Assessing Trump’s State of Mind

Summary

Amanpour – "Assessing Trump’s State of Mind"

CNN Podcasts | June 9, 2026 | Guest contributors: Susan Glasser, Ann Applebaum, Jules Boykoff

---

Episode Overview

This episode dives into Donald Trump's renewed allegations of election fraud—this time focused on the Los Angeles mayoral race—probing what these claims signal about his state of mind and the broader implications for American democracy ahead of the 2026 midterms. Host Bianna Golodriga (in for Christiane Amanpour) leads conversations with Susan Glasser (The New Yorker) on the political significance of Trump’s rhetoric and recent national security appointments, explores Ukraine’s evolving war footing with Ann Applebaum, and examines the contentious context of the upcoming FIFA World Cup in North America with Jules Boykoff.

---

1. Trump’s Election Fraud Claims: A Renewed Pattern

Segment [00:08–11:40]

Key Points:

• Trump alleges fraud after Republican Spencer Pratt falls behind in the LA mayoral race and also targets the California governor’s race, repeating claims of ballot manipulation without presenting evidence ([01:03], [02:03]).
• He is reported to have privately pushed aides to “investigate” a “rigged system,” escalating tensions in D.C. and prompting Democrats to threaten blocking reauthorization of a key surveillance program in protest over Trump's controversial appointment of Bill Pulte as acting Director of National Intelligence (DNI) ([02:23]).
• Trump’s playbook: Discredit elections he does not win, regardless of evidence, now entrenched as a Republican Party litmus test ([04:24]).

Notable Quotes:

• “Donald Trump, there’s no election… in his life… that he hasn’t called rigged… It’s dignifying the absurd to suggest… he has any basis… these are lies converted into the new ideological litmus test for membership in today’s Republican Party.”
  — Susan Glasser [04:24]

Memorable Moments:

• Even Trump’s own appointees and courts have repeatedly found no evidence of widespread fraud, yet the narrative persists ([04:24–05:55]).
• When Republicans win, the party frames elections as “free and fair”; losses trigger claims of rigging ([07:24]).
• Courts, including judges appointed by Trump, have rejected fraud claims time and again ([08:59]).

Timestamps:

• [01:03] Bianna Golodriga recaps Trump's latest allegations.
• [02:03] Trump’s combative, evidence-free exchanges with media ("Meet the Press is crooked... thank you, darling.").
• [04:24] Susan Glasser contextualizes Trump’s tactics and their consequences.

---

2. Impact on National Security and the Intelligence Community

Segment [11:40–16:17]

Key Points:

• Trump appoints Bill Pulte—a housing official without intelligence credentials—as acting DNI, bypassing Senate confirmation.
• The intelligence community’s intended function (foreign threats, not domestic politics) is being undermined as Trump tasks Pulte with probing election results ([12:39]).
• This blurring of lines raises fears of misuse of federal power, including potential intimidation of voters or vote counters ([09:38–11:40]).
• Democrats leverage the FISA reauthorization (Section 702) as leverage against the appointment, but their power to block it is unclear ([14:48]).

Notable Quotes:

• “Donald Trump has exploded the distinction between our intelligence community… now using them to carry out his domestic political errands.”
  — Susan Glasser [12:39]
• “He’s basically bypassing the US Senate… learned in his first term he’d rather have very problematic characters in sensitive roles like this who are accountable only to him.”
  — Susan Glasser [13:30]

---

3. Human Resilience in Gaza: The Story of Habiba

Segment [17:02–22:53]

Key Points:

• Habiba, a young Palestinian girl, survived life-threatening illness and triple amputation after a dramatic, Jordanian-facilitated medical evacuation when Israel repeatedly delayed her exit from Gaza ([17:32–18:44]).
• Now thriving in Amman, Habiba’s recovery is a moving story of courage and adaptation, while her brother’s quiet suffering highlights the broader trauma of conflict ([18:44–22:22]).
• The family’s future remains uncertain given the devastation in Gaza and separation from Habiba’s father ([22:22–22:53]).

Notable Quotes:

• “The resilience of a child never ceases to amaze.”
  — Bianna Golodriga [22:53]

---

4. Ukraine’s Turn in the War: Battlefield and Beyond

Segment [22:53–36:30]

Key Points:

• President Zelensky makes a diplomatic push across Europe, arguing Russia is faltering on the battlefield while Europe contemplates a bigger security role ([22:53]).
• Ann Applebaum describes Ukraine’s “20-mile-wide kill zone,” making any Russian advance deadly and increasingly visible due to drone warfare ([24:35]).
• Discussion of whether the conflict is drifting toward a “Korea-style DMZ frozen war”—a scenario that, while not a full Ukrainian victory, also thwarts Putin’s maximalist aims ([27:24]).
• A potential ceasefire could let Ukrainians return home and rebuild, yet there’s ongoing human exhaustion and deep readjustment among the population ([29:41–30:57]).
• U.S. and European defense aid is discussed, particularly the shortfall of Patriot missile systems as a result of competing global priorities ([31:34–32:47]).
• Drone warfare is reframing military doctrine; traditional heavy weapons may become obsolete ([34:50–36:30]).

Notable Quotes:

• “If a small sea drone… can damage a battleship… if a tank is useless in a transparent war zone… attack helicopters are now useless… all these things are going to be obsolete pretty fast.”
  — Ann Applebaum [35:29]
• “They would like, you know, some sense of peace and calm… I think they’re betting that in the long term [a ceasefire] would work in their favor.”
  — Ann Applebaum [27:24]

---

5. The 2026 FIFA World Cup: Politics, Security, and Environmental Cost

Segment [36:30–52:29]

Key Points:

• The upcoming World Cup in North America is dubbed “the most politically combustible tournament in modern history” (Jules Boykoff) due in part to:
  • Political “sports washing”—using major sports events to distract from domestic issues ([38:16]).
  • Tough U.S. immigration/enforcement policies potentially marring the inclusivity of the event ([40:22]).
  • Concerns about ICE targeting immigrant communities during the tournament ([41:54]).
• Environmental fears as the tournament’s sprawling, multi-country format will produce record carbon emissions—far exceeding previous World Cups ([42:48]).
• FIFA’s “greenwashing” is critiqued; sustainability claims contrast with little real action ([42:48–44:02]).
• FIFA president Gianni Infantino’s administration is discussed: record profits, little accountability, close ties to Trump, and financial arrangements that enrich the organization at host cities’ expense ([44:24–47:35]).
• Accessibility: Soaring ticket prices and local taxpayer burdens are transforming “the people’s game” into an elite financial bonanza ([47:35–49:33]).
• The unprecedented scenario where a host country (the U.S.) is actively bombing another participating nation (Iran) during the tournament ([51:23]).

