Trump's Iran Options

Summary

---

Amanpour – Episode Summary: "Trump's Iran Options"

Date: January 29, 2026
Host: Bianna Golodryga (CNN, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour)

---

Episode Overview

This episode of Amanpour explores the escalating tensions between the United States and Iran under President Trump, who has issued Tehran an ultimatum: accept a new nuclear deal or face potentially devastating military strikes. The show analyzes America's military options in the region, the internal crisis within Iran, the international response, and considers broader themes of accountability in U.S. governance and war propaganda in Putin’s Russia.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

I. Trump's Iran Ultimatum & U.S. Military Posture

Main Segment begins ~[01:04]

• Trump has issued a clear ultimatum to Iran: agree to a non-nuclear outcome, or face a strike "worse than the last."
• Massive U.S. military buildup in the region, described as an "armada" of warships and advanced defense assets.
• Iran responds with threats—"fingers on the trigger"—and vows to target Israel if attacked.

Key Question:
Bianna Golodryga: "Do you think that a kinetic strike is now likely?" [05:04]

Military Analysis with Vice Admiral Kevin Donegan

• [05:15] Donegan: "I think that it's likely, especially...if the Iranians don't heed the warnings...The hands of what happens next is maybe in the hands of the Iranians as opposed to the president, because he's made it clear for them: come to the table or else."
• [07:19] U.S. posture is both defensive and offensive: "CENTCOM has clearly asked for and gotten the forces they need to both carry on a sustained operation, if that was the order, but also posture to defend our assets...whichever way the president decides."

On Aftermath & Targets

• [09:16] Target priorities discussed likely include:
  • Weakening/degrading the IRGC and its internal security wing, the Basij.
  • Disabling Iran's ballistic missile capabilities to limit counterattacks, especially after Israel's recent attacks on these systems.
  • Use of cyber and psychological operations alongside kinetic actions.

Regional Political Challenges

• [10:49] Some U.S. Gulf allies (e.g., Saudi Arabia, UAE) refuse to support potential U.S. strikes or offer airspace:
  • Donegan: “From a military standpoint, we have enough options...But geopolitically, they're worried about stability—they live in the region after it's over, we don't.”

---

II. Iran’s Internal Crisis & Prospects for Regime Change

Interview with Iran Analyst Karim Sadjpour [14:06]

• Iran faces widespread protests, unprecedented death tolls (estimates range from 6,000 to tens of thousands), and severe economic crisis.
• EU recently listed Iran’s IRGC as a terrorist entity.

Key Perspectives:

• Sadjpour: "We are on the cusp of some kind of transformation in Iran. There's really probably no country in the world with a greater gap between the aspirations of its people and the conduct of its regime than Iran." [14:51]
• The regime’s overconfidence could be a miscalculation: “This time could be different for them...Iran is militarily weaker than it's ever been because it doesn't control its own skies. So if I were the Iranian regime, I would not be sleeping lightly at night.” [15:15]

On U.S. Support for Protesters:

• Sadjpour: "President Trump threatened on at least eight occasions that if Iran kills protesters...the United States would have [their] back. And since then...they've killed as many as 30,000 people, so people inside Iran, I think, are desperately waiting to see what President Trump may do." [19:06]

On the EU Designating IRGC as Terrorists:

• "Now...you're dealing with a terrorist entity as we were dealing, for example, with ISIS. And so the legal ability to take action against that entity...you have significantly more leeway." [20:05]

Supreme Leader’s Calculus:

• "He has survival instincts and then he has these resistance instincts...whenever you’re being pressured...you should never give in." [21:19]

On Direct U.S. Targeting of Khamenei:

• Bianna: “Do you think the United States knows where that bunker is?”
• Sadjpour: “I do think that the United States knows where Supreme Leader is located. And I do think it is a question they're currently deliberating about whether to...target the Supreme Leader himself.” [22:26]

---

III. Russia’s Propaganda Machine: "Mr. Nobody Against Putin"

Interview with Co-director David Borenstein [25:08]

• The Oscar-nominated documentary exposes Russian wartime propaganda and military recruitment in schools.
• Focus on Pasha, a teacher who feels compelled to document and resist these practices despite great personal risk.

Borenstein on Pasha’s Motivation:

• [26:49] "He just followed it all the way through. He never wavered. He shot undercover and at the end he had to flee Russia in order to get this footage out and put the film out into the world."

On the Indoctrination Process:

• Putin’s regime systematically teaches students propaganda and militarism, particularly in impoverished, polluted towns.
• "If you look at the propaganda classes..., you'll see that Putin has absolutely no intention of stopping with Ukraine." [30:24]
• Teachers are pressured to comply; some do so enthusiastically, others do so out of fear or apathy—the "banality of evil." [34:05]

Pasha’s Fate:

• He now lives in exile in Europe, safe but still committed to exposing the Kremlin’s actions. His mother, still a librarian at the school, remains in Russia. Both face mixed reactions—from support to accusations of treason. [35:45]

---

IV. U.S. Accountability Crisis: Minneapolis ICE Shootings

Interview with Law Professor Stephen Vladek [37:55]

• Discusses lack of legal accountability for federal agents involved in killings, notably the deaths of Renee Goode and Alex Pretty at the hands of ICE in Minneapolis.

Vladek’s Core Argument:

• "We've been trending in this direction...where it has become ever harder...to hold the federal government accountable when it violates our rights." [46:37]
• Traditional remedies—executive action or civil suits—are ineffective or blocked by court precedent.
• Suggests state and local prosecutions are the only available route until Congress acts.

