Martin Luther King III on Political Violence

Summary

---

Amanpour — “Martin Luther King III on Political Violence”

Podcast: Amanpour (CNN International)
Host: Christiane Amanpour
Date: September 11, 2025

---

Episode Overview

In this urgent and deeply reflective episode, Christiane Amanpour addresses the political shockwave following the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. She speaks with Martin Luther King III, son of the civil rights icon, about the rising tide of political violence in America and what can be done to confront and heal these divisions. Cynthia Miller Idris, a political violence expert, joins to analyze causes, trends, and possible remedies. The episode also features cultural and global segments, including an interview with acclaimed British artist Jenny Saville and a discussion on US-China competition with author Dan Wang.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Assassination of Charlie Kirk & American Political Violence

(00:05–02:59)

• Amanpour opens by recounting Kirk’s killing and the broader context of escalating political violence in the US.
• She notes:
  • Recent attacks on both sides of the aisle (e.g., Minnesota lawmakers Melissa and Mark Hortman, Nancy Pelosi’s husband, assassination attempts on the president).
  • The country’s heightened partisanship and accessibility to powerful weapons.

(01:43) — President Trump (quote):

“My administration will find each and every one of those who contributed to this atrocity... including the organizations that fund it and support it, as well as those who go after our judges, law enforcement officials, and everyone else.”

---

2. Martin Luther King III: Mourning and Perspective on Nonviolence

(03:00–15:59)

MLK III’s Personal Reaction

• Grief and Empathy: MLK III opens with condolences to Kirk’s family, reflecting on his own experience after his father’s assassination.

• Core Message:

  • “Violence is never the answer.”
  • Calls for a return to civil disagreement and stronger leadership from all sectors to “call us to our higher angels.”

• Notes the recurrence of violence (“not sustainable”) and the importance of creating a climate for civil discourse.

  Notable Quote (03:16):

  “We as a nation have to always reject rhetoric and violence. Violence is never the answer. We as a nation must grow past what is going on. This is... not sustainable, certainly it's beyond. It's morally incorrect because we can have civil disagreements and discuss rage. But all of our elected officials and all of our leadership must call us to a higher account, to our much higher angels.” — Martin Luther King III

Can America Return to Civility?

• Amanpour references George W. Bush’s reaction and asks if the country can be “guided to civility.”

• MLK III’s View: Yes, but the deeper question is whether there is will to do so.

• He invokes Robert Kennedy’s speech in Indianapolis after MLK’s father’s death as a model for de-escalatory leadership.

• Continues to reference his parents’ lessons: “how to disagree without being disagreeable.”

• Cautions that civil conversations are necessary for national (and human) survival.

  Notable Quote (06:17):

  “My dad would say, and I still believe this: we must learn nonviolence or we may face non existence. And that... it feels like we're close to trying to embrace the non existence. We've got to demonstrate better than what we are at this particular moment.” — Martin Luther King III

Leadership and Tone

• Amanpour and MLK III discuss current failures of leadership and rhetoric on both sides.

• MLK III agrees with statements by Gabby Giffords and George W. Bush, emphasizing the need for all leaders to change their tone and foster a climate conducive to dialogue.

  Notable Quote (12:31):

  “There's a way to accomplish your goals and objectives without diminishing and denigrating others, even if you disagree with them or they disagree with you.” — Martin Luther King III

Reflecting on 1968: Lessons from Robert F. Kennedy

• MLK III recounts how only Kennedy’s presence and words in Indianapolis prevented riots, contrasting leadership that calms with today’s emotionally charged atmosphere.

• Calls for “lifting us to our higher angels” and rejecting violence categorically.

  Notable Quote (14:32):

  “We must look to our higher angels, look to the stars, look to become better than we ever have if we're going to overcome these politically violent activities and violence just in general. Violence is never the way.” — Martin Luther King III

---

3. Cynthia Miller Idris: Understanding the Escalation of Violence

(15:59–24:28)

Immediate Reactions and Youth Rhetoric

• Miller Idris notes this is not the worst the country’s seen (referencing 1968), but says rhetoric is increasingly inflammatory, especially on social media.

• Expresses concern about violent celebration online and the rise in “us vs. them” attitudes.

  Notable Quote (16:49):

  “We are seeing some [de-escalatory rhetoric] come from across the political spectrum in meaningful ways. I’m not seeing it as much as I would like on social media, though... where you're really seeing rhetoric, you know, ramping up, both calling for civil war and also celebrating the assassination.” — Cynthia Miller Idris

Data on Political Violence Attitudes

• Amanpour cites a Chicago Project on Security and Threats survey:

  • 40% of Democrats would support force to remove Trump
  • 25% of Republicans support military to stop anti-Trump protests

• Miller Idris: This trend has been rising for years, with heightened support for and occurrences of political violence across the spectrum.

  Notable Quote (18:26):

  “It was only a matter of time before we got to political assassinations. That's what it felt like a year ago. And here we are.” — Cynthia Miller Idris

Gun Control and Prevention

• They examine whether more guns and security provide safety, concluding prevention, reporting structures, and political will are essential.

• Miller Idris notes most mass shooters “leak” intentions but communities often lack knowledge or resources to intervene.

  Notable Quote (20:15):

  “There has to be an additional way for us, not just to kind of barricade and arm our ways into safer communities, but also invest in prevention, so that people know where to report warning signs.” — Cynthia Miller Idris

The Role of Culture Wars

• Miller Idris: Recent political violence is often rooted in culture wars and an existential “us versus them” mentality.

• The belief that the other is an existential threat narrows the leap to violence.

• Urges intervention at all social levels (“across the dinner table or on the soccer team”).

  Notable Quote (21:48):

  “We've come to a place where there's so much of a deep belief in an us versus them mentality that positions the other as an existential threat to my own community's well being, safety, security and future. And once you get to that point... it's a short leap to actually using violence.” — Cynthia Miller Idris

Risk of Crackdowns

• Amanpour and Miller Idris consider whether the reaction to this violence could further erode freedoms.

• Risk of anti-democratic crackdowns under the guise of security (“restrictions on freedoms that people have”).

• Miller Idris calls for vigilance and peaceful resistance.

