The Push For Mideast Peace

Summary

Podcast Summary: Amanpour – "The Push For Mideast Peace"

Host: Bianna Golodryga (CNN International, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour)
Date: October 6, 2025
Episode Focus:
This episode examines the historic and complex negotiations toward peace between Israel and Hamas, the eruption of Gen Z-led protests for reform in Morocco, and threats to democracy and institutional norms in the United States amidst a prolonged government shutdown and President Trump’s controversial executive actions. Guests include Israeli journalist Nahum Barnea, Moroccan Ministry of Interior spokesperson Rashid Al Khalfi, veteran journalist Susan Glasser, and Atlantic writer Adam Serwer.

---

1. Main Theme & Purpose

This episode centers on critical global flashpoints: the fragile hope for a Mideast ceasefire, grassroots generational unrest in Morocco, and deepening constitutional crises in the United States. Through in-depth interviews and analysis, the episode highlights the shifting dynamics of power, public sentiment, and democratic resilience under acute pressure.

---

2. Key Discussion Points and Insights

A. Israel-Hamas Peace Talks in Egypt

(00:35–14:53)
Guests: Nahum Barnea (Israeli journalist)

• Context:
  Trump’s 20-point plan for ending the Israel-Hamas war is at the heart of the negotiations. Both sides express conditional support, with major sticking points on Hamas’ disarmament and Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza. Netanyahu faces not just international pressure but internal division.

• Trump’s Unprecedented Role:

  • Barnea highlights Trump’s uniquely forceful intervention:

    “Now you have an American president who is probably more popular in Israel than the Prime Minister…He doesn't persuade the parties. He dictates his plan, his vision, and Netanyahu has no alternative but to accept it.” (03:54, Barnea)

  • Netanyahu’s political survival is tied not just to his domestic coalition but to Trump’s continued backing.

• Israeli Society’s Mood:

  • Universal anxiety and hope surround the ongoing hostage crisis, with widespread personal connection to captives and war impacts.

    “It’s a mixture of joy, hope and frustration and agony…The feeling is universal.” (09:43, Barnea)

  • Hostage Square protests embody the nation’s pain and determination.

• Negotiation Fragility:

  • Main unresolved issues:
    • Whether Israel will withdraw from all of Gaza
    • The future status and disarmament of Hamas
  • Barnea warns that getting from broad vision to “negotiations about Middle Eastern details is a very dramatic transfer… the game of details can be an invitation to a crisis.” (12:19, Barnea)

• Key Quote:

  “Trump is not interested in details. This is the transfer from a great vision… to negotiations about Middle Eastern negotiations about details…” (12:19, Barnea)

---

B. Morocco’s Gen Z-Led Protests

(15:45–29:08)
Guests: Rashid Al Khalfi (Moroccan Ministry of Interior spokesperson)

• Backdrop:
  Deadly protests erupt after maternal deaths, highlighting anger over health care, education, jobs, and government priorities (notably, spending on World Cup stadiums versus hospitals).

• Government Response to Protests:

  • Al Khalfi frames frequent demonstrations as a “healthy” sign of dynamism, not unrest:

    “Youths taking to the streets we consider to be very healthy, shows that there is some dynamism of society.” (17:39, Al Khalfi)

  • Minimizes escalation, insists authorities are keen to investigate any police abuses impartially:

    “The public prosecution has started an investigation...it’s too early to have reached any conclusion on this matter.” (20:56, Al Khalfi)

  • Avoids discussing political context or government accountability, focusing only on policing.

• Confronting Reality:

  • Golodryga challenges Al Khalfi’s deflections:

    “Avoiding questions won't solve this crisis that is only escalating and growing in your country. Don’t you think the people of Morocco…deserve some answers?” (25:56, Golodryga)

  • Al Khalfi maintains the government's position:

    “There is no escalation of violence…we are in front of peaceful protests…it’s been dealt with logistically and reasonably.” (26:27, Al Khalfi)

• Notable Quote:

  “The Moroccan government is…very clear with ourselves. We are aware there are some shortages and…pitfalls here in some places, in some fields.” (28:00, Al Khalfi)

---

C. US Government Shutdown and Trump’s Power Moves

(29:16–38:18)
Guest: Susan Glasser (The New Yorker)

• Judicial Pushback and Martial Law Concerns:

  • Federal judges (including Trump appointees) push back against Trump’s attempt to deploy National Guard troops domestically.
  • Glasser observes the move toward “escalatory” executive power and martial law specter:

    “She has openly raised the specter of martial law as a goal, in effect, of what Trump is trying to do in Portland, Oregon.” (30:15, Glasser)

• Narrative vs Fact:

  • Trump’s depiction of US cities as “war zones” misrepresents reality.

    “There is no war in the United States of America today. …We have civilian police forces in this country.” (33:06, Glasser)

  • Political discourse is now dominated by narrative warfare, with facts sidelined.

• Supreme Court’s Role:

  • The fate of Trump’s controversial actions hinges on the conservative-leaning Supreme Court.

    “We don’t know the extent to which the Supreme Court will ultimately enable Donald Trump's executive power grabs.” (35:12, Glasser)

  • The ongoing government shutdown exemplifies legislative paralysis and dysfunction.

---

D. Business, Elites & Democracy Under Trump

(39:05–53:02)
Guest: Adam Serwer (The Atlantic)

• Corporate Compliance with Authoritarianism:

  • Serwer argues private sector leaders, equipped to resist, are too often capitulating:

    “Cascading acts of cowardice from the people best positioned to resist Trump's authoritarian power grabs have made Trump seem exponentially more powerful than he actually is.” (39:10, Serwer)

  • Law firms, universities, and tech companies, by not resisting, help reshape America’s institutions for short-term gain but long-term democratic loss.

