Stephen Miller (3:26)

The last message that Charlie Kirk gave.

Bianna Golodryga (3:29)

To me before he joined his creator.

Stephen Miller (3:31)

In heaven was he said that we have to dismantle and take on the radical left organizations in this country that are fomenting violence.

David Frum (3:42)

The power of law enforcement under President.

Stephen Miller (3:45)

Trump's leadership will be used to find you. We use to take away your money, take away your power, and if you've.

David Frum (3:51)

Broken the law, to take away your freedom.

Bianna Golodryga (3:55)

Here to discuss, David Frum was a speechwriter for President George W. Bush, now an author and staff writer at the Atlantic. David Frum, welcome to the program. Thank you. A dark moment for this country. I would imagine you're not altogether surprised, both with the increase in political violence and some of the rhetoric we've seen in the aftermath of it. Charlie Kirk, as we know, has already been cast as a martyr from his supporters. He has some 20 million new followers, pastors invoking his legacy now Turning Point USA reporting tens of thousands of new chapter inquiries. Talk about what you think this moment means for the future of his movement first before we get to the bigger impact.

David Frum (4:40)

A life that meant a great deal to a great many people was cruelly taken away, a family that's been left without a father and a husband. So tempers run hot and people say things that perhaps at a different moment they would not say. But here's where we need to be very careful as a society and as a republic. President Trump has already a long habit of attacking the political rights of people who disagree with him. In April, President Trump, at his own personal initiative, which is something shouldn't happen, ordered a judicial investigation or a criminal investigation of the main Democratic small dollar donation arm Act Blue. Presidents aren't supposed to direct the Justice Department to investigate anybody, much less a political organization. But he did it. You now hear in the wake of this terrible crime, as you showed with Stephen Miller, people around the president, the president himself in his national televised address, threatening to use the power of the state to attack not criminals, but people who have different views, people who are organizing against him, people who are fundraising in order to challenge the president's control of Congress. All of this at a time when the president's party is engaged, redistricting apart from the usual schedule, all at this time when troops have been deployed in the streets of blue cities, including the one I'm speaking to you from today.

Bianna Golodryga (5:58)

Conservative commentator David French has a very moving, I think, and sobering piece in the New York Times today titled there are monsters in your midst too. And here's what he if we're convinced that political violence comes from only one side of the divide, then the temptation toward punitive authoritarianism is overwhelming and they are evil and violent and they must be crushed. If, however, we accurately understand that America has an immense problem with violent extremism on both sides of the ideological aisle, even if at any given moment one side is worse than the other, then the answer lies in reconciliation, not domination. In fact, it's the will to dominate that magnifies the crisis and radicalizes our opponents. I'm wondering if you agree with David's assessment here and the significance of from at least what we've heard thus far from leadership's rhetoric, speaking specifically about the President, that doesn't seem to match his takeaway.

David Frum (6:57)

Look, David French is a beautiful writer and he has wise thoughts, but the issue I am concerned about today is not who is more violently extreme. I mean, I think it's a meaningless question. What you tend to find is that Americans in this country who do violent extremism have very muddled views. They don't. We're going to American extremism looks like John Hinckley shooting or attempting to shooting a president, attempting to murder him to impress a movie actress. That's not a rational political plan. What I am concerned about is the president and his supporters are making it clear they intend to go after not violent extremists, but simply people who are fundraising to defeat them in elections. The great question that has been haunting America before this assassination is will the president allow the 2026 midterm elections to be free and fair? Will he try to gerrymander? Will he try to use the power of government to stop his opponents from fundraising? Will he try to use his new asserted powers to detain people without due process against people who are campaigning against him? Those are the issues that you have to worry about. It's not about violent extremism today. Today what we're worried about is will we have free and fair elections? And as Stephen Miller indicated, as the President said in his nationally telev, that's the target they're after.

Bianna Golodryga (8:09)

How does Kirk's assassination directly in your view, play a role in this plan that you're concerned about, that you say is growing increasingly obvious from the rhetoric, from the president and his advisors look.

David Frum (8:22)

After a terrible crime in the Internet age, you will find any number of people or bots on the Internet saying things that are reprehensible, stupid, provocative, unfeeling. And people who experience the world through online life will see those reprehensible statements and will have natural reactions. Of course, you getif you liked and admired Charlie Kirk, you will be hurt by someone who makes light of the terrible murder. And that feeling of hurt is a powerful resource for a president who is afraid he's going to lose the 2026 elections if they're free and fair, and who has been looking from the beginning for ways to make sure those elections are not free and fair. So the emotions of Charlie Kirk supporters are a resource that President Trump and Stephen Miller and those around them are hoping to use. Not against criminals, but just against people who want to vote a different way.

Bianna Golodryga (9:12)

So you seem to be circling all back towards democracy at hand right now and concerns about free and just and fair elections. The conversation in the nation seems to be more focused on political violence. What are you seeing that some of these others that are focusing just on the aftermath of this assassination or not?

