Read Full Transcript EXPAND
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, ANCHOR: Hello everyone, and welcome to Amanpour. Here’s what’s coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: The problem is on the left, and you’re looking for problems.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Fallout from Charlie Kirk’s murder, as Trump and his supporters escalate their attacks on political opponents, we’ll examine where America
goes from here.
Then, celebrations in Brazil, after former president Jair Bolsonaro is found guilty of an attempted coup. We hear from documentarian Petra Costa,
who closely followed Bolsonaro’s rise and fall.
And —
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SUSAN MAYNE, PROFESSOR OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, YALE UNIVERSITY AND FORMER DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY AND APPLIED NUTRITION, FDA: What we have
seen during the Trump administration are the biggest cuts ever in our federal nutrition assistance programs.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Will Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s policy actually make America healthy again? Hari Sreenivasan gets the details from food safety expert,
Susan Mayne.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I’m Bianna Golodryga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
Tyler Robinson, the suspect in the shooting of right-wing political activist Charlie Kirk, will appear in a court in Utah Tuesday, on charges
including aggravated murder, felony discharge of a firearm, and obstruction of justice, according to officials there. Robinson is not cooperating,
according to Utah Governor Spencer Cox. But investigators are pointing to dark internet culture as a factor that potentially radicalized him.
Meanwhile, fallout from Kirk’s killing is coursing through American politics, both online and in real life. The White House and its supporters
are calling for a crackdown on political opposition. Here’s White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller speaking on Fox News.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEPHEN MILLER, WHITE HOUSE DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF: The last message that Charlie Kirk gave to me before he joined his creator in heaven, was he said
that we have to dismantle and take on the radical left organizations in this country that are fomenting violence. The power of law enforcement
under President Trump’s leadership will be used to find you, will be used to take away your money, take away your power, and if you’ve broken the
law, to take away your freedom.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Here to discuss, David Frum, who was a speechwriter for President George W. Bush, now an author and staff writer at The Atlantic.
David Frum, welcome to the program.
DAVID FRUM, FORMER SPEECHWRITER FOR PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH AND STAFF WRITER, THE ATLANTIC: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: A dark moment for this country. I would imagine you’re not altogether surprised, both with the increase in political violence and some
of the rhetoric we’ve seen in the aftermath of it. Charlie Kirk, as we know, has already been cast as a martyr from his supporters. He has some 20
million new followers, pastors invoking his legacy now. Turning Point USA reporting tens of thousands of new chapter inquiries. Talk about what you
think this moment means for the future of his movement first before we get to the bigger impact.
FRUM: A life that meant a great deal to a great many people was cruelly taken away. A family has been left without a father and a husband. So,
tempers run hot, and people say things that perhaps in the — at a different moment they would not say.
But here’s where we need to be very careful as a society and as a republic. President Trump has already a long habit of attacking the political rights
of people who disagree with him. In April, President Trump, at his own personal initiative, which is something that shouldn’t happen, ordered a
judicial investigation, or a criminal investigation, of the main Democratic small-dollar donation arm, ActBlue. Presidents aren’t supposed to direct
the Justice Department to investigate anybody, much less a political organization, but he did it.
You now hear, in the wake of this terrible crime, as you showed with Stephen Miller, people around the president, the president himself in his
national televised address, threatening to use the power of the state to attack, not criminals, but people who have different views, people who are
organizing against him, people who are fundraising in order to challenge the president’s control of Congress. All this at a time when the
president’s party is engaged in redistricting, apart from the usual schedule. All this at a time when troops have been deployed in the streets
of blue cities, including the one I’m speaking to you from today.
GOLODRYGA: Conservative commentator David French has a very moving, I think, and sobering piece in the New York Times today, titled “There Are
Monsters in Your Midst, Too.”
And here’s what he wrote. If we’re convinced that political violence comes from only one side of the divide, then the temptation toward punitive
authoritarianism is overwhelming. They are evil and violent, and they must be crushed. If, however, we accurately understand that America has an
immense problem with violent extremism on both sides of the ideological aisle, even if at any given moment one side is worse than the other, then
the answer lies in reconciliation, not domination. In fact, it’s the will to dominate that magnifies the crisis and radicalizes our opponents.
I’m wondering if you agree with David’s assessment here and the significance from — at least what we’ve heard thus far, from leadership’s
rhetoric, speaking specifically about the president, that doesn’t seem to match his takeaway.
FRUM: Look, David French is a beautiful writer, and he has wise thoughts. But the issue I am concerned about today is not who is more violently
extreme. I mean, I think it’s a meaningless question. What you tend to find is that Americans, in this country who do violent extremism, have very
muddled views. They don’t — they’re — we’re going to — they — American extremism looks like John Hinckley shooting a — our attempting to —
shooting a president and attempting to murder him to impress a movie actress. That’s not a rational political plan.
What I am concerned about is the president and his supporters are making it clear they intend to go after not violent extremists, but simply people who
are fundraising to defeat them in elections. The great question that has been haunting America before this assassination is, will the president
allow the 2026 midterm elections to be free and fair? Will he try to gerrymander? Will he try to use the power of government to stop his
opponents from fundraising? Will he try to use his new asserted powers to detain people without due process against people who are campaigning
against him?