• Militarization and Loyalty:

  • Serwer criticizes the politicization of the armed forces:

    “Trump has always talked about my generals…But actually, those aren’t his generals. …The military…is owned by the public.” (46:01, Serwer)

  • The administration seeks a partisan, loyalist military, not an apolitical one.

• Democracy and Authoritarian Pathways:

  • Authoritarianism can advance through legal means, not just coups.

    “The burden is on the people to defend their democratic right to self-determination… nonviolent protest has been very effective in dislodging authoritarian regimes…” (51:33, Serwer)

---

3. Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “Now you have an American president who is probably more popular in Israel than the Prime Minister… He dictates his plan, his vision, and Netanyahu has no alternative but to accept it.”
  — Nahum Barnea (03:54)

• “Trump is not interested in details. …the game of details can be an invitation to a crisis.”
  — Nahum Barnea (12:19)

• “Youths taking to the streets…shows that there is some dynamism of society.”
  — Rashid Al Khalfi (17:39)

• “She has openly raised the specter of martial law as a goal, in effect, of what Trump is trying to do in Portland, Oregon.”
  — Susan Glasser (30:15)

• “There is no war in the United States of America today. …We have civilian police forces in this country.”
  — Susan Glasser (33:06)

• “Cascading acts of cowardice from the people best positioned to resist Trump's authoritarian power grabs have made Trump seem exponentially more powerful than he actually is.”
  — Adam Serwer (39:10)

• “Trump has always talked about my generals…But actually, those aren’t his generals. The military…is owned by the public.”
  — Adam Serwer (46:01)

• “The burden is on the people to defend their democratic right to self-determination…”
  — Adam Serwer (51:33)

---

4. Timeline of Key Segments (Timestamps)

• Israel-Hamas Talks and Netanyahu’s Dilemma
  • 00:35–14:53 (Interview with Nahum Barnea)
• Morocco’s Gen Z Protests and Government Response
  • 15:45–29:08 (Interview with Rashid Al Khalfi)
• US Government Shutdown & Martial Law Fears
  • 29:16–38:18 (Interview with Susan Glasser)
• Businesses, Elites & Authoritarian Drift
  • 39:05–53:02 (Interview with Adam Serwer)
• (Non-content/adverts/banter after 54:01 omitted)

---

5. Summary & Contextual Flow

This episode of Amanpour weaves together urgent developments in the Middle East, North Africa, and the United States, capturing the human consequences, institutional pressures, and historic stakes facing each region:

• The Israeli public clings to hope for a negotiated peace despite deep scars and political exhaustion, as Trump’s heavy hand forces momentous decisions on Netanyahu and Hamas alike.
• Moroccan youth surge into the streets, symbolizing a worldwide generational revolt against stagnant elites and government priorities amid state attempts to recast unrest as ordinary civic activity.
• America, meanwhile, wrestles with the normalization of executive overreach, the erosion of established checks and balances, and the quiet acquiescence of elites—with the ultimate fate of democracy resting uncomfortably on public vigilance and the unpredictable Supreme Court.

In all these arenas, the episode highlights the tension between people’s yearning for agency and the entrenched forces—political, institutional, generational—contesting what comes next.

---

Transcript

[Bianna Golodryga]

The holidays have arrived at the Home.

[Adam Serwer]

Depot and we're here to help bring the excitement with decor for every part of your home. Check out our wide assortment of easy to assemble pre lit trees so you can spend less time setting up and more time celebrating. And bring your holiday spirit outdoors with unique decor like one of our Santa inflatables. Whatever your style, find the right pieces at the right prices this holiday season at the Home Depot.

[Bianna Golodryga]

Hello everyone and welcome to Amanpour. Here's what's coming up.

[Rashid Al Khalfi]

We're pretty close, but I don't want.

[Nahum Barnea]

To talk about it until it's done.

[Bianna Golodryga]

Israel and Hamas meet in Egypt to discuss Trump's proposed ceasefire plan. Is peace finally on the horizon? I asked renowned Israeli journalist Naom Barnea about where things stand and outrage over health care, unemployment and corruption. A week of Gen Z led protests sweep across Morocco. I speak to Moroccan government official Rashid Al Khalfi.

[Adam Serwer]

Also ahead, they're not serious. This is not a serious negotiation.

[Bianna Golodryga]

The US Government shutdown continues as Trump pushes the boundaries of his executive power. Veteran Washington reporter Susan Glasser weighs in.

[Adam Serwer]

Plus, these are people who could have fought the Trump administration and did not.

[Bianna Golodryga]

Are businesses surrendering to Trump? Atlantic staff writer Adam Sterward tells Michelle Martin why he believes their cowardice is eroding democracy. Welcome to the program, Bianca. Everyone. I'm Bianna Godrigo, New York, sitting in for Christian Amanpour. We begin in the Middle east where a push towards peace is underway in Egypt as key negotiators from Israel, Hamas and the United States are looking to find common ground and reach agreement on President Trump's 20 point plan to end the war. Hamas and Israel have both voiced support. Here's Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

[Adam Serwer]

We are on the verge of a very big achievement. It's not final yet, but I hope that in the coming days during the Sukkot holiday, I will be able to announce to you the return of all the hostages in one phase. While the IDF remains deep inside the strip in the territories that control it.