  Notable Quote (23:21):

  “There's absolutely the risk of suppression, of more anti-democratic actions happening as a reaction to this, to restrictions on freedoms that people have... We have to be alert to that and fight back against that with words, not with violence.” — Cynthia Miller Idris

---

4. Art, Inspiration, & Resilience — Jenny Saville Interview

(25:29–36:55)

• Amanpour introduces Saville, “one of Britain’s most celebrated contemporary artists.”
• Discusses Saville’s retrospective “The Anatomy of Painting” at the National Portrait Gallery and upcoming shows in Texas.

Topics Covered

• The evolving role of women artists and how the art world has become more inclusive.

• Saville’s creative process, iconic works like “Reverse” and “Rosetta,” physicality of large-scale painting, and influence from old masters like Rembrandt and contemporaries such as Freud.

• Her approach to realism and intimacy in painting and reflections on technology and AI’s impact on art.

  Notable Quote (28:29):

  “Acrylic doesn’t have the same depth that oil paint has. I love the depth of the pigment that oil paint has. And just from years of working with it, the dexterity that I’ve got has built up.” — Jenny Saville

---

5. China, America, and the Engineering State — Dan Wang with Walter Isaacson

(37:48–51:43)

• Author Dan Wang discusses his book “China’s Quest to Engineer the Future” and contrasts China’s “engineering state” (technocratic and infrastructure-focused) with America’s “lawyerly society” (obstructionist tendencies).

• Reflects on strengths (rapid infrastructure, national pride) and grave weaknesses (authoritarianism, social engineering excesses, debt).

• Cautions the US may be learning the wrong lessons from China (authoritarianism “without the good stuff”).

• Details his experiences during COVID-19 lockdowns and his observations of infrastructure in rural China.

  Notable Quote (51:13):

  “I certainly see that President Trump is learning a lot from President Xi... I would really hope that Trump can learn some of the good stuff, because right now I think it feels to me like we have authoritarianism without the good stuff.” — Dan Wang

---

Notable Quotes & Moments

• Martin Luther King III (03:16): “Violence is never the answer. We as a nation must grow past what is going on.”
• George W. Bush, via Amanpour (04:51): “Members of other political parties are not our enemies. They are our fellow citizens.”
• Martin Luther King III (06:17): “We must learn nonviolence or we may face non existence.”
• Cynthia Miller Idris (18:26): “It was only a matter of time before we got to political assassinations.”
• Jenny Saville (28:28): “I love painting in oil paint. Acrylic doesn’t have the same depth that oil paint has.”
• Dan Wang (51:13): “We have authoritarianism [in the US] without the good stuff: functioning cities, public order, very extensive infrastructure buildouts that we need very much.”

---

Timestamps of Key Segments

• 00:05 — Amanpour introduction, context of Charlie Kirk assassination
• 03:00–15:59 — Martin Luther King III interview on violence, civility, leadership, and historical perspective
• 15:59–24:28 — Cynthia Miller Idris on origins, trends, and risks of political violence
• 25:29–36:55 — Jenny Saville on her art, inspiration, and gender in the art world
• 37:48–51:43 — Dan Wang with Walter Isaacson: US-China engineering vs lawyerly societies, COVID, infrastructure
• 51:45–End — Brief global segment, closing

---

Episode Themes in Speaker’s Own Voices

• The deadly consequences of treating political differences as existential threats.
• Leadership’s responsibility to set tone and foster dialogue, not division.
• The repeated historical pattern of violence in times of social discord — and the hope in learning different lessons from the past.
• The risks of responding to tragedy with further repression rather than healing.
• The importance of investing in prevention, early intervention, and social resilience as antidotes to violence, beyond armored security or further polarization.

---

This summary captures the urgent, reflective, and engaged tone of the episode, providing a comprehensive guide for listeners and non-listeners alike to the episode’s central concerns and insights.

Transcript

[Christiane Amanpour]

Hello, everyone, and welcome to Amanpour. Here's what's coming up. After the assassination of conservative youth activist and key Trump ally Charlie Kirk, I speak to Martin Luther King III and an expert on political violence, Cynthia Miller Idris. Then the Anatomy of Painting. Celebrated British artist Jenny Savill tells me about what inspires her extraordinary work and her better late than never blockbuster London exhibition. Plus Breakneck China's quest to engineer the future. Author Dan Wang tells Walter Isaacson about his best selling book and how the US can keep up with its greatest competitor. Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London. America is reeling and the world is shocked after conservative youth activist Charlie Kirk was assassinated. The right wing influencer was fatally shot on Wednesday during an outdoor appearance at Utah Valley University. A manhunt is underway and the killer's motive is as yet unknown. Kirk was a longtime Trump ally. The White House has lowered its flags to half staff and President Trump calls this a dark moment for America.

[Donald Trump]

My administration will find each and every one of those who contributed to this atrocity and to other political violence, including the organizations that fund it and support it, as well as those who go after our judges, law enforcement officials, and everyone else.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Acts of violence such as these are not isolated or unique to one side of the political aisle. Just a few months ago in Minnesota, two Democratic state lawmakers and their spouses were targeted by a gunman. Two of them, Melissa and Mark Hortman, were killed in that attack. In 2022, the former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's home was broken into and her husband was attacked almost fatally. And the president himself has faced two assassination attempts. So with toxic rhetoric and partisan division on the rise in a country awash with powerful weapons, what can be done to rein this in? Martin Luther King III has experienced this violence firsthand as the son of the civil rights leader who was assassinated in 1968. Dr. King. And he's joining me now from Atlanta. Welcome to our program.

[Martin Luther King III]

Thank you.

[Christiane Amanpour]

It's a very, very hard day and you have direct personal experience with what has happened today. So I want to ask you, what can you tell me is your reaction to what's happened?