Those are the issues you have to worry about. It’s not about violent extremism today. Today what we’re worried about is, will we have free and
fair elections? And as Stephen Miller indicated, as the president said in his nationally televised address, that’s the target thereafter.
GOLODRYGA: How does Kirk’s assassination directly, in your view, play a role in this plan that you’re concerned about, that you say is growing
increasingly obvious from the rhetoric from the president and his advisers?
FRUM: Look, after a terrible crime in the internet age, you will find any number of people or bots on the internet saying things that are
reprehensible, stupid, provocative, unfeeling. And people who experience the world through online life will see those reprehensible statements and
will have natural reactions.
Of course, you get — if you liked and admired Charlie Kirk, you will be hurt by someone who makes light of the terrible murder. And your — that
feeling of hurt is a powerful resource for a president who is afraid he’s going to lose the 2026 elections if they’re free and fair, and who has been
looking from the beginning for ways to make sure those elections are not free and fair.
So, the emotions of Charlie Kirk supporters are a resource that President Trump and Stephen Miller and those around them are hoping to use, not
against criminals, but just against people who want to vote a different way.
GOLODRYGA: So, you seem to be circling all back towards democracy at hand right now and concerns about free and just and fair elections. The
conversation in the nation seems to be more focused on political violence. What are you seeing that some of these others that are focusing just on the
aftermath of this assassination are not?
FRUM: What I’m seeing is a pattern — I’m seeing from this president, starting with the April personally directed initiative against ActBlue, to
interfere with the political process. For sure the United States should do more to stop political violence. That would — although, the killer of
Charlie Kirk did not use a weapon that would be controlled by any gun control regime, obviously, need to — one way to make the country less
violent is to make it more difficult for people to get weapons that can do harm. That’s — that would be a big step.
And you need an FBI run by competent people, and you need not to have political hacks at the top of the FBI, and you need not to fire all of the
counterterrorism force, you know, undoing the damage done by the Trump administration to the FBI would be a great way to reduce political
violence. But President Trump is making it very clear that they are telling the country what they intend to do, it is not just the violent who
are being targeted here. Of course, the violent should be targeted. They are targeting people who think differently, who speak differently, who want
to give money. President Trump has said he wants to put George Soros in prison. For what? For the offense of giving money to people who are trying
to defeat Donald Trump.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. he’s now floating a RICO case against Soros, which Soros’ campaign has vehemently denied the accusations there. The president is also
framing this as the radical left ideology is the pure evil in this country. There’s power in those words, and I think they’re pointing to at least some
of the early evidence that we’re hearing, in this particular case, from Charlie Kirk’s assassin.
I want to play sound from Kash Patel, the FBI director, when asked about more they’re learning in this investigation.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KASH PATEL, FBI DIRECTOR: His family has collectively told investigators that he subscribed to left-wing ideology, and even more so in these last
couple of years. And he had a text message exchange. He, the suspect, with another individual, in which he claimed that he had an opportunity to take
out Charlie Kirk, and he was going to do it because of his hatred for what Charlie stood for. That are — those are factually accurate investigatory
findings by the FBI that we’ve handed over to the local authorities and the federal authorities to make their prosecutorial decisions.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: So, assuming that that is all factually accurate, does that play a role, and does that help? Go ahead.
FRUM: Why would I assume that something that Kash Patel said was factually accurate? It might be. It could be. But Kash Patel has a long record in
public life. And no, I wouldn’t assume that what he says is accurate.
But on the hypothesis, if it is accurate, we are all way too early to make statements about the killer. But my guess, and it’s just a guess, is we’ll
find out the killer’s politics are a muddle, and that the killer was a troubled person who did a terrible thing for his own particular reasons,
and that the project of saying we’ve got a killer, and now we’re going to connect the killer to a so-called radical left, and now we’re going to
connect this radical left, by the way, who tried to defeat Joe Biden and defeat Kamala Harris, and take this radical left and tie them to the
Democratic Party, and therefore, we’re going to stop Democratic candidates from raising money in the 2026 cycle, that’s the bootstrapping.
And we’ll find out more about what the killer intended to do. It’s — I think it’s premature to comment until you have more information than just
what Kash Patel is offering. But in the meantime, understand, the target here is not killers. That’s the FBI’s proper job. What is happening here is
targeting Democratic fundraising, George Soros and his operation, who are there to elect people who will contain the power of the president in the
2026 elections. That’s the thing they’re trying to stop.
GOLODRYGA: And formal charges, we should note, against Tyler Robinson will be filed and made public tomorrow. We did hear, though, from the governor,
Utah’s governor, note that the suspect’s partner was trans, though they believe completely uninvolved and is cooperating, while Robinson is not.
Again, this plays into some of the talking points that we’ve heard from the president.
If they do show concrete proof of this tomorrow in the charges, in the formal charges, do you think that this adds more to the president’s case
against what they continue to target as radical left ideology? Do you worry about that?
FRUM: I want to be really careful but not say anything about things I don’t know about and things where my only source of information are people
that have given me ample reason not to take them at their word. But we will find out more.