[Bianna Golodryga]

Trump says they are, quote, very close to reaching a deal. But while optimism grows, huge obstacles remain. The demands for Hamas to disarm and fully cede power in Gaza remain huge issues. Whether the militant group will accept those conditions of the proposal is uncertain. Meantime, the devastation in Gaza goes on. After nearly two years of war, more than 66,000 people have been killed there. That's according to the United Nations. Families torn apart, living in rubble and ruin, many succumbing to malnutrition as Food and resources remain scarce. And with 48 remaining hostages still held captive, 20 of whom are believed to be alive, for so many, peace cannot come soon enough. To discuss the efforts to bring a lasting cease fire to the region and the growing international pressure on Prime Minister Netanyahu, I'm joined now by Israeli journalist Nahum Barnea. Nahum, welcome to the program. It's good to see you. In an interview over the weekend, you're quoted as saying Trump doesn't threaten Netanyahu, he orders him. What does this tell us about the balance of power right now and how unprecedented it is to see a US President so publicly really direct the direction of a war in Israel?

[Nahum Barnea]

Yes, Biana, it's quite unprecedented. Not in the fact that American presidents are involved in Israeli decision making process. We had it in the past and in many ways. But now you have an American president who is probably more popular in Israel than the Prime Minister of Israel. And he doesn't, he doesn't persuade the parties. He dictates his plan, his vision, and Netanyahu has no alternative but to accept it. So it's quite unique or quite rare in our history.

[Bianna Golodryga]

And Prime Minister Netanyahu is no political novice either. And he's now presenting his plan at home as part of his own diplomatic achievement. From your perspective, is he genuine, genuinely convinced of that narrative or is he now already thinking about the day after and potentially even elections in the coming months ahead?

[Nahum Barnea]

Elections should take place next year. Usually in Israel, the parties don't wait for the fixed date for elections. It's not like in the United States. And probably in March or April, we'll have elections in Israel. So we are quite close to this date. But it's not only the political aspect of it. For two years, the war was and still is the center of the Israeli agenda is the longest war we ever had. And believe me, we had many wars. And it's against our smallest rival, our smallest enemy. So a lot of people are marching in the streets against the government, and a lot of people support the government. The country is torn, is divided. But at the same time, the army, the military, which conduct the war is not divided. And there is another, another very important thing. The Israelis are not divided about Trump because they see that he is the only one who can somehow get us out of this problem. The center left in Israel believes that he will bring back the hostages and end the war. And the right in Israel believes that he is the great savior of Israel and the first president who actively ordered American planes to bomb Iran when We had a very short 12 days operation against Iran.

[Bianna Golodryga]

Yeah. And he was also the same president to say on live television to Prime Minister Netanyahu when he thought that the war in Iran had gone far enough to turn the effing and you know what I mean, planes back around. And he did. So when it comes to placating the far right in not only Israel, but specifically in Prime Minister Netanyahu's coalition, there are, there are some points in this 20 point plan that they have vehemently opposed. Prime Minister Netanyahu is up against their opposition as well as President Trump. I would imagine he's not going to say no to President Trump. So what is going to be done about some of those within his own coalition who are against certain elements of this plan?

[Nahum Barnea]

Look, right now Netanyahu has no, has no opening to confront President Trump. This is the difference between his relations with Joe Biden and his relations with President Trump. He cannot oppose any idea that Trump believe should be implemented with the radical ministers in his government. He can maneuver. He can maneuver because they have a lot to gain by staying in the government. And also he has automatic support from the opposition if he follows Trump's plan. So for him, his political problems are minor in comparison with, with his relations with President Trump.

[Bianna Golodryga]

Right. And if he does seek elections, once again, let's say, as you noted sometime in the spring of 26, he will still have President Trump here in the United States and he will still desperately need his support in those elections. But looking over the course of the next, looking over the course of the next few days as these fragile negotiations get underway, I'm curious if you can give us a sense of how Israelis are, are feeling about this. I mean, I know how hostage families are feeling about this. I've grown quite close with several of them over these last two years. It's hard to believe it's been two years to the day tomorrow. And I was texting with one of them and asked about how they are feeling and holding up and they said this time it looks like it will happen. Is that the feeling you're getting from Israelis there right now? We've come close before. Is this, that's really it in their view?

[Nahum Barnea]

It's a mixture of joy, hope and frustration and agony. I tell you why. Israel is a small country and you talk about the hostage family. Hundreds of thousands of Israelis, maybe more, have some kind of relation with the hostages there. Because it's family. It's people who were friends in the military service or because they were exposed to the beautiful, the great relatives of these hostages who appeared daily on Israeli television during these two years. So the feeling is universal. I believe that, you know, there was a big demonstration in Tel Aviv on Saturday night. It was massive. People came and people, you know, come and they don't know should they celebrate the new event or should they fear what will be the consequences? So they demonstrate. And I believe that here it goes beyond the internal Israeli debate over the war and over other issues. People want these hostages back. Not only, hopefully, the 20 who are alive, but also the people who perished, who died murdered, because the families will have a chance to have a closure.

[Bianna Golodryga]

Yeah, I've been at Hostage Square there the numerous times that I visited Israel, and it is remarkable to see the turnout, the defiance, the emotion, the anger, the. The love. All of the emotions really just encompass there amongst those that come out almost every single week. And what was notable was this time this weekend, President Trump posted one of those photos of those thousands that came out to Hostage Square on his own truth social platform as well. So he has been paying attention to this in particular. Again, nothing has been finalized yet. And we know that these talks in Egypt, they hinge on details. And these are very thorny details. Withdrawal lines, prisoner lists, even, you know, security details.

[Nahum Barnea]

Don't. Yeah, I'm sorry. What I want to say is that Trump is not interested in details. This is the transfer from a great vision 20 points plan to negotiations about Middle Eastern negotiations about details is a very dramatic transfer. So we look at what happens now in Egypt in negotiations in a kind of worry, because we don't know how Hamas and even how the Israeli government will play this game, because the game of details can be a kind of invitation to a crisis.

