Read Full Transcript EXPAND
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to “Amanpour.” Here’s what’s coming up. Putin let me down, those words from President Trump on day two of his U.K. state visit. Former Ukrainian Defense Minister Rustem Umarov joins me from Kyiv. And from Ukraine to Gaza, Palestinians flee Israel’s new air and ground invasion of Gaza City. I speak to the new president of the United Nations General Assembly, Annalena Baerbock. Plus, why Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night show got pulled off the air. Media analyst Brian Stelter on the latest battle over free speech. Also, ahead, the cost of IVF. Democratic Congresswoman Sara Jacobs tells Michel Martin how fertility treatment could be more affordable. Welcome to the program, everyone. I’m Christiane Amanpour in London. He came, he saw, he was feted, and then declared an unbreakable bond with Britain after the government and royal family did all they could to court President Donald Trump, putting on lavish pageantry firmly behind castle walls, shielding the president from the British people and anyone who might protest. Today, it was down to business, not least Russia’s war on Ukraine. Take a listen. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) KEIR STARMER, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: In recent days, Putin has shown his true face, mounting the biggest attack since the evasion began, with yet more bloodshed, yet more innocents killed, and unprecedented violations of NATO airspace. These are not the actions of someone who wants peace. (END VIDEO CLIP) AMANPOUR: The president struck a slightly different tone from the prime minister, but agreed the war must end. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TRUMP: It doesn’t affect the United States. And he, loOK. it doesn’t so much affect you. Of course, you are a lot closer to the scene than we are. We have a whole ocean separating us. But I will say this, it’s — millions of people have died in that war. Millions of souls. And they’re not American. They’re soldiers, mostly soldiers, as you know. The soldiers are being killed at levels nobody’s seen since the Second World War. But they’re being killed. And I feel I have an obligation to get it settled for that reason. (END VIDEO CLIP) AMANPOUR: Seated next to the king the night before, Trump got the same message stamped with the royal seal. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) KING CHARLES, UNITED KINGDOM: Today, as tyranny once again threatens Europe, we and our allies stand together in support of Ukraine to deter aggression and secure peace. (END VIDEO CLIP) AMANPOUR: Ahead of this trip, President Trump alarmed many allies after he again asserted that Zelenskyy is going to have to make a deal with Russia. This despite the fact the Ukrainian president has embraced every U.S. proposal for an immediate ceasefire while Russia has not. Now, Rustem Umerov was Ukraine’s defense minister until earlier this year. And he’s now the secretary of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council, which is leading negotiations with Russia. He’s joining me from Kyiv for an exclusive interview. Welcome to the program in your new role. I said you’re leading negotiations. Are there any negotiations, anything meaningful going on between Russia and Ukraine over ending the war? RUSTEM UMEROV, SECRETARY, NATIONAL SECURITY AND DEFENSE COUNCIL OF UKRAINE AND FORMER UKRAINIAN DEFENSE MINISTER: Christiane, we supported, Ukraine supported President Trump initiative for a peace process. We have met two times in Saudi Arabia. We’ve met two times in Europe, in Paris and London. And we have participated in three meetings in Turkey. At the moment, we continue the humanitarian part where we release and exchange presence of war. On the other side, as you know, the European leaders, along with President Zelenskyy, visited Washington. And there was an agreement that the trilateral and bilateral meetings will be done upon a Washington visit. So, at this stage, I think we’re waiting when the trilateral and bilateral meetings will be done. AMANPOUR: OK. So, it sounds very formal, but it seems to be the result is no real — well, no negotiations to end the war and to implement a ceasefire between you. Can I just play what President Trump says about President Putin now today here in the U.K.? This is what he just said. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TRUMP: The one that I thought would be easiest would be because of my relationship with President Putin, but he’s let me down. He’s really let me down. It was going to be Russia and Ukraine, but we’ll see how that turns out. (END VIDEO CLIP) AMANPOUR: You know, he said that he expected his direct diplomacy with President Putin, his relationship with Putin from his first time in office would help him end this war, but clearly, it hasn’t happened. From that conversation or that little bit of the press conference, do you think President Trump is committed to using all American leverage or do you feel like he’s essentially throwing in the towel a bit and leaving it up to you all and Europe? UMEROV: I think President Trump is the only person who is able and capable to finish this war. At this stage, Russia lets him down and there is no commitment from Russian side to continue these negotiations. We — as I already mentioned, we support the initiative and I think this war needs to end. At this