GOLODRYGA: Does that include the governor? What do you make of his role?
FRUM: No, that includes the — I don’t think we should be commenting too much about what happened and why until we have better and fuller evidence
that is not — that doesn’t — and again, I have tremendous confidence in Governor Cox, but we need to be real careful because we are being fed
pieces of information that are often being directed for a larger political purpose.
The prize that people need to keep their eye on is while punishing the guilty, and anybody who had any kind of criminal connection to this crime,
anybody who had foreign knowledge or was in any way of assistance, obviously all of those people need to be swept into the FBI investigation,
prosecuted if it’s justified, punished if it’s called for, if they’re — sorry, convicted if it’s called for and punished if they’re convicted. That
goes without saying.
But what we are being told — the thing we’re being told by people of power to do it is they are going for a much bigger project here than simply
punishing the guilty and those associated with the guilty. They want to shut down fundraising processes that are used for democratic purposes to
contain the power of the president. That’s the target. And that is what the president said on television, and that needs to be taken very seriously.
GOLODRYGA: So, what is the appropriate response in your view?
FRUM: To what?
GOLODRYGA: To what you think the administration is ultimately trying to do here.
FRUM: I think the appropriate response is while condemning crimes, while grieving with the afflicted family, while understanding the genuine hurt
and outrage that people who admired Charlie Kirk feel at his loss, even if you don’t share their politics, you can feel their suffering, and imagine
how if someone you admired were struck down in this way, how you would feel, and the sympathy and the discretion and decorum you would expect in
the aftermath of such a death.
Well, understanding all of that, say, the bright line here is that you cannot use the power of the state to shut down political participation, and
that action of the president in April where he personally directed the Department of Justice to go after a Democratic fundraising platform, that’s
the thing to watch.
While he’s talking, keep your eye on how his fingers are moving. It’s like any kind of game of deception. The words — the line of patter is one —
and the movement of the hands are different things, and both need to be watched.
GOLODRYGA: David, it was notable that we heard from all former living presidents condemning the assassination of Charlie Kirk and asking for
unity at this time, including your former boss, President George W. Bush, you know, times are quite different, but the issue of polarization, even
back then when you were working for the administration, were front and center as well. This was before social media, obviously, and all of the
amplifiers that we’ve now seen making this problem even more severe than it was then. What do you think back to your time in office and perhaps any
words of wisdom that you can hearken with us now from your days there?
FRUM: You know, that was a quarter century ago. Back then, if somebody somewhere whom you’d never heard of before said something stupid,
offensive, and unfeeling, it was quite hard to find out about it. So, you didn’t get mad about what you — I mean, look, as a country of 330 million
people, the odds that someone is doing something completely repulsive right now are pretty high. But we have built this mechanism so that each of us
can see every bad, foolish, unwise, unkind, uncaring thing that anybody anywhere says and take it to heart and have a reaction to it.
When you need to say, what is the president saying? What is the vice president saying? What are the senators saying? What are the members of
Congress saying? I mean, it’s just a dead, certain cinch that there is someone in the country who is saying something right now that would really
make you crazy if you heard them speak. And, unfortunately, there now exists this conveyor belt to make sure you find out about that person,
whereas 25 years ago, you’d go to your grave never knowing and be happier for not knowing.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. and that’s all amplified, as we noted, on social media. We know the algorithms are focused now to give you more of the insightful
rhetoric that you’re wanting to hear or agree with, the fact that you saw Charlie’s —
FRUM: Tell the algorithm you want puppy and baby videos and nothing else.
GOLODRYGA: Or just put your phone down. That would help, too. All right. David Frum, I could talk to you about puppies in particular all day long,
hopefully the next segment. I still remember and think fondly back to our previous conversation on that.
FRUM: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: Thank you for joining the show.
FRUM: Bye-bye.
GOLODRYGA: Now, in a landmark ruling, Brazil’s former leader Jair Bolsonaro has been sentenced to more than 27 years in prison after being
found guilty of plotting an attempted coup in 2022. President Lula took to the pages of the New York Times this weekend saying how proud he is of the
Supreme Court while also addressing President Trump directly, making it clear that Brazil’s democracy and sovereignty are, quote, “non-negotiable.”
A supporter of the former Brazilian leader, the U.S. president has called Bolsonaro’s trial a witch hunt and pressured Brazil to drop the case by
imposing 50 percent tariffs. Here’s his reaction to the recent Bolsonaro verdict.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: I thought he was a good president of Brazil, and it’s very surprising that that could happen. That’s very much like they
tried to do with me, but they didn’t get away with it at all.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: So, how does this impact the nation and its relationship with the U.S.? Petra Costa is a documentary filmmaker who has been following the
story closely, and she’s joining me now live. Petra, welcome to the program.
First, let’s just note how historic this ruling is. Brazil has a long history of coups, but I believe this is the first one where someone has
been convicted of trying to perpetrate and plot one. What is your reaction to that? What does it say about the judicial institution as a whole in the
country?