Notable Quotes:

• “FIFA’s core business model involves socializing the costs of the World cup and privatizing the benefits… taxpayers… pay for security… FIFA takes all the money.”
  — Jules Boykoff [46:30]
• “Turning the people’s game into a game for the rich, for plutocrats… In the United States, I saw a ticket online going for $11 million the other day.”
  — Jules Boykoff [48:15]

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “This is trolling on an epic scale that comes right out of Donald Trump’s playbook.”
  — Susan Glasser [07:34]
• “It’s the very heart of the American intelligence community’s ability to conduct electronic surveillance… right now they’re saying we won’t do that as long as Pulte is in this role.”
  — Susan Glasser [15:16]
• “The Ukrainian front line is now a 20 mile wide zone… everything is entirely transparent. Ukrainian reconnaissance drones… can see everything. Any Russian soldier… is immediately struck.”
  — Ann Applebaum [24:35]
• “If President Trump and the White House were thinking strategically, they would be welcoming the Iranian team with open arms… but he’s done almost the very opposite.”
  — Jules Boykoff [51:23]

---

Segment Timestamps

• [00:08–11:40] Trump’s election claims and party impact (Bianna Golodriga, Susan Glasser)
• [11:40–16:17] National security risks: Intelligence community & Pulte appointment (Susan Glasser)
• [17:02–22:53] Gaza: Habiba’s story of survival and adaptation (Jomana Karache, Bianna Golodriga)
• [22:53–36:30] Ukraine war: Diplomacy, battlefield realities, and future war lessons (Ann Applebaum)
• [36:30–52:29] FIFA World Cup: Politics, security, greenwashing, and commercialization (Hari Sreenivasan, Jules Boykoff)

---

Summary

This episode weaves through current flashpoints in democracy, security, war, and global sport. Trump’s entrenched strategy of preemptively discrediting electoral losses is examined for both its tangible risks and symbolic damage. The unsettling use of national intelligence for political aims deepens unease about institutional norms. Updates from Ukraine reveal innovation, hardship, and the real prospect of a “frozen conflict,” while Gaza’s story of Habiba personalizes the cost of war and bureaucratic delay. The 2026 World Cup is cast as a crucible for geopolitics, environmental reckoning, and economic exploitation—an iconic event with high stakes beyond the pitch.

This summary distills the substance, quotes, and energy of the discussions, aiming to provide listeners and non-listeners with a comprehensive snapshot of the episode’s essential content and tone.

Transcript

[Bianna Golodriga]

Hello, everyone, and welcome to I'm on Poor. Here's what's coming up.

[Michael Ian Black]

You see that what's happening in California?

[Jules Boykoff]

They're rigging the election.

[Bianna Golodriga]

Trump falsely claims a stolen election again, this time in the LA mayoral race. I speak to the New Yorker Susan Glasser about what it means for American democracy and the midterms ahead.

[Jomana Karache]

Then as soon as she got here, doctors told us to save her life, they had to amputate both her arms and right leg.

[Bianna Golodriga]

A year ago, the world met Habiba, a two year old girl in Gaza fighting for her life. Now correspondent Jomana Karache visits her and witnesses an extraordinary story of survival. Plus, President Zelensky tours Europe seeking support. With the war entering another critical phase, what comes next for Ukraine?

[Jules Boykoff]

Also ahead, FIFA has a real problem with greenwashing, which is to say talking a big green sustainability game, but not actually following through on the ground.

[Bianna Golodriga]

The World cup is finally here, but so are questions about climate costs and FIFA's power. Hari Sreenivasan speaks to Jules Boykoff, author of Red Card, about the controversy surrounding this year's tournament. Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodriga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour. Once again, President Trump is falsely claiming election fraud, this time after Democrats advanced in the nonpartisan primary for the Los Angeles mayoral race. Trump has blamed mail in ballots for the result, reviving false claims claims that have become a familiar feature of his presidency. Pressed for proof on NBC's Meet the Press, the president offered none and cut the interview short.

[Jules Boykoff]

Let's talk about your elections. In this country, we're like a third world country. Your elections are crooked and you're crooked and Meet the Press is crooked and

[Michael Ian Black]

so is ABC and CBS and cnn,

[Jules Boykoff]

your one sided crooked networks. Let's call it quits because I've had enough. Thank you, darling.

[Michael Ian Black]

Have a good time.

[Bianna Golodriga]

The New York Times reports that he is privately urging aides to investigate what he calls a rigged system, even as election officials maintain there is no evidence of widespread fraud. Now the controversy is spilling into a national security fight in Washington. Trump has said that his acting Director of National Intelligence, Bill Pulte, will investigate and he, quote, may find out some things about the rigged elections. That's despite offering no evidence that such fraud exists. Democrats strongly object to the appointment of Pulte, who is a housing official and close ally of the president with no intelligence experience. They are now revolting and vowing to block the reauthorization of a controversial foreign surveillance program. So what does that tell us about the President's mindset right now and the state of America's democracy heading into the midterms? For more, I'm joined by Susan Glasser of the New Yorker. Susan, always great to have you on the program. So let's start with these baseless allegations about both the mayoral race in California in Los Angeles and President Trump also touched on the gubernatorial race there as well, where you do have a runoff between both a Democrat and a Republican candidate. We'll get to that in a second. But in terms of Los Angeles, progressive Democrat Nithya Rehman moved ahead of the Republican, and that was Spencer Pratt to face off incumbent Mayor Karen Bass in November. Trump is saying that because Spencer Pratt just a few days ago was in the lead. And it looked like there could be a scenario which would be quite unusual, unusual for a blue, of all blue cities like Los Angeles to have a Republican vying and running offrunning against a Democrat. The President is saying now that these new votes have been counted, something is fishy and that is evidence enough of election fraud. Just give us your take here. Do you think he really believes that? And I guess the bigger question is, does that even matter?