[Martin Luther King III]

Well, my first reaction from my wife and I is to extend our condolences to the Kirk family, to Charlie Kirk's wife and two young children. As you stated, I personally understand because I was so young when my father was killed. And the reality we know this, we just have not learned how to practice it yet. And what I mean by that is we as A nation have to always reject rhetoric and violence. Violence is never the answer. We as a nation must grow past what is going on. This is. It's number one. It's not sustainable, certainly it's beyond. It's morally incorrect because we can have civil disagreements and discuss rape. But all of our elected officials and all of our leadership must call us to a higher account, to our much higher angels. This is so tragic that this has happened. And other violence that is occurring, a school shooting as well, that is constantly occurring. There is something that we are not addressing. It's not just mental health. That may be one of the issues, but there are significant issues. You first have to create a climate. I mean, my dad and mom taught us how to disagree without being disagreeable. And we must find a way to teach that to everyone.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Gosh, it seems so far, far away with all the stats and what we see in front of our own eyes with this kind of political violence rising, we're told, and we see it and also abroad, but certainly in the United States. We hear from the New York Times opinion editor that who's just written, violence is the enemy of liberal institutions. In a free society, people with diverse views should be able to argue their positions without fear of violence. As you've mentioned, you know, you've said yourself, I thought one of the most important reactions from a leader in America was from George W. Bush, who essentially wrote again that, you know, today this young man was murdered in cold blood for expressing his political views. It had happened on a campus. But he says, he goes on to say, members of other political parties are not our enemies. They are our fellow citizens. He says, may God bless Charlie Kirk and his family and may God guide America towards civility. So there are three points there that I wonder whether can happen. Can America be guided to civility and much of the world as well? Can political parties, you know, just be. Just have political differences instead of treating the opposite numbers as enemies, as seems to be happening right now?

[Martin Luther King III]

Well, the question of can is certainly, absolutely. I would say the real question is we have the ability, but do we have the will? How do you dig deep into the will to actually, number one, treat people with civility? Whether you agree or disagree, there are many positions I disagree with. But that does not mean that we should go a further step and try to silence someone. That is insane. And we keep doing the same thing over and over again. I remember in 1968, there were, when my father was killed, 100 cities across America were actually where rioting occurred. The one city major city that it didn't was in Indianapolis. And why? Because Robert Kennedy made a profound statement to encourage the community to think about how they respond to this tragedy of dad being killed. And that city did not go up in flames. So my point is leadership on all sides must exhibit a different kind of tone than the rhetoric that we continue to embrace. My dad would say, and I still believe this nonviolence, we must learn nonviolence or we may face non existence. And that it feels like we're close to trying to embrace the non existence. We've got to demonstrate better than what we are at this particular moment.

[Christiane Amanpour]

And as you say, it begs the question of leadership and the will, the political will to engage in this kind of resolution, conflict resolution and de escalation. At this point, I would like to play a little bit of an interview I did with Charlie Kirk years ago. It was in 2018, before he became as famous as. As he is now as he was. He spoke to me from cpac, which is the conservative convention, as you know. And that was shortly after the mass killing of students in Florida at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. You know, at the time he was willing to entertain some limits or controls on gun ownership. His views did shift in later years, but even then he was doing what he's known for and what he was doing on the Utah campus, engaging openly in debate on contentious political topics. So here's a little bit of what Charlie Kirk told me back in 2018.

[Charlie Kirk]

Look, it's not an easy discussion. It's a highly personal issue. And for those of us that own weapons and those of us that take this really personally, you have to. You have to understand that there is this fear that government's gonna take our. Our guns away. And that's not. That's. It's not gonna happen. But it's a conversation worth having. And look, it transcends politics.

[Christiane Amanpour]

So. A conversation worth having, Martin Luther King, that transcends politics. Can we though even have those con.

[Martin Luther King III]

Well, at the end of the day, I don't know if it's a matter of can. It is more a matter of we must. Because if we refuse to have these conversations and this kind of behavior continues to exhibit itself and exist, as I say, humankind will be no more. And we have lost our humanity over these last few years. It feels to me, and I just believe in the existence of humanity and our nation and on our planet. And yet it doesn't feel like that exists. We gotta. How do we recontain. And it really Creating a climate. I think that's the spirit of it. My dad was stabbed back in the late 50s and he came the next day and didn't say, well, violence goes for violence. I must respond in a way that's disruptive. I'm going to continue to respond in a way of constructive, bringing people together. I think we must create a climate where people want to work together, even if they don't agree. There's something that all of us as human beings can agree on, and probably we have to start at that one issue. What is the one issue that at least the majority of us can agree on? And then we have to build from there. It does not ever mean we're going to agree on all issues. We're not a monolithic people. We're not a monolithic nation. We're not monolithic ethnic groups. There's diversity in every ethnic group, and we must elevate that and continue to dialogue, continue to discuss. We can get past these times, but it's not going to happen overnight and easily. But it will. It can happen. If our political leadership, if our religious leadership, if our business leadership are collectively to join and say, this is the way we should resolve conflict, this is the way that is sustainable, because it really is about how do we sustain human beings.

[Christiane Amanpour]

You know, I hate to do this because, you know, it's. It's just a horrible time, but President Trump himself, while, you know, abhorring what happened to his friend and ally, blamed immediately what he called the radical left, and, you know, basically, you know, doubling down on what he says a lot. And surely it's going to take leaders, elected leaders from the president on down to do what you're saying needs to be done. For instance, Gabby Giffords, who herself was a victim of political violence. Um, I covered it when that happened to her. She was shot very grievously. She just wrote, both parties have been targeted and both parties share a moral and patriotic duty to take meaningful action to stop gun crime from claiming more lives. I know that you agree with that, but is there a specific prescription that at least you could imagine as a start to that? Because even in. On the House floor last night, so some kind of, you know, call for a moment of tribute or respect was a shouting match.

[Martin Luther King III]

Well, it's really untenable to see what is happening in the political landscape. And, you know, I often wonder, when an elected official says a statement, is that something he or she really feels, or is that something that they think they're saying to convey an advantage? I cannot see how certain language is advantageous. There's a way to accomplish your goals and objectives without diminishing and denigrating others, even if you disagree with them or they disagree with you. Again, the example I have, one of the examples I have is my dad and mom. They showed us over and over again how we can disagree to disagree, but yet still move the ball forward. And it is about creating that climate. And it's not just one leader, it's leadership. And, you know, I certainly agree with Gabby Giffordson and the statement she made and others have, and certainly the statement that President Bush made was quite powerful. I thought that was quite important. And I think that kind of tone, that kind of attitude has to come from all of us.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Can you just remind us again? Because I think it's so instructive of this moment for you to just elaborate. You know, when your father, Dr. King, was assassinated in 1968, you mentioned presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy happened to be, I think you said, in Indianapolis. And he came out Indianapolis. Yeah. And put his. Put himself on the line between angry people and the, you know, the choice to try to calm them down. Just remind us all of that moment of leadership.