PETRA COSTA, JOURNALIST AND FILMMAKER: Well, it is a very historic ruling, I would say the most historic ruling in Brazilian history. And it is great
that Brazil just succeeded where America failed, bringing a former president that tried to assault the democratic institutions into trial and
condemning him.
And as you said, Brazil never tried the military for the coups. They did several coups, the last one in ’64, that lasted 21 years, and in which none
of the military were punished for their killings or their torturous acts. So, it’s a civilizational threshold for Brazil.
GOLODRYGA: For viewers who haven’t been following so closely, what exactly has Bolsonaro been found guilty of?
COSTA: For conspiring to — for a coup, that, if successful, would have prevented Lula from assuming power as president and would also have killed
Lula, his vice president, and the Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes. Together with Bolsonaro, top military generals were also condemned
because this coup attempt was actually printed in Bolsonaro’s presidential office, as well as several other evidences that were found, one that was
included in our film that portrays Bolsonaro’s rise and fall to power, “Apocalypse in the Tropics,” which is Bolsonaro’s speech during a rally, a
very important rally in September 7, 2021, where he defies the Supreme Court, says that he will no longer obey any of their orders, and incites
his protesters to call for a military coup.
So, that speech is used as evidence by the prosecutor. And what we found in our film was that while he was making that speech, there was a pastor who
was his close ally who was actually mouthing his words, a pastor who was a very close ally to Bolsonaro and actually a mentor, a political mentor,
that recently investigations have also shown how he was trying to manipulate Bolsonaro as to how to respond to Trump.
GOLODRYGA: And we know Bolsonaro has denied all of these charges and says he had no information, no role in planning this coup, they’re planning to
appeal as well. He says there was a conflict of interest, that one of the judges actually used to represent President Lula, but with only one judge
on this panel siding in his favor or against these charges, the likelihood of an appeal actually being successful are very low. Do you think he will,
at the end of the day, spend much time behind bars, though?
COSTA: Well, it’s hard to know. What is happening in Congress right now is that Bolsonaro supporters are trying to articulate an amnesty, a
forgiveness for all those involved in the coup attempt. But now, I think it is unlikely that that perspective will be victorious and that he will serve
time in prison, at least until the next election. I don’t know exactly for how long.
GOLODRYGA: Well, the parallels with Donald Trump are striking, both in the events as they’ve unfolded and also listening to Trump’s strong defense of
someone he calls being targeted, calling this a witch hunt and calling a close friend. And then on top of that, slapping 50 percent tariffs on
Brazil right now in response to this, even though we know Brazil, there’s a surplus between the two of them.
The president had always been focused on where the U.S. has a trade deficit. There’s actually a surplus here. Nonetheless, he’s defending that
tariff and saying perhaps even more retaliation will come. Here’s what he said about the 50 percent tariff on the White House lawn.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Because I’m able to do it. Nobody else would be able to do it. President Bolsonaro is a good man. I’ve gotten to know a lot of prime
ministers and presidents and kings and queens. And I know him and I’m pretty good at this. President Bolsonaro is not a dishonest man. He loves
the people of Brazil. He fought hard for the people of Brazil.
He negotiated trade deals against me for the people of Brazil. And he was very tough. And he was tough because he wanted to do a good deal for his
country. He was not a dishonest man. And I believe it’s a witch hunt and it shouldn’t be happening.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: We know that Bolsonaro’s supporters, including family members, had really been advocating for this kind of public response in defense of
his father. His son had actually moved to the United States in Texas and really trying to rally and appeal and support as well. How has the reaction
been from those in Brazil to the unusual role the president of the United States has taken in defending Bolsonaro here?
COSTA: Well, it is an example of political backfiring, because Bolsonaro’s son, Eduardo, left his seat in Congress to lobby in the United States in
favor of his father before his father was even tried and was successful in July. Trump called it a witch hunt and imposed the tariffs. But it
backfired because the population started to see it as political interference from a foreign country into what should be of Brazil’s
sovereignty to decide.
If Trump was successful in his interference with the Supreme Court, he would basically be governing Brazil at this moment. Thankfully, the Supreme
Court maintained its sovereignty and its independence and decided what was best for Brazilian democracy, which is exactly the opposite of what the
United States has been able to do for its own democracy. So, it’s interesting that we see the southern country of the hemisphere giving
lessons of political maturity.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And how is this defiance and really in-your-face reaction from President Lula being interpreted in Brazil right now, taking to the
New York Times and writing this op-ed over the weekend, also suggesting that President Trump would have been convicted if he had been charged for
doing what he did here and was accused of doing here on January 6th in Brazil. And here’s — I’d like to play, what he told Christiane about this
trial just in July.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LUIZ INACIO LULA DA SILVA, BRAZILIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): He’s not judged personally. He is being judged by the acts. He tried to organize
a coup d’etat. He threatened secretly the death, he planned the death of vice president, myself, and the chief justice. He could be on trial just
for that. And the general — the attorney general denounced yesterday he will be convicted, and I believe in that.