stage, all the European allies, along with the U.S., are supportive of this idea. Ukraine spoken out that it needs guarantees, it needs strong Ukrainian armed forces, it needs Coalition of the Willing to be besides it. It needs U.S. support. And I think at this stage, we’ve done our part of the deal with U.S. and European allies. I think now the turn is on Russian side. AMANPOUR: So, I want to ask you, you’re feeling it, I know, in Ukraine and certainly NATO allies are feeling it. There’s a huge step up, in fact, since the Alaska summit when Putin visited President Trump in the United States of attacks all over Ukraine, including on civilians and civilian infrastructure, not to mention incursions by Russia into NATO airspace. So, you’re also just receiving the first tranche of, you know, weapons agreed to under the Trump administration that actually the Europeans are buying from America to send to you. Give me the state of what Russia is pummeling you with and do you think you’re getting the weapons now to help defend? UMEROV: After Alaska meeting, Russia increased their attacks to Ukraine and it is combining attacks with cruise ballistic missiles, including the kamikaze drones. We are thankful to United States for their support. We’re thankful to European allies that are financing this support. So, they continue their security assistance. And in addition, NATO has provided a new mechanism through the Pearl program to finance the U.S. arms that will be sent to Ukraine. We need, of course, more air defense. We need interceptor drones financing, but Russia is trying to increase the attacks per thousand attacks per day. So, by the end of the year, I think they will be expanding it. And it shows that there is no big intention from Russia to end this war. AMANPOUR: Do you think Russia has the intention to do something major to try to flip the balance and try to say that they’ve won this war by the end of this year? And together with that, how much land territory are they taking now in a regular way? UMEROV: So, let’s say that — let’s remind everybody that the war started in 2014 and the full-scale invasion started in 2022. By today, Russia did not obtain any strategic objectives and they are stopped. We have stabilized the situation. Our strategy is not to allow them to maneuver. Even though their media is saying that they are progressive, they are stopped. We stopped them in northern direction, in Sumy. They wanted to make the incursion, we stopped them. We — then they maneuvered in Zaporizhzhia and Pokrovsk area where we stopped them as well. At this stage, we are doing maximum. The line is stabilized, we protect the skies but they continue to assault and that’s why we need the partner support. We need U.S. support and we are thankful for what they’re doing for U.S. with the security assistance, with their diplomatic initiatives to end this war. AMANPOUR: So, we’ve been reporting — well, I’ve been reporting that some very key intelligence assessments here in the U.K., defense intelligence and other intelligence say that, you know, at this rate, it would take something like five years for Russia to get all of Donbass in offensives. A, do you agree with that assessment? And B, what can you tell U.S. about your own troop levels? Because we know that there’s only a finite number. And tell me a little bit more about what if you are building your own — you know, expanding your own military production? UMEROV: Sure. From the beginning of the full-scale invasion. And that’s why we are holding them. We’re not allowing them to maneuver. They are not getting any strategic objectives. At the same time, we managed to rebuild our defense industrial base. We’ve introduced the drones, electronic warfare, robotic systems, and our military technology is developing. Our capabilities are far bigger than our financial ability to finance them. But at this stage, they’re learning from us. Unfortunately, they have the financial resources because they are oil and gas being bought, and we have to limit it. So, there are instruments to stop them. There are opportunities available in our partner’s hands to sanction them. So, that’s why we have to introduce new instruments how to stop them until they come and sit and negotiate with us. AMANPOUR: So, this week, President Zelenskyy said that he is, quote, “ready to meet” Russian president, you know, Putin, for face-to-face negotiations. As yet, that’s not been accepted by Putin, although the Kremlin spokesperson said Russia is open for negotiations and hopes to settle the war diplomatically. You just mentioned punitive measures. As you know, President Trump has said, in addition to Putin has let me down, he’s expressed anger and frustration and impatience with Putin over the nine months of his administration. But he’s also put the onus for imposing more U.S. sanctions onto the Europeans and other members like Turkey, Hungary, you know, Slovakia for — you know, for buying Russian oil and gas. Do you think he’s right? Should these countries stop that before Trump puts sanctions on Russia? UMEROV: I think President Trump’s initiative should be supported. They — all of these countries have great relations with President Trump. And we have to signal the world that the more they buy this oil and gas, the more the war will continue. So, if they’re pro-peace, they have to stop it. And they need to support President Trump’s initiative. At this stage, we can limit the inflow of