David Frum (9:34)

What I'm seeing is a pattern. Look, I'm seeing a pattern from this president, starting with the April personally directed initiative against ActBlue to interfere with the political process. For sure, the United States should do more to stop political violence, although the killer of Charlie Kirk did not use a weapon that would be controlled by any gun control regime. Obviously you need toone way to make the country less violent is make it more difficult for people to get weapons that can do harm. That would be a big step. And you need an FBI run by competent people. And you need not have political hacks at the top of the FBI. And you need not to fire all of the counterterrorism force. You know, undoing the damage done by the Trump administration. The FBI would be a great way to reduce political violence. But President Trump is making it very clear that they are telling the country what they intend to do. It is not just the violent who are being targeted here. Of course the violence should be targeted. They are targeting people who think differently, who speak differently, who want to give money. President Trump has said he wants to put George Soros in prison. For what? For the offense of giving money to people who are trying to defeat Donald Trump.

Bianna Golodryga (10:41)

Yeah, he's now floating a RICO case against Soros, which Soros campaign has vehemently denied the accusations there. The president's also framing this as the radical left ideology is the pure evil in this country. There's power in those words. And I think they're pointing to at least some of the early evidence that we're hearing in this particular case from Charlie Kirk's assassin. I want to play sound from Kash Patel, the FBI director, when asked about what more they're learning in this investigation.

David Frum (11:17)

His family has collectively told investigators that he subscribed to left wing ideology and even more so in these last couple of years.

Stephen Miller (11:27)

And he had a text message exchange.

David Frum (11:30)

He the suspect with another individual in.

Stephen Miller (11:33)

Which he claimed that he had an opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk and he was going to do it because.

David Frum (11:39)

Of his hatred for what Charlie stood for. That are those are factually accurate investigatory.

Stephen Miller (11:45)

Findings by the FBI that we've handed.

David Frum (11:47)

Over to the local authorities and the federal authorities to make their prosecutorial decisions.

Bianna Golodryga (11:53)

So assuming that that is all factually accurate, does that play a role and does that help? Go ahead.

David Frum (12:00)

Why would I assume that something that Kash Patel said was factually accurate? It might be. It could be. But Kash Patel is a long record in public life. And no, I wouldn't assume that what he says is accurate. But on the hypothesis, if it is accurate, we are all way too early to make statements about the killer. But my guess, and it's just a guess, is that we'll find out the killer's politics are a muddle and that the killer was a troubled person who did a terrible thing for his own particular reasons. And the project of saying we've got a killer and now we're going to connect the killer to a so called radical left. And now we're going to connect this radical left, by the way, who tried to defeat Joe Biden and defeat Kamala Harris, take this radical left and tie them to the Democratic Party and therefore we're going to stop Democratic candidates from raising money in the 2026 cycle. That's the bootstrapping. And we'll find out more about what the killer intended to do. I think it's premature to comment until you have more information than just what Kash Patel is offering. But in the meantime, understand the target here is not killers. That's the FBI's proper job. What is happening here is targeting Democratic fundraising, George Soros and his operation, who are there to elect people who will contain the power of the president in the 2026 elections. That's the thing they're trying to stop.

Bianna Golodryga (13:20)

And formal charges, we should note, against Tyler Robinson will be filed and made public tomorrow. We did hear though from the governor of Utah's governor note that the suspect's partner was trans, though they believe completely uninvolved and is cooperating, while Robinson is not. Again, this plays into some of the talking points that we've heard from the president. If they do show concrete proof of this tomorrow in the charges, in the formal charges, do you think that this adds more to the president's case against what they continue to target as radical left ideology? Do you worry about that?

David Frum (14:00)

I want to be really careful about not saying anything about things I don't know about and things where my only source of information are people that have given me ample reason not to take them at their word. But we will find out.

Bianna Golodryga (14:10)

Does that include the governor? What do you make of his.

David Frum (14:13)

No, that includes the. I don't think we should be commenting too much about what happened and why until we have better and fuller evidence. That is not. That doesn't. Again, I have tremendous confidence in Governor Scott, Governor Cox, but we need to be real careful because we are being fed pieces of information that are often being directed for a larger political purpose. The prize that people need to keep their eye on is while punishing the guilty and anybody who had any kind of criminal connection to this, this crime, anybody who had foreknowledge or was in any way of assistance, obviously all of those people need to be swept into the FBI investigation, prosecuted if it's justified, punished if it's called for, if they're sorry, convicted if it's called for, and punished if they're convicted. That goes without saying. But what we are being told, the thing we're being told by people of power to do it, is they are going for a much bigger project here than simply punishing the guilty and those associated with the guilty. They want to shut down fundraising processes that are used for democratic purposes to contain the power of the president. That's the target. And that is what the president said on television. And that needs to be taken very seriously.

Bianna Golodryga (15:22)

So what is the appropriate response, in your view?

David Frum (15:27)

To what?

Bianna Golodryga (15:29)

To what you think the administration is ultimately trying to do here?