Legal Complexities Explained:

• Supremacy Clause immunity is not absolute. Federal officers can still face state charges if their actions weren’t necessary or reasonable. [41:45]
• Jurisdictional hurdles: federal officers can remove cases to federal court, but state law can still apply and presidential pardons do not. [43:53]

Memorable Quote:

• "You want federal officers to have the sense that the Constitution is a line they ought not to cross, that there are rules that bind them." [48:40]

---

V. Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Vice Admiral Kevin Donegan: "The hands of what happens next is maybe in the hands of the Iranians as opposed to the president, because he's made it clear for them: come to the table or else." [05:15]
• Karim Sadjpour: "Iran is militarily weaker than it's ever been because it doesn't control its own skies." [15:15]
• Karim Sadjpour: "There’s really probably no country in the world with a greater gap between the aspirations of its people and the conduct of its regime than Iran." [14:51]
• David Borenstein: "If you look at the propaganda classes...you'll see that Putin has absolutely no intention of stopping with Ukraine." [30:24]
• Stephen Vladek: "You want federal officers to have the sense that the Constitution is a line they ought not to cross, that there are rules that bind them." [48:40]

---

VI. Other Topics Briefly Covered

• Church of England Milestone: Sarah Mullally confirmed as the first female Archbishop of Canterbury ([52:15]).
• Upcoming Segment Adverts: Skipped per instructions.

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• US-Iran Analysis with Vice Admiral Kevin Donegan: [03:38]–[12:40]
• Karim Sadjpour on Iran’s Internal Crisis & Regime Change: [14:06]–[22:50]
• David Borenstein on Russian Propaganda and "Mr. Nobody Against Putin" Documentary: [25:08]–[37:15]
• Stephen Vladek on Minneapolis ICE Shootings and Federal Accountability: [37:55]–[52:09]
• Church of England’s First Female Archbishop: [52:15]–[53:27]

---

Episode Takeaways

• The U.S.–Iran confrontation remains highly volatile, with military action possible if diplomacy fails.
• Iran’s regime faces severe legitimacy and survival crises, potentially at a turning point.
• Russian war propaganda in schools is succeeding due to fear, complicity, and state incentives, as exposed in the powerful documentary "Mr. Nobody Against Putin."
• Federal accountability for civil rights abuses is dangerously weak, with state/local action as the last meaningful option.
• History is in flux, both in the Middle East and globally—moments of courage and tragedy intersect as authoritarians face both pressure and opportunity.

---

Transcript

[Bianna Golodriga]

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

[Vice Admiral Kevin Donegan]

There's another beautiful armada floating beautifully toward Iran right now.

[Bianna Golodriga]

Trump hands Tehran a choice. Make a nuclear deal or face an attack far worse than the last. Retired Vice Admiral Kevin Donegal breaks down America's military options. And weeks after a deadly crackdown on citizens, has the regime crossed the point of no return? I ask Iran analyst Karim Sagapour. Then, A fearless peek at pro war propaganda in Russian classrooms. I speak to co director David Borenstein about his Oscar nominated documentary, Mr. Nobody Against Putin.

[Stephen Vladek]

Also ahead, you want federal officers to have the sense that the Constitution is a line they ought not to cross, that there are rules that bind them.

[Bianna Golodriga]

In the wake of the Minneapolis shootings, many Americans demand answers and accountability. Georgetown law professor Stephen Vladek tells Hari Srinivasan about the possible paths to justice. Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodriga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour. Is time running out for Iran? President Trump has sent a clear agree to a deal that results in no nuclear weapons or America will carry out an attack worse than the strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities last summer. And with the US Moving its military forces into the region, Trump appears to be setting the stage for another attack in response. Iran says its armed forces are ready with their fingers, quote, on the trigger, while a key adviser to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei warns that Israel will be targeted if an attack goes ahead. This comes at a pivotal moment for Iran. Thousands were killed in the latest government crackdown. The economy is in crisis, and the Revolutionary Guard is now facing international sanctions. So with sources saying he may be trying to inspire regime change, will Trump be tempted to strike while the iron is hot, or will he heed Iran's warnings about the risks of provoking a regional war? Vice Admiral Kevin Donegan is a veteran military planner who served as director of operations for U.S. central Command, which includes the Middle East. He joins me now to break down the options on Trump's table. Kevin, thank you so much for joining us. Really appreciate the time. So, as we noted, the US has amassed a significant military military presence in the region. What the president has described as an armada is now in place there, currently consisting of roughly 10 warships. A surge of advanced aerial and missile defense assets. And the president, in addition to demanding concessions on Iran's nuclear program, is now moving on to its proxy programs and ballistic missile programs as well. It appears that talks are not going well with Iran on all three fronts. So I know you said there's no crystal ball in front of you in terms of what the US Will ultimately do. But given this massive presence, given the president's rhetoric, given his past actions, do you think a kinetic strike is now likely?

[Vice Admiral Kevin Donegan]

Well, Bianna, thanks for having me on. I think the real.

[Hari Sreenivasan]

Sorry.

[Vice Admiral Kevin Donegan]

I'm getting feedback here.

[Bianna Golodriga]

You know what if we need to take a quick break so we can work on your technical issues there? No problem. We'll do that. We'll go to a quick break right now and come back with you. Sorry about that. And we'll be right back. I'm CNN tech reporter Claire Duffy. This week on the podcast Terms of Service, we've talked a lot about how AI affects teenagers, their social development, their schoolwork. We were taught how to use AI as a tool to grade our essays and get feedback on them. And we were taught very specifically, like the line between, like, this is feedback, this is cheating. But what about their futures when it comes to college applications and career planning? How has AI entered the conversation? Listen to CNN's terms of service wherever you get your podcasts. All right. Welcome back to the program. We're going to go back to Kevin Donaghan. I believe we have fixed the technical issue there. You're not getting that feedback. I know how frustrating that can be, Kevin. But I think you heard my question. And so in terms of everything that has happened in the last week and a half, we have a massive, as the president said, armada now in region. He's ratcheted up his demands against Iran and we've seen him live up to those words and threats in the past. Do you think that a kinetic strike is now likely?