money to Russia to continue this war. So, I think the countries should support this initiative. AMANPOUR: All right. Secretary Rustem Umerov, thank you so much for joining U.S. from Kyiv. And stay with U.S. because we’ll be right back after the break. AMANPOUR: When it comes to Gaza, Donald Trump and Keir Starmer beg to differ. The U.K. plans to recognize a Palestinian State next week. Take a listen. STARMER: We absolutely agree on the need for peace and a roadmap because the situation in Gaza is intolerable. The hostages have been held for a very, very long time and they must be freed. And we need aid to get into Gaza at speed. And so, it’s within that context of a plan for peace, which we’re working hard on, which not only did we discuss this morning, but our two teams have been working together on, that the question of recognition needs to be seen. (END VIDEO CLIP) AMANPOUR: And that will happen along with a number of other countries around the annual United Nations General Assembly. Meanwhile, Israel is continuing its ground offensive into Gaza City, yet more blood will be shed even as the death toll of the war passes 65,000, according to authorities there. Yet more time, the surviving hostages will remain in captivity. In years gone by, the gathering of world leaders at the U.N. might have been an opportunity to negotiate an end to conflict. But this year, the U.N. looks more divided than ever. Annalena Baerbock was sworn in last week as the new president of the U.N. General Assembly. She was foreign minister of Germany until earlier this year, and she joined me from New York to discuss the challenges for leaders next week. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) AMANPOUR: Madam President of the General Assembly, welcome to the program. ANNALENA BAERBOCK, PRESIDENT, UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY: Thanks for having me again. AMANPOUR: And congratulations, one of the rare women who’ve been elected and appointed to this position. But let me first ask you, in your opening remarks, you said, this is no ordinary session, the one that gets underway with the top world leaders next week. What do you mean by that? BAERBOCK: Well, in a normal world, we would really celebrate next week because our United Nation turns 80 years old. This is a lifespan. But if we look around the world from Gaza, Ukraine, Sudan, climate crisis hitting everywhere, we are not really in a celebrating mood. We need this institution, which brings together the world to solve problems more than ever. But at the same time, this institution is under heavy pressure, financially and politically. So, this is a moment to reflect again why in the darkest hours of history this institution was built and how we can preserve it, but also reform it to make it fit for the future, fit for the 21st century. AMANPOUR: So, tell me then, the institution you said in general is not really doing what it’s — you know, it was born to do, given the wars that are raging right now. Why do you think, is it the leadership structure? What do you think it is? BAERBOCK: It’s the political will of the International Community. And thanks for asking this question because there are some people out there saying, so obviously we don’t need this institution anymore. But the world would be in no way better off without the UN, because the U.N. is not only the Security Council, where we see often a blockage which causes many, many problems to not move forward on peace and security. But the U.N. is also UNICEF, the Organization for Children. Without UNICEF, for example, 100 million children couldn’t go to school last year. Without the World Food Programme, 125 million people would have literally starved because they wouldn’t have received food. So, there are every day big successes of the International Community. But at the same time, we see that for the purpose of peace and security, unfortunately, we are not moving forward. And this is why there is a reform underway, also making clear that the General Assembly, which represents the 193 member states, should take more responsibility in this area. AMANPOUR: So, when you talk about leadership, here’s what Russia said about your appointment, the deputy ambassador to the U.N. said in May, Ms. Baerbock has repeatedly proved her incompetence, extreme bias, and lack of understanding of the basic principles of diplomacy. Now, this is about, you know, your valid and NATO and the E.U.’s and the U.S., you know, pushback on Russia’s invasion and its interference. In the interim, Russia has further tested the West by incurring drones into NATO airspace, two countries, Poland and Romania, interfering in elections, all of that kind of stuff. How do you react to what the Russian deputy ambassador said? And why do you think they keep pushing the envelope instead of being told to get back in their box? BAERBOCK: The charter of the United Nations is very clear that the invasion of another country, breaching the sovereign right of another country is a dear violation of international law. And therefore, the General Assembly I’m representing has been crystal clear in many resolutions that the sovereignty of Ukraine is the right to Ukraine, like any other nation in the world, and that the invasion, the full-scale invasion, has to end. And it calls on all actors in the world, it calls on Russia to end this invasion and to get into a dialogue on peace. AMANPOUR: You are in this position