[Susan Glasser]

Look, Brianna, Donald Trump, there's no election that he was concerned about the outcome of in his life. And that includes, you know, elections to, you know, win Tony Awards or Oscars as well, that he hasn't called rigged. And, you know, it's, it's, it's, it's dignifying the absurd to suggest, you know, that Donald Trump has any basis for making any claims right now about California to do so in the absence of any kind of process of any evidence. You know, that's not how it works in a rule of law society. And the President has a very, very clear cut playbook. We are a decade into this, you know, not just a year into this. Now we know how this works with Donald Trump. He makes baseless claims. He doesn't need any evidence in the 2020 election. His own Attorney General, Bill Barr, told him to his face and in public interviews that there was no basis to claim any fraud of any substantial nature in the 2020 elections, that it did not affect the outcome. He even left the administration. Here we are years later. Donald Trump has converted these lies into the new ideological litmus test for membership, essentially in today's Republican Party or senior level appointment. So, no, he doesn't have any basis and no to suggest that he really believes it. On the basis of what? How would he actually really be in a position to really believe that there's fraud here. And what does that matter? Right?

[Bianna Golodriga]

And as we spent time on last week with Jonathan Martin, really focusing on the primaries in California in particular, we introduced our audience to what's been called the jungle primary, that is the non partisan primary system in which anyone can run from whichever party. And it would be, as I noted earlier, more surprising, and it has been more surprising to see Republicans really rise in popularity, obviously not going to the runoff as it's looking at this point for the midterms and that's going to be in November. But it does give a sense as the weakness of Karen Bass and also the grievances of many voters in California as well. But I did mention Steve Hilton, and he is going to likely be running against the Democratic candidate for governor. And President Trump said this. He posted on Truth Social about both the mayoral race and the California's governor's race. And he said not possible for Spencer Pratt to have lost the LA runoffs after the big lead he had. Third World Nation rigged elections. Now they'll be working on great guy Steve Hilton. And to that point, last night my colleague Aaron Burnett asked Steve Hilton if his team had seen any indications of election fraud as well. And here's what he said.

[Jules Boykoff]

We've got teams standing by, lawyers standing by. And actually, it's the same answer that

[Susan Glasser]

actually I've been giving for a few days now.

[Jules Boykoff]

We've seen nothing that would give us

[Michael Ian Black]

cause to intervene in that way.

[Bianna Golodriga]

So are you surprised by that, that when a Republican is actually on track to win, potentially it's a free and fair election?

[Susan Glasser]

No, I'm not surprised by that. I mean, come on, right? I mean, again, we are 10 years into this. Donald Trump's claims, for example, about the 2020 election, which he lost in, relied on the most massive possible allegations of conspiracy basically in the history of the world. If to take what Donald Trump said at face value, in many of the states that he claimed there was fraud because he didn't win the election. Republicans won for Senate, Republicans won for governor. Are you imagining that these conspiracy theorists were out there in this devious plot where they were gonna elect Republicans to every office in many districts except for Donald Trump? I mean, it's just these are farcical on their face. In a rule of law society, if you have an investigation, if you have evidence of fraud, you bring it to the authorities, you investigate, you take it to court. And courts have found again and again and again, wherever specific claims have been advanced by Trump and his allies, they have not found that this is a rigged election. In fact, they have found again and again and again that the United States has quite a safe and relatively fraud free election system. So this is trolling on an epic scale that comes right out of Donald Trump's playbook. And I think you're right to set up the question of, you know, what does it mean in terms of the possible approach we may see to Donald Trump faced with his party making major losses in the midterm elections this fall.

[Bianna Golodriga]

Well, and I know that it's exhausting at this point, so many years later to have to relitigate this question. As you've noted, so many court cases have proven that there was no widespread fraud. Many of these judges are Trump appointed judges as well. And Trump is reminded of this every time he makes these baseless allegations. And yet he is still dug in here. And that's led many to think, ok, outside of California, is he potentially setting up for a bigger protest scandal, reaction to results that he may not like in the midterms?

[Susan Glasser]

Yeah, I mean, look, his effort to undermine the possible Democratic pickups in the midterm elections literally began more or less the day he returned to office in 2024. He's already had a very preemptive effort to undermine Americans confidence in the legitimacy, fairness and integrity of our elections. He has, as you know, had a years long campaign, in effect against mail in ballots, often to the frustration of many Republicans who believe that there are many states and districts around the country where mail in ballots would benefit them. So again, Donald Trump has gone out of his way for many years now to take a preemptive approach of undermining American confidence in the legitimacy of our elections. Right out of, I might note, an authoritarian playbook used around the world and not just here in the United States. Looking forward to the midterm elections, what I found very striking about what Trump is doing in California is jumping in with sweeping, unfounded assertions and no evidence while the counting is still going on. We will remember that he started doing this in 2020 as well as the counting still occurring. It's in order to really call into question for his followers the legitimacy of an outcome in which Republicans don't win. The question many people have is given how much Donald Trump has been willing to make sweeping claims of executive power and to deploy federal assets on the ground in ways that are very questionable and at times ruled illegal. Whether that's what he's looking at potentially doing in the middle of the counting this fall in key states and districts around the country. That's the fear, I think, that many people have, is that it's not just going to be inflammatory rhetoric from Donald Trump, but that he may attempt to use federal agents to intimidate voters or to intimidate vote counters. For example, he may file preemptive lawsuits. I mean, who knows what's possible?