[Martin Luther King III]

Yeah. So the night my father was killed, April 4th of 1968, Robert Kennedy was campaigning for the Democratic nominee to become president of the United States. And that particular group of folks that he was talking to in a city in America where at the same time, or shortly after, in over 100 United States cities, rioting occurred. But Robert Kennedy set a tone in his message of what we must do to retain and sustain civility, lifting us to our higher angels. And that is the kind of tone we need today in a real sense, because we're not operating. We're operating on emotion. We're operating on anxiety. We're operating on a lot of things that do not always yield the best results. We must look to our higher angels, look to the stars, look to become better than we ever have if we're going to overcome these politically violent activities and violence just in general, that violence is never the way. I was at Yale University just a couple of days ago, and I was dealing with the topic of violence will never be the answer. And I believe that. But that climate has to be created. It doesn't happen on its own.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Exactly. Martin Luther King iii, thank you so much for your wisdom and historic experience, personally and firsthand. Thank you very much. And overseas from the UK To Europe and Japan, there have been multiple political assassinations in recent years. Expert Cynthia Miller Idris is joining me now. From Washington, D.C. thank you for being with us. You've been, you know, seeing what happened. You've been listening and watching the fallout you just heard from somebody who really knows, you know, what this all means and what's happened to the Kirk family. Where do you see an immediate effort to tamp the fear and the anger and maybe some kind of initial leadership coming from now?

[Cynthia Miller Idris]

Yeah. Well, thanks for having me, Christiane. I mean, we have seen this before. As Dr. King's son just said, you know, we're not even at the worst of the sort of historical moments when we've seen these sorts of escalations happen, when there were a hundred cities burned after Martin Luther King's assassination in 1968. And this is the moment to see the kind of de escalation of rhetoric, the calling of people together and to remind people that violence is not a solution to political disagreement. And we are seeing some of that come. I mean, a lot of that come from across the political spectrum in meaningful ways. I'm not seeing it as much as I would like on social media, though, and in a kind of more youth oriented population where you're really seeing rhetoric, you know, ramping up, both calling for civil war and also celebrating the assassination.

[Christiane Amanpour]

I mean, it's grotesque, Honestly. It is grotesque. So let me just ask you because there are actual facts and data polls on this issue. So they're consistently showing a rising tendency among American voters to support the use of force against political opponents. A recent survey by the Chicago Project on Security and Threats, that's what the University of Chicago finds, that about 40% of Democrats would support forcefully removing Trump from the presidency. And 25% of Republicans support using the military to stop anti Trump protests. You know, this is a really worrying trend. Aided and abetted, as you say, by the anonymity and the exponential amplification of social media.

[Cynthia Miller Idris]

Yeah, it's a really worrisome trend. It's a trend that's been in play for many years now. Rising support for political violence and willingness to engage in it. Growing up across the political spectrum, along with inevitably almost, is where it feels like rising acts of political violence, including assassinations. And I'm really struck by the fact that I was sitting in this same chair about a year ago talking to you about the assassination attempt on President Trump and hearingyou know and said something like it was only a matter of time before we got to political assassinations. That's what it felt like a year ago. And here we are. And since then, we've had several acts of Political violence or assassinations against elected officials. The arson attempt on Governor Shapiro's home, the Minnesota shootings of elected officials, and now this. And so, you know, it's a question of whether the boulder is so quickly rolling down the hill now that there's no way to off ramp it. I don't believe that. I think we can still prevent further escalations, but it's a really critical moment to stop that tinderbox from exploding.

[Christiane Amanpour]

And in my last interview with Dr. King's son, I played a little bit of an interview I'd done with Charlie Kirk after a mass killing at Florida High School and even at Utah. Just before he died, as he was talking, he was engaging in a debate on a provocative topic, no doubt about gun control. There are very permissive gun laws in the United States. This campus was an open curry campus. It allowed people to carry guns. Is this the moment also to talk about that? Is that the issue, or is it a bigger issue? Now we passed gun control and onto something even more difficult.

[Cynthia Miller Idris]

Well, gun control is one of the most intractable issues in the US as you know. It's incredibly difficult to see that the gun laws that we have do not reflect the majority of Americans desires for safer communities or for stricter gun control. So, you know, we're in a situation where it seems intractable. It's very difficult to change. And I think we also see that even in this case, more guns, more security, doesn't make us safer in every case. And, you know, so he had a private security team, he had law enforcement locally, he had campus security. And, you know, there has to be an additional way for us not just to kind of barricade and arm our ways into safer communities, but also invest in prevention so that people know where to report warning signs. Most mass shooters leak their intentions at some point. We don't know if this person did, but most do. And a lot of times communities don't know where to go with that information, how to report it, or we don't have the structures in place. Those are things that are changeable. You just need the political will and the resources to do it.

[Christiane Amanpour]

And what about the fuel? I mean, the political will is something incredibly important. What about the fuel? And the fuel of, let's say, these culture wars? Even Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker himself, no stranger to political polarization, he's said to the New York Times about there obviously being a culture war underway. And there are, quote, profound differences about the very basics of life between the right and the left that has to be part of this. Right?

[Cynthia Miller Idris]

It's absolutely part of that. I mean, I mean, it's, in a way, it's the motivation for so many of the recent attacks that, that we've seen are really attacks rooted in culture wars because we've come to a place where there's so much of a deep belief in an us versus them mentality that positions the other as an existential threat to my own community's well being, safety, security and future. And once you get to that point where people believe there's an existential threat, it's a short leap to actually using violence. And so we see college students increasingly, we're hearing things like there is no political solution. We, whether it's about climate change or about immigration on both sides, that's a call to violence as a solution. That has to be, you know, we have to intervene immediately. When you hear that kind of thing across the dinner table or on the soccer team. Right. There have to be ways to intervene in interpersonal ways and training for teachers, for parents, for caregivers to know how to do that, because we're not going to save ourselves here with just better security.

[Christiane Amanpour]

And finally, do you think what happened could have an even worse chilling effect? In other words, the reaction to what happened could cause, you know, a whole load of crackdowns on the American people. I mean, I was quite taken by, you know, the last bit of President Trump's soundbite that we played at the beginning of the program. He went on to say that, you know, we will track these people down, but also those who criticize our judges and who do this, that and the other. Do you think this.