Christiane, I’d like to say something to the American people. If Trump was Brazilian and if he did what was happening at the Capitol Hill, he’d also
be on trial in Brazil, and possibly, and he would have violated the Constitution according to the justices, he could also be arrested if he had
done that here in Brazil.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: And President Lula, we should note, has faced charges of his own in the past, but are we seeing his ratings and approval actually go up
given what we’ve seen transpire here and the vocal support President Trump has had for Bolsonaro?
COSTA: Yes. Since this, Trump imposed the tariffs on Brazil, Lula’s ratings have gone up quite a bit. So, it’s having a great response on his
popularity, the opposite of what the Bolsonaro family initially intended. And Eduardo Bolsonaro, Bolsonaro’s son, who was a possible successor for
Bolsonaro once Bolsonaro would be in jail, is also having his popularity melt as he’s being seen by many as a traitor for the nation, a traitor for
the nation’s interests.
GOLODRYGA: That’s interesting, because Bolsonaro still commands a loyal following, and obviously, his future in politics has likely — the door to
that has likely been closed. He’s banned from running again until 2060. He’d be over 100 years old at that point. Nonetheless, it is a very divided
country, and he still has a large group of supporters. So, what happens to them now?
COSTA: Well, there are many governors at this moment that are competing to become Bolsonaro’s successors. Bolsonaro has at least 30 percent of loyal
supporters in the country. And so, all these governors are competing into who defends more the radical far-right speech at this moment. And it’s
interesting that Brazil has been responding with force to this radical far- right speech in a moment where we see so many liberal democracies under threat by these very speeches.
So, I hope Brazil can become an example in the future and in the present for how can we respond to this populist fever of our times.
GOLODRYGA: Will Bolsonaro play a role as sort of a kingmaker in handpicking, perhaps, who that successor would be?
COSTA: Definitely.
GOLODRYGA: You do see defiance —
COSTA: One of them is his wife.
GOLODRYGA: Oh, sorry, go ahead.
COSTA: No, one of them is his wife, as well. And the pastor we portray in the film is a possible successor as well, Malafaia.
GOLODRYGA: I know right now we are seeing a show of support and defiance from Brazilians in the face of the American response here and this
conviction. But we do know that the United States has threatened additional retaliatory measures, the Magnitsky Act against one of the judges here,
perhaps even more economic sanctions against the country and tariffs. Are there concerns that this could really have an even larger economic impact
for the country down the road? Perhaps countries like China and other BRIC nations may say that they will come to their aid and be a better partner.
But putting actions to those words seems to be a bigger hurdle.
COSTA: Yes. I mean, we’re all apprehensive about how the United States will continue to react to our democratic processes, not just in the present
moment, but in our election next year. And some of these interferences are invisible. They happen through social media. They happen with payments that
are under the carpet. So, I think as citizens, we should all be very vigilant for what will happen to Brazilian democracy. And if our next
elections will be fair and will not have international interference.
GOLODRYGA: You mentioned the pastor who you chronicle in the film as well. Can you talk about the role of religion among Bolsonaro supporters?
COSTA: Well, similar to the United States in the past 15 years, evangelical leaders have become crucial to the political landscape in
Brazil. They have imitating and inspired by Billy Graham, by Jerry Fowle. They have tried to use these churches, the churches that they have under
their control as basis for elections. And very tied to what is the Republican Party in the United States and Brazil, the far-right.
Bolsonaro was the first president elected thanks to the evangelical vote. And in his last election, where he lost 2022, as we show in our film,
“Apocalypse in the Tropics,” 70 percent of evangelicals voted for Bolsonaro. That was a highest — higher percentage than in any other
segment of the population.
And they continue — these leaders continue very aligned with Bolsonaro and Bolsonarismo, whoever will substitute Bolsonaro. And what worries me is
that this is very tied to a dominionist plan that says that evangelicals, fundamentalist evangelicals should take over all branches of power, the
three branches of power. Of course, even the evangelical population is diverse and many of them are dissatisfied with the excessive use and
politicization of their faith.
GOLODRYGA: It’s all very fascinating. And this coming at a time when it likely is not over. I’m not just talking about the legal process and the
appeal. I’m just talking also about how the U.S. is threatening to continue its retaliation in response to this conviction and whether they will
actually follow through on that, what that could look like for the country. And perhaps, as you said, backfire and increase the support for President
Lula. Petra Costa, thank you so much for this deep dive with us. Really appreciate it.
COSTA: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: And we’ll be right back after this short break.
GOLODRYGA: Now, the Trump administration has released a plan to improve children’s health. 128 recommendations address everything from vaccines to
the type of milk served in schools. It’s all part of Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy’s push to make America healthy again.
According to our next guest, some parts of the report are a cause for concern. Susan Mayne is an adjunct professor of epidemiology at Yale and
the former director of the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition at the FDA. She joins Hari Sreenivasan to discuss where she believes the
strategy succeeds and where it falls short.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HARI SREENIVASAN, CORRESPONDENT: Bianna, thanks. Dr. Mayne, thanks so much for joining us. Just last week, Secretary of Health
and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. unveiled his Make America Healthy strategy document. It has 128 different recommendations in it. You’re
someone who’s intimately familiar with how the FDA works, and you’re now in public health. What were your first impressions?