[Bianna Golodriga]

Well, then that leads to my next question about appointing as acting DNI Bill Pulte, someone with no intelligence background or experience. He's a housing finance official, someone who has been a stalwart supporter of the president. And President Trump came out when asked about what qualifications Pultey has for this job, saying, well, maybe he'll find some things out about the rigged elections. What does that mean about putting someone like Bill Pulte, I guess, marrying these two concerns about the outcome of free and fair elections and not intimidating voters. And at the same time, this is a very important job, and it's a role that was established after the 911 Commission. Looking back as to what pieces were missing leading up to the 911 attacks, to have someone like him running this organization at the same time when there are concerns about election security, what does that tell us about the state of the country from a national security perspective?

[Susan Glasser]

Susan Absolutely. I'm so glad you brought that up, because first of all, we should say to people, after a history of many scandals in the 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s, the whole principle of the US intelligence community is that it's not meant to spy on Americans, that it's not meant to intervene in our domestic politics. It's meant to protect us from foreign national security threats. That is the explicit statutory role of the US Intelligence community, not to get involved in domestic political disputes. And it was already, I think, a breathtaking breach of our laws and customs that his predecessor, Tulsi Gabbard, why did she show up in Georgia, where Donald Trump continues to make baseless claims about his defeat in the 2020 election and has used his Justice Department to go after election records there? Tulsi Gabbard showed up in the middle of that as the dni. It's never been explained exactly what she was doing. It seemed when Donald Trump made reference to his new acting dni, Bill Pulte, that he was also going to be involved in looking into the, quote, unquote, rigged elections, that Donald Trump has exploded the distinction between our intelligence community, which is meant to be focused on foreign threats and is now using them to carry out his domestic political errands. That's number one. And then number two, you Know, with Pulte, it's very notable that Trump is making him only his acting Director of National Intelligence. He's basically bypassing the US Senate and saying, I'm not even going to bother to pretend to have him confirmed for this role, even though the job is a Senate confirmed job. Why? Donald Trump learned in his first term he'd rather have very problematic characters in sensitive roles like this who are accountable only to him. And I think it's very notable that he's saying on the front end to Congress, basically, I dare you to do something about this.

[Bianna Golodriga]

And the Democrats, obviously, the minority party here, are using FISA, the reauthorization of FISA I.e. section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance act, as some sort of leverage that they can hold over President Trump as they are fighting against this Pulte nomination. Is that a wise move on their part? Briefly, in the last moment we have here, so explain to our viewers again, what FISA is.

[Susan Glasser]

Yeah, I mean, this is the very, you know, sort of the heart of the American intelligence community's ability to conduct, you know, electronic surveillance wiretapping must be reauthorized on a regular basis by Congress. And right now they're saying, we won't do that as long as Pulte is in this role. Now, Trump is not nominating him. And that's part of the problem, is that it's a very limited role. Republican senators, sometimes they talk a big game when it comes to being upset with various extreme actions Trump takes. But again and again and again, they folded when it comes to the vote. So we'll see if and how many of them are willing to join with Democratic colleagues to actually do anything about it. Right now, it's not clear.

[Bianna Golodriga]

All right, Susan Glasser, to be continued. Always great to have you on. Please come back soon. Thank you and do stay with cnn. We'll be right back after the break.

[Jules Boykoff]

Tab, I got news for your ears. The podcast. I am your host, Michael Ian Black. His latest thing, you see this yesterday was he finds the peace talks boring, Shocking.

[Bianna Golodriga]

Not my favorite guy, but I gotta be honest with you, I know exactly

[Hari Sreenivasan]

what he's talking about.

[Jules Boykoff]

He's not negotiating. He's not in the room. He's not.

[Michael Ian Black]

But how do you think he receives the information?

[Jules Boykoff]

Because they come in, sir. Because they all sound, sir. Would you like to hear the latest update?

[Bianna Golodriga]

They should make like a comic strip out of it.

[Jules Boykoff]

Have I got news for your ears. Check us out on Apple, Amazon, Music,

[Hari Sreenivasan]

wherever you get your podcast. Even better, you can watch The Vodcast on Spotify.

[Bianna Golodriga]

Next to a story we first brought you more than a year ago. Habiba is a 3 year old Palestinian girl from Gaza with a rare genetic condition. When we first met her, she was running out of time. Denied medical evacuation for weeks by Israel, her limbs and her life were at risk. But then the King of Jordan stepped in and brought her to Amman for treatment. Now our Jomana Karache returns to visit Habiba and witness a remarkable story of survival and recovery.

[Jomana Karache]

The little girl that captivated the hearts of so many on her journey to the brink of death and back. A journey that we brought you a year ago that began in Gaza's hospitals where doctors had nothing left to save. Habib Al Askari, the Palestinian toddler was suffering from a rare medical condition with gangrene spreading in her body. Her mother through CNN appealed for help. Following a report, Jordan's King Abdallah ordered Habiba's evacuation for urgent life saving treatment. We're now back in Amman to visit Habiba. Seeing Suhaib, her only brother and their mother Rena again is an emotional reunion for me and producer Abir Salman. We found a totally different Habiba. A happy and chatty child,

[Michael Ian Black]

Three and a half.

[Bianna Golodriga]

That's how old Habiba is now.

[Jomana Karache]

Her spirit and smile almost makes you forget what she has been through. A life altering triple amputation. Israeli authorities never gave a reason for repeatedly delaying Habiba's evacuation. Last year as soon as she got here, doctors told us to save her life they had to amputate both her arms and right leg. Habiba's excited to take us around this compound that's now home. The SOS Children's Village. A refuge for Jordanian orphans that's now also hosting families from Gaza receiving treatment in Amman. Rena is a mother on a mission, making sure nothing feels out of reach for her baby girl. The other rock in Habiba's life has been Sohaiba. His sister is his whole world and he is hers. But beneath that brave face and warm smile is a 12 year old boy's trauma that has in many ways been overshadowed by his sister's ordeal. As we sit down for a chat, it doesn't take long to see that Suhaib too carries the hidden scars of Gaza. But it's remembering how Habiba once was that breaks him. He notices Habiba's looking at him. It seems he has to hold it all in. After running around all day, Habiba has had enough of her prosthetic leg. She wants to show us her ouchie. She feels pain.

[Bianna Golodriga]

That's why she asked to take her

[Jomana Karache]

prosthetic off to try and get her mind off the pain. I ask what she enjoys doing.