[Martin Luther King III]

What do you.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Think is going to happen?

[Cynthia Miller Idris]

Well, there's absolutely the risk of suppression of more anti Democratic actions happening as a reaction to this, to restrictions on freedoms that people have. We've seen that already in the call to prevent transgender people from having guns. Right. So removing, you know, sort of from a previous attack in Minnesota. So that kind of rhetoric that reduces, that suppresses, that further backslides our democratic freedoms is a risk here. And I think we have to be alert to that and fight back against that with words, not with violence. And I think we also have to look at the kind of the through lines here around the motivating factors like gender. As I often talk about, you know, how we are really cultivating such resistance to an anger around both reproductive rights to transgender rights and, you know, and feminism. Like those are many of the controversial issues that Kirk talked about that we have to find ways to have conversations about that are not amplifying that us versus them rhetoric. And we're really struggling to do that, I think right now in ways that show dialogue.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Yep, yep. To understand that there are political differences. But that doesn't mean to say that there should be enmity to this extent, for sure. Exactly. Cynthia Miller, Idris, thank you very much indeed. Still to come, the Anatomy of Painting. I speak to the renowned British artist Jenny Savill about her hit exhibition at London's National Portrait Gallery.

[Asma Khalid]

America is changing and so is the world.

[Christiane Amanpour]

But what's happening in America isn't just.

[Dan Wang]

The cause of global upheaval.

[Christiane Amanpour]

It's also a symptom of disruption that's happening everywhere.

[Asma Khalid]

I'm Asma Khalid in Washington, D.C. i'm.

[Dan Wang]

Tristan Redman in London and this is the Global Story.

[Asma Khalid]

Every weekday we'll bring you a story from this intersection where the world and America meet.

[Dan Wang]

Listen on BBC.com or wherever you get your podcasts.

[Jenny Saville]

Now.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Our next guest is one of Britain's most celebrated contemporary artists working today. Jenny Saville is best known for her large scale oil paintings of nude women. She has an unmistakable style with intimate work that exposes her subjects in extraordinary ways. Her recent exhibition at London's National Portrait Gallery has been hailed by critics. The Anatomy of Painting was her first major museum exhibition here in her home country. And soon it will be at the Modern Art Museum of Fort Worth in Texas. She's joining me now in the studio. Welcome to the studio. I don't know where to start. It was a remarkable, remarkable exhibition. Took over the whole of that floor, the ground floor, I think, of the National Portrait Gallery.

[Jenny Saville]

Right.

[Christiane Amanpour]

I'm surprised that it was the first major gallery exhibition for you, or have I got that wrong? I mean, here in the uk I've.

[Jenny Saville]

Done another one in Scotland.

[Christiane Amanpour]

In Scotland.

[Jenny Saville]

Not as, as many paintings or as comprehensive, but this is my first sort of what you call a retrospective.

[Christiane Amanpour]

I read in some of the research that a very famous critic was stunned by the exhibition and at one point said, I didn't even know women could be painters. Do you know who I mean? Anyway, he did. David, did you find, has it been interesting?

[Jenny Saville]

I think hopefully that's changed now.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Yeah, yeah. He's amazed by this current exhibition. Oh, because was it difficult as a woman, do you think?

[Jenny Saville]

Well, coming up through the art world.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Yes. Or was it not?

[Jenny Saville]

There were not as many women when I first started showing, but now the art world's full of women, you know, in every area of the art world, from collectors to painters. To sculptors, people working in museums. So I don't find. Yeah, it's definitely an improved scenario.

[Christiane Amanpour]

So let's ask about a few of them. We have some slides that have been provided, and one of them is Reverse. Tell me about Reverse.

[Jenny Saville]

It's one of my iconic works, I guess. I made it for a show called Migrants in New York in 2003. It's a self portrait. And, you know, at that period, it was my second show in New York. I'd done a show called Territories, and then this was the one called Migrants. It was the first piece I finished for that show. I don't know, at that time, I really liked making heads that had a sort of boulder type shape. And I put my head on the floor with a mirror. And it's got three eyes, a reflected eye. And I tried to make the mouth very sensual.

[Christiane Amanpour]

It's very, very. I mean, when you walk up to it and you see it, I mean, it is. I mean, we know it's a painting, but it really does feel like looking at another person live. I mean, it's got a very connection.

[Jenny Saville]

And also just. I don't know, there's little bits across the painting, like up at the ear. There's this part of the ear here. I made this little white shape that looked like a mountain. And so, hopefully, as you sort of traverse your eye around the painting, there's sort of moments that your eye gets more caught in. And, you know, I like painting the gums. And I really remember, like, you know, getting the light reflected in the eye and the scale of the eyeballs. And I'm fond of that painting.

[Christiane Amanpour]

It's really amazing. And another one struck me. I hope I'm getting the pronunciation right again. It's a head. Chisa, tell me who that is and why you picked that portrait. Is that a name?

[Jenny Saville]

Is that the subject's name? Often I don't use the names of the actual sitters, partly to protect the anonymity of the sitter. So they can choose if they want to kind of, you know, be known as the sitter or not. And she was an ecology student, actually an ecologist. And I don't know, I love meeting her and the look she had in her eyes. She had these beautiful eyes and essential lips. So it's just. It's one of the paintings I really loved to make one of your.

[Christiane Amanpour]

I think I'm going to get this right, but a colleague in the art world who works closely with you at Gagosian was telling me, I mean, it takes a lot of Effort to paint those massive scales that you do. I mean, almost like a workout.

[Jenny Saville]

I don't know.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Do you have to get into training?

[Jenny Saville]

No, but I was lucky that I was kind of, you know, I've always been reasonably fit. So I just. The scale is. People talk to me about the scale, probably because I'm quite small in scale. I've never really felt like it's something I couldn't manage or I just. I like working on a large scale. It gives me the possibility to play with paint a lot. And I just. It's just a natural scale that I've worked in.

[Christiane Amanpour]

You, I mean, your training was mostly at Glasgow University. Yes.

[Jenny Saville]

Yeah.

[Christiane Amanpour]

And you emerged from there already, you know, having taken the art world by storm, at least art galleries, like people like Charles Saatchi, who really sort of, I think. Did he give you your first big push?