David Frum (15:33)

I think the appropriate response is while condemning crimes, while grieving with the afflicted family, while understanding the genuine hurt and outrage that people who admire Charlie Kirk feel at his loss, even if you don't share their politics, you can feel their suffering and imagine how if someone you admired were struck down in this way, how you would feel and the sympathy and the discretion and decorum you would expect in the aftermath of such a death. Well, understanding all of that, say the bright line here is that you cannot use the power of the state to shut down political participation. And that action of the president in April where he personally directed the Department of Justice to go after a Democratic fundraising platform, that's the thing to watch while he's talking, keep your eye on how his fingers are moving. It's like any kind of game of deception. The words, the line of patter is one and the movement of the hands are different things, and both need to be watched.

Bianna Golodryga (16:27)

David, it was notable that we heard from all former living presidents condemning the assassination of Charlie Kirk and asking for unity at this time, including your former boss, President George W. Bush. You know, times are quite different, but the issue of polarization, even back then, when you were working for the administration, were front and center as well. This is before social media, obviously, and all of the amplifiers that we've now seen making this problem even more severe than it was then. What do you think? Back to your time in office and perhaps any words of wisdom that you can hearken with us now from your days there.

David Frum (17:12)

You know, that was a quarter century ago. Back then, if somebody somewhere, whom you'd never heard of before, said something stupid, offensive, and unfeeling, it was quite hard to find out about it. So you didn't get mad about what you. I mean, look, it's a country of 330 million people. The odds that someone is doing something completely repulsive right now are pretty high. But we have built this mechanism so that each of us can see every bad, foolish, unwise, unkind, uncaring thing that anybody anywhere says and take it to heart and have a reaction to it when you need to say, what is the President saying? What is the vice president saying? What are the senators saying? What are the members of Congress saying? I mean, it's just a dead certain cinch that there is someone in the country who is saying something right now that would really make you crazy if you heard them speak. And unfortunately, there now exists this conveyor belt to make sure you find out about that person, whereas 25 years ago, you'd go to your grave never knowing and be happier for not knowing.

Bianna Golodryga (18:08)

Yeah, and that's all amplified, as we noted on social media. We know the algorithms are focused now to give you more of the insightful rhetoric that you're wanting to hear or agree with the fact that you're still.

David Frum (18:21)

Tell the algorithm you want puppy and baby videos and nothing else, or just.

Bianna Golodryga (18:25)

Put your phone down. That would help, too. All right, David Frum, I could talk to you about puppies. In particular all day long. Hopefully the next segment I still remember and think fondly back to our previous conversation on that. Thank you for joining the show. Bye bye and do stay with cnn. We'll be right back after the break.

Commercial Announcer (18:46)

Want to make a difference in your community, but not sure how? Go to GoFundMe.com right now and start a GoFundMe. Seriously. Your next fundraiser doesn't have to start in a school parking lot or a church basement. You can start a GoFundMe today in just minutes. Fundraise for yourself, a friend or family member or an organization. All that matters is that you care about them. GoFundMe is the trusted place to fundraise for what you care about. With no pressure to hit your fundraising goal, but tons of tools to help you reach it, you can confidently start fundraising right now. Whether it's creative, local or critical, your cause matters and there's a reason why GoFundMe is backed by millions and chosen by fundraisers everywhere. It works and it matters. GoFundMe helps you make a real difference. Start your GoFundMe today at GoFundMe.com that's GoFundMe.com G-O-F-U-N-M E.com this is a commercial message brought to you by GoFundMe.

Bianna Golodryga (19:45)

America is changing and so is the world.

Commercial Announcer (19:50)

But what's happening in America isn't just a cause of global upheaval. It's also a symptom of disruption that's happening everywhere.

Bianna Golodryga (19:58)

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

Commercial Announcer (20:00)

Tristan Redman in London and this is the Global story.

Bianna Golodryga (20:04)

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

Commercial Announcer (20:10)

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

Bianna Golodryga (20:20)

Now. In a landmark ruling, Brazil's former leader Jair Bolsonaro has been sentenced to more than 2027 years in prison after being found guilty of plotting an attempted coup in 2022. President Lula took to the pages of the New York Times this weekend, saying how proud he is of the Supreme Court while also addressing President Trump directly, making it clear that Brazil's democracy and sovereignty are, quote, non negotiable. A supporter of the former Brazilian leader, the US President has called Bolsonaro's trial a witch hunt and pressured Brazil to drop the case by imposing 50% tariffs. Here's his reaction to the recent Bolsonaro verdict.

Stephen Miller (20:58)

I thought he was a good president of Brazil and it's very surprising that that could happen that's very much like they tried to do with me, but they didn't get away with it at all.

Bianna Golodryga (21:10)

So how does this impact the nation and its relationship with the U.S. petra Costa is a documentary filmmaker who has been following the story closely, and she's joining me now live. Petra, welcome to the program. First, let's just note how historic this ruling is. Brazil has a long history of coups, but I believe this is the first one where someone has been convicted of trying to perpetrate and plot one. What is your reaction to that? What does it say about the judicial institution as a whole in the country?

Petra Costa (21:42)

Well, it is a very historical ruling. I would say the most historic ruling in Brazilian history and is great that Brazil just succeeded where America failed, bringing a former president that tried to assault the democratic institutions into trial and condemning him. And as you said, Brazil never tried the military for the coups. They did several coups, the last one in 64 that lasted 21 years and in which none of the military were punished for their killings or their torture assets, torturous acts. So it's a civilizational threshold for Brazil.