[Bianna Golodryga]

Right. And as we know, President Trump, out of these 20 points, is probably most interested in numbers. 1, 2 or 3. MA loses interest quickly as that list goes on. Quickly, in the final seconds with you, what are you most concerned about that could possibly derail these talks over the next 48 hours or so?

[Nahum Barnea]

Look, the government of Israel has demands which are partially mentioned in the 20 points. Hamas are against some of them. Very, very. In a very, very blunt way, I'm talking about the demand of Hamas that Israel will withdraw from all of the Gaza Strip right now, parallel to the release of the hostages and also the question of the status of Hamas afterwards. Should they give away their guns and their military position or not? All these questions are not resolved yet. But what we see is a movement. One of the reasons is Hamas is now very weak, militarily but we see a movement toward a much more willing of Hamas to compromise. I hope that the Israeli government will show the same willing and will finally have a way to end this war and first and foremost to see our hostages back at home.

[Bianna Golodryga]

Well, God willing, all of that does happen finally after two years of just heartbreak and devastation. Naum Barnea, thank you so much for your time. Really good to have you on.

[Nahum Barnea]

Thank you. Thank you very much.

[Bianna Golodryga]

Later in the program, Gen Z Moroccans are taking to the streets demanding reform. We get the government response from spokesperson Rafid El Khalifi. That's next. I'm CNN tech reporter Claire Duffy. This week on the podcast Terms of Service, what options do everyday Americans have to lower their bills? Could more smart technology in your home be the solution? I have Rachel Saracola here with me. She's been on the smart home beat for 25 years and she explains which tech gadgets could lower your living expenses.

[Susan Glasser]

When you're talking about energy. Smart thermostats and smart plugs are probably my two favorites.

[Bianna Golodryga]

Listen to CNN's Terms of Service with me, Claire Duffy, wherever you get your podcasts. Turning now to Morocco, where protests are sweeping the country after the deaths of multiple women at a maternity and Al Ghader last month. People are taking to the streets in anger, not just about the state of public health care, but also education, housing and unemployment led by a group called Gen Z212. It's part of a wider trend of Gen Z protests which began in Nepal and are spreading around the world. And it comes as Morocco makes preparations to co host the 2030 Football World cup with young demonstrators chanting we want hospitals, not football stadiums. And things have turned violent with three people killed and hundreds injured, according to authorities. Amnesty International says security forces are using excessive force, reportedly driving vehicles into protesters and violently arresting others. To answer how the government is responding to all of this, I spoke to the spokesperson for Morocco's Ministry of Interior, Rashid Al Khalfi, in his and the government's first interview to the international media since the protests began. Mr. Alkalfi, thank you so much for taking the time and speaking with us today. These protests that we're seeing on the streets of Morocco are largely led by Gen Z protesters. And we know that more than half of Morocco's population is under 35 years of age or youth. Unemployment is around 36%. Are these protests a sign that your government, which we should note is led by a billionaire prime minister, has failed, killed young Moroccans in the beginning?

[Rashid Al Khalfi]

I would like to thank your Respectable channel for specifying this space for the Interior Ministry so that there will be communication with the international community. With regards to the protests in the Kingdom, it has moved long steps to express their freedom of expression, including the peaceful demonstration. The numbers that are available it witnesses that there are 600 demonstrations per month. This means that the culture of protesting, which can be considered it is acceptable by the General authority. It has no problem at all. Youths taking to the streets we consider to be very healthy, shows that there is some dynamism of society. And of course this the role of the state is to listen and to correct the remove any misunderstanding with regards to the legal demands. The protests of these youths has no problem whatsoever, regardless of the political context. On the contrary, it opens a window that the state would respond to and the government will be responding to.

[Bianna Golodryga]

But they aren't protesting from a happy or satisfied current status. They are protesting what they deem to be a very unhealthy economic situation. And picture for them in particular, they have been chanting, I'll quote from them. Stadiums are here, but where are the hospitals? And this is coming as Morocco says that it will be spending more than $5 billion on World Cup 2030 projects in stadiums. We should note the monthly minimum wage is about $300. Will any of that money now be redirected to health care and education and trying to provide jobs for these protesters?

[Rashid Al Khalfi]

Let me tell you that the nature of the question is not put that are within the interest or the authority of the Interior Ministry. I'm talking about the security forces and how it's dealing with these protests.

[Bianna Golodryga]

So let's talk about how these protests have been dealt with. At least three people have been killed, more than 400 arrested. Can you update us on the latest numbers right now? And is an independent investigation going to begin in determining why these three Moroccans were killed?

[Rashid Al Khalfi]

First of all, it is the shooting which has killed three people. It was within the framework of self defense of the police which has been exposed to dangers. And you have noticed, and we all noticed that the video clips that actually document some of the instigators to burn the headquarters where the police have been. So we consider this matter goes under the self defense. And I would like to tell you that the public prosecution has started an investigation through the Attorney General, through an announcement that this event has been recorded and there are some investigations, whoever has been involved and it's too early to have reached any conclusion on this matter.

[Bianna Golodryga]

How do you respond then to accusations of excessive force used by police there and authorities and allegations of a car ramming into some of these protesters. Do you believe that given that is an investigation going to begin and is this excessive force used by the police there?

[Rashid Al Khalfi]

The situation or the case that you've mentioned, that you have mentioned, which is the Wajda city. We emphasize that the video that you talk about, which has been cut out of context at the time and we did not know what happened before recording the video. Will there be any stone throwing or hurling? There are no data with regards to that and there is an investigation going on ongoing and in particular that the state is very keen to have the proportionate reaction. May I clarify a very important point here? That in all cases that has been broadcasted, whether it's in Ojdah or somewhere else, it has been dealt with seriously by opening investigations. This is that there is a necessity and keenness to apply strictly the law. Whoever has been involved in such of these acts which are violating the law, whether it's from the police or the.