SUSAN MAYNE, PROFESSOR OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, YALE UNIVERSITY AND FORMER DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY AND APPLIED NUTRITION, FDA: My initial
impressions, Hari, are that they’ve identified a really important public health problem in this country, and that is the problem of chronic disease.
And it’s not just a problem for our children, it’s a problem for adults as well. Chronic diseases are the largest causes of death in this country,
cardiovascular disease and cancer being number one and number two.
In terms of the importance for me is that this report is really focused in on diet and nutrition as important modifiable risk factors for chronic
disease. And that’s an area I’ve been working on for the last four decades.
SREENIVASAN: One of the report’s proposals is to define ultra-processed foods. And I guess we kind of have an idea of what that is, but why is it
important to try to get a definition out?
MAYNE: It’s really important to get a definition out. Ultra-processed foods have been very difficult to agree on what that definition should be.
There have been definitions that have been used for research purposes, such as the NOVA classification, but we know they’re overly broad. And the other
thing that we know is that it tends to include foods as being ultra- processed that are actually not harmful for our health and may actually be beneficial, simply because they may include an additive, for example.
So, if the government wants to take a regulatory step on ultra-processed foods, they need to define what that means. States have tried to do that by
saying, let’s figure out what particularly harmful ultra-processed foods are. They tend to be the ones that we associate with junk foods, if people
would agree that those are problematic.
But what about whole wheat breads and cereals, for example, that are captured under the ultra-processed food categorization that actually are
associated with reductions in risk of things like colorectal cancer?
SREENIVASAN: You know, that’s interesting because each of the foods that might be kind of on this list or in this category would probably have a
very powerful lobby trying to make sure that they’re not legislated out or legislated or regulated in to, you know, whatever the rules are. I mean,
decreasing ultra-processed foods was kind of one of the central ideas of the secretary’s supporters early in this administration.
And I wonder, I mean, as I look through the strategy, I don’t see that many specifics on exactly how to tackle that besides trying to define it.
MAYNE: And I would agree with you, and that was exactly my reaction as well. Clearly, there is a commitment to try to reduce ultra-processed foods
in the United States. And you see language about providing healthy whole foods to consumers across different sectors, from the Women, Infants and
Children program, through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance program, through veteran’s programs, et cetera. And so, that’s a laudable goal to
reduce consumption of ultra-processed foods and provide fresh, wholesome foods to people. The problem is there aren’t clear policies in the report
to do that.
Moreover, there are resource ramifications. If we want to improve the quality of food that is provided by the federal government, that has cost
implications. And instead, what we have seen during the Trump administration are the biggest cuts ever in our federal nutrition
assistance programs. So, the goals and the commitments really stand at odds with the resources. And you may have noted when you read the strategy,
there aren’t resource commitments in the report.
SREENIVASAN: You know, when you talk about the Supplemental Nutrition Program, this strategy document says it wants to get whole healthy food to
SNAP participants. Given the cuts to SNAP from the budget bill, how likely is that?
MAYNE: Zero. Zero likely. If you cut these programs and you cut the resources, your ability to deliver whole healthy foods is simply not going
to happen. We’ve also seen some other cuts, not just to SNAP. For example, there were programs where farmers could get fresh produce into the school
systems, great programs that supported agriculture, supported healthy foods in schools. Those were also defunded. So, it’ll be interesting to see what
resource commitments they’ll be making going forward. But based upon what’s happened so far, these goals will not be reached.
SREENIVASAN: One of the things that this strategy tries to lay out, and I think that you have an expertise on, is dietary guidelines. Is the United
States going to revisit, so to speak, what we consider the bare minimum or the optimal type of diet that Americans should be having?
MAYNE: I’m glad you asked me about the dietary guidelines. Just a little bit of background. They are issued every five years. That’s required by
Congress, and so that has to happen every five years.
The process involves a very transparent, public-facing process. Research questions are identified. Nutrition evidence reviews are prepared and
consolidated. Public meetings are held. Then a Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee takes two years to review all that science and produce a
scientific report called the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee Report. And that report was released near the end of the Biden administration. And
that’s the way it works. And then the federal government takes that report and comes up with the dietary guidelines for Americans. And so, this
administration needs to do that before the end of this year. We have heard Secretary Kennedy say that this should be forthcoming in the near future.
What I am a little concerned about, though, is that some of the statements in the actual strategy about the dietary guidelines process are concerning.
And they talk about revisiting the Advisory Committee. They talk about revisiting how that science is looked at and how the process unfolds. That
process has been looked at over and over again with a lot of input from Congress. And I’m concerned that we may see some disruption to a very
science-based, transparent process by the current administration, which we have seen with the Vaccine Advisory Committee. So, that concerns me.
The other point I’ll make is that I fully expect that the dietary guidelines that will be coming may deviate from some of that science that
is articulated in the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee. And we’ve seen that in the strategy report. For example, language about removing
restrictions on saturated fat, that was mentioned. We’ve also seen a higher profile to meat in the strategy report. It’s mentioned several times in the
strategy, but there’s no mention of poultry or fish or plant proteins. So, I think that foreshadows some of what we may be seeing coming with the
dietary guidelines.