Bianna Golodryga (22:24)

For viewers who haven't been following so closely, what exactly has Bolsonaro been found guilty of?

Petra Costa (22:32)

For conspiring for a coup that, if successful, would have prevented Lula from rising, assuming power as president, and would also have killed Lula, his vice president. And the Supreme Court justice Alexandre de Moraes, together with Bolsonaro, top military generals were also condemned because this coup attempt was actually printed in Bolsonaro's the presidential office, as well as several other evidences that was found, one that was included in our film that portrays Bolsonaro's rise and fall to power. Apocalypse in the Tropics, which is Bolsonaro's speech during a rally, a very important rally in September 7, 2021, where he defies the Supreme Court, says that he will no longer obey any of their orders, and incites his protesters to call for a military coup. So that speech is used as evidence by the prosecutor. And what we found in our film was that while he was making that speech, there was a pastor who was his close ally, who was mouthing his words, a pastor who was very close ally to Bolsonaro and actually a mentor, a political mentor that recently investigations have also shown how he was trying to manipulate Bolsonaro as to how to respond to Trump.

Bianna Golodryga (24:07)

And we know Bolsonaro has denied all of these charges and says he had no information, no, no role in planning this coup. They're planning to appeal as well. He says there was a conflict of interest that one of the judges actually used to represent President Lula. But with only one judge on this panel siding in his favor or against these charges, the likelihood of an appeal actually being successful are very low. Do you think he will, at the end of the day, spend much time behind bars, though?

Petra Costa (24:42)

Well, it's hard to know. What is happening in Congress right now is that Bolsonaro supporters are trying to articulate an amnesty of forgiveness for all those involved in the coup attempt. But now I think it is unlikely that that perspective will be victorious and that he will serve time in prison at least until the next election. I don't know exactly for how long.

Bianna Golodryga (25:11)

Well, the parallels with Donald Trump are striking both in the events as they've unfolded and both. And also listening to Trump's strong defense of someone he calls being targeted, calling this a witch hunt and calling a close friend, and then on top of that, slapping 50% tariffs on Brazil right now in response to this, even though we know Brazil, there's a surplus between the two of them. The president had always been focused on where the US Has a trade deficit. There's actually a surplus here. Nonetheless, he's defending that tariff and saying perhaps even more retaliation will come. Here's what he said about the 50% tariff on the White House lawn.

Stephen Miller (25:56)

Because I'm able to do it. Nobody else would be able to do it. President Bolsonaro is a good man. I've gotten to know a lot of prime ministers and presidents and kings and queens, and I know him, and I'm pretty good at this. President Bolsonaro is not a dishonest man. He loves the people of Brazil. He fought hard for the people of Brazil. He negotiated trade deals against me for the people of Brazil. And he was very tough. And he was tough because he wanted to do a good deal for his country. He was not a dishonest man. And I. I believe it's a witch hunt and it shouldn't be happening.

Bianna Golodryga (26:32)

We know that Bolsonaro's supporters, including family members, had really been advocating for this kind of public response in defense of his father. His son had actually moved to the United States and Texas and really trying to rally and appeal and support as well. How has the reaction been from those in Brazil to the unusual role the President of the United States has taken in defending Bolsonaro here?

Petra Costa (27:01)

Well, it is an example of political backfiring because Bolsonaro's son, Eduardo, left his seat in Congress to lobby in the United States in favor of his father. Before his father was even tried and was successful in July, Trump called it a witch hunt and imposed the tariffs. But it backfired because the population started to see it as political interference from a foreign country into what should be of Brazil's sovereignty to decide if Trump was successful in his interference with the Supreme Court, he would basically be governing Brazil at this moment. Thankfully, the Supreme Court maintained its sovereignty and its independence and decided what was best for Brazilian democracy, which is exactly the opposite of what the United States has been able to do for its own democracy. So it's interesting that we see the southern country of the hemisphere giving lessons of political maturity.

Bianna Golodryga (27:59)

Yeah. And how is this defiance and really in your face reaction from President Lula being interpreted in Brazil right now? Taking to the New York Times and writing the S.O.P. ed over the weekend, also suggesting that President Trump would have been convicted if he had been charged for doing what he did here, was accused of doing here on January 6th in Brazil. And here's. I'd like to play what he told Christiane about this trial just in July.

Stephen Miller (28:28)

He's not judged personally. He is being judged by the acts. He tried to organize a coup d'. Etat. He threatened secretly, the death. He planned the death of vice president, myself and the chief justice. He could be on trial just for that. And the attorney general denounced yesterday. He will be convicted, and I believe in that. Cristiano, I'd like to say something to the American people. If Trump was Brazilian and if he did what was happening at the Capitol Hill, he'd also be on trial in Brazil and possibly. And he would have violated the constitution, according to the justices. He could also be arrested if he had done that here in Brazil?

Bianna Golodryga (29:11)

President Lula, we should know, has faced charges of his own in the past, but are we seeing his ratings and approval actually go up, given what we've seen transpire here and the vocal support President Trump has had for Bolsonaro?

