B, things like

cancer screenings and STD testing.

And what Planned Parenthood is saying is that without this funding, approximately one-third of its clinics, 600 clinics total Planned

Parenthood has, so one-third of those are at risk of closing. So, you have abortion rights advocates here talking about this as a, you know, quote,

“backdoor” abortion ban, because so many clinics will be forced to shutter.

GOLODRYGA: Right. And these are in states, we should note, where abortion is legal.

KITCHENER: Right, exactly. I mean there — especially during the election, you heard a lot of talk of a national abortion ban. Obviously, that is

widely unpopular. It doesn’t seem to be going anywhere. But what abortion rights advocates are saying is that, you know, with this change, with this

bill, it’s just going to make, you know, nationwide, even in blue states, abortion so much harder to access without these clinics and without this

funding.

GOLODRYGA: Let me ask you about HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. asking the FDA to once again review the latest data on the abortion pill,

Mifepristone. If it sounds familiar to our viewers, we spent a lot of time covering it over the last few years. This is a medication that had been

approved for use by the FDA decades ago and has been proven, I believe, to be even safer, correct me if I’m wrong than, Tylenol.

And here we are again, questioning whether — or from the HHS secretary, no less, questioning the safety of this pill again. What do you make of it?

KITCHENER: Well, Mifepristone, it’s used in over half of abortions nationwide. And you know, there have been restrictions that have been

recently rolled back under the Biden administration. Now, Mifepristone can be sent through the mail. And especially in the wake of the Dobbs decision,

that has allowed a lot of people who would not otherwise have abortion access to access abortions through getting pills in the mail.

And so, you know, one, I think very distinct possibility that we could see as this administration looks at these restrictions in Mifepristone, we

could see — you know, we could see them saying, you must have an in-person appointment. So, now, that makes it very hard if you are a person in a

state with an abortion ban. That’s really the way that we have seen women continue to access abortion in these many, many states that have now banned

the procedure. They’ve been getting it through the mail. And, you know — and this administration could take steps that would make that much, much

more difficult.

GOLODRYGA: Because is there any legitimate reason why you would have the HHS secretary ask the FDA to once again look back on the efficacy and

safety of this drug that we noted ha had been approved for decades now? I don’t believe there has been any new research suggesting there’s cause for

concern, has there?

KITCHENER: I mean, there was a study that came out, that was put out by a conservative policy group about a month ago now that raised concerns. But,

you know, leading medical associations, they all agree that this medication is extremely safe and effective. And you have all of those organizations

saying, you know, it is completely safe to send this through the mail. So, you know, I think everybody is waiting to see what the health secretary is

going to end up saying about this.

GOLODRYGA: Well, it has just been over three years now since Roe was overturned. You won to Pulitzer Prize for covering the impact of that

decision over that course of time. And you wrote a widely read piece about a Texas teenager who wanted an abortion, who couldn’t get one, and

ultimately ended up having twins.

Just talk to us about some of the real-life stories and the impact of this legislative rollback that it’s had on the country.

KITCHENER: I mean, I think the impact is enormous, and we are just beginning to see what that looks like. I mean, you know, that young woman

that I followed, you know, I’m still in touch with her and she now — you know, she has twin baby girls. I think they’re — you know, and they’re not

babies anymore. They’re three years old. And you know, she is living a life completely different than the one that she thought she would be living.

But beyond her and beyond that situation, I mean, we know that there are certainly, you know, many women out there who have become mothers when they

were not intending to be, largely because of these bands. But even beyond that, you know, there are a lot of, you know, varied experiences that

people have had because of these bans.

I’ve talked to a lot of women who have — you know, were intent that they would get an abortion, even if they were in states with bans and they have,

you know, ordered pills online and they have been scared because, you know, they — while that medication is, as we’ve said, safe and effective, they

are scared that they’re going to get arrested. They are scared that, you know, something might happen to them and they don’t want to go to the

hospital.

You know, right now, I think it’s important to say that women cannot get arrested for having an abortion under the current abortion laws. But I

think the overarching point is that there is so much fear around this procedure right now, especially in those states with bans.

GOLODRYGA: The women can’t get arrested, but can the doctors?

KITCHENER: Oh, certainly in many of the states, yes, the doctors can be arrested.

GOLODRYGA: One of President Trump’s most popular campaign promises was to make IVF free. This was popular among both Democrats and Republicans. Has

he lived up to that pledge?

KITCHENER: I mean, we are all waiting for the White House to release a, you know, highly anticipated IVF report that is going to say what he’s

going to do. So, I’ve been talking with a lot of different people who have been meeting with the administration. You know, they’re clearly very

interested and very, you know, committed to doing something, I think it’s fair to say, on the issue of infertility because they have been taking a

lot of meetings with people really across the spectrum, I would say, on the issue of IVF.

So, they are meeting both with conservative policy groups that are opposed to IVF and are interested in sort of other ways of treating infertility.

And they are meeting with, you know, IVF doctors and, you know, various leaders in the IVF industry. So, we really don’t know at this point what

exactly they’re going to do. But, you know, I think it’s fair to say that we’ll have some answers probably in the next couple of weeks here.

GOLODRYGA: And this ties with the real pronatalist position that some have in this administration that’s unique to presidential administrations. I

don’t know that we’ve spent this much time focusing on this issue, you have, and you’ve done some research and reporting. What can you tell us

about that push?

KITCHENER: Well, I mean, multiple leaders in this administration have been very clear. J. D. Vance, you know, a few days after taking office, he said,

I want more babies in the United States of America. President Trump has called for a baby boom. And there are many in the administration that are

looking at ways to get women to have more children.

I reported earlier this year that they — you know, they — various administration officials were meeting with family policy groups and

different — you know, just different people in the family policy space, really just hearing out ideas for how to, you know, get the birth rate up.

There’s a lot of concern that the birth rate is dropping, and you know, and they want to do something about that.

GOLODRYGA: Yes, and that is echoed by Elon Musk, too, who at one point was very close as an adviser in this administration, not so much now. Caroline

Kitchener, thank you for the time and for your reporting. Appreciate it.

KITCHENER: Thanks so much.

GOLODRYGA: And finally, a heartfelt reunion almost half a century in the making. A 49-year-old man has been identified as the 140th child found by

the grandmothers of the Plaza de Mayo, a human rights organization dedicated to searching for children kidnapped during Argentina’s last

military dictatorship in the mid-70s to early ’80s.

The man was born in a detention center in Buenos Aires after his parents whose pictures are seen on the table were kidnapped in December of 1976.

He’s one of an estimated 500 children of disappeared women stolen by the military government at the time.

His sister, Adriana Metz, never met — never lost hope of finding him, saying, quote, “It’s a win for the Metz-Romero family and for society.”

Well, 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 count us online, on our website, and all-over social media.

Thank you for watching, and goodbye from New York.