[Michael Ian Black]

Habiba enjoys singing.

[Jomana Karache]

For Rena, being separated from her husband and her children from their father is incredibly hard. But returning to a Gaza in ruins would be a death sentence for Habiba,

[Bianna Golodriga]

she says

[Jomana Karache]

Habiba has found a new chance at life. She's starting nursery now. The road ahead will not be easy, but nothing seems impossible for this determined little warrior who is ready to fight the odds.

[Bianna Golodriga]

The resilience of a child never ceases to amaze. Our thanks to Jomana Karache for that report there. Well, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is in Estonia today for a summit with Nordic and Baltic leaders as Kyiv ramps up its diplomatic push. Earlier this week he was also in London meeting with the leaders of Britain, France and Germany. This comes as Ukraine looks to inject new momentum into stalled peace efforts and secure continued military support. Support Zelensky says Russia is losing the initiative on the battlefield even as Moscow intensifies its attacks on Ukrainian cities. Meanwhile, Europe is weighing a bigger role in any future negotiations as U. S Led diplomacy struggles to gain traction. So is the balance beginning to shift here? Ann Applebaum is a staff writer at the Atlantic and she joins me now from Warsaw, Poland. Anne, always great to have you on the program. You also agree with President Zelensky's viewpoint here in his assessment that Russia, Russia is losing the initiative and it can't win. And so it's interesting then to hear Vladimir Putin dismissing Zelenskyy's cease fire letter. He called it rude, saying he sees no point in a meeting right now. And here's what he said when he was speaking at the St. Petersburg forum last week.

[Susan Glasser]

I don't see any reason for a meeting.

[Jules Boykoff]

The Ukrainian side's only objective is to halt the advance of our armed forces.

[Bianna Golodriga]

That's it. So if the battlefield logic is now against him, why is he only hardening?

[Michael Ian Black]

One has to assume that part of the explanation is that he's misinformed. The way the battlefield now looks is pretty dramatic. The Ukrainian front line is now a 20 mile wide zone. In that zone, everything is entirely transparent. Ukrainian reconnaissance drones and other drones can see everything. That means that any Russian soldier or tank or vehicle that goes into the zone is immediately struck. And this is why the Russians are unable to move forward. And of course, it's also why the Ukrainians have achieved so much confidence in recent months. And it's why so many Russians are dying. Because when they do move, when they continually are ordered on the offensive, they're killed. The Ukrainians are saying they're killing sometimes as many as 1,000 people, or wounding and killing as many as 1,000 people a day, and that's 30,000 people a month. And their goal is to kill or eliminate from the battlefield more people than the Russians are able to recruit. And in the face of that, Putin has only very bad options. One of them is to continue trying to hit Ukrainian cities. Another might be to expand the battlefield in some other way, but another would be, logically to have some kind of ceasefire. And the Ukrainians are betting that he might be persuaded to have a ceasefire sometime in the next few months. And I'll just add one other thing. At that same St. Petersburg conference where he made those comments, you just, you just played the Ukrainians that morning, the morning of the opening of the conference hit a refinery in St. Petersburg. So as the conference was meeting, there was black smoke billowing over the city from a Ukrainian drone strike, which doesn't seem to show great Russian progress.

[Bianna Golodriga]

No, we're showing a video of that black smoke, that black smoke billowing right now. And to see it in St Petersburg, I mean, we've been reporting more and more on these assassinations, the drone attacks, not only just on the border in Russian territory with Ukraine, but most recently in large cities like St. Petersburg and Moscow itself. I want to go back to that 20 mile deep kill zone that you have described for us, and you sketch a future where this could actually become a Korea style DMZ de facto border. If this becomes a frozen war, does that not just benefit Vladimir Putin, that as long as he's in power, he will have time to regroup, rearm, and at his choosing, restart a war?

[Michael Ian Black]

So, as I wrote recently in the Atlantic, I described exactly this, that the border becomes the front line. You know, as the front line gets wider and it is beginning to get wider, as the drones become more powerful, it will become as uncrossable as a mountain range. I mean, it will be a, it will be a, you know, a dmz, like, exactly as you say, like the one between north and South Korea. But that is not a victory for Putin. I mean, you're right that it freezes the war rather than ending it. It doesn't bring justice to Ukraine, it doesn't return the territory of Ukraine that was legally occupied. But it, it is very much not what Putin said the war would Be he described to Russians and has told them over and over again, including in recent days, that the point of the war is to destroy Ukraine as a country, to eliminate it from the map, to change its government, to make it into a kind of Russian satrapy or a Russian province. And none of that will have been achieved. A halt to the war, I think the Ukrainians believe, would be good for them. They would like respite. You know, they would like, you know, some. Some sense of. Some sense of peace and calm. You know, Ukrainians have suffered a lot over the last four, and I think they're betting that in the long term it would work in their favor. They are. The more dynamic society they have, the more innovative defense industry they would have, they would be able to really build their links with Europe. They would. You know, there are already European companies that are investing in Ukrainian companies. There's Ukrainian production happening in some European countries that would. That would. It would give them the basis to really protect themselves and, and move forward. I mean, the key, of course, is, as you hint in your question, is what happens in the long term? Are there security guarantees? I think the Ukrainians still have some hopes of involving the United States in that process, maybe forlorn hopes. There is some discussion of Europeans sending troops to Ukraine or having some role in monitoring the situation in Ukraine. I think they would need some feeling, some sense that the war wasn't about to begin again in order to rebuild their country and rebuild their society and bring people home. But even just as a start, I think they've decided that a ceasefire would be good for them.

[Hari Sreenivasan]

Yeah.

[Bianna Golodriga]

And to go back to what you just touched on, bring people home, I mean, a battlefield scenario that is finally working in Ukraine's favor and that potentially could lead even to a frozen conflict, would give the economy a chance to revive and continue to revive, but also for the millions of Ukrainians who fled as the war began over four years ago, an opportunity to return home. Because this is a key concern for Ukrainian officials as well, that the longer these refugees are living outside the country, the lower the chances continue to be for them to actually return if they've already started to reestablish their lives in other countries. It's what's interesting. In your piece, you spoke with a woman who says she's given up on ever living a normal or living in a normal country again. She said, quote, that beautiful life will never return. So how do you, as a journalist and someone who's been covering this for so long, in speaking with Ukrainians, how Do you reconcile the strategic optimism on the battlefield with just this overall human exhaustion from Ukrainians?