SREENIVASAN: One of the other areas that I think you’d be qualified really to talk about is microbial food safety. I mean, we don’t necessarily think
about it. Unfortunately, we think about it only in the context of when something goes wrong and we hear about a salmonella outbreak or we hear
about something on the news. But what does kind of changes to this that you’re concerned about?
MAYNE: It really has not received much attention from the current administration in terms of promoting that we need to do more here. Instead,
what we have seen are steps by the administration that actually undermine microbial food safety. A few examples include dismantling an Advisory
Committee that’s been in existence called the National Advisory Committee for Microbiological Criteria in Food.
They were working on a request that we put forward when I was at the FDA on how to prevent bacterial contamination of infant formula. That was because
it led to the contaminated formula, led to the massive recall in infant formula shortages. So, we had a committee working on that. That group was
disbanded right before the release of that report and has not yet seen the light of day.
We’ve also seen changes to our foodborne, surveil of the foodborne illness surveillance systems called FoodNet. That was our national surveillance
system. They used to capture data on eight different pathogens. They have now said they are reducing that to just two, salmonella and E. coli,
because of lack of resources.
So, there are other changes as well. But I think that an important point is when we think about nutrition, we also really have to pay attention to food
safety and especially microbial food safety. Because if we’re promoting things like fruits and vegetables and leafy greens and whole fresh foods,
those are the same types of foods that are higher risk from a food safety perspective. And I’ve often heard people say to me, well, I’d rather go eat
a bag of Doritos because I’m not going to get foodborne illness than have a salad. And we really need to address that.
We need to prevent foodborne illnesses and contamination of these products. And it’s really important to support a nutrition strategy. When I was at
FDA, I led the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. So, I got to look at that intersection of food safety and nutrition, and the two
intersect quite frequently. So, paying attention to food safety is important for nutrition as well.
SREENIVASAN: Doctor, what’s interesting is that, you know, besides trying to make sure that the food that’s going into our bodies is safe in the
first place, there’s also sort of the exposure from outside, right? I mean, how do we make sure that kids are not exposed to toxic chemicals and so
forth? And I see in the strategy document, there’s a lot of kind of emphasis on the EPA studying lots of things, including air pollution. But
at the same time, we see that, you know, the Office for Research and Development at the EPA has been shut down.
So, it’s — I’m a little confused as to how we would try to get to this healthier, happier place while the funds for some of the research that
would be necessary to find the information don’t exist anymore.
MAYNE: And you’ve identified some of the really stark contradictions between what’s happening in the current administration and the stated goals
in the strategy report. And I can give you one example of something I worked on at FDA, and that’s contamination of foods with perfluorinated
alkyl substances, or PFAS.
And so, PFAS get into the environment, they get into the water, they get into the soil, and then food can take that up, and we have contaminated
food. So, the only way to really address it is to address the environmental contamination. And we worked hard with EPA to set standards for PFAS in
water to try to reduce that environmental contamination. And what we’re seeing in the current administration is those standards are being rolled
back.
So, again, it’s just another example where the goals in the report and the strategy, those goals are really spot on, but the actions the
administration is taking are the opposite and are going to really impair their ability to meet any of those goals.
SREENIVASAN: So, how do we get from kind of this idea of a strategy document to actually implementing it? Let’s take, for example, you know,
ultra-processed foods. If the definition is the only thing that the strategy is calling for, what do we do between now and whenever that time
is?
MAYNE: That’s a great question, because what I really think we need is urgent action right now on ultra-processed foods. It’s going to take some
time to come up with a definition that can be used for regulatory purposes, and we need action now.
So, what I would recommend is that they really focus in on the components of ultra-processed foods that we know are damaging to health. And I’m
talking about things like too much sodium, too much added sugar, and too much saturated fat.
So, there are steps the administration could take right now. Continue promoting sodium reduction in our food supply. I’ve worked on that for the
last several administrations, and progress has been made. Continue working on sugar reduction, saturated fat reduction. Front of pack nutrition
labeling was proposed, but not yet finalized.
So, getting that information, interpretive labeling right on the front of packages. And I’ve mentioned some labeling ideas, because labeling not only
informs consumers, but it also drives industry to reformulate products to be healthier. When FDA mandated trans-fat labeling on the nutrition facts
label some years ago, exposure dropped by 80 percent. And that’s because consumers started avoiding products that trans-fat and industry
reformulated.
So, there’s many steps, these and others, that the government could certainly take right now to start addressing ultra-processed foods by
dealing with the adverse nutritional composition of these foods and helping drive to a more healthful food supply.
SREENIVASAN: How do we make sure that this is not just an aspirational statement? I mean, are there kind of low hanging fruit where we could have
some sort of bipartisan consensus of people saying, hey, let’s go ahead and get behind this? I mean, we see when it comes to standing up new agencies,
I mean, that’s going to take actions of Congress to sort of fund something completely new. And so, to my brain, I said, well, that’s going to take
forever. So — or if at all, right?