Petra Costa (29:26)

Yes. Since this Trump imposed the tariffs on Brazil, Lula's ratings have gone up quite a bit. So it's having a great response on his popularity, the opposite of what the Bolsonaro family initially intended. And Eduardo Bolsonaro, Bolsonaro's son, who was a possible successor for Bolsonaro once Bolsonaro will be in jail, is also having his popularity melt, as he's being seen by many as a traitor for the nation, a traitor for the nation's interests.

Bianna Golodryga (30:01)

That's interesting, because Bolsonaro still commands a loyal following, and obviously his future in politics has likely the door to that has likely been closed. He's banned from running again until 2060. He'd be over 100 years old at that point. Nonetheless, it is a very divided country, and he still has a large group of supporters. So what happens to them now?

Petra Costa (30:26)

Well, there are many governors at this moment that are competing to become Bolsonaro's successors. Bolsonaro has at least 30% of loyal supporters in the country. And so all these governors are competing to who defends more the radical far right speech at this moment. And it's interesting that Brazil has been responding with force to these radical far right speech in a moment where we see so many liberal democracies under threat by these very speeches. So I hope Brazil can become an example in the future and in the present for how can we respond to this populist fever of our time.

Bianna Golodryga (31:15)

Will Bolsonaro play a role as sort of a kingmaker in handpicking, perhaps who that successor would be?

Petra Costa (31:25)

Definitely.

Bianna Golodryga (31:28)

You do see, one of them is his wife.

Petra Costa (31:32)

No, one of them is his wife as well. And the pastor we portray in the film as a possible successor as well.

Bianna Golodryga (31:39)

Malafia, I know right now we are seeing a show of support and defiance from Brazilians in the face of the American response here and this conviction. But we do know that the United States has threatened additional retaliatory measures, the Magnitsky act against one of the judges here, perhaps even more economic sanctions against the country and tariffs. Are there concerns that this could really have an even larger economic impact for the country down the road? Perhaps countries like China and other BRIC nations may say that they will come to their aid and be a better partner. But putting actions to those words seems to be a bigger hurdle.

Petra Costa (32:26)

Yes, I mean, we're all apprehensive about how the United States will continue to react to our democratic processes, not just in the present moment, but in our election next year. And some of these interferences are invisible. They happen through social media. They happen with payments that are under the carpet. So I think as citizens, we should all be very vigilant for what will happen to Brazilian democracy and if our next elections will be fair and will not have international interference.

Bianna Golodryga (33:03)

You mentioned the pastor who you chronicle in the film as well. Can you talk about the role of religion among Bolsonaros supporters?

Petra Costa (33:14)

Well, similar to the United States, in the past 15 years, evangelical leaders have become crucial to the political landscape in Brazil. They have imitating and inspired by Billy Graham, by Jerry Fowell, they have tried to use these churches, the churches that they have under their control as basis for elections and very tied to what is the Republican Party in the United States and Brazil, the far right. Bolsonaro was the first president elected thanks to the evangelical vote in his last election, where he lost 2022. As we show in our film Apocalypse in the tropics, 70% of evangelicals voted for Bolsonaro. That was the higher percentage than in any other segment of the population. And they continue, these leaders continue very aligned with Bolsonaro and Bolsonarismo, whoever will substitute Bolsonaro. And what worries me is that this is very tied to a dominionist plan that says that evangelicals, fundamentalist evangelicals should take over all branches of power, the three branches of power, of course, even the evangelical population is diverse and, and many of them are dissatisfied with the excessive use and politicization of their faith.

Bianna Golodryga (34:45)

It's all very fascinating. And this coming at a time when it likely is not over. I'm not just talking about the legal process and the appeal. I'm just talking also about how the US Is threatening to continue its retaliation in response to this conviction and whether they will actually follow through on that, what that could look like for the country and perhaps, as you said, backfire and increase the support for President Lula. Petra Costa, thank you so much for this deep dive with us. Really appreciate it. And we'll be right back after this short break. Now, the Trump administration has released a plan to improve children's health. 128 recommendations address everything from vaccines to the type of milk served in schools. It's all part of Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy's push to make America healthy again. According to our next guest, some parts of the report are a cause for concern. Susan Mayne is an adjunct professor of epidemiology at Yale and the former director of the center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition at the fda. She joins Hari Sreenivasan to discuss where she believes the strategy succeeds and where it falls short beyond.

Hari Sreenivasan (36:02)

Thanks. Dr. Main, thanks so much for joining us. Just last week, Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Unveiled his Make America Healthy strategy document. It has 128 different recommendations in it. You're someone who's intimately familiar with how the FDA works, and you're now in public health. What were your first impressions?

Susan Mayne (36:20)

My initial impressions, Hari, are that they've identified a really important public health problem in this country, and that is the problem of chronic disease. And it's not just a problem for our children, it's a problem for adults as well. Chronic diseases are the largest causes of death in this country, cardiovascular disease and cancer being number one. And number two in terms of the importance for me is that this report has really focused in on diet and nutrition as important modifiable risk factors for chronic disease. And that's an area I've been working on for the last four decades.