[Jenny Saville]

My graduation show had some. A couple of paintings that are still kind of kept a kind of. They're sort of known works which Charles Saatchi did end up purchasing and then commissioning a body of work. So. And I just had a run of very fortunate. It was. It was a fortunate platform that I had. And I. Certain things came together in my graduation show and I put on what was a reasonably mature group of paintings, I think. And then I got a commission and worked hard towards that, the Saatchi collection. And then I met my dealer in New York, Larry and Larry Gagosian. Yeah. And I did a few shows in New York. And, you know, one thing after another, I love showing in New York. It was such a great moment to go from showing with Charles in this beautiful space in Boundary Road and making that body of work to then making a body of paintings for New York.

[Christiane Amanpour]

And the next exhibit, I mean, this is moving to Texas, to the Fort Worth.

[Jenny Saville]

Right.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Tate Gallery there. Right. Tate Museum.

[Jenny Saville]

But it's not Tate.

[Christiane Amanpour]

It's not.

[Jenny Saville]

It's called Fort Worth Modern.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Modern.

[Jenny Saville]

So it's a. It's a beautiful Tadawando Building. The architect. Tadawando.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Yeah. I mean, you know, I've been to some of the museums there. It's incredible what they have. It's a great art loving, you know, community. Unbelievable philanthropy around the arts.

[Cynthia Miller Idris]

Do you.

[Christiane Amanpour]

I mean, it is. You are going there at a moment when museums are somewhat under stress, if I could put it that way, from. From the Trump administration, when there's just a whole sort of, you know, a culture war going on about everything in the U.S. how do you think you will be received? Does that. Does that concern you at All.

[Jenny Saville]

I don't know. I mean, my painters are my painters.

[Christiane Amanpour]

And are you going there as well? I mean, you'll be there?

[Jenny Saville]

Yeah. I mean, yeah.

[Christiane Amanpour]

I mean, do you go there with any trepidation?

[Jenny Saville]

Not really. I mean, you know, the landscape in the world changes every day at the moment. Things are difficult everywhere. So it's an exhibition that's been in the planning for a long time. So hopefully it's going to be fine.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Hopefully it will be fine. And it's amazing. So you. I've read some, you know, you take some inspiration from old masters. Rembrandt.

[Jenny Saville]

Yes, a lot.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Tell me about Rembrandt and his influence.

[Jenny Saville]

I like everything he did. I like his pen and ink drawings. I like his etchings are incredible. And especially his late self portraits. I find he builds up a sort of surface that has a deep humanity within it. So I've just always looked to him, really, a range of different painters at different periods in your life. Certain painters kind of rise up and are more important than others, or they might be, because there's exhibitions on of those artists. And you get sort of, you know, you. You can kind of see things within there that you think, oh, that's a very interesting way that that hand was painted or using stains in a certain way, or, you know, like painting wet on wet. You know, those techniques you sort of develop and they. They rise up in you and when.

[Christiane Amanpour]

You see things and you've remained pretty faithful, like Rembrandt to oil painting.

[Jenny Saville]

I love painting in oil paint.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Is that unusual these days or not?

[Jenny Saville]

I don't know. I think there's. I sometimes use acrylic. I often start paintings with acrylic, but acrylic doesn't have the same depth that oil paint has. I love the depth of the pigment that oil paint has. And just from years of working with it, the dexterity that I've got has built up.

[Christiane Amanpour]

This is an amazing. What is that one called?

[Jenny Saville]

It's called Rosetta.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Rosetta, okay. And I mean, when I saw that the eye looks blind.

[Jenny Saville]

She was a blind model.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Yeah, yeah. She was actually a blind model.

[Jenny Saville]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean, I don't know. It's one painting that I've always loved. I love making it. I love the creaminess of the way her flesh was. And I still, whenever I see it, I think, yeah, that's okay. It still holds up.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Yeah, it really does. I mean, it is extraordinary. And just to say the exhibition is not all new paintings.

[Jenny Saville]

You. You collected a lot over the years that you've done, I think the earliest one's 1992, and the last one is a couple of years ago.

[Christiane Amanpour]

So you have obviously, you know, a profound interest in anatomy. There's some paintings that we can't show because we're, you know, on television in the United States, et cetera. But one of them is a self portrait of yourself propped up on a stool. And it's very fleshy, it's very abundant. It shows everything. And some people, you might not like this. I don't know. Tell me, you know, say, oh, that's her. That's her Lucian Freud period or whatever it is. It's nonetheless very, very intimate. Tell me about that.

[Jenny Saville]

That painting.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Yeah, that painting. And whether you agree with the, you know.

[Jenny Saville]

Well, you know, I think that I, you know, was growing up as a painter when Freud was a big painter in the UK along with Bacon and Auerbach, and there was a sort of group of the London School.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Yeah.

[Jenny Saville]

And so painting the body, you inevitably looked at Freud anyway, and he gave. Definitely gave me a root, like I was in that context, if you like. And then you develop and you see other painters you like and you develop your own skills and you sort of curiously learn about different colors and the ways, things, you know, ways I can manage paint and move it around. And. And so my work, hopefully I develop my own sort of identity of painting after that.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Yeah, I wish we could put that one up because it is. I mean, it's one of the first paintings we see as we go in, and it's really very, very arresting.

[Jenny Saville]

Well, it was one of the ones that was in my graduation show.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Okay. Oh, so that's from.

[Jenny Saville]

From 92.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Yeah.

[Jenny Saville]

So it was. I still think it's one of my most succinct paintings, like composition. It works quite well, and it's still. Still has a sort of power of this body sitting on a stool. So.

[Christiane Amanpour]

And we've talked about your future exhibit. I just wondered about. Do you, like many artists and others, even us, worry about technology, AI, or is it something you think that it's going to be a positive thing to harness in your specific work?

[Jenny Saville]

I don't know. I think artists are quite a good job to have relative to other jobs that the AI might take. You know, you could be a plumber or you could be an artist. Jobs like that seem to be okay. So my line of work seems all right.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Okay.

[Jenny Saville]

I think it's, you know, it's revolutionary. It's going to change the world, isn't it? And it's going to be for good and bad, you know, we just don't know, you know.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Well, we know that this was a wonderful exhibition. Congratulations.

[Jenny Saville]

Thank you.