MAYNE: Yes. So, you’re kind of getting it. How do we make sure that there’s goals and metrics and accountability? And none of that is in the in
the strategy. I would have loved to see in something that says, within two years, we’re going to drive down the sodium content of these foods, or
we’re going to reduce consumption in this country by addressing things like marketing or access through the supplemental nutrition assistance programs.
There are steps that could have been communicated and metrics that we could hold them accountable for.
And you mentioned bipartisan support. We do have bipartisan support from Congress to address the food supply in ways that we didn’t have in previous
administrations. And I can speak to my time in the Obama administration, where we certainly did not have bipartisan support. Despite that, we were
able to ban partially hydrogenated oils, trans fats in food. We were able to get added sugars labeling on the Nutrition Facts label, and we were able
to target too much sodium in our foods, and that was without bipartisan support.
So, I was expecting some really lofty goals and strategies and policies coming out of this document, potentially metrics, and it just wasn’t there.
SREENIVASAN: Dr. Susan Mayne, former FDA official and epidemiologist at Yale University School of Public Health, thanks so much for joining us.
MAYNE: Thank you so much.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: And finally, it’s television’s biggest night, and this year’s Emmy Awards had all the stunts, surprises, and emotional speeches we’ve
come to love and expect. It also broke the mold with some history-making moments. Tramell Tillman became the first black recipient of the award for
best supporting actor in a drama for his role in “Severance,” while Apple TV comedy “The Studio” became the most awarded comedy ever for a single
series.
But it was a British — it was the success of a British miniseries that stole the show. “Adolescence” transcended the world of entertainment,
provoking wide-ranging debate over its terrifying story of online misogyny and its real-life consequences. It took home a total of six awards,
including three for its co-creator and lead actor, Stephen Graham, and one for its 15-year-old star, Owen Cooper, making him the youngest male Emmy
winner of all time.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OWEN COOPER, ACTOR, “ADOLESCENCE”: Honestly, when I started these drama classes a couple of years back, I didn’t expect to be even in the United
States, never mind here. But I think tonight proves that if you listen and you focus and you step out your comfort zone, you can achieve anything in
life.
STEPHEN GRAHAM, ACTOR AND CO-WRITER, “ADOLESCENCE”: I’m just a mixed-race kid from a block of flats in a place called Kirby. So, for me, to be here
today in front of my peers and to be acknowledged by you is the utmost humbling thing I could ever imagine in my life, and it shows you that any
dream is possible.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Some of the best speeches of the night. Well, back in March, you may recall, Stephen Graham spoke to Christiane about the show and its
impact.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: What would you say you’re trying to explore in these four episodes?
GRAHAM: Basically, I read an article in the paper a good few years ago, and then a couple of months later, there was a piece on the news, on the
telly, and it was about — there was two young boys who’d stabbed these young girls to death, and they were at opposite ends of the country. And it
just made me really — if I’m completely honest with you, it really hurt my heart. And it made me wonder why they would do something like this, and
what’s kind of happened within our society where this thing in Britain has become kind of a regular occurrence.
And then, you know that beautiful saying, it takes a village to raise a child.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
GRAHAM: Well, what I thought we could look at, you know, is maybe we’re all slightly accountable in some way, shape or form, do you know what I
mean, and we look at it and we analyze it from a different perspective. So, maybe it’s down to parenting, maybe it’s down to, you know, the school
system, the government, the community, and the social structure which the child is raised. But on top of that, when me and you were kids, we didn’t
have the internet, but now the internet is a huge influence on our children.
And in many cases, you know, it’s parenting our children just as much as we are, and it’s educating our children just as much, if not more, than our
schools are.
AMANPOUR: So, the Prime Minister of this country talked about this program in Parliament, said that he’s watching it with his teen children. I know
that you have children. What do you want the impact of it to be like? In Australia, they’ve just banned children from social media, 16 — until they’re 16, I think.
GRAHAM: I think that’s something that we should look at. I think there’s a way of — look, and again, you know, people will say freedom of speech,
which I understand, but there’s a difference between freedom of speech and poison, do you know what I mean, I think we need to be very mindful and
very, very, very careful about what we’re influencing our young generation and what we’re allowing them to see, do you know what I mean?
And if anything, personally, if we can strike some kind of communication, and maybe, you know, someone said the most beautiful thing that, you know,
I think we can get from this, is what this program did, and Hannah said this, my wife said, what she feels our program has achieved is for parents
to be able to open that bedroom door now and talk to their children, be they male or female, and ask them what’s going on.
Let’s just — you know, you know yourself, when you go to a restaurant sometimes, and no disrespect, they understand it, but kids are sat there
with — on — you know, talk to each other, ask each other what’s going on. That’s the only way we can understand what’s happening.
Adolescence is such a difficult age, your brain’s forming, you know, your chemicals are all over the place. You’re learning about yourself. You’re
trying to construct this character that’s going to take you into the future. So, let’s talk. Let’s open the bridges of communication with each
other. That’s all we’re trying to do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Really powerful interview as well. Well, that does it for us for now. If you ever missed our show, you can find the latest episode
shortly after it airs on our podcast. And remember, you can always catch us online, on our website, and all-over social media.
Thanks so much for watching, and goodbye from New York.
END