Hari Sreenivasan (36:52)

One of the report's proposals is to define ultra processed foods. And I guess we kind of have an idea of what that is. But why is it important to try to get a definition out?

Susan Mayne (37:03)

It's really important to get a definition out. Ultra processed foods have been very difficult to agree on what that definition should be. There have been definitions that have been used for research purposes, such as the NOVA classification, but we know they're overly broad. And the other thing that we know is that it tends to include foods as being ultra processed that are actually not harmful for our health and may actually be beneficial simply because they may include an additive, for example. So if the government wants to take a regulatory step on ultra processed foods, they need to define what that means. States have tried to do that by saying, let's figure out what particularly harmful ultra processed foods are. They tend to be the ones that we associate with junk foods, and people would agree that those are problematic. But what about whole wheat breads and cereals, for example, that are captured under the ultra processed food categorization that actually are associated with reductions in risk of things like colorectal cancer?

Hari Sreenivasan (38:02)

You know, that's interesting because each of the foods that might be kind of on this list or in this category would probably have a very powerful lobby trying to make sure that they're not legislated out or legislated or regulated into whatever the rules are. I mean, decreasing ultra processed foods was kind of one of the central ideas of the Secretary's supporters early in this administration. And I wonder, I mean, as I look through the strategy, I don't see that many specifics on exactly how to tackle that besides trying to define it.

Susan Mayne (38:31)

And I would agree with you. And that was exactly my reaction as well. Clearly there is a commitment to try to reduce ultra processed foods in the United States. And you see language about providing healthy whole foods to consumers across different sectors, from the Women, Infant and Children Program, through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, through veterans programs, et cetera. And so that's a laudable goal to reduce consumption of ultra processed foods and provides fresh, wholesome foods to people. The problem is there aren't clear policies in the report to do that. Moreover, there are resource ramifications if we want to improve the quality of food that is provided by the federal government. That has cost implications. And instead, what we have seen during the Trump administration are the biggest cuts ever in our federal nutrition assistance programs. So the goals and the commitments really stand at odds with the resources. And you may have noted when you read the strategy, there aren't resource commitments in the report.

Hari Sreenivasan (39:32)

You know, when you talk about the Supplemental Nutrition Program, this strategy document says it wants to get whole, healthy food to snap. Participants. Given the cuts to snap from the budget bill, how likely is that?

Susan Mayne (39:46)

0. 0 likely. If you cut these programs and you cut the resources, your ability to deliver whole healthy foods is simply not going to happen. We've also seen some other cuts, not just to snap. For example, there were programs where farmers could get fresh produce into the school systems. Great programs that supported agriculture, supported healthy foods in schools. Those were also defunded. So it'll be interesting to see what resource commitments they'll be making going forward. But based upon what's happened so far, these goals will not be reached.

Hari Sreenivasan (40:20)

One of the things that this strategy tries to lay out, and I think that you have an expertise on, is sort of dietary guidelines. Is the United States going to revisit, so to speak, what we consider the bare minimum or the optimal type of diet that Americans should be having?

Susan Mayne (40:39)

So I'm glad you asked me about the Dietary Guidelines. Just a little bit of background. They are issued every five years. That's required by Congress. And so that has to happen every five years. The process involves a. A very transparent public facing process. Research questions are identified, nutrition evidence reviews are prepared and consolidated public meetings are held. Then a Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee takes two years to review all that science and produce a scientific report called the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee Report. And that report was released near the end of the Biden administration. And that's the way it works. And then the federal government takes that report and comes up with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. And so this administration needs to do that before the end of this year. We have heard Secretary Kennedy say that this should be forthcoming in the near future. What I am a little concerned about, though, is that some of the statements in the actual strategy about the Dietary Guidelines process are concerning. And they talk about revisiting the Advisory Committee. They talk about revisiting how that science is looked at and how the process unfolds. That process has been looked at over and over again with a lot of input from Congress. And I'm concerned that we may see some disruption to a very science based, transparent process. By the current administration, which we have seen with the Vaccine Advisory Committee. So that concerns me. The other point I'll make is that I fully expect that the Dietary Guidelines that will be coming may deviate from some of that science that is articulated in the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee. And we've seen that in the strategy report, for example, language about removing restrictions on saturated fat, that was mentioned. We've also seen higher profile to meat in this strategy report. It's mentioned several times in the strategy, but there's no mention of poultry or fish or plant proteins. So I think that foreshadows some of what we may be seeing coming with the Dietary Guidelines.

Hari Sreenivasan (42:50)

One of the other areas that I think you'd be qualified really to talk about is microbial food safety. I mean, we don't necessarily think about it, unfortunately, we think about it only in the context of when something goes wrong and we hear about a salmonella outbreak or we hear about something on the news. But what are those kind of changes to this that you're concerned about?