[Christiane Amanpour]

And coming up after the break, a new theory on China's rise to the top. Tech analyst Dan Wang on why he believes America could lose that race. Next, the U. S. China rivalry. While President Trump pushes traditional allies away and cuts crucial tech and science funding to American universities, China is poised to make hay, even perhaps take over America's superpower status one day. But our next guest believes there is a way to stop that. It's all in his new book, China's Quest to engineer the future. Technology analyst Dan Wong joins Walter Isaacson to discuss his new framework for understanding Beijing.

[Donald Trump]

Thank you. Chris Zhan and Dan Wang, welcome to the show.

[Dan Wang]

Thank you.

[Donald Trump]

Walter, I was reading your book Breakneck last night, and there's a sentence at the very beginning that I think sets up the theme. Let me read it to you. You're talking about the contrast between America and China. You say there's an American elite made up mostly of lawyers excelling at obstruction versus a Chinese technocratic class made up mostly of engineers that excels at construction. Tell me how that sets up your book and what you're arguing.

[Dan Wang]

Walter, the central idea of my book is that China is a country that I call an engineering state because at various points, the entirety of the most senior members of the Communist party have had degrees in engineering. What do engineers like to do? Well, build a lot of stuff, whether that is roads or bridges or hyperscalers or coal plants, whatever it is, homes especially. China is always trying to build another big project. The unfortunate fact of China is that they're not only physical engineers, they're also social engineers. And so they often treat society as if it were just another building material to be remolded and torn down as they wish. And I contrast that with the United States, which I call the lawyerly society part because so many presidents have gone to law school. There are now 47 U.S. senators with law degrees. Only one has studied anything in STEM. And the issue with lawyers is that they're really good at saying no rather than building stuff. And so we don't have really terrible ideas like the one child policy in the United States, but we also don't have functional infrastructure, I would say almost anywhere.

[Donald Trump]

Well, you talk about the one child policy, and I assume you mean in China. That was a social engineering thing. So what you're saying is they can build high speed rail really great. But then when they start doing social engineering like one child policy that messes up.

[Dan Wang]

That's right. So I think the unfortunate fact of China is that they cannot restrain themselves from being only physical engineers. I think for the most part physical engineering, though it has a lot of costs, is pretty good. I think it is pretty good to have an expanding high speed rail network, expanding subway systems, more homes than people can buy, such that they have falling home prices now. And I think there's plenty of problems around debt. There's plenty of problems around demographics. Sometimes there's human displacement involved, especially if they build a really big dam. But I think for the most part that is good. The unfortunate thing is that sometimes they treat many of their ethno religious minorities, like the folks living in Tibet or in Xinjiang, as just another building material. I spend a lot of time thinking about the one child policy as well as zero Covid, which I lived through during its entirety in China, in which the number is right there in the name. There's very little ambiguity about what these policies could possibly mean.

[Donald Trump]

There seems to be a mindset in the United States that's not just lawyerly. It's not in my backyard stopping things. And you mention high speed rail often. You put it in your book. In 2008 they approved a high speed rail, I think from Los Angeles to San Francisco. They also in China approved in 2008 one from Beijing to Shanghai. Tell me why it is that the US one could never get built three years after 2008.

[Dan Wang]

In 2011, the Shanghai Beijing high speed rail line started operating. It moves really quickly, it transports a lot of people. And over the course of the first decade, according to Chinese state media, the high speed rail system moved something like 1.4 billion passenger trips over the course of the next decade. How many people have actually been able to ride on the California high speed rail system? That answer is very simple. It is zero, because almost none of it has actually been built. The first segment that would be built would is supposed to open its lines in something between 2030 to 2033 connecting the towns of Bakersfield and Merced, which is not really close to San Francisco and Los Angeles. And this is one of these quite disappointing things about the United States that the California high speed rail has not built on time. It's basically built very little at all. And yet people aren't super disappointed. People aren't out on the streets saying what's going on with our tax dollars right now? This whole system is supposed to cost something like $128 billion. And so that is kind of a Strange thing to me.

[Donald Trump]

Well, wait, wait, let's get at the reason there. I mean, you say it's lawyers, but, you know, we've always. Our founders were lawyers. Most of the people who signed the Declaration. We used to be able to build things. What's gone wrong?

[Dan Wang]

The lawyers have always been present in the US But I think the character of the lawyers has changed quite substantially, essentially in the last 50, 60 years. In my book, I trace out that the US has a heritage of being an engineering state. The US certainly built a lot of stuff, much as the Chinese have. Between around the 1850s to around the 1950s, America built these awesome infrastructure projects, things like canal systems, transcontinental railroad, skyscrapers in Manhattan as well as Chicago. We had the Manhattan Project, we had the Apollo missions, we had the interstate highway system. And I think that's in part because the technocratic engineering elites in America, sometimes represented by the military industrial complex, had been in power a little bit more. And there was also the case that the lawyers were slightly different as well. If we take a look at lawyers about 100 years ago, they were much more often creative dealmakers. So we had people like Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was kind of a Wall street lawyer, who packed his cabinet in the New Deal with other lawyers. And they were very effective and creative in thinking about how to structure new deals in order to get things done. Something really shifted in the 1960s and the 1970s when people had gotten really tired of all of these big engineering projects that the US had been managing. Things like the high speed rail system in which urban planners like Robert Moses rammed through too many highways through New York City. People were really exhausted by the war. People were really exhausted by DDT and other pesticides. And the lawyers themselves turned away from dealmakers into much more regulators as well as litigators. And I think that is what we are living with the remnants of. Lawyers that are much more eager to stop things rather than build things.

[Donald Trump]

You were born in Yunnan Province, I think, in southwest China. And when you were young, you moved to Canada, but then you moved back to Shanghai during the and happened to be there when Covid struck. Tell me what you learned by being.