now. You were Germany’s foreign minister at the time of the full-scale invasion, and you were very vocal on behalf of your country, on behalf of NATO, on behalf of Ukraine, on behalf of the European leader about precisely that, the need to defend the sovereignty and the basic rules of the U.N., which is you don’t invade a neighboring sovereign state. You don’t invade your neighbor. Do you think, as many are now saying, that nine months into office, President Trump, who wields, as the United States, the largest amount of leverage over Ukraine, or even over Israel, is standing by as an observer more than an actual actor using his leverage? In other words, without the leverage and the full commitment of the United States, do you think it’s possible to get the U.N. to meet its obligations? BAERBOCK: It’s not my position to comment on individual states. It’s to bring forward the principles of the United Nations and our charter. And the charter is also clear on the responsibilities, especially of the P5 members, so the permanent members of the Security Council. They do not only have rights, like a veto right, but they also do have a responsibility for peace and security. This is why they do have the special rights in the Security Council. And this is why there has been such a frustration over the last decade, but also lately by many, many other countries who are not part of the Security Council or non-permanent members, that these responsibilities of the P5 members are obviously not being delivered. And therefore, the General Assembly has taken also their responsibility up and has said, if there’s a veto in the Security Council, we will transform it to the General Assembly. Almost every country in the world has a bigger neighbor. So, no country in the world could sleep in silence, actually not even the biggest superpowers, if we wouldn’t have our charter anymore, if we would lose these basic rules that you’re not allowed to invade your neighbor, that you have to respect the territorial borders, but also that human rights are universal. AMANPOUR: Let me ask you about Gaza, because obviously the U.N. is very, very involved. As you well know, many nations, including Europeans and others, are about to recognize Palestine as a state, the — a Palestinian State at the U.N. But the U.S. has denied visas for the Palestinian Authority president, the internationally and Israeli-recognized president of the Palestinian Authority, Abbas, and 80 other Palestinian officials. Now, there is a vote this week, tomorrow, on letting Abbas address the assembly by satellite or remotely, Zoom or whatever you want to say. Will you, as president of the assembly, vote or agree to allow that to happen? BAERBOCK: Well, first of all, let me say the situation in Gaza is unacceptable. And we have seen that there’s very rare moments where we did have a short ceasefire. This was not only a relief moment for the people suffering in Gaza, that medicine, that food could come in, but this was also the moment when hostages, Israeli hostages, could be freed and were brought back to their families. So, it is crystal clear this long-standing conflict between Israel and Gaza cannot be ended by war, neither by occupation, not by terror. And therefore, the declaration of New York is so clear. We need this irreversible pathway towards a two-state solution. We need a ceasefire. Now, we need humanitarian access and the release of all hostages. And therefore, the General Assembly has also made very, very clear that this topic has to be addressed at the General Assembly. This is why we have the United Nations, that in the darkest hours we come together. So, we have this two-state solution conference. And yes, it’s a responsibility of the host country to allow members, to allow actors of the International Community to come to our United Nations in these moments. We have to bring together the different actors. So, it’s an obligation to grant visas. But the General Assembly has also prepared, if there’s violation of the obligation, is taking place to enable an alternative if the host country is not following what they actually should, to allow also Abbas to come to New York. AMANPOUR: OK. So, out of all of that, I think I get your message, what you’re trying to say. But can you tell me, yes or no, if he cannot come, will he address in some other way? BAERBOCK: We are making sure that there’s a way to address. But as you said, the vote is tomorrow. So, you should take ahead the vote. But there are preparations ongoing because it’s the purpose of the United Nations to hear in this kind of situation all the voices which have to be heard. AMANPOUR: President of the UNGA, Annalena Baerbock, thank you very much. BAERBOCK: Thanks a lot. All the best. (END VIDEOTAPE) AMANPOUR: Now, in the United States, a pressure campaign is mounting on the country’s broadcasters. Disney is pulling Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night show off its ABC airwaves indefinitely. The decision was made over the comedian’s remarks on Monday about Charlie Kirk’s assassination. Here’s what he said. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JIMMY KIMMEL, HOST, “JIMMY KIMMEL LIVE!”: We had some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it. (END VIDEO CLIP) AMANPOUR: ABC came under huge pressure from the Trump administration. The powerful holder of TV licenses, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, had said, we can do this the easy way or the hard way. This all raises fears about free speech in America and the relationship between the administration and media corporations. Journalist Brian Stelter has been following these developments closely and he’s joining me now to explain what’s happening. Brian, thanks for being with us. You are a very well-known and well-informed media analyst and you’ve written a lot about this, including with your book, “Network of Lies.” So, first and foremost, who took this decision to pull Jimmy Kimmel? And I would just simply like to say, like so many have done, it was certainly an off-color remark in the wake of this assassination, which is being deemed, you know, a political assassination, I think, as well. BRIAN STELTER, CHIEF MEDIA ANALYST AND AUTHOR, “NETWORK OF LIES”: It was, yes. JIMMY Kimmel’s observation about the political environment in the wake of that assassination. Kimmel’s certainly not the only figure to make a similar observation, although he was criticized pretty harshly beginning on Tuesday by some conservative websites and pro-Trump TV shows. Then on Wednesday, the FCC Chairman Brendan Carr decided to wade into this. He decided to appear on a right-wing podcast and make a very overt threat to Disney by saying that Kimmel might — it might be appropriate to suspend Kimmel and that if that doesn’t happen, maybe stations will have to take other steps. Brendan Carr essentially very loudly pointed out that the FCC has power over local stations that are affiliated with ABC all across the country. And most of those stations, Christiane, are not owned by ABC’s parent company, Disney. They’re owned by other companies that have their own business pending before the Trump administration. Companies like Nexstar and Sinclair need Trump administration approval for mergers and other deals that they would like to pursue. So, what we are seeing happen in the U.S. are these station owners try to curry favor with the Trump administration by condemning Kimmel, announcing they’re not going to air the show. And that is what led ABC as a network to yank the show nationwide. This was ultimately a move by Disney, by the CEO, Bob Iger, but it came under tremendous pressure, both political pressure from the Trump administration and business pressure from those station owners. And that’s why Kimmel is now in this very strange limbo situation. AMANPOUR: Look, you know that President Trump tweeted about it late-night, London time, U.K. time, from within the castle walls at Windsor, either before or during or after the state banquet. And he basically said it was great news for America. The ratings challenged. Jimmy Kimmel show is canceled. Congratulations to ABC, et cetera, et cetera. Kimmel has zero talent, worse ratings than even Colbert. That leaves Jimmy and Seth, two total losers on fake news NBC. And he’s calling do it NBC. President DJT. So, let’s face it. Brendan Carr, as well as others in this administration, have written key parts of the Project 2025, which laid out a roadmap for Trump 2.0. Is it surprising then that he would use all this power to bring people in line according to their line and the line they hold? And if that’s the case, what does that mean for all of us? STELTER: Well, you know, one of those lines that Brendan Carr wrote in that Project 2025 manifesto was, quote, “The FCC should promote freedom of speech.” So, when Carr was in the minority, when he was one of the lonely Republican commissioners at the Democratic-controlled FCC, he was, of course, advocating freedom of speech. But now that he has the power and now that he knows what President Trump wants from him, he is acting very differently. And yes, there’s a lot of hypocrisy on display in this story this week. It is clear President Trump wants to squash dissent in the U.S. He wants to silence critics. And he’s very clearly going after late-night comics, entertainers as one of those areas. This has created a real chill in Hollywood and across the entertainment industry. But you know, fear is contagious, and so is hope and optimism. So, I don’t think fear is the only appropriate response in a moment like this. It’s also important to see solidarity and acts of free speech from other comedians, from other stars. And we are seeing some of that today. We have seen unions and musicians and comedians speaking out, free speech groups, free expression groups. There is now a lot of noise, a lot of criticism of ABC. And we don’t know yet how this is going to play out and whether the Kimmel show will ever come back on the air. AMANPOUR: And meantime, you pointed out, you know, FCC chairman had talked about free speech, et cetera, but so also did President Trump, one of his first, if not one of the — if not the first executive order tranche called for, you know, free speech and ending any censorship. So, it is basically, you know, one person’s censorship is another person’s et cetera. But you’ve laid out, you know, the desire to control criticism and keep toe the party line. But what about the other thing that’s super cynical, and that appears to be the business imperative, or, you know, ABC, Disney had settled with the president on a defamation suit. Remember, they paid, I think, something like 16 million. STELTER: Yes. AMANPOUR: Then you had CBS settling all of this. Because of all this consolidation and dependence on government for various, you know, media contracts and the business environment. Tell us where