[Michael Ian Black]

It's funny, she said that to me not as an illustration of exhaustion, but as an illustration of how much she and her friends had readjusted. They just rethought their lives. The things they'd planned to do weren't the things they wound up doing. And everything was going to be different from what it was. You know, I think returning some optimism to Ukraine will be difficult, but that's not quite the same thing as saying everybody's exhausted and can't function anymore. It's more that they're living a new and different life.

[Bianna Golodriga]

I just go back. If we go back to February 24th of 2022, you think about the life that Ukrainians were leading then and people as Russian troops were starting to roll in, the initial bombs were starting to fall, and people were sitting in restaurants, having a normal life at dinner, going to theater, it still was something that no one could fully grasp was happening in 2022. If so many, you know, years later, this war is continuing. You also talk about the deficits here and some of the real needs that Ukraine and specifically on the battlefield needs right now militarily, more patri specifically. And we have burned through the United States so many in this war in Iran is the United States pullback of providing weapons that, as President Trump negotiated, would then be sold to Europeans and then delivered to Ukrainians. Is that on pause now? Or is there a sense that that may never resume at the rate that it was happening?

[Michael Ian Black]

So my understanding is that it is happening to some degree. There are some things that are still being delivered. And I should say the most important thing for Ukrainians, the one thing the United States has that nobody else has, is exactly as you say, these missile defense weapons just to defend Ukrainian civilians. I mean, they on the battlefield, their drone and other technologies are, are better suited now to fighting than anything the United States gave them at the beginning of the war. Europeans have funded the war, the economy is functioning and so on. It's just this one particular technology that Americans have that others don't. And again, it's a technology about protecting cities. It's not even about the front line. My understanding is there is some are being delivered, but not in the numbers that are necessary. And look, I mean, the United States made a choice when the president decided to use those weapons in the war in the Gulf. Then when he decided to attack Iran, that was a choice not to use those same weapons elsewhere. And Ukrainian scores can see this and they understand the significance of it. I think they're still hoping that if the war in Iran ends that maybe people will find a way to divert some of this, some of that defense. This is just air defense. It's not even attack weapons to them. And of course, it's been part of the conversation that President Zelensky has had with the Gulf states. So one of the big changes, I think, in perceptions of this war in the last few weeks has been the fact that Zelensky is now seen in the Arab world as somebody who could help provide security. The Ukrainians have invented drone interceptors, ways of shooting down the drones that, that Iran uses, which are the same ones the Russians use. They're selling those or lending those to the Middle East. And I think they're doing so, I think in hopes of getting some anti missile defense in return. So the Ukrainians have other options now that they didn't have in the past.

[Susan Glasser]

Yeah.

[Bianna Golodriga]

You note that more patriots were burned through in three days against the war with Iran than in the entire Russia Ukraine war. It's also really interesting that you think bigger picture, outside of just the war in Ukraine, about the impact of drone warfare going forward. And you write this technology may forever change the future of wars. And you're not the only person to come to that conclusion. Beyond Ukraine, what do you think some of the lessons are when you look at Taiwan, when you look at the Gulf, when you look at Washington's perspective as the world's still dominant superpower?

[Michael Ian Black]

A lot of the really big ticket military items that we're used to thinking of as like the crown jewels of the army, the, the, you know, the big battleships, the big complicated tanks, maybe even, maybe even some of the fighter jets. A lot of those things are going to be much less useful in the future than we imagined. If a, if a small sea drone, you know, which you can build for some tens of thousands of dollars, can damage a battleship. And that has happened in Ukraine. If a, you know, if a tank is useless in a completely transparent war zone where everybody can see it coming, you know, miles away and destroy it before it arrives, that means that a lot of these technologies aren't going to be useful in the future. You know, attack helicopters are now useless. I mean, they're useless in the war in Ukraine because attack helicopters, very easy to hit with a drone. So all of these things are going to be obsolete pretty fast.

[Bianna Golodriga]

Yeah. By the way, we should note it was a sea drone that rescued those two Apache helicopter pilots just last night too. And that may be one of the first times we have used a sea drone in that capacity, which is fascinating but speaks to the point you're making. Ann Applebaum, thank you so much for joining us. Really appreciate you taking the time. And we'll be right back after this short break. Now, kickoff for the men's FIFA World cup is just around the corner, but several controversies are already clouding the tournament. Africa's top referee, Oman Artan, will miss the World cup after the US Denied his visa, citing vetting concerns. Unease is also growing in the US following reports on the possible presence of ice agents at World cup events. Jules Boykoff, author of Red Card and a former professional football player, says this political backdrop could tarnish how the World cup is remembered. He joins Hari Sreenivasan to explain.

[Hari Sreenivasan]

Bianna, thanks. Jules Boykoff, thanks so much for joining us. Each World cup, we have a conversation somewhat similar to this. We talked before the last World cup in Qatar about the challenges, about labor violations, what Qatar had to do to get that World cup on. Before that, it was Vladimir Putin and what does it mean to have this on Russian soil, so to speak. And I wonder now in this context, you write that the 2026 World cup is not only the most politically combustible tournament in modern history, also on track to be the most polluting. Let's talk about the political combustion right now. What makes you say that?

[Jules Boykoff]

Well, I would say the through line between those three tournaments that you just mentioned, Russia, World cup in 20, Qatar in 2022, and the United States, Canada and Mexico in 2026, is the idea of sports washing when political leaders use sports to their political advantage in order to make themselves look important or legitimate on the world stage while deflecting attention from chronic social problems at home and setting up opportunities for political and economic and diplomatic advancement. And that term was used a lot, sports washing, when people were talking about Russia and Qatar, and for good reasons, they to use that event to deflect attention and make political and economic gain. But that's definitely what's happening in the United States as well. I mean, President Trump has made it clear, he said it many times in public, that the World cup and the 2028 Olympics in Los Angeles are crucial to his legacy. And so I think when you have someone like that who is set on using sport to his political advantage in charge, and I think it must be said, I mean, he's a highly erratic individual, he can be impulsive at times and he loves attention, that sets up a recipe that could create problems for this event Normally, people turn their attention to the sport at hand. Once the event finally starts and we put those problems behind us, I'm not so sure that's going to happen this time around.