[Vice Admiral Kevin Donegan]

I think that it's likely, especially it's likely if the Iranians don't heed the warnings that they've gotten to come to the table and negotiate in a way that will appease what this administration wants from the, from the Iranians, which, as you know, it relates to not having not moving forward with their nuclear program in terms, in terms of enrichment, but also in terms of not creating the havoc that they have with their other proxy forces in the region. So I believe that right now the hands of what happens next is maybe in the hands of the Iranians as opposed to to the president, because he's made it clear for them come to the table or else. So the question then is what will the US do with the military actions? And then what's the aftermath of that? Those are the critical questions that will remain because that's the part where there's really Not a crystal ball on what will that U.S. military actions, what impact will that have on the regime?

[Bianna Golodriga]

Well, these were some of the questions that Secretary of State and National Security Adviser Marco Rubio was asked yesterday when he testified before the Senate on this very issue. Is a strike likely? And if so, what is the ultimate goal? What is the day after plan? Here's how he responded. I think it's wise and prudent to.

[David Borenstein]

Have a force posture within the region that could respond and potentially not necessarily what's going to happen, but if necessary.

[Karim Sadjpour]

Preemptively prevent the attack against thousands of American servicemen and other facilities in the.

[David Borenstein]

Region and our allies.

[Bianna Golodriga]

And he also made clear that he doesn't exactly know what the day after would look like and how it would unfold. So judging by what we just heard from him, and it was a lengthy testimony, is the US Presence there more defensively or is it there for a potential offensive measure and just prepared perhaps if then Iran responds in kind?

[Vice Admiral Kevin Donegan]

Yeah, what's very clear is the force is postured for both of those. So what's been put in the region is, you know, you've heard about the aircraft carrier and you mentioned the other things that have been also put forward. And part of that was a defense, additional bolstering of the defense because there would be, if the US Took a military action, an expected response from the Iranians. So CENTCOM has clearly asked for and gotten the forces they need to both carry on a sustained operation, if that was the order they were given, but also posture to defend our assets, regions and forces in the region, because both those kinds of forces have been brought forward and bolstered to allow basically the president to have the option to use the forces and then if he did, to adequately defend our forces in the region. So both of those are true, if that makes sense.

[Bianna Golodriga]

Yes. And as we already noted, the Iranians have responded that any sort of strike from the United States would then be followed by an Iranian strike against Israel. This after a 12 day war between Israel and Iran where Israel did suffer some damage as well, but really degraded a lot of Iran's not only air defense programs, but its ballistic missiles program that is also now a key demand from President Trump. It's not just their nuclear program, it's their proxies which have been degraded over the last few years after October 7th and its ballistic missile program. And it seems that Iran does not want to comply with these demands. So then that leaves President Trump in a position to have to respond. You have laid out some possible military objectives Here you say it's likely not regime change. So is it then the irgc, is it the ballistic missiles program? What is the most feasible target for the United States to achieve successfully?

[Vice Admiral Kevin Donegan]

Well, certainly we don't know exactly what it would be, but what it could entail, of course, is to, because a lot of the talk has been on what the processors have done. So the intent would be to go after those that support the protesters. I mean, that have oppressed the protesters and spearheaded the operations against the protesters. That includes the irgc. It includes. So the, you know, one option would be to weaken, degrade and destroy as much as possible that internal security apparatus. It's called the Basij. It's a portion of the IRGC that has carried out these attacks against the protesters, their facilities, their leadership, their C2, their headquarters. But paired with that, we would obviously use cyber and psyops to sow confusion. So their decision making is degraded. But at the same time, we'd want to go after those ballistic missiles that can range our regional forces. When Israel took their actions, they did significant damage to the longer range ballistic missiles that can reach Israel. But we, as you know, have forces postured closer to Iran and there are thousands of missiles, drones, cruise missiles that Iran has that can range those forces. So when I said we're postured for defense, part of our offensive operations would likely also be to take out as much of that capability that Iran has to blunt their ability to counterattack and then also to have forces to defend against any element that was still able to counterattack.

[Bianna Golodriga]

Yeah, I believe Israel also did significant damage to the ballistic missile launchers themselves because without those launchers, the missiles are pretty much useless. We did get some pushback from any military operation from the United States, from some of its Gulf allies, including Saudi Arabia and the uae. They said that they would not back a US Strike and would not provide airspace for the United States to conduct any sort of strike. How much of a setback is this both politically and militarily for the United States in terms of what they ultimately do?

[Vice Admiral Kevin Donegan]

Well, from a military standpoint, we certainly would have benefited from being able to use basin and facilities and certainly the airspace of those countries. From a geopolitical standpoint, it's clear that the way those countries would look at this situation is whatever the US Would do, they're going to be proximate, close to the, you know, to the ones in danger afterwards. They're going to be left in, you know, because they don't get to leave the region when it's over. So they're, they're worried about longer, you know, about stability. But they also see, I think, you know, I'm not, can't speak for them, but they also see that the Iranian regime is, is rotting and not it's, you know, is not able to provide for their people. And, and perhaps they're looking at, through the lens of that eventually something's going to have to happen anyway. So maybe they look at it through that lens in terms of using military force right now. But from a military standpoint, we have enough options for basing overflight and things that CENTCOM would need to be able to carry out the operations that the president would likely ask for or could likely ask for.

[Bianna Golodriga]

All right. Vice Admiral Kevin Donegan, thank you so much for the time. Appreciate it. Sorry again for the technical.

[Vice Admiral Kevin Donegan]

Thanks, Diana.

[Bianna Golodriga]

Well, now as Trump considers choices that could determine their future, Iranian people are calling for international support. The death toll from their government's violent crackdown on protests continues to rise, with one human rights agency estimating nearly 6,000 people have been killed. Other groups estimate that figure is likely in the tens of thousands. And now the EU has listed Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist group. Yet from Trump, no mention of the people that he vowed to support, another seemingly broken promise to a nation that's processing one of its deadliest chapters in decades. So has the Iranian regime shattered whatever trust or legitimacy it once had? Our next guest believes so, and it's the subject of his latest piece for the Atlantic. Karim Sadjpour is a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He joins me now from Washington, D.C. kareem, good to see you as always. So in your piece for the Atlantic this week, you described the regime contract with its people as predatory, not consensual. And after what may be tens of thousands of protesters killed in just 48 hours, that framing now looks like a tragic understatement. Is this a historic turning point? Is this the beginning of the end for the Iranian regime? Whatever the United States may do in the hours and days to come?