[Bianna Golodryga]

Protesters, would stone throwing then call for or allow or justify, in your view, the ramming of a police vehicle into protesters?

[Rashid Al Khalfi]

No, we didn't say that this, madam. We are talking about an ongoing investigation. We still have more data to get. And what are the justifications or the motives that has happened which has recorded of what you are talking about?

[Bianna Golodryga]

Madam, the Prime Minister says that he is open to dialogue and discussion. Protesters are demanding his resignation. I get a sense that you do not want to talk about the political undertones here that have led to these protests, but obviously it is a very important aspect. What is the government planning to do now in response to these protests? What I would imagine they are only going to continue to grow if there isn't a response from this government. Does that include potentially the Prime Minister or someone else resigning?

[Rashid Al Khalfi]

I believe that your question, as you have confirmed that you do not want to talk to the political context of the protests and our role is also is to. We would not like to talk about the political aspect of it and we keep to the what is at the heart of our tasks, which is the security forces which has related to the protests and not the other contexts that you have asked in your question, Madam, Why not? I am speaker spokesman of the Interior Ministry here. It's because to explain the all what's happening with regards to what's happened, to clarify what's happened in the field.

[Bianna Golodryga]

Are you concerned though by not addressing and listen, I appreciate you talking with us, but there has been criticism that you faced from Moroccan journalists about avoiding questions during this crisis as well, avoiding questions won't solve this crisis that is only escalating and growing in your country. Don't you think that the people of Morocco first and foremost deserve some answers?

[Rashid Al Khalfi]

I would clarify. It's likely that from the beginning of my question, there is no escalation of violence. We have to register this point and we are talking about violence at the time, at a specific moment, and it's done, finished. We are in front of peaceful protests and it's been dealt with logistically and reasonably. And so that I clarify this, note that the General Authority has dealt with it. At the beginning, there was a prevention of these protests or demonstrations because they are unknown. They don't know who's calling for these kind of demonstrations. And some people went to the street. We moved to the scene, and some of the youths coming to the scene or to the streets. The General Authority has changed its way with some flexibility with these protests, so long as there is there are some youths who are putting them within the frame and they are responsible about organizing it.

[Bianna Golodryga]

So let me finally ask you, how can you be so confident that these protests are contained? Because we've seen similar movements in other countries, ranging from Nepal to Madagascar, where Gen Z protesters have actually toppled their governments.

[Rashid Al Khalfi]

May I, madam, that I would like to confirm that the national Moroccan context is different from the others. And here we are not moving from vacuum. The Moroccan government is 12. There are big projects or programs. There are some lack in some cases. But we are starting from what's been achieved. We have good outcomes that are respectable and we are very clear with ourselves. We are aware there are some shortages and there are some pitfalls here in some places, in some fields. And it's well known and it's not that we would like to be covering these. And we can provide what we can so that we can guarantee the dignity of human dignity and the justice of the citizens of Morocco in general.

[Bianna Golodryga]

Understood. Mr. Alkafi, thank you so much for your time. Really appreciate it.

[Rashid Al Khalfi]

Marhaban, thank you very much for this space, media space for me, and thank you very much indeed.

[Bianna Golodryga]

We turn now to the US where the government is still shut down. The standoff between Democrats and Republicans dragging on for nearly a week, with the White House threatening mass layoffs of federal employees. Meanwhile, Illinois and Chicago are both suing the Trump administration over deployment of the National Guard. And a federal judge has blocked Donald Trump from sending troops to Oregon twice in two days. So as the stalemate in Washington continues, let's bring in Susan Glasser, staff writer at the New Yorker to discuss what's at stake. Susan, it's good to see you. So let's start with the news late last night where Judge Karen Immergut, who is a Trump appointee, temporarily blocked the president from deploying National Guard troops to Oregon, calling the administration's actions an attempt to, quote, circumvent an earlier order. You've chronicled Trump's boundary pushing, for lack of a better phrase, for years now. Is this more of the same or does this feel a little different for you?

[Susan Glasser]

Oh, no. We are in a very escalatory period right now, Bianna. And I think that the judge, by the way, a Trump appointed judge whom he is now disavowing, but judge immigrant, a conservative by any standards, a member of Ken Starr's legal team that went after Bill Clinton two decades ago, more than two decades ago. She has pointed out she has openly raised the specter of martial law as a goal, in effect, of what Trump is trying to do in Portland, Oregon. She's also pointed out that this is a moment where even the invented pretext bears no resemblance to the truth of the matter or the facts on the ground. This is a peaceful moment in America that Donald Trump is misconstruing as some sort of hellscape of internal war and conflict, as if he wants to almost create a self fulfilling prophecy. And I've been struck by the fact that multiple federal judges have pushed back against this, not only in Oregon, but elsewhere around the country. You know, what we're waiting for is the Supreme Court or frankly, any institution in our society to be able to definitively close off this avenue for Donald Trump. Because in the meantime, he's now promoting this as almost a new model for the United States, that he should take America's military troops and turn them against America's own citizens.

[Bianna Golodryga]

Well, he's depicting cities like Chicago, which we should note have had a history of crime, violent crime. Those statistics show that violent crime in general in the United States over the last few years has gone down. Nonetheless, perception is really key here. And that is something President Trump has picked up on. And he depicts many of these large cities, most of them Democrat, run as war zones. And I'd like to play a highly edited video from Kristi Noem, basically suggesting that Chicagoans and more of the country welcome these types of actions. Let's watch.

[Nahum Barnea]

Go, go.