that’s going to lead. STELTER: In many ways, we see right now — we see kind of a clash between First Amendment rights and business interests. And oftentimes the corporate interests went out when those clashes occur. You’re right to point out that Disney arguably began this cycle of media capitulation by settling with Trump last December. That made it a lot easier for Paramount, the parent of CBS, to settle with Trump over the summer with a similar payout to Trump’s future presidential library. Again, these things are contagious. So, as we see this kind of capitulation, we also see energy from reviewers, from listeners who are frustrated, who are aggravated about it. Lots of people today saying they might cancel their Disney Plus subscriptions, for example. So, we know the reaction and we don’t yet know the counter reaction. But I think it is clear, Christiane, we’re experiencing a profound free speech test in the United States. This is a stress test. And we don’t know what the results are going to be. We know what Trump wants. We know that his view of free speech is really about power. And he is exerting his power to every possible limit. We have seen some media companies stand up, like The New York Times, which was sued this week. The Times says it’s going to fight that lawsuit. Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal has said the same thing. But these other media companies have settled and tried to make Trump go away. I can tell you, he’s not going away. This is going to continue to be a threat to media companies. And if these old-fashioned mainstream news brands and entertainment companies don’t stand up to Trump, then stars and comedians and journalists are going to ultimately leave. And they’re going to go set up shop elsewhere and launch startups and create new sub-stacks and YouTube channels. And I do wonder if that’s going to be one of the outcomes here in this Kimmel case. AMANPOUR: That’s really interesting. And look, you know, without beating, you know, a dead horse here, in terms of this authoritarian playbook, it does come straight out of a lot of stuff I’ve covered. You know, a few years ago, I interviewed President Erdogan of Turkey, and he was in the process of getting really angry and potentially taking legal action against a German internet comedian who did launch a pretty, you know, diatribe against him. And this is what I asked him. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) AMANPOUR: Why do you care? Why is it so important for you to make a big deal about this? And doesn’t it show that you have a very thin skin and that, actually, by making a big deal about this, people know about it, whereas people may not have known about it if you hadn’t bothered with it at all? RECEP TAYYIP ERDOGAN, TURKISH PRESIDENT (through translator): Well, I must put it in very frank terms, we shouldn’t confuse criticism with insult and defamation. Whether it be satire or not, everything has to have boundaries. We have laws in place, and laws allow you to have freedom to the extent defined by law. And of course, it’s my natural right to seek out for my own rights, through my lawyers and through my solicitors, I can do this. (END VIDEO CLIP) AMANPOUR: Brian, this is really important. When I heard what J.D. Vance and Stephen Miller said on the — you know, when they took over and filled in for the late Charlie Kirk on his podcast, this is what Stephen Miller said about this, very similar to what Erdogan told me years ago. Just take a listen. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) STEPHEN MILLER, WHITE HOUSE DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR POLICY: It is a vast domestic terror movement. We are going to use every resource we have at the Department of Justice, Homeland Security, and throughout this government to identify, disrupt, dismantle, and destroy these networks and make America safe again for the American people. (END VIDEO CLIP) AMANPOUR: He means by networks what they call radical left-wing networks, but he used the word terror. This is very much like what foreign authoritarians do. STELTER: To borrow from the late Edward R. Murrow, those men are confusing dissent with disloyalty. They are confusing dissent for something much more disturbing. Obviously, in these cases, if there are people that are plotting acts of violence, there are government agencies and authorities that are equipped to handle that. But we have not seen evidence for the charges that Miller and others have laid out in the Trump administration. I understand they feel — they’re compelled to action, a desire to take action in the wake of their friend’s murder. That’s understandable. But in this country, First Amendment rights are so sacrosanct, and we are seeing the arguments about them now play out in real time. The authoritarian playbook, as you mentioned in Turkey, in Hungary as well, is very clear, weaponize levers of government for partisan purposes, pressure privately owned media companies to tow the party line, punish the owners who resist, and reward the one who acquiesce. That’s what we’ve seen from Viktor Orban in Hungary, it’s what we’re seeing right now from President Trump in the U.S. And it reminds me of that old line, Christiane, you either have to use your rights or you’re going to lose your rights. AMANPOUR: Yes. And on that note — STELTER: I think in the press in the United States, we better use them in case we don’t lose them. AMANPOUR: Well, this is a very timely, you know, warning from you, and yes, we do. Thank you, Brian. AMANPOUR: And now, to a deeply personal struggle that affects millions of people around the world. That is infertility. In America, one of Trump’s campaign promises was to make fertility treatments more affordable for Americans, but little has been delivered. One young Democratic representative, Sara Jacobs of California, is now leading the push to expand coverage of procedures like IVF. Michel Martin asked her why she’s focusing her initial efforts on providing this for U.S. service members. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Congresswoman, thank you so much for joining us. REP. SARA JACOBS (D-CA): Thanks for having me. MARTIN: I do want to focus on your bill provisions that were in the defense bill that just passed. But before we get to that, what’s the atmosphere on the Hill? It’s just been a very — look, tumultuous doesn’t really capture it, but it’s been a really difficult couple of days. We’re talking in the wake of the murder of the, you know, controversial conservative activist Charlie Kirk that stimulated that — you know, some feelings, you know, in a lot of different institutions. And I just wanted to — like, what’s the atmosphere on the Hill right now? JACOBS: Yes, I’ll be honest, it’s really tense here. I have been here for five years now, which means my first week in office was January 6, 2020. And it really feels very similar to the time right after that, where members are distrustful of other members and their intentions. There’s a lot of concern around safety for members, for our staff, and just a lot of vitriol being thrown around, you know, censures being traded. And, you know, it’s a really difficult time to be here, and obviously, that echoes the difficulty that the country is feeling right now. MARTIN: I’m glad you mentioned January 6th, because, you know, one of the issues right now is political violence. That’s obvious. I mean, it’s obvious that Mr. Kirk was targeted because of public statements that he’s made, and that, you know, he was obviously a very kind of admired and even loved figure in some quarters, but other people found him insensitive. Not — polarizing doesn’t even really capture that. Insensitive, some people found his comments kind of racist, sexist, et cetera. January 6th, this was an instance of political violence. I understand that people on the — I will say liberal/progressive/Democratic side feel aggrieved right now that there doesn’t seem to be an appreciation of how traumatic that was for people. And I’m just wondering, how do you navigate this going forward? JACOBS: Yes. I mean, it’s really difficult, right? I was in the House gallery on January 6th, trapped, literally introducing myself to my new colleagues, all hiding under a chair. And it was really scary. And my background is in actually working in post-conflict transitions and political violence at the State Department and the U.N. And so, I know one of the most important things we need in this moment is leadership, to step up and say that violence is not OK. We can disagree, but we should never use violence as a tool to settle our political disagreements. And unfortunately, that’s not what we’re seeing right now. And, you know, January 6th, but also, you know, Melissa Hortman in Minnesota, right? This is an issue that’s touched both sides. And it shouldn’t be that hard for all of us to come together and say that in this country, we decide our political disagreements through the ballot box, not through the barrel of a gun. MARTIN: But the administration — and this is the last question I have about this, the administration, the president, the vice president, a number of other conservative activists have been determined to make the argument that this is a problem of what they call the radical left. And the president’s first public remarks about this, he didn’t even mention the Minnesota lawmakers who were gunned down in their own home, along with their spouses, you know, one couple fatally, the other couple grievously wounded, but, you know, survived, didn’t mention them, didn’t mention any of the Democrats who have been targets of political violence. And so, given an environment like that, where you have the top political leadership of the country, very determined to lay the blame at one side or the other, I just wonder how you as a Democrat, who’s not part of that group, how do you face this moment without sort of feeding into the vitriol and this kind of pointing fingers? JACOBS: Yes. Look, the data does not bear out what President Trump said, right? This is an issue that is happening to people on both sides of the aisle. And we are all Americans, and we should all be Americans first. And one of the core principles of our country is that we settle our differences through elections, not through violence. MARTIN: So, let’s go move on to a bill that some provisions of the bill that you just got passed, the annual defense bill. The House just passed the annual defense bill. You have provisions to expand fertility coverage for military families, requiring the U.S. military’s health care program to cover treatments like IVF and egg freezing. So, first of all, why did you consider this necessary? And why was this defense policy bill the right place to advance this legislation? JACOBS: So, we know that military families face higher levels of infertility than your average