[Karim Sadjpour]

I do think, Biana, that we are on the cusp of some kind of transformation in Iran. Because whatever the United States decides to do or not do, Iran still has an 86 year old supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, who is not long for this world. And I believe that not only does the vast majority of Iranian society want to see change, but even within the very unpopular regime, they realize that this current status quo is untenable. So I do believe that Iran is A country on the cusp of change, because there's really probably no country in the world with a greater gap between the aspirations of its people and the conduct of its regime than Iran.

[Bianna Golodriga]

Well, President Trump has compared Iran to Venezuela and has signaled a possible military strike with speed and violence in Tehran. Is that a threat that officials there in the regime take seriously, or does it bolster their argument that it's only ruthless internal pressure and control that can ultimately keep outsiders from trying to attack.

[Karim Sadjpour]

You know, this regime? Yana, has faced so many crises over the years, including military entanglements with the United States, that I think they're a little overconfident about what this coming conflict could bring. They've continued to issue major threats against U.S. troops in the Middle east, against the United States, Arab partners, and they've continued to threaten Israel. But I do believe that this time could be different for them for simply the fact that President Trump has rolled the dice in a big way against Iran on at least three occasions. In 2018, he pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal. In 2022, he assassinated Iran's top military commander. And of course, last year, last June, he bombed Iran's nuclear facilities. And he believes that each of those decisions were vindicated. Iran is militarily weaker than it's ever been because it doesn't control its own skies. So if I were the Iranian regime, I would not be sleeping lightly at night.

[Bianna Golodriga]

I spoke earlier with Vice Admiral Donegan there about testimony from Secretary of State Rubio this week. He spoke on the force posture that has amassed in the region. And he also spoke about when asked what the ultimate plan was for Iran if the United States were to attack, what does the day after look like? And here's how he responded.

[David Borenstein]

I don't think anyone can give you.

[Karim Sadjpour]

A simple answer as to what happens next in Iran if the Supreme Leader and the regime were to fall, other than the hope that there would be some ability to have somebody within their systems that you could work towards a similar transition.

[Bianna Golodriga]

Is that a reasonable and acceptable plan from your perspective? I don't know if regime change is on the list of the president's options here, how feasible and viable that would be. But is this something that would be acceptable? What we just heard from the Secretary of State, for experts like yourself, and more importantly, for Iranian people who have come out en masse to protest, as.

[Karim Sadjpour]

We'Ve seen in the Middle east over the last two decades, Biana, the United States can't control outcomes, even when we've had thousands of troops, large military presence in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, we haven't been able to control dictate outcomes. So I think that obviously applies to Iran as well. I think what people in Iran are really hoping for is a transformation in the country's organizing principle. For the last almost five decades now, the organizing principle of the state has been death to America and death to Israel. It hasn't prioritize the economic aspirations and security of the Iranian people. And I think that is ultimately what people in Iran want. They want a government whose slogan is long live Iran, not death to America. This is a country, Biana, which in my view, should be a G20 nation. It has enormous natural resources, oil and gas, and enormous human capital. It has one of the oldest continuously inhabited civilizations in the world, and it's punching way below its weight. You know, as many people have said, this is a country which should be closer to South Korea rather than North Korea.

[Bianna Golodriga]

Yeah. And has spent decades mismanaging its own economy, its own natural resources, etc. I do want to ask you about your views on how the president has gone about addressing the protesters directly, because it was over a week ago where he had been speaking directly to protesters, encouraging them to come out in March and to take over their own institutions, saying that help is on the way. It does appear that something could very well happen imminently. But he hasn't addressed the protesters since then. And I'm wondering how you interpret that.

[Karim Sadjpour]

Well, the Iranian regime drove a giant truck through President Trump's red line because President Trump threatened on at least eight occasions that if Iran kills protesters, they would have held to bear in the United States, would have their back. And since then, according to some figures, even within the regime, they've killed as many as 30,000 people. And so people now inside Iran, I think, are desperately waiting to see what President Trump may do. And they're still hoping. You know, I think obviously, Iran is a large country, 90 million people. There's a great diversity of opinions, but among folks who have protested in the streets, I haven't heard a single voice that doesn't want some kind of outside assistance.

[Bianna Golodriga]

How significant was this move now from the EU to designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization? It really did seem to anger the regime.

[Karim Sadjpour]

It was certainly. It's both psychologically and legally and politically meaningful, because now the European designation of Iran's military, irgc, as a terrorist entity, it essentially shifts the conversation. You're no longer dealing with a sovereign nation and the military a sovereign nation. You're dealing with a terrorist entity as we were dealing, for example, with isis. And so the legal ability to take action against that entity, whether it's kinetic action or to seize assets, you have significantly more leeway to do that. And so I think for Europe, this was a big psychological shift in their longtime dealings with Iran.

[Bianna Golodriga]

As we're trying to decipher how Iran will respond to these latest demands from President Trump, it's important to read your piece where you emphasize the Supreme Leader's worldview as both theological and absolutist. So in terms of any sort of compromise, it doesn't appear that at least according to him and any decisions that he signs off on that there is much room for it.

[Karim Sadjpour]

You know, Biana, he is the longest serving dictator in the world. He's been ruling for four decades now. And so you don't get that title if you're a reckless gambler. So on one hand, he obviously has tremendous survival instincts. Ultimately, you know, he sends others out to become martyred, but he wants to die as supreme Leader. So he has survival instincts and then he has these resistance instincts. And he's long believed that whenever you're being pressured, whether it's by your own citizens or outside powers like the United States, you should never give in to that pressure because that is not going to project strength. It projects weakness and will invite even more pressure. So I think Ayatollah Khamenei right now is probably deep underground in a bunker and his longtime instincts are intentional with one another because on one hand he wants to survive, on the other hand he wants to resist. And I think he's been put in a bind by US President Donald Trump, who's shown himself capable of doing deals and dropping bombs.