[Hari Sreenivasan]

So right now, one of the big conversations is about how safe the United States might be for fans from other countries, because we still have a very differing immigration policy, visa policy, depending on where you're from, what country you're from, acting ICE Director Todd Lyons told the House panel in February. Ice, specifically Homeland Security Investigations, is a key part of the overall security apparatus for the World Cup. We're dedicated to securing that operation and to ensuring the safety of all participants and visitors. What does that mean in practice for someone who is coming from overseas?

[Jules Boykoff]

Really important question. I mean, I think this points to the wider paradox around this event. On one hand, it's the biggest World Cup, 48 teams, all these people coming from around the world. In some ways, in that sense, it's the most inclusive. On the other hand, we've got a very difficult situation in regards to immigration in the United States, where the Trump administration is making it clear that some nations are simply not welcome. Then if you do get here, you have Immigration and Customs Enforcement that, let's be honest, has been marauding through neighborhood after neighborhood in the United States, masked up. They've actually killed people who are US Citizens, they've detained for long periods of time, Native Americans. I mean, the level of irony there is off the charts. And so there's serious concern that tourists coming to the United States might experience hassle from Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Especially because, as you rightly point out, people at ICE have said they will be carrying out their duties at this tournament. Another thing I think is worth considering is that while all the global media are focused in these host cities on what's happening there, you'll have pockets of people that live in this country who are wanting to support the countries where they came from. Haiti, Iraq, you name it. In places far away from where the global media are in the small quarters of Wisconsin. I'm very concerned that that will essentially be a magnet for ice, where they might engage in raiding there, where you have people just having fun and enjoying the tournament.

[Hari Sreenivasan]

A DHS spokesperson told the Gothamist. International visitors who come to the United States legally should have no concerns, but warn that those who enter the country illegally may become targets for immigration enforcement. The spokesperson would not say whether ICE would conduct immigration arrests at the World Cup. One of your concerns has also been about the carbon footprint of these games versus previous ones. FIFA, they say they want to be net zero by 2040. But researchers are saying that this particular tournament is going to generate more than 9 million tons of CO2, nearly double what recent World Cups have. Just kind of put that in perspective for us. I mean, I know that we've got games now that are in Canada and Mexico and the United States, and there's people flying from all over to these different countries and flying back and forth in between the games.

[Jules Boykoff]

The reason why you're seeing scientists jumping up and down about those jaw dropping emissions numbers that you mentioned is because fans need to travel over vast geographical expanse to attend matches in Mexico, Canada and the United States. Also, the United States just simply doesn't have a strong train system. And so people are going to be flying from match to match, thereby jacking up the emissions. But in the bigger picture, FIFA has a real problem with greenwashing, which is to say talking a big green sustainability game, but not actually following through on the ground. We saw this in Qatar where they said they were going to be this sustainable game, carbon neutral game. That definitely didn't happen. What you can say about Qatar is that once you got there, you could go around to the different matches on the metro and by car and have your emissions be relatively low. That's not the case here. So while we have stadiums that were built, thereby keeping the carbon emissions low, people's travel budgets are going to be really high. So I think this is another example though of FIFA saying one thing and doing another. And I think people in the United States, Canada, Mexico have seen numerous examples of this. In the lead into the tournament, the

[Hari Sreenivasan]

head of FIFA, the President Gianni Infantino, said about this. Whether we speak about climate, human rights, disease or disabilities, we are committed, FIFA to play our part in respect of the fact that FIFA has 211 member associations representing the entire world. For people who don't follow FIFA and World cup soccer very much, tell us a little bit more about Gianni Infantino.

[Jules Boykoff]

Gianni Infantino became the president in FIFA after the huge corruption scandal that hit the world's governing body for soccer in 2015 and 2016. He promised that he would clean up the game and make it more equitable. Unfortunately, he's essentially cranked up the FIFA greed machine in a lot of ways. He is on track to make more than $11 billion from this tournament alone, making it the most revenue of any sporting event in sporting history. Now, Mr. Infantino, if you asked him about it, he would say that we'll redistribute that money around the world. And there is some truth to that. He does send the money around to different football associations or FA's around the world in all the 211 member states. But the other truth is that Mr. Infantino makes pretty good money himself. He just gave himself a raise. He makes $6 million a year. If you're on the powerful FIFA Council, that was supposed to be this big reform mechanism, you can make between $250,000 and $300,000 a year for simply attending two to four meetings. Pretty sweet work if you can get it. But the function of of that is that you have a huge portion of FIFA membership that has very little interest in raising uncomfortable questions about greenwashing or sports washing. And instead, they have an incentive to kind of go along with what Mr. Infantino wants. And what Mr. Infantino wants right now is to be as cozy as he can with US President Donald Trump handing him a peace prize and doing a whole lot more.

[Hari Sreenivasan]

There were headlines he about not just the money that FIFA might hand to host cities or host countries, but the actual costs. Like, I'm having this conversation from New York and we're hosting the absolute finals, right? And the costs of all the police over time and the transport infrastructure is being borne by the cities and states where these things are happening. So where's the money going to feed, and why are citizens here paying to host this?

[Jules Boykoff]

FIFA's core business model involves socializing the costs of the World cup and privatizing the benefits of the World Cup. And by socializing the costs, I mean, taxpayers in New Jersey and New York, they'll pay for security, they'll pay for the medical teams. Hey, I live in Oregon, and as a taxpayer, I help fund security for this event. The local bodies in all these host cities are also responsible for these fan fests that are supposed to be inclusive. And these are very difficult things to monetize. Whereas FIFA, the way they draw up their contracts, they take in all the money from the broadcasters, they take in all the money from the corporate sponsors, they actually take in money from concessions on site at these World cup venues, they take in the money from the parking. And so you can see that the way the contracts were drawn up this time around were very in favor of FIFA and very different from 1995, the last time the United States hosted the World cup, where they got a bigger slice of the money pie.