population, and it makes sense, right? We’re asking them to be far away from their loved ones and do really dangerous things in their prime reproductive years. Right now, under Tricare, the military insurance program, they can only get fertility treatments if they can prove a service connection to their infertility, which is really hard to do. And so, I’ve heard from so many service members who basically were faced with three choices, like forego building a family, pay tens of thousands of dollars out of pocket in order to do it, or leave the military to get a job in the private sector that has health insurance that covers this kind of treatment. And those are not three great options. And, you know, I am a 36-year-old woman. So, these are the things I talk about with my friends all the time. I froze my eggs. I’m in the process, actually, of doing another round of freezing my eggs right now. And in talking publicly about that, I actually heard from service members who told me they wish they could do the same thing, but it wasn’t available to them. And so, I think everyone should have access to the full range of fertility treatments covered by their insurance, but I think our military community is an important first step and could be a first step that could enable or push or incentivize private insurers to start covering this as well. MARTIN: How do you explain to colleagues and constituents why access to fertility treatment, in this more expansive definition, and not even if you can’t directly tie it to military service, why that’s important to supporting military families and supporting readiness? JACOBS: Yes. So, look, we invest a lot of money in our service members training, right? Like millions and millions of dollars in training these folks. And it’s really important for U.S. to then be able to retain the best of them to move up the ranks. And if people are leaving the military because they can’t build a family and need to make other choices, that’s really bad for our readiness. And I think this will also be an important thing when we’re doing recruitment, which numbers have been down, that, you know, this is an important incentive that people might be interested in joining the military in order to access. MARTIN: You actually talk publicly about — you just said it, about freezing your eggs. A, why did you talk about it? And why did you feel comfortable talking about it? JACOBS: I mean, first of all, I think it’s important to destigmatize these things, right? Like, this is what I talk about with my friends all the time, who’s having a baby, who’s not having a baby, who’s going through IVF, who can’t afford child care. And the idea that this should somehow be shameful — like people often think about freezing your eggs as this sad thing, right? Like, oh, you’re sold. You didn’t find a partner. But in reality, like, I find it very empowering. Like I’m able to take agency in the decisions about my life. And, you know, what is a bigger decision than when and how to start a family. And also, I work in a body where it’s our job to make laws for the whole country. And so, many of my colleagues don’t understand these technologies, have never heard of them. It’s no secret that this is the third oldest Congress in history. And so, you know, for me, another big part of it is that we’re not going to make good policy if we’re not talking about these issues. Because if my colleagues don’t even know about them, we’re not making policy about them. And this is an area where we need to be making good policy and expanding access. MARTIN: It’s my understanding that the administration is also considering banning abortion access at VA facilities. I don’t know. Is that also part of this bill or can they do that by regulation or by executive order? JACOBS: This bill only covers active-duty service members, but we are working on other efforts to try and combat what they’re doing at the VA. MARTIN: So, that isn’t set in stone yet? JACOBS: They can do it by executive order, but we’re trying to push back. MARTIN: Look, it’s a trick — it’s a conundrum in a way. Because one argument might be, Look, if on the one hand you’re saying you want to ban abortion because you think that that’s wrong, but you won’t encourage people to have families or support them in doing so. I don’t know if those are related arguments or if you’ve even heard those linked in that way. JACOBS: Yes, absolutely. And, you know, they rolled back the policy that allowed service members to travel in order to get abortions if they were stationed in states that didn’t have access to abortion. And so, no, I think it’s a huge component of it. Like it’s why I spend so much time thinking about quality of life for our service members. I represent San Diego, the biggest military community in the country. And when you talk to service members, the things they want to talk to you about are like childcare, housing, healthcare, just like everyone else. But we have — like these folks are serving our country. We have a responsibility to make sure that they can, you know, take care of their families too, not to mention that if they’re worried about their families at home or they’re struggling to build their family or to afford it or can’t find childcare, they’re not fully focused on the job we need them to do. MARTIN: Well, in fact, you know, there was a Blue Star Family survey found that about one in four service members or their spouses report infertility. |