[Dan Wang]

There during COVID I was in China from 2017 to 2023, which I experienced the first trade war that President Trump launched. I saw how that morphed into much greater geopolitical tensions between the US And China. My centerpiece for living in China was experiencing the entirety of zero Covid from 2020 to the end of 2022. And zero Covid started out in a kind of a political disaster in which people had gotten really upset that a respiratory virus had been spilling out of Wuhan in the start of 2020, in which people were reminded that only two decades before the start of COVID that China had a different respiratory virus, namely SARS in 2000, in which the government suppressed a lot of news and then suppressed a lot of whistleblowers. And then the virus was allowed to spread because people weren't really allowed to know about it and people had gotten quite angry. But then there was the next stage of Covid's development in which China implemented all of these World Health Organization guidelines to really try to stop the transmission of the virus, sometimes through fairly coercive means. But what that did achieve was a level of transmissions that was almost non existent, that was absolutely minuscule, and the ability to restart life in a pretty compelling way. And that worked pretty well up until the spring of 2022, when we had the much more transmissible omicron variant of the virus, in which the Chinese state tried to use these same methods to try to contain a much more transmissible virus, and was not successful. So we had the Shanghai lockdown, which took place in the spring of 2022, in which I think, say that the state attempted probably the most ambitious lockdown in the history of humanity, in which China's largest city, Shanghai, of 25 million people were unable to leave their apartment compounds over the course of eight, nine, ten weeks. And so I think one of the messages I want to convey with the engineering state is that the line between rationality and irrationality is pretty thin. It could look like China is achieving these spectacular successes up until it goes too far and holds on for too long, in which case it veers into disaster. And so that is one of these strange paradoxes that we see with China and the engineering state.

[Donald Trump]

One of the things you did when you were back living in China is you took a bicycle trip. I think it was through Guizhou province. And it's a somewhat poor province. And yet you saw a lot of things that I think informed the rest of your book.

[Dan Wang]

It's a very poor province. It's far deep in China's southwest, where it is highly mountainous, a lot of jungles and previously a lot of diseases that arose from malaria. So by way of context, Guizhou is very distant from the much more prosperous coasts of China, which are much richer because they are able to export a lot of goods. Because Guizhou is so distant and so mountainous, it just hasn't been able to get much industry started. So this is China's fourth poorest province. And yet when I took that bicycle trip in the summer of 2021, I saw astounding levels of infrastructure. Guizhou has about 11 airports with four more under construction. Guizhou has excellent integration into the high speed rail network. Its cities have very good subway lines. Guizhou also has about 45 of the world's tallest bridges. Not China's tallest bridges, but the world's tallest bridges. And so I was really struck that when I was traveling through America's equivalent of, let's say West Virginia or maybe a South Dakota, not the most wealthy places, that it has much better levels of infrastructure than.

[Donald Trump]

Let me stop right there. How do they afford that? Are they taking on too much debt to do that?

[Dan Wang]

They are taking a lot of debt to be able to do that, and they're barely able to afford that. Perhaps they're not able to afford it because we can see that Guizhou is one of the most indebted provinces in China. A lot of these local governments are unable to pay back the interest on their bonds that they use to build these big bridges that are not terribly economical. And I think that is definitely one of these big problems of the engineering state, that they don't care enough about profitability. They pile on a lot of debt. But when I was cycling through Guizhou and chatting to some of these folks who are living in these villages, for the most part, they are really proud of everything that they see around them, that previously it took them hours to get to their neighboring village, but now with this new bridge, it takes them a matter of minutes perhaps in order to drive across this bridge. They feel really good that they have the high speed rail lines in which they're able to go to much bigger cities like Shanghai or Beijing perhaps to work. And so that is something that I think the engineering state has been really good at, that a lot of what it builds is perhaps economically questionable. But what that has also achieved is a degree of political resilience. And I think building a lot of infrastructure inspires genuine pride with a lot of Chinese. And I think that goes some length to explaining why the Communist Party has been robust and has been as stable as it is. Because people are really happy to get better cities, better parks, more subway lines, better integration. And they are very genuinely proud of these big monumental projects.

[Donald Trump]

Do you see similarities between President Xi of China and President Trump of the United States?

[Dan Wang]

I certainly see that President Trump is learning a lot from President Xi, as it is very often the case that Trump is saying all sorts of nice things about his buddy Xi Jinping. I've heard him praise Xi's great head of hair. I think that is a really remarkable thing to say about another world leader. And part of my concern is that rather than learning all of the good things that China has been doing well, I worry that the United States is learning a lot of really bad things. I think that Trump is learning to be like China, to be visiting a lot of misfortune upon the downtrodden, upon some of the most unfortunate among us. There's now much greater questions around data probity, which is an issue among the statistical agencies now in both the US and as well as in China, in which I think the top leader demands a lot of fealty and every problem is caused by either foreigners or traders. And I think these are all things that Trump has been learning from Xi. And I would really hope that Trump can learn some of the good stuff, because right now I think it feels to me like we have authoritarianism without the good stuff. The good stuff of functioning cities, functioning logistical systems, public order, as well as very extensive infrastructure buildouts that we need very much. And so rather than learning the good stuff, I think it's unfortunate that Trump is learning mostly the bad stuff.

[Donald Trump]

Dan Wang, thank you so much for joining us.

[Dan Wang]

Thank you, Walter.

[Christiane Amanpour]

And talking of authoritarian states, good stuff, bad stuff. Finally tonight, are female motorcyclists the driving force for change in Iran? That's probably a stretch. More and more women, though, are riding motorbikes despite being barred from getting a license. Women's applications are frequently denied by authorities, citing a religious basis. The Islamic Republic insists such rides violate its code of modesty. But many women continue to defy them as the third anniversary of Mahsa Amini's death approaches. She died at the hands of the so called morality police who claimed she was not covering her head properly. But her supporters continue to show their woman life Freedom movement will not die. That's it for now. Remember, you can always catch us online, on our website and all over social media. Thank you for watching and goodbye. From London.

[Asma Khalid]

I'm CNN tech reporter Claire Duffy. This week on the podcast Terms of Service, when you're texting with someone, it can feel like it's just you, your screen and the person on the other end. But it's not always that simple. There are scenarios where third parties might be able to access your messages, whether it's your employer or law enforcement. So how can you make sure your private conversation conversations actually remain private to answer this question, I have Rihanna Pfefferkorn here with me. Rhianna is a policy fellow at the Stanford Institute for Human Centered Artificial Intelligence.

[Cynthia Miller Idris]

My hope is that as the use.

[Jenny Saville]

Of end to end encryption has become.

[Cynthia Miller Idris]

More and more normalized, that we all.

[Jenny Saville]

Understand better that privacy is a fundamental human right.

[Asma Khalid]

Listen to CNN's terms of service with me, Claire Duffy, wherever you get your podcasts.