[Bianna Golodriga]

Do you think the United States knows where that bunker is? Karim?

[Karim Sadjpour]

I do think that the United States knows where a supreme leader is located. And I do think it is a question they're currently deliberating about whether to take a strategy which is tantamount to a decapitation operation targeting the Supreme Leader himself.

[Bianna Golodriga]

Very tense days ahead. We will be calling on you for sure. Again, Karim Sajapour, thank you so much.

[Karim Sadjpour]

Thank you.

[Bianna Golodriga]

And later in the program, Mr. Nobody against Putin, the Oscar nominated documentary about how Russia's war propaganda machine infiltrates schools. I'll speak to the filmmaker. Up next, The engagement that broke the Internet. A Taylor Swift wedding is a pinnacle moment of celebrity culture. Could it have a billion dollar ripple effect on the wedding industry? I do. The Taylor and Travis era. Now streaming on the CNN app. 1.2 million. That's how many Russian soldiers are estimated to have been wounded or lost since the invasion of Ukraine nearly four years ago. The figure comes from a new report which calculates Russia's military losses as almost double Ukraine's. It's a rare glimpse into a war shrouded in secrecy, spin and deceit and paints a far bleaker picture than the one that the Kremlin has been pushing. And now a new film documents one man's mission to lift the curtain and show the world the reality of living under Putin's pro war propaganda machine. It's called Mr. Nobody against Putin. Here's part of the trailer. Well, days after receiving an Oscar nomination, co director David Borenstein is now joining me from Miami. David, I have to tell you, I was blown away by this film. I watched it with my parents. I was born in the former Soviet Union. This was very hard and very painful to watch, but so important. So congratulations on your well deserved nomination. Your documentary takes us inside a Russian primary school during war time. How did this project come about? How did you meet Pasha, who is the narrator here?

[David Borenstein]

Yeah, so Pasha originally responded to an ad on the Russian Internet that was published by a Russian web content company. It said something along the lines of how has the quote unquote special military operation in Ukraine changed your job? And actually, that company was looking for positive stories from the Russian perspective. So stories about workplaces that were coming together to write letters to soldiers and things like that. But Pasha, the main character and my co director, he saw that ad and he responded by saying, let me tell you how my job has changed. He said that he was turned into a propagandist and that he was going to work every day filled with guilt and despair, and he wanted to show the world what was happening. Now, the Russian web content company got that letter and they couldn't do it themselves, but through a twist of fate, it ended up in my hands and Pasha and I started working together.

[Bianna Golodriga]

And I'm so glad that the two of you connected. And Pasha, wow, what a brave individual. You know, heroes come in all shapes, forms, sizes, backgrounds, personalities, and he definitely proves to be one. Here. He calls himself a nobody. He's not an activist. He works at a school in the same city in town where he grew up, the same school where he attendedhe's a teacher trying to do his job, but in terms of resistance, just talk about what his work, what his determination to get this video made says about him.

[David Borenstein]

Well, he was committed to showing the world what was happening in his school.

[Vice Admiral Kevin Donegan]

School.

[David Borenstein]

He's the kind of teacher at that school that I think a lot of us all know. He's the kind of guy that a lot of the students would hang out in his office, and that's because he made them feel comfortable. Kids that didn't fit in were often hanging out in his office. I had a teacher like this, and when I first saw footage from Pasha's classroom, I immediately saw what kind of person he is. But throughout the next few years of changes that came as a result of Russia's full scale invasion of Ukraine, his school was basically turned into a recruitment center for the military, all education. And so much of what was happening in that school was transformed into something that was trying to encourage people to join the military and even prepare them to fight within the school. So he doesn't represent someone from Moscow or St. Petersburg. He's a very normal person. And what he is driven by is a commitment to his students, wanting them to stay comfortable, wanting them to stay like, keep on feeling like they have a place to belong. And that drove him to do this. Over the over two years of working together, he undertook a lot of risk to make this happen and he just followed it all the way through. He never wavered. He shot undercover and at the end he had to flee Russia in order to get this footage out and put the film out into the world.

[Bianna Golodriga]

And that bravery is so admirable. The film shoots in this primary school in a city called Karabash. It is a small, poor, heavy, polluted city. It's an industrial town in Russia in the Ural Mountains. And it's interesting because throughout the war, President Putin has always called this a spetsa peraza, a special military operation, and has tried, especially in the early days, to shield Muscovites, those residents in St. Petersburg. And when it came to recruiting soldiers, they would reach out to these rural, poor cities like Katabash, where they would indeed recruit these conscripts. And so many of them came from Pasha's own school. There are clips in this film. Not only is it stunning how quickly everything changed once the war began, but the recruitment effort itself, including members from the notorious Wagner mercenary group. Let's play a clip from that. What does this tell you and scenes like this tell you, and what do you want audiences to take away in terms of how expendable the Kremlin and Vladimir Putin viewed these pupils in these faraway cities?

[David Borenstein]

I think that's very clear just from watching the footage and the film in general. My role on this film was something of an editor. Pasha would send me footage from Karabash, and I would edit together, and I would watch so many clips of these kids. He sent me a lot of footage of just the kids hanging out in his office, and I developed my own relationship with them. And so as I saw footage like this, where they are being taught how to use landmines or how to do actual combat readiness, it was really hard for me to see. I had my own kind of emotional connection with them, and I really was able to understand it from Pasha's perspective. It's heartbreaking. It's heartbreaking as a teacher to see your kids go through this and to be treated as expendable. I think there's one more thing that footage like this tells us. If you look at the propaganda classes that are being taught in schools right now in Russia, you'll see that Putin has absolutely no intention of stopping with Ukraine. One of the common themes in every single one of these lessons that you see is the preparation and the creation of a new generation of kids and future soldiers who are committed to empire and war.