[Adam Serwer]

Push. Get out of the way for the Bearcat. Get out of the way for the Bearcat.

[Bianna Golodryga]

Okay, so let's counter that with how Governor Pritzker is responding to these actions.

[Adam Serwer]

They are the ones that are making it a war zone. They need to get out of Chicago. If they're not going to focus on the worst of the worst, which is what the President said they were going to do, they need to get the heck out.

[Bianna Golodryga]

Who has the stronger narrative here in your view at this point, Susan?

[Susan Glasser]

Well, it's not about narratives, honestly. I mean, I think that's a lot of the crisis in the United States right now. Now, it's not about narratives. There is no war in the United States of America today. Okay, let's be clear on that, first of all. Second of all, we have civilian police forces in this country. To the extent you believe that there's an enormous crime problem in America's cities. If you look per capita, by the way, some of the biggest crime ridden parts of America are red Southern states that support Donald Trump. But put that aside, we don't have, have a U.S. military to fight crime in this country. The U.S. military, as you know, is meant to secure the national security of the United States. Crime fighting is not in its writ. And even if there were any truth to Donald Trump's narrative, that's, that's not how it works. But I just think that's a lot of the problem is that you have politicians like Trump and Democrats as well, constantly now only playing to their own supporters, their own preexisting political supporters. And it's all about a narrative rather than the idea. It's like we've given up on the idea of underlying facts. And I just, I think that's where some of these federal judges have come in and they've said, hey, wait a minute, you know, I'm not on Team Blue or Team Red. I'm a non partisan judge, in fact, appointed by Donald Trump. And I'm telling you, this is a false pretext and it's not true.

[Bianna Golodryga]

Right. Facts matter and the law matters is what these judges are saying. But essentially you've got President Trump, who, who is National Guard shopping at this point. Reports are that he's trying to get Texas now to deploy National Guard troops out of state. This judge, as we noted, is not a liberal judge. And it says how far we've gone in this country where we continue to have to describe judges by who appointed them. That wasn't always the norm. Nonetheless, she was appointed by President Trump. Does that suggest to you that the institutional guardrails are still holding or is the only thing that matters here what the Supreme Court ultimately decides and they have yet to weigh in on this? Yeah.

[Susan Glasser]

Thank you for bringing that up. You know, I think that we're talking on a day that is the opening of this new Supreme Court term that really, in many ways is going to be one of the most significant Supreme Court terms, I believe, you know, in our adult lifetime. And this is the moment when the sort of later, later, later strategy of the first year so far of Trump's return to office is going to come due for the Supreme Court. And they're going to have to make some, not just kind of temporary rulings, but rulings on the underlying constitutionality of some of Donald Trump's most controversial moves. That includes imposing, quote, unquote, retaliatory tariffs on many of our biggest trading partners. It might include him unilaterally deciding to get rid of the Constitution's birthright, citizen citizenship guarantee, some of these issues related to the National Guard and the militarization, sorry, the utilization of America's military inside the country. They could also end up at the Supreme Court in this term. And so I think it's really an incomplete right now, Bianna. We don't know the extent to which the Supreme Court will ultimately enable Donald Trump's executive power grabs, which is, broadly speaking, what unites many of these very disparate actions. But so far, the indications are that this 6:3 conservative majority on the court has given a pretty extraordinary amount of leeway to Donald Trump and minor detail.

[Bianna Golodryga]

To end this interview on we are on day six of a government shutdown with no deal in sight right now. CBS polling, excuse me, shows Americans blaming both sides, essentially the president as well, but they see Democrats as weak, Republicans as extreme. How does Trump's push to deploy troops groups into major US Cities rather than just tackle and focus on this government shutdown issue? How is this factoring in to your perception of his ultimate goal here? I mean, don't forget, we've already missed a jobs report on Friday with this government shutdown as well.

[Susan Glasser]

Yes, thank you for bringing that up. I think that that's just to underscore your point. You know, there's a real world here, right? And, you know, it seems that Trump and Republicans and Democrats as well are much more focused on the narrative again and the blame game in the case of the shutdown than they are on actually doing anything to resolve it. The speaker of the House, Republican Mike Johnson, actually isn't even convening House Republicans this week, which is pretty remarkable sign that they're not viewing this as a crisis, at least in the when we have these government shutdowns, they're you know, manifestation, right. Of our gridlock and of our dysfunction as a country that we can't even fund our government right now. They're not even having talks in order to resolve it. And I think to me, that suggests the level of dysfunction has just reached a whole new, I'm going to say low rather than high in this case.

[Bianna Golodryga]

And a complete disservice once again to the American public. Susan Glasser, thank you as always. Too bad we can't end on a more optimistic note, but this is the world we live in right now and our reality. Appreciate you breaking it down for us. And we'll be right back after this short break. Up next, $24.5 million. That's the settlement YouTube has agreed to pay to President Trump. It's just one in a long line of lawsuits filed against major US Companies. While the agreement marks an end to this case, the Atlantic's Adam Serwer asks what the true cost of these payoffs might be for democracy, as he explains to Michelle Martin.

[Michelle Martin]

Thanks, Bianna. Adam Serwa, thank you so much for talking with us.

[Adam Serwer]

Thank you so much for having me.

[Michelle Martin]

I want to talk about your recent piece in the Atlantic. It's titled Lower Than Cowards, which says a lot. It doesn't say it all, Lower than cowards. And it describes what you consider the response of American elites to what you call Trump's authoritarian bullying. You are arguing in this piece that private companies and other elites, unlike the military, do have the freedom to resist, yet many have chosen not to. You write, quote, cascading acts of cowardice from the people best positioned to resist Trump's authoritarian power grabs have made Trump seem exponentially more powerful than he actually is. Can you just unpack that a little bit? Give an example of people who you think could resist his bullying, but don't.