Susan Mayne (43:11)

It really has not received much attention from the current administration in terms of promoting that. We need to do more here. Instead, what we have seen are steps by the administration that actually undermine microbial food safety. A few examples include dismantling an advisory committee that's been in existence called the National Advisory Committee for Microbiological Criterion Food. They were working on a request that we put forward when I was at the FDA on how to prevent bacterial contamination of infant formula. That was because it led to the contaminated formula, led to the massive recall in infant formula shortages. So we had a committee working on that. That group was disbanded right before the release of that report, and it has not yet seen the light of day. We've also seen changes to our foodborne illness surveillance systems called FoodNet. That was our national surveillance system. They used to capture data on eight different pathogens. They have now said they are reducing that to just two, Salmonella and E. Coli, because of lack of resources. So there are other changes as well. But I think that an important point is when we think about nutrition, we also really have to pay attention to food safety and especially microbial food safety, because if we're promoting things like fruits and vegetables and leafy greens and whole fresh foods, those are the same types of foods that are higher risk from a food safety perspective. And I've often heard people say to me, well, I'd rather go eat a bag of Doritos because I'm not going to get foodborne illness than have a salad. And we really need to address that. We need to prevent foodborne illnesses and contamination of these products. And it's really important to support a nutrition strategy. When I was at fda, I led the center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. So I got to look at that intersection of food safety and nutrition, and the two intersect quite frequently. So paying attention to food safety is important for nutrition as well.

Hari Sreenivasan (45:13)

Dr. What's interesting is that besides trying to make sure that the food that's going into our bodies is safe in the first place, there's also sort of the exposure from outside, right? I mean, how do we make sure that kids are not exposed to toxic chemicals and so forth? And I see in the strategy document there's a lot of kind of emphasis on the EPA studying lots of things, including air pollution. But at the same time, we see that the Office for Research and Development at the EPA has been shut down. So I'm a little confused as to how we would try to get to this healthier, happier place while the funds for some of the research that would be necessary to find the information don't exist anymore.

Susan Mayne (46:00)

And you've identified some of the really stark contradictions between what's happening in the current administration and the stated goals in the strategy report. And I can give you one example of something I worked on at fda, and that's contamination of foods with perfluorinated alkal substances, or pfas. And so PFAS get into the environment, they get into the water, they get into the soil, and then food can take that up and we have contaminated food. So the only way to really address it is to address the environmental contamination. And we worked hard with EPA to set standards for pfas and water to try to reduce that environmental contamination. And what we're seeing in the current administration is those standards are being rolled back. So again, it's just another example where the goals and the report and the strategy, those goals are really spot on. But the actions the administration is taking are the opposite and are going to really impair their ability to meet any of those goals.

Hari Sreenivasan (46:58)

So how do we get from kind of this idea of a strategy document to actually implementing it? Let's take, for example, you know, ultra processed foods. If the definition is the only thing that the strategy is calling for, what do we do between now and whenever that time is?

Susan Mayne (47:13)

That's a great question, because what I really think we need is urgent action right now on ultra processed foods. It's going to take some time to come up with a definition that can be used for regulatory purposes and we need action now. So what I would recommend is that they really focus in on the components of ultra process foods that we know are damaging to health. And I'm talking about things like too much sodium, too much added sugar and too much saturated fat. So there are steps the administration could take right now, continue promoting sodium reduction in our food supply. I've worked on that for the last several administrations and progress has been made. Continue working on sugar reduction, saturated fat reduction. Front of pack nutrition labeling was proposed but not yet finalized. So getting that information, interpretive labeling right on the front of packages. And I've mentioned some labeling ideas because labeling not only informs consumers but it also drives industry to reformulate products to be healthier. When FDA mandated trans fat labeling on the Nutrition Facts label some years ago, exposure dropped by 80% and that's because consumers started avoiding products with trans fat and industry reformulated. So there's many steps, these and others that the industry, that the government could certainly take right now to start addressing ultra processed foods by dealing with the adverse nutritional composition of these foods and helping drive to a more healthful food supply.

Hari Sreenivasan (48:43)

How do we make sure that this is not just an aspirational statement? I mean, are there kind of low hanging fruit where we could have some sort of bipartisan consensus of people saying, hey, let's go ahead and get behind this? I mean we see when it comes to standing up new agencies, I mean that's going to take actions of Congress to sort of fund something completely new. And so to my brain it's like, well that's going to take forever or if at all.

Susan Mayne (49:07)

Right? Yeah. So you're kind of getting at how do we make sure that there's goals and metrics and accountability and none of that's in the strategy. I would have loved to seen something that says within two years we're going to drive down the sodium content of these, these foods or we're going to reduce consumption in this country by addressing things like marketing or access through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Programs. There are steps that could have been communicated and metrics that we could hold them accountable for. And you mentioned bipartisan support. We do have bipartisan support from Congress to address the food supply in ways that we didn't have in previous administrations. And I can speak to my time in the Obama administration where we certainly did not have bipartisan partisan support. Despite that, we were able to ban partially hydrogenated oils, trans fats in food, we were able to get added sugars labeling on the Nutrition Facts label and we were able to target too much sodium in our foods. And that was without bipartisan support. So I was expecting some really lofty goals and strategies and policies coming out of this document, potentially metrics, and it just, just wasn't there.