[Bianna Golodriga]

And Vladimir Putin, you show this in the film. I remember this in real time. He declared that wars are, quote, not won by commanders, but by schoolteachers. So this was the policy, this was the planning to indoctrinate these kids as young as possible almost on a daily basis. And you really have two ends of the spectrum. On one extreme, you have someone like Pasha, who not only is just disgusted by this, but speaks out against it and is recording it. And on the other extreme is a teacher who really feels that he's supportive, and that's how he comes across, and is able to echo and mimic and repeat some of the Kremlin talking points very easily. That teacher, who is super awkward and it's obvious not well liked by the students, not nearly as much as Pasha is, is then awarded Teacher of the Year and given a free apartment. My real focus are those teachers who are somewhere in the middle, who may be more aligned with Pasha but are too fearful to speak out. Let's play a clip of that one teacher who won the apartment and Teacher of the Year.

[Stephen Vladek]

First.

[Bianna Golodriga]

This is the same teacher. When asked who, in terms of historic figures, he would love to meet most, he said Lavrenta Beria, who was, of course, Stalin's henchman. Your reaction to him. And then my earlier question about those teachers who fall somewhere in the middle.

[David Borenstein]

I think what the film is trying to do is trying to get viewers to think about themes of complicity and also so imagine what they would do In a similar situation, this school, Pasha's school, where he was a teacher, was changed so dramatically in a very short period of time. Teachers ability to teach freely was massively disrupted. And I think so many of the teachers knew that what was happening was wrong. The vast majority, in fact, did.

[Bianna Golodriga]

They couldn't even pronounce half of these words right.

[David Borenstein]

Yeah. So many of the teachers just, you know, they're literally reading from a script and you can see that they're doing it very half heartedly. I think that you're right to say there are a variety of reactions. You have Pasha, who gave up so much to show the world what was happening. You have Pavel Abdulmanov, who we just saw, who performs the propaganda with Gusteau. But the vast majority just go along with it half heartedly. It is a pretty interesting and potent example of the banality of evil. They're going along with it, but they don't believe in it. And I think that actually is a nice and important characterization of the Russian system overall.

[Bianna Golodriga]

How is Pasha doing now? I know he left the country. He was, as you noted, really the driving force here of this film. How is he doing and how is his mother back home? What has the reaction been since he's left, since the film's been made public?

[David Borenstein]

Yeah, Pasha is doing well. In order to make the film and put it out into the world and not get arrested, he had to flee before we premiered it last year. And so he is in Europe right now. He has received asylum. He can travel and promote the film. And he is doing well. His mother is also doing well. She's a character in the film, one of the. She's the school librarian and she still is the school librarian at Karabash Primary School, number one. And beyond that, most people in Karabash have seen the film and many people in Russia have seen the film. And we get messages every single day from people. There's a wide variety of reactions from people calling Pasha a traitor to the motherland, to people really supporting what Pasha is doing. In fact, one interesting reaction that Pasha got was from teachers from a neighboring school near Karabash. They said, you know what? Some teacher had to do this. We're just really surprised it's from Karabash.

[Bianna Golodriga]

Wow. Well, please give Pasha our best again. This was an incredible and such an important documentary to make. My parents first reaction, sadly out of this was that nothing will change in that country as long as Vladimir Putin is in power. I would imagine Pasha does agree with that sentiment as well. David Borenstein. Thank you so much. Congratulations again on this very important film and the nomination for an Oscar.

[David Borenstein]

Thank you.

[Bianna Golodriga]

And now following the fatal shootings of two U.S. citizens by ICE agents in Minneapolis, President Trump sent border czar Tom Homan to take control of the immigration operation there. Earlier, Homan insisted that neither he nor the president wants to see anybody die, but emphasized that hostile rhetoric towards immigration officers. More now this comes as a pair of federal agents involved in Alex Preddy's death have been placed on administrative leave. But will they ultimately be held accountable? Georgetown University law professor Stephen Vladek spoke to Hari Sreenivasan about the role state and local courts can play in pursuing justice.

[Hari Sreenivasan]

Bianna, thanks. Stephen Vladec, thanks so much for joining us. You have a recent essay in the New York Times where you are arguing essentially along with law professor Barry Friedman, that the Minneapolis shootings is a case we need a different path to accountability. You're asking for state and local prosecutors to kind of pick up the ball. But before we get to that and why you're advocating for it, tell me what usually happens and what's not happening here. Sure.

[Stephen Vladek]

I mean, Hari, usually or at least historically when federal officers crossed the line, there were two different ways the federal government might hold them accountable. The first was, of course, the executive branch itself might discipline officers who crossed the line all the way up to criminal prosecutions. As recently as 2019, Hari the Trump administration told the Supreme Court that was the right solution when a border patrol agent had shot and killed a 15 year old Mexican national along the US Mexico border. Obviously that's not going to work with an administration that won't even investigate these shootings, let alone prosecute them. Historically, the other remedy was damages was a civil remedy where the victims or their families could seek damages in federal court under federal law against perpetrators US Officers who had violated their rights. Hard the Supreme Court has really made those kinds of remedies elusive, if not entirely illusory. I mean, the court in a series of cases from the 1980s through two years ago has all but closed the door on what are known as these Bivens suits. And so that really leaves the states as the last line of defense. Hard maybe for tort remedies, again for damages, but especially for criminal prosecutions. Not cuz that's the ideal system, but because it really is all we have until and unless Congress were to provide a more comprehensive remedial regime at the federal level.

[Hari Sreenivasan]

So what should the state of Minnesota do?