[Adam Serwer]

Well, you know, all these large private corporations that have huge budgets and a tremendous amount of influence, and that includes media companies, universities like Harvard, some of them are actually fighting back. But universities, prominent universities, could say no. Right now, the Trump administration is trying to coerce these universities into teaching only regime approved curriculum. And the issue is that when so many people fold, and I think it's important to say that a lot of these institutions are optimized for people who want to compete, compromise. They're optimized for a civil society in which there is not an authoritarian leader who's trying to bully people into submission. And so they're not the qualities that led them to that position are not the kind of qualities that you would want in a leader, in terms of being brave enough to stand up to a bully.

[Michelle Martin]

Can you say more about that? Explain that.

[Adam Serwer]

Well, I think that's just like the.

[Michelle Martin]

Law firms, for example, who have paid well, right?

[Adam Serwer]

I mean, you have these law firms that have made agreements with the Trump administration. These are people who, if anyone, is equipped to fight the Trump administration to a standstill. It's prominent YSU law firms, and yet so many of them have agreed to what is frankly unconstitutional agreements defining what kind of cases they can take, obligating them to help the Trump administration and some of its legal goals. These are people who could have fought the Trump administration and did not. And the reputations have suffered as a result. In some cases, they've lost clients. Because. Because if you're looking for an attorney, if you're looking for zealous representation, you really don't want to hire an attorney that has dual loyalties in terms of their interest in appeasing the government. It really undermines the legal system tremendously. And that's precisely why it's so shocking that so many of them have capitulated.

[Michelle Martin]

But why do you think they have?

[Adam Serwer]

I think in some cases there are organizations that have leadership that are used to trying to figure out a way to get along rather than they are averse to conflict. And I think in some places they actually agree with the administration and they are happy to be looking like they are forced to do things that they otherwise would want to do. But that might incur a backlash if they look like they wanted to do it instead of they were being forced to do it.

[Michelle Martin]

Like the tech companies, for example. I mean, the tech companies are an example. There are no more content moderation, the unfettered free speech, as it were, things of that.

[Adam Serwer]

So I think it's very clear that by unfettered free speech, they mean privileging conservative speech. When they talk about unfettered free speech, they don't really mean that they have internalized the definition of free speech that is prominent in the Trump administration, which is free speech is when Republicans can say what they want and when everyone else can say what they want. But the issue with private firms in general is that if you are subject to regulation or tariffs on the basis of your relationship with Trump, that's a system where corruption and rent seeking thrives. That's not a system where you succeed on the quality of your product or your service. That's a system where you succeed on the basis of your relationship with to the White House. And a lot of companies are acting in their short term interest in occurring favor with Trump. But profit seeking institutions are often not very good at looking at the long term. That's why we have a state regulated marketplace. That's why we have regulations in the first place. Because sometimes that short term profit seeking can be extremely destructive to the larger system and it is extremely destructive to the larger system because the end product is a degraded marketplace where corruption eats up most of the growth and profit and the American people will be poorer as a result. Even if a select set of oligarchs at the top of American society who are aligned with Trump continue to see their bank accounts grow, you contrast, and that's a conservative point, by the way. I'm a liberal, I'm not a conservative, I'm not a market fundamentalist. But these are their insights. These are the things that they used to believe that they have jettisoned in the name of protecting this administration which has an ambition of becoming a fully consolidated authoritarian state.

[Michelle Martin]

Let's talk about the role of the military because obviously one of the more attention getting episodes in the first Trump administration was when he staged that kind of walk over to across Lafayette park, which is in front of the White House house, over to the church, St. John's and had it cleared out by the National Guard. The then chair of the Joint Chiefs, General Milley, walked over there. He later apologized in an all call to the troops saying he was wrong, he should not have participated in that. So this week, you know, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, you know, pulled in, you know, some like 800, you know, senior officers from all over the world for this kind of, of, I don't know what it was like a group chat at Quantico at great expense and, you know, incredible security risks having all of these senior leaders in one place. And he said that, you know, he made his comments, we've promoted too many uniformed leaders for the wrong reasons, based on their race, based on gender quotas, based on historic so called firsts. And then the president came on and said, said we should use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military. And things went on. I was just curious how that whole scene landed to you and what did you draw from it?

[Adam Serwer]

Well, one thing I would say is if you want to see someone unqualified who was elevated to a position that they didn't earn on the basis of their race and gender, you can look at the current Secretary of Defense who is all of those things and whose main qualification is largely that he is a Trump sovereign. But when you talk about. I think, first of all, Trump has always talked about my generals. He's used that phrasing before. But actually, those aren't his generals. Again, the American government elections decide who administers the American government. It does not decide ownership of the American government, because the ownership of the American government does not change. It is owned by the public. And that is the same is true of the military. Now, what happened is these people, people are in a chain of command, and they have to follow orders, legal orders, that is. Obviously, they're not obligated to follow legal orders, but they have to follow legal orders. And so they created this captive audience where the President and the Secretary of Defense, you just need to put two and two together. Here you have Hegseth saying, the military is for killing. We're not going to do rules of engagement anymore. It's for murdering people. And I, I think it's bizarre to act like the laws of war are recent invention or something that we came up within 2020. They are actually hundreds of years old and arguably older than that. But when the Secretary of Defense says the military is for killing people, and the president says, we're going to send the military into American cities for practice, what that means is that the president is saying, I am declaring war on part on, on other Americans, and I expect you to kill them. Look, you know, if they didn't intend that, they could have easily clarified it, but that's what those two things put together mean.

[Michelle Martin]

I'm not asking you how you feel the military respond. I mean asking you.