Hari Sreenivasan (50:19)

Dr. Susan Mayne, former FDA official and epidemiologist at Yale University School of Public Health, thanks so much for joining us.

Susan Mayne (50:26)

Thank you so much.

Bianna Golodryga (50:29)

And finally, it's television's biggest night. And this year's Emmy Awards had all the stunts, surprises and emotional speeches we've come to love and expect. It also broke the mold with some history making moments. Tramell Tillman became the first black recipient of the award for best support supporting actor in a drama for his role in Severance, while Apple TV comedy the studio became the most awarded comedy ever for a single series. But it was the success of a British mini series that stole the show. Adolescence transcended the world of entertainment, provoking wide ranging debate over its terrifying story of online misogyny and its real life consequences. It took home a total of six awards, including three for its co creator and lead actor Stephen Graham and one for its 15 year old star Owen Cooper, making him the youngest male Emmy winner of all time. Honestly, when I started these drama classes a couple years back, I didn't expect to be even in the United States, never mind here. But I think tonight proves that if you listen and you focus and you step out your comfort zone, you can achieve anything in life.

Stephen Graham (51:38)

I'm just a mixed race kid from a block of flats in a place called Kirby. So for me to be here today in front of my peers and to be acknowledged by you is the utmost humbling thing I could ever imagine in my life. And it shows you that any dream is possible.

Bianna Golodryga (51:53)

Some of the best speeches of the night. Well, back in March, you may recall, Stephen Graham spoke to Christiane about the show and its impact. What would you say you're trying to.

Susan Mayne (52:05)

Explore in these four episodes?

Stephen Graham (52:08)

Basically, I read an article in the paper a good few years ago and then a couple of months later there was a piece on the news on the telly and it was about there was two young boys who'd stabbed these young girls to death and they were at opposite ends of the country. And it just made me really, if I'm completely honest with you, it really hurt my heart and it made me wonder why they would do something like this. And what's kind of happened within our society where this thing in Britain has become kind of a regular occurrence. And then you know that beautiful saying, it takes a village to raise a child?

Bianna Golodryga (52:47)

Yes.

Stephen Graham (52:47)

Well, what I thought we could look at, you know, is maybe we're all slightly accountable in some way, shape or form. Do you know what I mean? And we look at it and we analyze it from a different perspective. So maybe it's down to parenting. Maybe it's down to, you know, the school system, the government, the community, and the social structure which the child's raised. But on top of that, when me and you were kids, we didn't have the Internet. But now the Internet is a huge influence on our children. And in many cases, you know, it's parenting our children just as much as we are, and it's educating our children just as much, if not more, than our schools are.

Susan Mayne (53:24)

So the prime minister of this country talked about this program in Parliament, said that he's watching it with his teen children.

Stephen Miller (53:31)

I know that you have children.

Susan Mayne (53:32)

What do you want the impact of.

Stephen Miller (53:34)

It to be like?

Susan Mayne (53:34)

In Australia, they've just banned children from social media. 16 until they're 16.

David Frum (53:40)

I think.

Stephen Graham (53:41)

I think that's something that we should look at. I think there's a way of looking. And again, you know, people will say freedom of speech, which I understand, but there's a difference between freedom of speech and poison. Do you know what I mean? I think we need to be very mindful and very, very, very careful about what we're influencing our young generation and what we're allowing them to see. Do you know what I mean? And if anything, personally, personally, if we can strike some kind of communication and maybe, you know, someone said the most beautiful thing that, you know, I think we can get from this is what this program did. And Hannah said this, my wife said what she feels our program has achieved is for parents to be able to open that bedroom door now and talk to their children, be they're male or female, and ask them what's going on. Let's just, you know, you know yourself when you go to a restaurant sometimes, and no disrespect, I understand it, but kids are sat there, you know, talk to each other, ask each other what's going on. That's the only way we can understand what's happening. Adolescence is such a difficult age. Your brain's forming, you know, your chemicals are all over the place. You're learning about yourself. You're trying to construct this character that's gonna take you into the future. So let's talk. Let's open the bridges of communication with each other. That's all we're trying to do.

Bianna Golodryga (55:01)

Really powerful interview as well. Well, that does it for us for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. 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.

David Frum (55:43)

This is the story of the One As a maintenance supervisor at a manufacturing facility, he knows keeping the line up and running is a top priority. That's why he chooses Grainger, because when a drive belt gets damaged, Grainger makes it easy to find the exact specs for the replacement product he needs. And now next day delivery helps ensure he'll have everything in place and running like clockwork. Call 1-800-GRAINGER Click grainger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done.

Commercial Announcer (56:13)

I'm Dr. Sanjay Gupta, host of the Chasing Life podcast.

David Frum (56:17)

All of the transformations and changes that.

Stephen Miller (56:20)

I've made in my life have been.

Bianna Golodryga (56:21)

A consequence of pain. Trying to tell me something? That's my friend Rich Roll.

David Frum (56:27)

He is a podcast host and an.

Commercial Announcer (56:29)

Ultraman who is no stranger to pain. We're going to get into the science behind this so that suffering does not have to be an option. Listen to Chasing Life Streaming now. Wherever you get your podcast.