[Stephen Vladek]

Well, so I think the first question is, you know, how much evidence is the state or even hari local prosecutors in Hennepin county, how much evidence are they able to amass on their own? I mean, we've already had reports that the federal government has not been cooperating with their attempts to provide their own investigation. That, of course, is also a new twist on what has been historically a very common sort of symmetrical back and forth relationship. How much evidence can they get on their own?

[Vice Admiral Kevin Donegan]

Right.

[Stephen Vladek]

We already had the city and the state go to federal court over the weekend to obtain a temporary restraining order blocking the federal government from getting rid of any of the evidence it collected. But do they need what the federal government has to pursue these cases? Can you go to a grand jury, for example, based solely on witness statements and these videotapes? Even if you can go to a grand jury, Hari, at that point, presumably even if there's an indictment, the defendant officers would remove the case to federal court and then they'd argue that they have immunity. At that point, we'd have to figure out, you know, what is, what's the real test for necessity, for necessity and for reasonableness in this context? How are these officers trained? What did they think? What were they told to do when they were confronting someone who they were trying to arrest? These are all questions, Hari, that I think folks are jumping to conclusions about on social media for obvious reasons. But that would have to be litigated if the state or if local prosecutors wanted to go that far.

[Hari Sreenivasan]

You know, back in October when Governor Pritzker of Illinois suggested something like this, Steven Miller responded to this on Fox News.

[Stephen Vladek]

To all ICE officers, you have federal immunity in the conduct of your duties. And anybody who lays a hand on you or tries to stop you or.

[Hari Sreenivasan]

Tries to obstruct you is committing a felony.

[Stephen Vladek]

You have immunity to perform your duties.

[Hari Sreenivasan]

And no one, no city official, no state official, no illegal alien, no leftist.

[Stephen Vladek]

Agitator or domestic insurrectionist can prevent you from fulfilling your legal obligations and duties.

[Hari Sreenivasan]

For the record, is Stephen Miller wrong about it? Do these people not have immunity?

[Stephen Vladek]

So there's a doctrine, Hari, called supremacy clause immunity. And we'll talk about this contours in a second. But the critical point to say at the top is this kind of immunity is not absolute. So when Stephen Miller, when J.D. vance, when Kristi Noem make these broad categorical statements about immunity, they're leaving out the critical nuance, which is that immunity can be overcome. This is a doctrine that has been developed by the Supreme Court, Hari, and especially by lower federal courts in a series of cases dating back to 1890 and the idea is that yes, in general, federal officers who are carrying out their duties reasonably and responsibly are immune from state prosecution. This is because the Supremacy clause of the U.S. constitution elevates federal law over state law. But the Supreme Court has said in every single case about this doctrine going all the way back to 1890, it gives way, Hari, when the federal officer's conduct was neither necessary to carrying out their federal duties nor a reasonable means of doing so. So there are these two different requirements that what the federal officer was doing when he or she broke state law has to have been a necessary part of their federal duties, and the specific actions have to have been a reasonable means of carrying those duties into effect. You know, Hari, I don't want to prejudge anything, but at least based on, on the video evidence out of Minneapolis, hard to see how you can meet that standard in either the Renee Goode or the Alex Pretty shootings. That's why I think it's a dramatic, really deeply misleading overstatement for Stephen Miller, for JD Vance, for all these folks to just say, hey, you have immunity. In point of fact, that's not necessarily true.

[Hari Sreenivasan]

You said in your piece that there's kind of two complications or two hurdles for what you're proposing. One was the Supremacy Clause immunity community. Right. And one is that essentially the actions the individual might be taking in the course of performing their duties, that would automatically mean it has to go to a federal court. Right. And the likelihood or unlikelihood depends on, I guess, the winds of that administration to a degree.

[Stephen Vladek]

I mean, so the case would likely go to federal court under what's known as the federal officer removal statute. And this is a statute that says if you're being sued civilly or criminally for stuff you did while you were on the job as a federal officer, you can move that from state court to federal court. But, Hari, even in federal court, it would still be local or state prosecutors. It would still be a jury from Minnesota, not somewhere else in the country. And I think perhaps most importantly, given the current administration, any conviction would not be subject to the president's pardon power. These would be convictions even in federal court for state offenses. And so of course, the governor would retain the pardon power, but I'm not sure Governor Waltz would be in any hurry to exercise it. There are reasons, Hari, why I'm still skeptical that this is is the best answer in the long term, that state prosecutions raise lots of complexities. But I guess the question really reduces to if the choice is no remedy for what happened to Renee Goode and Alex Pretty? And what else is happening in Minneapolis versus the imperfections of state criminal prosecutions? Seems increasingly obvious to me that we should be preferring the latter.

[Hari Sreenivasan]

I wonder if in the course of their investigation right now, if there's a Minneapolis police investigation that's trying and federal authorities are not being helpful, what are ways for them to get around that?

[Stephen Vladek]

So I think some of this comes down to stuff that we don't know, Hari, and probably won't know for some time, which is how much evidence do the local and state officials already have in their possession? Have they been able to talk to the relevant witnesses? Have they been able to build a comprehensive database of every single video that was taken of the scene? Do they have any access to any kind of forensics, including, for example, how many shots were fired? Do they have access to an autopsy? You know, I think there's a reason, Hari, why we're not hearing a lot publicly about these specific questions. But I would expect local and state prosecutors to be making a lot of noise, at least behind the scenes if they are being thwarted in their efforts to uncover these materials. We've already seen them go to court once, you know, in the case that produced the tro, barring the executive branch from destroying any evidence. Wouldn't surprise me if they have to go back again if there continues to be a lack of cooperation.

[Hari Sreenivasan]

I think on a very human level, most people wonder, look, one person took the life of another and that person does not seem accountable. And we seem to have created a system where they do not have to be accountable. And there doesn't right now seem to be a way for a citizen of Minneapolis to just say, I am safe here because there is a group of people that can take my life, life. And they seem immune to any repercussions.