[Hari Sreenivasan]

One of the things that really, I think a lot of people are noticing, not just in the United States, but around the world, is you take a game that is arguably the most accessible game on the planet. You've got barefoot kids that can kick anything spherical on whatever surface they're playing on. Right. And you now have ticket prices for the finals that are soaring on the secondary market that, you know, are just tens and tens of thousands of dollars, not to mention getting here and so forth. I mean, what is it about this game that has made it, at the same time, the most accessible thing and the most inaccessible thing?

[Jules Boykoff]

Well, there's no question that soccer is the people's game. It helps people get through difficult times. FIFA is taking advantage of that. If you want to talk about ticket prices, they are making so much money off the backs of soccer lovers around the world, essentially turning the people's game into a game for the rich, for plutocrats. So they have their market where they are selling tickets for the final at around $11,000 a pop. In Qatar just a few years ago, four years ago, the top ticket was going for $1,600. FIFA is using what they call dynamic pricing. Sounds kind of nice, Hari. I like dynamic stuff. This is not nice. If you're a ticket buyer, that just means that they're trying to squeeze the very ma that they can out of you, make you pay as much as you possibly can stand. Then there's the secondary market. So when people buy tickets and resell them, there is no cap on that. In the United States. I saw a ticket online going for $11 million the other day. Now, I don't know if they're going to sell it for $11 million, but if they did, FIFA would get more than $3 million for that because they take 15% from the buyer in the secondary market and 15% from the seller. So they've actually created an incentive to have ticket prices go through the roof.

[Hari Sreenivasan]

In response specifically to the high ticket prices, the FIFA president said, we have to look at the market. We are in the market which entertainment is the most developed in the world. So we have to apply market rates. FIFA said to the Wall Street Journal that they have worked collaboratively with host cities to lower costs and provide flexibility, including waiving certain hosting obligations. Obligations. Even with that, we're seeing the prices where they are.

[Jules Boykoff]

Yeah. Try telling that to New Jersey Governor Mikey Sherrill, who I thought was very eloquent in explaining recently why she decided to initially charge $150 for train ticket prices to get to the venue in New Jersey. Those prices did go down. But as she explained, FIFA gives her and New Jersey taxpayers $0. And so that put her and other people that are providing transportation around the United States in a very difficult position where they that on the back of the taxpaying public, or they put that on the back of the people that are here to watch the World Cup. She went with the latter path and got a lot of flack for it. But I think she actually made the right move trying to explain to the public that FIFA has set this situation up and that they're relying on the backs of people in these various host cities and not giving much in return except for the beautiful game. But really, it's not FIFA that gives us that. It's these incredible football soccer players from around the world that do that.

[Hari Sreenivasan]

So, I mean, let's talk a little bit about kind of what's happening right now in the world. Especially let's talk specifically about Iran. I mean, they had made it to the games. They're not that far below where the US Is ranked in the overall standings. And at the same time, we've got a host nation that is actively bombing a participating country. I mean, I don't know if that's ever happened.

[Jules Boykoff]

It absolutely has not happened before. Where one of the host countries for the World cup was actively bombing and threatening war crimes against one of the nations. And it's really put a pall over this World Cup. If President Trump and the White House were thinking strategically, they would be welcoming the Iranian team with open arms. Because if you look recently at what the Iranian men's and women's national soccer teams have done when they've gone abroad, they've used the opportunity to raise questions and even critiques about the government back home in Iran. So rather than opening his arms, President Trump to the Iranians and saying, you're welcome here, and hoping maybe they'll provide him with some propaganda, he's done almost the very opposite. He's hinted that they might not be able to be safe if they come here. He said negative things about them in the press. This is very much against what the World cup is supposed to be about. I mean, Gianni Infantino talks a lot about how football unites the world, but when it comes to the way President Trump has dealt with Iran, it really is more fracturing the world.

[Hari Sreenivasan]

Jules Boykoff, thanks so much for your time.

[Jules Boykoff]

Thank you.

[Bianna Golodriga]

And finally, the astronaut wears Prada. The Italian luxury fashion house is taking its first steps on the celestial Runway, creating outfits for NASA astronauts. Prado revealed it will create an interlaced garment with ventilation tubes knitted in. It's part of a collaboration with the space infrastructure developer Axiom space. How cool is that? And equally opulent, the Aurora Australis or Southern Lights spotted from the SpaceX Dragon craft above Earth's southern hemisphere. Look how beautiful. That is surely the envy of any high fashion set dressing here on Earth. All right, we're going to leave you there. That is it for now. If you ever miss our show, thank you. 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,

[Hari Sreenivasan]

This is CNN meteorologist

[Jules Boykoff]

Derek Van Dam, thrilled to introduce the

[Hari Sreenivasan]

new CNN weather app.

[Jules Boykoff]

Be prepared for anything with comprehensive coverage from real experts like me.

[Hari Sreenivasan]

Download the CNN weather app on iOS today.

[Jules Boykoff]

Hey, I'm Anderson Cooper. On my podcast, All There Is, we explore grief and loss in all its complexities. As Ken Burns said on an earlier podcast, the half life of grief is endless.

[Bianna Golodriga]

Mariska Hargitay knows that very well.

[Jules Boykoff]

Jayne Mansfield was killed in a car crash in 1967. Mariska was in the car with her. After decades spent coming to terms with her past and wanting to learn more about the mother she doesn't remember, Mariska has made a remarkable documentary called My Mom Jane.

[Susan Glasser]

Our vulnerability is our greatest strength and our greatest connector. And so in telling the story, I don't feel vulnerable. I feel free. We all have a story and you never know what somebody else carries.

[Jules Boykoff]

Talking grief, building community.

[Susan Glasser]

Community.

[Jules Boykoff]

That's what the podcast is all about. This is all there is. Listen and follow wherever you get your podcasts.