[Adam Serwer]

The military is obligated to be apolitical, and they understand that. That's why they are putting them in this uncomfortable position where they're saying, well, if you don't want to kill Americans, if you don't want to use Americans cities as a training ground, then you should resign. And the reason why they're doing that is they want to purge the officer corps of people who might not obey an order to kill American citizens. Now, if we could go back and talk about Milley. The problem that Republicans had with Milley, essentially, was that during the protests in 2020, Trump told him to go out there and shoot protesters. And he said, no, I'm not doing that. And then after the January 6th, you know, he was saying, I wanted to understand. You know, he was reading about, you know, I think the phrase was called white rage. And Republicans went crazy, because what they want is a military establishment who next time Trump attempts to steal an American election, if he loses and he is constitutionally barred from running again. But the Supreme Court doesn't really seem particularly interested at the moment with what the Constitution says, what he wants. What they want is a military that is going to be willing to. To be used as a political tool to keep a president in office who does not belong in office.

[Michelle Martin]

What I saw in that room was a real uniformity of purpose and value because they, to a person, almost kept silent. And it would have been easy, I think, for some of them to have been sort of laughing or chortling or giving the President and the Defense Secretary the kind of response that they so very much wanted, in fact expected, and often yet, from their political audiences, from their rallies and so forth. And I do wonder whether you think their discipline in that moment speaks to a value system that supersedes that of self preservation in the way that you have lamented with other institutions.

[Adam Serwer]

Well, I think it's different because they are part of the government. But these are men and women who swear oaths to serve and protect the Constitution of the United States. They do not serve oaths to serve and protect Pete Hegseth or Donald Trump.

[Michelle Martin]

Well, so did Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth. They both took the same oath. And you could clearly.

[Adam Serwer]

They both took the same oath. But I think it's very clear that Donald Trump is not one for keeping to oaths. And I don't know Pete Hegseth very well, but I suspect he is in either. But I think you are making an important observation that their silence was, in a way, their refusal to be used as a political prop. And many of them might actually agree with Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth politically, but institutionally, the military, and in particular the officer corps, is encouraged to be as apolitical as possible. And I think that silence really reflects their institutional training of serving the American people, the public, not a particular political party. And that's the exact thing that Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth want to change. They want the American military to be a partisan militia, not an actual military that serves the people of the United States.

[Michelle Martin]

So before we let you go, one of the points that people make who have studied authoritarianism in other historical periods and in other contexts, context, one of the points that they make is that authoritarianism often comes in through legal means.

[Adam Serwer]

That's right.

[Michelle Martin]

Vote these people in and then they change the rules to make it impossible to vote them out or to. And that's right. So then the question becomes, what happens next?

[Adam Serwer]

I mean, I don't know. I mean, the burden is on the people to defend their democratic right to self determination. You know, that's, you know, politics, even in authoritarian regimes, politics does not see and you know, to the extent that people do not like what is happening, they have the ability to change it. And I would add peacefully, you know, nonviolent protests, non violent action has been very effective in dislodging authoritarian regimes who have plenty of guns and plenty of men who are willing to use them. But right now, you know, we have American, you know, Americans have tolerated authoritarian regimes in parts of, of their country. You know, the, you know, the antebellum south, the post reconstruction South. We, you know, there are many millions of Americans who still have a living memory of living under one party, authoritarian governments that were, you know, enforced at the point of a gun. And those governments fell and they didn't fall because an army, well, in the civil war they did. But the, you know, the Jim Crow was not fell by violent action. And I think that people need to understand that. The public needs to understand. The American people need to understand that it is within their power to preserve their democracy. But they have to make a concerted effort to do that.

[Michelle Martin]

Adam Serworth, thank you so much.

[Adam Serwer]

Thank you.

[Bianna Golodryga]

And finally, how often is your city taken over by flying cows or aliens? Well, if you lived in Albuquerque, New Mexico, the answer would be every October because that is when the International Balloon fiesta comes to town. Painting the skies with weird and wacky and I'd say beautiful designs. Sunday's event marked the 53rd year of the festival, which organizers say has become the largest balloon event in the world. The morning launch known as the mass ascension saw hundreds of hot air balloons rise, transforming the blue sky into a rainbow colors. Our producers thought this could possibly be even AI generated, but nope, it's real. Folks. Take a look at that. Every October in Albuquerque. Well, that is it for now. Thank you so much for watching and goodbye from New York.

[Adam Serwer]

Mint is still $15 a month for premium wireless. And if you haven't made the switch.

[Nahum Barnea]

Yet, here are 15 reasons why you should. One, it's $15 a month.

[Adam Serwer]

Two, seriously, it's $15 a month. Three, no big contracts. Four, I use it. Five, my mom uses it.

[Nahum Barnea]

Are you, are you playing me off?

[Adam Serwer]

That's what's happening, right? Okay, give it a [e-mail] Switch upfront.

[Bianna Golodryga]

Payment of $45 for three month plan. $15 per month equivalent required. New customer offer first three months only, then full price plan options available, taxes and fees extra. Cmn Tav.

[Adam Serwer]

I got news for your ears. The podcast I am your host, Micha. But the med bed thing was shocking. Yeah, it was shocking because he apparently posted it sincerely thinking that he had signed legislation making these fictional beds available to everybody. Star trek capsules that Dr. McCoy would put you in, and he would close the thing, and then he would open it, and you'd be healed. Oh, gonna click my heels and jump for joy.

[Bianna Golodryga]

Got a clean bill of health from Dr. McCoy.

[Adam Serwer]

Haven't got news for your ears. Releases new episodes every Wednesday. Don't miss an episode. Follow us wherever you get your podcasts.