[Stephen Vladek]

Well, and I think this goes so far beyond what's been happening in Minneapolis and even beyond the specific and tragic cases of the Good and Pretty shootings. We've been trending in this direction for the better part of 25 or 30 years at this point, where over time it has become ever harder and harder and harder to hold the federal government accountable when it violates our rights. Now, there's one batch of cases where that's not been true, where the violation's ongoing, where we're challenging a policy, say, or a statute. Courts have been perfectly willing to actually provide lots of relief in those cases through what we call injunctions, through forward looking relief. But when it comes to backwards look and relief for constitutional violations that have ended for excessive force. HARI for unreasonable searches and seizures. I mean, we've seen videos of ICE and other immigration officers breaking down the doors of Americans homes. That's where we really have this remarkably alarming gap that has has slowly but steadily expanded over the last three decades. And that's why I think the real long term solution here is not about Minneapolis or a Minnesota state prosecution of the officers responsible for the deaths of Renee Goode and Alex Pretty. I think it's about Congress providing a meaningful comprehensive framework for holding federal officers accountable when they violate our rights. We may not all agree on which cases we'll would trigger such a regime. HARI we may not agree whether rights were violated in this case versus that case, but that should be up to the courts to decide. And that's what's really missing from our current remedial architecture. This has been, I think, clear to the nerdy law professors like me for a while now. But I think events in Minneapolis are driving home to everybody what the consequences of that gap really are.

[Hari Sreenivasan]

You know, there was a case outside Chicago where an ICE agent was charged with a misdemeanor for or pushing someone down, throwing an immigrant rights activist to the ground. And I wonder if these types of steps could work. Are there local violations that these individuals would still be responsible for?

[Stephen Vladek]

It's entirely possible. And I think this is the critical point of all of this. The reason why people like me, I think, are so invested in some kind of recourse and some kind of redressability is actually sort of twofold. I mean, first, obviously you want some measure of justice for what happened to Renee Goode, for what happened to Alex Pretty. But Hari, just as important is you want deterrence. You want federal officers to have the sense that the Constitution is a line they ought not to cross, that there are rules that bind them, and that they're gonna think twice before they engage in conduct that's so egregiously cross crosses the line. And I think there are lots of ways to accomplish the latter, to strive toward more deterrence. When it comes to federal officers, the sort of the spitting on the sidewalk or the tax evasion approach I think raises messy questions about the former and about whether that's really justice for the victims. I still think something is better than nothing, and it's unfortunate that that's where we are. HARI But I think we can have two conversations at once. What do we do in the short term term and what do we do in the long term? The answers to both should be however much accountability is possible under the circumstances.

[Hari Sreenivasan]

You know, a lot of your piece and what you're saying really requires action by Congress to try to clarify these rules. And right now, you know, there are a few, but a growing number of Republicans that are trying to put some pressure on the administration. There's, there's John Curtis of Utah. He recently wrote on Monday, we must have a transparent independent investigation into the Minnesota shooting and those responsible, no matter their title, they must be held accountable. Officials who rushed a judgment before all the facts are known undermine public trust and the law enforcement mission. I disagree with Secretary Noem's premature DHS response, which came before all the facts were known and weakened confidence. And I wonder, is today's Congress capable of putting enough short term pressure pressure or long term pressure to try to structurally clarify exactly what a federal agent can be immune for and what they can't?

[Stephen Vladek]

I think, Hari, two things are still true. One, even a little bit of political pressure can go a long way. I mean, we're already seeing, you know, not just Senator Curtis's statements that you've read. Senator Tillis has expressed deep public disagreement and dissatisfaction with Secretary Noem, has suggested that she should lose her position. Position that's very mild, Hari, but that's a lot more than we'd seen over the last 13 months. The other piece of this, though, is I think it's hard when we're stuck in the politics of the moment to envision Congress as meaningfully changing anything. But if American history teaches us anything, it's that these political ties can shift pretty quickly. And we have midterm elections coming up this fall. We have a new Congress that will be sworn in in next January. If this keeps up right, if we don't see a real about face from the Trump administration, it's not hard to imagine, Hari, that this kind of reform becomes not just a huge issue in the midterms, but actually a point on which there might be at least a modicum of consensus come next January. So that's why I think it's important to break this conversation out into short term solutions and long term solutions, because I think we should not give up the ghost that a future Congress as soon as next year might be more willing to restore a modicum of accountability that it's very hard to imagine the current Congress pursuing.

[Hari Sreenivasan]

Stephen Vladik, professor of law at Georgetown University. Thanks so much for your time.

[Stephen Vladek]

Thanks for having me.

[Bianna Golodriga]

And finally, a momentous signal of change. Sarah Mullally has been confirmed as the first female leader of the Church of England in a ceremony laden with tradition. She took the oath of allegiance as the 106th Archbishop of Canterbury. Mulally has a long history outside the clergy. Prior to becoming a priest in 2006 and later serving as Bishop of London, she was a nurse for the UK public health service, the nhs. Now she is vowing to call out misogyny in her new role and advocate for more transparency within the church as she becomes a spiritual leader for 85 million Christians across the global Anglican Communion. That is a milestone indeed. And that is it for us for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. And remember, you can always catch us online, on our website and all over social media. Thanks so much for watching and goodbye. From New York, I'm Dr. Sanjay Gupta.

[David Borenstein]

Host of the Chasing Life podcast.

[Bianna Golodriga]

This is literally Dr. Gupta, a social prescription. The idea of your doctor, your social worker, prescribing you something social in your community, like an art class, like bicycling lessons, the same way they would prescribe a pill.

[David Borenstein]

My guest, Julia Hotz, author of the Connection Cure, has traveled across more than.

[Stephen Vladek]

30 countries to see how this approach.

[Karim Sadjpour]

Is really being used.

[Bianna Golodriga]

Isolation and loneliness is some of the greatest social pain we can experience. And it's not just in our heads. Because if you think about it, evolutionarily, we needed to have a people, a tribe around us. Us. Listen to Chasing Life streaming now.

[David Borenstein]

Wherever you get your podcasts.